Hello and welcome to our session 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 more specifically from the land of the Wollongong people of the Eora Nation. I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land and pay my respect to their elders, past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge the First Nations peoples from the lands wherever you are today. Looking at the last registration list, that was some 34 institutions across Australia, New Zealand and beyond. As you may have noticed, we are recording today's session and registered participants will be able to view this recording on the survey, and we will also be sharing copies of our slides. In today's session, we'll give a brief overview of case insights and the purpose of the survey. This will be followed by sharing some of the key findings before moving back to look at the benchmarking toolkit and the benchmarking reports, and how these can enable you to make the most of your data. There will be time for questions at the end, but if you do have questions along the way, please do type these in, and if you could use the Q&A function for doing this, you should see that on the toolbar along with the chat, but if you do use the Q&A feature, that will be great. Before we move to the main content, I'd also like to thank my case colleagues Heather Hamilton, Cara Giacomini, Deborah Trumbull and Jenny Cook-Smith for joining us today, as well as Divya and Nick, who aren't on the session, but worked very hard getting us the survey up and running, undertaking the data cleaning analysis and producing the benchmarking toolkit and individual reports. In addition to the case team, we have the following members of the editorial committee joining us, and they will be leading much of our discussion. We have Steph Hardacre, who is our chair, John Bird, Rachel Dalton and Jen Gorman. A huge thank you to them for their support throughout the year, as well as Mayim Fantram and Joanna Watts, who were previously on the committee and provided very valuable support in the earlier stages of the survey. And finally, thanks to Simon Watson and Elise Appleby, who will be joining the committee as we go into 2024, and I believe are on the session with us today. I'm now going to hand you over to Cara to introduce Case Insights. Hello, welcome everybody. It's wonderful to see you today, and I'm glad you were able to join us to hear the findings from this study. And I want to take a moment just to situate some of the work that we do at Case Insights and where the Australia New Zealand survey fits within that. So I oversee the Case Insights team at Case, and we are responsible for the data, research and standards that we produce across all of the regions where Case has members. And we have a variety of different philanthropy surveys that are a part of Case Insights, including the survey in Australia New Zealand, but we also have a survey in the United States for both higher education and independent schools, as well as a survey in the United Kingdom and Ireland and in Canada. And we're looking to expand more beyond just those regions to start to have some global insights as well. So this survey is part of the work that we do to be able to show the trends in philanthropy across all of the members that Case serves. We also have a variety of data collection points around alumni engagement, where we have a global survey, which you're all invited to participate in a newly launched campaign survey. And we do a variety of work around diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. We recently had a group meet to talk about some of what we're doing for marketing and communications and are expecting to release a white paper within the next several months that will start to define some categories of measurement in that space. So Case Insights really looks at all of advancement, the ways that we can measure and do our work. And all of this is focused around the case global reporting standards, which provide a common measurement framework for all of our members. And we're created by a working group of members, working very closely to think about all of the ways in which we engage as professionals in the work that we do, the communications around it, and the foundation we need to be able to measure things and count things in similar ways. So the case global reporting standards are available as a print book, as well as a digital subscription. And they provide guidance for how to count some ethical considerations for various decisions that we commonly face in advancement. They have a global perspective and enable benchmarking. And they also have supplements for various countries, including Australia, to highlight some of the different ways that the standards are interpreted and can reflect the various laws and different practices within different regions so that we can have that global framework and also be understandable and have transparency with everything we're doing around the globe. We have a standards training course that's also available. So when you are thinking about this survey, know that it's a piece of a much larger puzzle of all of the data we're collecting about advancement and that we make available to case members on our site and at our conferences and in webinars like these. And I'll turn it over to the team to share the great work that they've done on this survey. Great. Thank you very much, Kara. I think we're now handing over to Steph to pick up the background to the survey. Thanks, Fiona. So we've got quite a bit of content that we want to go through today. So I'm going to go through the next few slides relatively quickly, but the information will be available afterwards if you want to go back over any of the detail. So the survey has been going since 2013. So we're now into our 10th year of the survey, which is quite exciting. And as you can see, the participation numbers have been growing over the years. We did have a little bit of a dip in participation numbers this year compared to some of the previous years, but that is a trend that we're seeing across globally. So we will be looking into how we can continue to increase participation in future years. One of the biggest changes that we had in the survey for this year was changes to align the terminology with the new global standards that Kara referred to. So changing terminology such as new funds secured to new funds committed, cash income to funds received, etc. And we did have an additional optional questions that were added in that looked at the dollar value of gifts across the different gift levels, not just the donor numbers. And we will share a little bit on that in further slides. So just a quick indication of the number of the various institutions that we had participating this year. So across the GO8, non-GO8s and also a number of participants from New Zealand. So it's fantastic to have their representation and a huge thanks to John, who's part of the committee and our New Zealand voice on the committee. He's done some great work in continuing to encourage involvement from the New Zealand participants. So the core of the survey is made up of a number of different areas. We look at new funds committed, funds received. There's some questions around the largest gifts, annual fund and campaign participation rates. So that's looking at both alumni and donors, contactable alumni, the number of alumni donors. There's also some questions around plain giving within there. And then there's a series of questions on costs and staff investment. And then from those questions, there's then a number of additional data points that we can use throughout the survey that starts to look at the cost per dollar raised, the percentage of alumni who are donors, et cetera. Next slide, thanks Fee. In terms of completing the survey, so at the base of it, we have our rules and guidelines, which allow us to have as much as possible an apples to apples comparison in our data. So we still have the guidelines specific to this survey, but we have been slowly working to bring them into alignment with the case global standards. And we'll continue to do that over the next couple of years. Data for the survey comes from multiple sources. So we have information on philanthropic income, alumni information, budget and expenditure, and also staffing information. And the data's collected on three years so that we're able to get some of those trends as well. Next slide, thanks Fee. Okay, so now we're going to get into the more meatier topics of today's webinar. And this is an opportunity to look into some of the key findings and insights from the committee's perspective. What we've tried to do is as much as possible, not so much focus on information that's already in the report, you've all got that report available to you. We wanted to delve in a little bit further so that we can discuss some other trends and insights that we've seen as we've delved into the data through this process. But firstly, a couple of the headline figures that we've seen out of this year's survey. So new funds committed has increased, and as we can see, it increased by quite a bit in 2022, which was largely due to the outlier gift of 250 million. So it does go to speak to the lumpiness of fundraising that we can have those big gifts that can skew the numbers year on year. Funds received has also increased, and we were also seeing an increase, not just within one or two areas that were driving that, but consistently across the board. Total and contactable alumni are also increasing, which is really encouraging. But what we are seeing is a decrease in the total donors and also alumni donors. And again, that's a trend that we're seeing across the globe, not just within Australia. And John will go into that in a little more detail further on. It's also encouraging to see the increase in total investment, both within fundraising, but also a greater increase within alumni relations. We've also seen the increase with the FTE. It's not quite back to the pre-COVID levels, because we did see quite a decrease following COVID, but it is a positive, a positive trend back to those pre-COVID numbers. Next slide, thanks, Vy. Okay, so now we're going to go into a little bit more detail on new funds committed. So as I said before, new funds committed was a much higher in 2022, and that was largely due to that outlier gift that we saw with one of the universities. And so if we take that outlier gift out, the increase in new funds committed is only marginal from previous years, which can go to indicate that we might still be seeing a lingering impact from COVID and that ongoing effect of a couple of years of not being able to do as much face to face fundraising. However, at the same time, it does demonstrate the potential to attract very large value gifts and is really encouraging to see that within the sector. It was also really encouraging to see a high number of institutions reporting an increase in new funds committed, as opposed to a decrease. And we had eight participants that had an increase of 50% or more on their new funds committed compared to 2021. This slide here that we've got, it's not a consistent group of institutions because it's looking at the total new funds committed for every participant that provided data for each of the given years. So you can see along the bottom that we've got a different number of participants each year. And even though those participants might change a little bit year on year with some smaller institutions have dropped in and out over the years, it's still a fairly good representation of the new funds committed coming into the sector. And with that in mind, it's really encouraging to say, while there is still that lumpiness that we know can happen with fundraising, that we are seeing a general upwards trend as the sector continues to grow and mature. Next slide, thanks Vy. Okay, so anyone who's been on the webinar in previous years are probably quite familiar with this slide now. It's one that I've thrown in for the last couple of years because I quite like to see what's going on in that largest gift space. So the yellow dots are our non-G08s and the blue dots are our G08s. And as we can see in earlier years of the survey, the largest gifts being for an institution that were $10 million or more, it was dominated by the G08s. So lots of blue dots in there and the yellow dots were a little bit lower down. However, in 2017, we started to see a shift in that there were more non-G08s securing gifts of $10 million or more. So it was really encouraging to see that growth in the sector and that it wasn't just dominated by the G08s. However, in 2020 and 2021, we saw that shift again in that $10 million plus was back to being dominated by the G08s. And perhaps that was an indication of COVID and the impacts that it was felt a little bit greater in the smaller institutions. And so I said that we would continue to have a look at these figures to see if anything's changing as we continue to recover from COVID. So what we have seen is that there's still not as many institutions receiving those larger gifts. And sorry, one thing I should say is that I haven't included that outlier $250 million gift because it made the graph really hard to read by the time you had that one on there. So that one's in there. It's just a little bit out of sight at the moment, but let's factor that one in. So in 2022, we still only had four institutions that had their largest gift being $10 million or more. And again, it was mostly dominated by the G08s, but we did see a non-G08 come back into that area as well, which is encouraging. But we've also seen that in 2021, we had the largest number of institutions had their largest gift in of a million dollars or more. So there was 23 of them. Whereas in 2022, there were 18 institutions that had their largest gift being a million dollars or more. So not as many of the largest gifts in 2022. But while we are also seeing, sorry, back to the other thing. We are seeing signs of increasing maturity within the sector. So we are generally seeing an increase in the number of non-G08s where their largest gift is a million dollars plus. So that space is growing. And also while we often say that the mega gifts can be, and by mega gifts, I mean $10 million or more. They can be the outliers and sporadic, but we are actually starting to see some consistency with some of the universities in the number of years where they are securing their largest gift being $10 million or more. So over the eight years that I've got this data for, um, two universities, uh, received their largest gift of $10 million or more for four of, um, of those eight years. So half of those years, one university for five, um, five of the eight years. And there've been two universities that, um, six of the eight years have received, um, their life, have had their largest gift be $10 million or more. Um, so, so for those institutions, it's not becoming as much of a, an outlier, but a, um, a consistency for them, which I think really speaks to the increasing maturity in the area. So this graph that we've got here is one of the ones that we've been able to do as a result of the new question that we introduced for the survey, where we're not just looking at the number of donors within the various gift bands, but also the amount raised or received within those different gift bands. And it really allows you to see traditionally what's referred to as the 80-20 rule, but it's a bit more exaggerated in this sense. So we can see that majority of our donors account for a small percentage of the funds, whereas a small percentage of the donors account for a majority of the new funds committed. And then we can also see the effect of that outlier gift as well, in that for the GO8s, 46% of their funds came from donors who have given $10 million or more, whereas the non-GO8s, it was 27%. Next slide, thanks. So just a quick comment around funds received. And again, this is the slide that we've looked at for a couple of years. So as mentioned before, we've had an overall increase in funds received from previous years. And we also had two institutions who had notable increases in their funds received due to outlier gifts. But what we also are able to see is that correlation between funds secured and and cash income or funds received. The graph that I've got here is just representing the 22 participants, the consistent 22 participants who have completed the survey every year from 2018. So I didn't want the figures to skew with some of the institutions dropping in and out. And generally, the trend that we see is that new funds committed would be higher than our funds received, given that we've got the impact of pledges. And in 2020, we saw that shift or that trend change where new funds committed and funds received were pretty much on par and largely due to the fact that institutions were restricted with face-to-face, they weren't able to go out there and and secure new gifts. But at least they were able to maintain those relationships so that that donors were honouring their existing pledges. And then in 2021 and 2022, we've seen that return to new funds secured being higher than the funds received. It's also really encouraging to see that while we know fundraising is a lumpy business, it can go up and down and can also be skewed by some of those outlier gifts. And we can see from here that there is a track record of realising the income from gifts that have been committed so that funds received is continuing to move in an upward trend. And that's a really important story for us to be able to share across our institutions and across the sector. Because those who have been in the sector for a while are probably familiar with many years ago, the main figure that was reported was funds received and it was really difficult to get our institutions to come on board with the concept of using new funds committed as one of our measures. I think there was a bit of concern around it being smoke and mirrors. So the more data that we now have that can show that we are realising that income, that it's not smoke and mirrors, is really encouraging for us. And that's me. And I believe we will hand over to John now. Yeah, that's right. Thank you very much. Oops, sorry. No, that's good. That's good. Thank you. Kia ora everybody. Welcome to New Zealand. I think I can claim to be the second most Eastern attendee on the call. It's probably someone out there that's going to tell me I'm wrong, but I think that's right. I'm going to talk a little bit more about some of the more specific elements of the survey. Looking into these kind of data points can be really helpful when you're benchmarking your institution and trying to understand beyond the headline figures where you think, oh, how do we compare to everyone else to get a bit of a better feel for where you are doing well or struggling. Bequest income is significant. Obviously, it's a large part of the overall contribution to the survey. And as you can see from the numbers here, it is growing each year. Now I'm going to use those words that we keep using. There is an outlier in here. There's a $45 million bequest, which was actually received from a non-group of eight institution, which is where the 2022 line jumps up there in that third little cluster of bars. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Outlier gifts are part of fundraising. I guess that's why a lot of fundraisers get up in the morning. They want to secure that outlier gift. So the more we talk about outlier gifts, the more encouraged everyone should be that those are possible and not necessarily in the preserve of the largest institutions either. The chart on the right, bequest intentions, is perhaps a more helpful indicator of the fundraising effort this year or in survey year and a future indicator. Culturally, I think there are a lot of people, and certainly this is the case for us in Auckland, there are a lot of people that do leave us money that don't tell us about it in their lifetime. But the overall growth in bequest intentions that we can see here year on year is encouraging and shows that we're tapping into that opportunity more each year. Next slide. So I'll move on, and actually we can go to the next slide again, move on to annual giving. Annual funds make up a relatively small proportion of the overall income, probably one, one and a half percent of the overall funds secured. So sometimes the dollar values are not necessarily the most important, but some of the trends and the numbers of donors involved can give you some useful insight. Now, in this case, unlike the rest of the survey where we're looking back across three years for a trend, we've actually gone back five years, the reason being in 2020, there was a big, big spike in giving to annual funds, largely around either institutions that were doing COVID-related research or institutions that were doing appeals that were doing appeals to support students and student hardship. And so if we stopped going back at 2020, then the picture would be quite negative. As it is, the trend is still negative. This data is only across 22 institutions who've participated in all five of those years consecutively. But however you slice it up, there is a small but steady decline in the dollar value. And the yellow line on there shows that there's a steeper decline in the number of donors. So some institutions, it bounces around, it has gone up, it has gone down, but the overall picture is one of decline. And it'd be an interesting question to ask, to what extent do you and your institution see the annual fund as a fundraising source? And how much is it one that's more about engagement and feeding the major donor pipeline? And this trend may not be of such great concern for you. If you move on again, please. So kind of extending this and the definition of alumni donors within the survey isn't specifically alumni donors to the annual fund, but that's where the majority of alumni donors go. So it is valid to kind of look at these across both of them. What we're looking at here is how many of our alumni give. Now, obviously, the pool of contactable alumni typically is growing each year. We changed the definition in the survey this year to be consistent with the global standards, which increased the pool because we added in people that were contactable by phone only. And so the overall number of contactable donors increased. But obviously, as well, most of our institutions are graduating more people and getting new alumni each year than are, how to put it politely, are falling off the other end of the spectrum. So that means we've all got a growing pool of alumni. And unless we can grow our annual giving at the same speed as a number of graduates are growing and filling that pool, then the participation rate, that's the proportion of our alumni who are giving, is going to fall. If anyone can hold their participation rate constant, then they're doing a very, very good job. But even if we look at actual numbers of alumni donors, and that was shown on a couple of slides ago, the overall number of alumni donors is falling. The number of non-alumni donors is overall going down as well. And as Steph mentioned, this is a similar pattern that we're seeing around the world as well. And it's something that it may be wise to give some attention to within your institution if you're seeing that trend. That's my bit over to, who's next? It's Rachel. Thank you. Thank you, John. Before I start, I'd just like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the unceded land on which I work today, that of the Wurundjeri Wurrung peoples. This is my first year on the editorial committee after Joanna Watts stepped down and handed over the reins to me. So, please be patient as I give this a go for the first time. Today, I'm going to talk to you about investment in advancement, the dollars and the FTE for both fundraising and alumni relations. Both fundraising and alumni relations have seen a recovery in both FTE and dollars invested in 2022. But as has been mentioned earlier, we still aren't at 2020 levels, indicating that the impact of the pandemic still has a fairly long tail. Next slide, please, Fiona. The graph included on this slide shows how fundraising FTE took a real hit for everyone in 2021. And while there was recovery in 2022, as mentioned earlier, we aren't at pre-pandemic numbers. Non-GO8 institutions are recovering at a slower rate than GO8 institutions. And with our current economic pressures and the cost of living crisis, we're probably likely to see further impacts. An interesting observation, if you delve into the data, is how much harder fundraising support roles were impacted between 2020 and 2021 than frontline fundraising roles. And that it is the supporting roles that have had the greatest recovery in 2022, especially in the GO8 institutions. So, we may ask our leaders and ourselves what the long-term impact of removing those fundraising support staff, only to bring them back shortly after, will have on the long-term fundraising results for us all. Other measures available in the report show that fundraising staff costs have also recovered, but again, not to 2020 levels, and that fundraising non-staff costs are a full 20% higher in 2022 compared to 2020. This makes sense given the world open back up. But a question to ask ourselves is how much of this is just because things are more expensive now than they were a couple of years ago. Next slide, please. This graph on the slide shows how alumni relations FTE across the reporting periods. And it looks pretty similar, if you don't focus in on the numbers, to the fundraising one. But the actual hit on alumni relations staffing due to the pandemic was significantly more severe than for fundraising staff. While fundraising FTE was only 3% lower than 2020 numbers, alumni relations was still a whopping 19% lower than 2020 results in 2022. This was felt more severely in GO8 institutions, presumably because they had more staff available to remove from their books to begin with. So, yes, the FTE numbers are recovering, which is great, but at a much slower rate than the fundraising ones. Alumni relations non-staff costs have made a really strong recovery at 47% higher than in 2021. And this makes a lot of sense given that more costly endeavours, such as travel and in-person events, return to our calendars. And I'm not sure the last time you all bought a plane ticket or ordered catering, but it is significantly more expensive than it was before COVID. So I'm sure that's also contributing to that increase. Next slide, please, Fiona. I'm now going to spend a few minutes talking about how you might like to use the data available and to also provide some examples from my institution. Next slide, please. So just a bit of housekeeping. While previously you extracted the data using the same tool as you used to enter it, data is now available via the benchmarking toolkit. Super easy. You use your case website login to access it. And once you go to the reports tab, you'll see a list of reports that you've got available to you. Just click on the report button next to the year you wish to report on and the window on the right will appear and you'll get an option to download the raw data across multiple institutions for the reporting year for a multi-year report on your own institution, which is nice and easy so you don't have to go back and get it from your own systems. And then, of course, once you've downloaded it, that data, you can analyse it to your heart's content. It's really only a matter of how much time you've got available to you. Next slide, please, Fiona. So there's lots of different ways you can use this data. You can do some gap analysis to help you prepare for a campaign. You might look at fundraising trends to help you determine where best to focus your efforts. You can use it to help understand the correlation between different measures and inform KPIs that you might want to set your staff. Looking at return on investment or FTE comparisons can be used for budget requests or growth plans, or it can be even used to support an argument for not reducing your FTE. And often senior leaders like to see where their institution fits on the rankings and where your institution compares to others. You'll find that how you wish to use or need the data will very much depend on where you're at in your advancement or fundraising journey, and that I'm sure there's many, many other uses that your institution use. And so I'd really encourage you to pop some details of how you use this data in the chat so we can all have a look. Next slide, please, Fiona. So before I hand over to Jenny, here's a small taste of how we use the data in my institution. The top row, you'll see a selection of graphs that were included in a recent report to university executives showing where Melbourne sits in terms of the top 12 for new funds committed, number of gifts over a million dollars and funds secured by bequests. I obviously also included more unflattering graphs like our annual fund and our percentage of alumni donors. So I haven't included that today, but they were there in that report. The graph in the bottom left was used to make a case that a sustained increase in advancement investment drives a sustained increase in new funds committed. The bottom middle was used to benchmark fundraising cost per dollar raised over a three-year period to assess what was reasonable for us to try and achieve. And the bottom right was to demonstrate the percentage of contactable alumni who've made a gift. And this one, I think I actually used the case global alumni engagement metric survey data. So you can actually mix and match where you get your data from depending on which survey your institution contributes to. And again, this is just a taste. There really is no limit, just your time and imagination. So that's it for me. I'll hand back to, I think, Fiona or Jenny. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Rachel. Jenny, are you back with us? Can I just check that you're on the call? Good to go. Excellent. Thank you. And if you want to just advance us one slide. In a moment, I am going to do, and hello, everybody. Very excited to be here with you today. As we said at the beginning, I'm Jenny Cook-Smith and I am part of our case team. This job is really thinking about how do we take these excellent findings and provide some solutions to make it as easy as possible for you to take action. So I'm really going to build on where Rachel left off. So of course today is all about the key findings report. I want to focus on the other two circles for a moment, though, because as survey participants, in addition to the great examples that Rachel just shared from the benchmarking toolkit, we also have developed some reports that are meant to jumpstart using these data. And so this is what I'm going to spend a few moments on. The summary report is something that is for case members who take part in surveys. And the way I think about it is we are making a massive ask of you to take all the time to compile the survey results. And our job is to give you a little gift back in return to say, OK, here's visually some things we saw in the survey itself. So we'll go and we'll look at this summary report. And then I'll also spend a couple of moments on the other report that we can produce. And this is the strategic benchmarking report. So a couple of just things about both of these. Well, we delivered a version of the summary report last year. We actually called it the GPS report. We've done some changes on it to make it as user friendly as possible. You'll see the strategic report has much of the same look and feel. This is a new solution. So this is replacing the bespoke infographic. And again, we'll spend a little time showing you the option. Just as a reminder, summary report, free for members, strategic report. I'm thinking about, I believe Rachel said something about, you know, depending on how much time you have, you can really have at it here. Our job is we just want you to use the data. The strategic report is one way, if you're looking to save some time, that you may want to outsource some of that to CASE. So what I'm going to do is share my screen. And so, Phi, I'm going to kick you off for a moment. And can I just get a thumbs up if someone can see my screen? Awesome. Thanks, Steph. Great. So this is the summary report. This is the report that is based, again, it's custom to your institution. And the report itself has a lot of things built in. So I'm going to hit on a little bit of those components. To begin with, it is a standalone HTML file. If you've been taking part in the survey for a couple of years, this would have been familiar in terms of the type of report we've given. It does work best in Chrome or Firefox. So if you're having any issues, certainly try that out. And always more than happy to help if you have any questions, too. So as we go through the report, of course, I have a sample version. In real life, you will see exactly who your assigned peers are. And we do this with a combination of the new funds committed and the staffing variables to put you into a group of peers that look most closest to your institution. With those peers created, then what you'll see is throughout this report, and I'll use new funds committed as an example, you will have several comparison groups. So my institution is noted here as sample institution. We are starting with just showing change in new funds committed since 2022. So if I'm sample institution, I'm very happy seeing these results. Maybe slightly concerned about the repeatability in 2023 thinking about Steph's comments on lumpiness. But notice that what I can see is some comparison to several groups. The median of what we've noted as sample country. So if you're a participant in New Zealand, you would see the median to New Zealand here. If you're a participant from Australia, you'll see Australia. The all respondents will be the median of all Australia and New Zealand respondents. And then that last group will be the median of the assigned peers. And so this is something you will see throughout this report. In the report as well, you will see continually throughout, there will be data so that you can go in and see those exact number points. You can also sort by any of these. You can export it as well. And then we've also put in definitions. Our thought process behind this is we wanted this to be a report that you might want to take components and share. And we know some of your colleagues don't necessarily live and breathe these terms. And so again, we want people to understand exactly what it is you're looking at. As we go through, then we took just a couple of core components, much of which we've already discussed today, and started to examine some comparison points. And so we can start, we can see trends over time for my institution based on who is giving. And we can compare that to the groups that we just saw simply by selecting. The other nice thing is that you will be able to isolate data. So we talked a little bit about alumni giving. So let's say that you really wanted to see this report, but you wanted to zero in on giving from alumni. Notice that when I double click, it isolates just that group. And so it becomes much easier to see that my institution actually had quite a different trend than the peers selected here. You can see the same thing with purpose. So where the money is going to, and of course these are by new funds committed. Moving through, we have several similar definitions looking at funds received. We also have contactable alumni and donors. One note, because the population of contactable alumni that give is such a small group, visually we elected to show the donor trends. But notice when you hover, you can see that exact amount of total contactable alumni. So we can see that growth that was discussed earlier in the presentation. And then finally, we built a bit of a decision tree here because again, we wanted to reinforce the idea that this is a jumpstart. We felt like out of the data, we wanted to help you see what were some things that maybe popped. And then from here, whether you're doing more analysis on your own in the toolkit or you're working with CASE, we're happy either way. We really just want to make sure that you're taking action and thinking about the data itself. So I'm going to pop over momentarily to our strategic report to just give you an idea, should you wish to partner with CASE. And we can certainly talk offline about options. We've got some that have some more consultative calls and then some that are just the report itself. But the main idea is that you can select your peers. I chose to show you for purposes today, an example of a combination report. To Rachel's point, I think there's some great value in thinking about this integrated approach of advancement. And so you can see this version that includes both surveys. But of course, we can do a version that is only alumni engagement or only CASE Insights Philanthropy, Australia, New Zealand. As we go through, I'll just point out a couple of distinctions. We put in some things like institutional characteristics. Notice you start to see data for each peer. So instead of the median of peers, we see lines. And so this is an example of the new funds committed that we saw earlier. But now I actually get a notation for each of my peer institutions. And as we started to work with leaders, one of the most common questions that we got was, oh, can I see a ranking? And so what we've done here is noted for the institutions, how they ranked among peers. And I think this is really fascinating, even for my sample, where I can see that in the period they went from seventh in the peer group until third. And I think that really, even though this is sample data, I think that's a good example of some things that several of the presenters have discussed today and seeing that impact that a transformational gift can have on just one year overall. I thought I would, I'm going to skip over a couple of points. And I actually thought I would just show you. Let me get to it. A couple of the calculated variables that I think are helpful. So we talked a bit about expenditures in the report. Here's an example where we can see trends. And if we come over to the details, we can see each institution. And then we've taken that and looked at this as cost per contactable alumni. That's a measure I've been working with a lot of groups lately, as they're making that justification for more investment to really start to think about, well, when we look at outcomes, how does that compare to the spend? And then we've done something similar when we look at staffing. And so, you know, starting with the count of fundraising staff and alumni relations staff, and then comparing that against something like the new funds committed per fundraising staff FTE. And so this is a great example to see where an institution might be really pulling above their weight or where an outsized gift may actually be misleading on ROI overall. So, again, I think helpful if you're thinking about wanting to take action quickly on those results. I am very happy to answer questions, to connect with any of you after. I will put my information in the chat. And then we'll also, and follow up, just if anyone does want to book time to discuss, send you a link where you can do that as well. So with that, I will stop sharing and pass it back over to Yufi. Okay, thank you very much, Jenny. I'm just going to wrap up with where we go next, and then just take a few questions. So in addition to the benchmarking results and partnering with CASE on strategic reports, I would just like to encourage you to take part in our CASE alumni engagement metrics survey. And also, very importantly, to participate in our philanthropy survey, which will be opening in February 2024. I'll be sending some communications about that in the next month or two. But please do get in touch with me if you're interested in participating, particularly if you're a new institution and you haven't done so before. And just also a little bit further off, we have our CASE Asia-Pacific Conference taking place in May, and we have calls for submissions out for that now. So we would love to see you at that event. Okay, I won't take up any more of your time. Does anybody have any questions? Please put them in the Q&A. I don't know if we've answered all of the ones that have come along the way. I'm just taking a quick look there. Yes, we've been answering some that have been coming in. So I think that if folks have more questions, please, please feel free to enter them now. And I did just comment on there, if anyone is having an issue with access to reports, please do give me a shout. It may be that you just haven't been added to your institution as someone who should have access, and we can fix that together with our team. And I would also say, if anyone hasn't received a summary report and thinks they should have done, please also reach out. There have been a couple of firewall issues this year, and reports haven't got through to everybody. So I will put, I think my email address is in the chat, and I'll just put up the screen with our general email addresses on. So please do, do shout out. Okay, or any questions on the data itself or observations on how things are going in your institution? Ah, we're all, okay. So Sophie, if anyone does have any comments or observations or questions, feel free to come off mute, rather than needing to type it in the chat for the Q&A. Go for it. Absolutely. I guess one question I have, if anyone's willing to share is just, as we're nearing the calendar year end, obviously we're talking about 2022 today, but 2023, we're going to be talking about 2022. So I guess one question I have, if anyone's willing to share is just, as we're nearing the calendar year end, obviously we're talking about 2022 today, but 2023 is almost over. And I just didn't know if anyone had any anecdotal observations of how you're feeling about 23. Great question, Jenny. Oh, I'm excited to see the data. I don't know. I might jump in. I think a lot of institutions are doing it tough this year in terms of their philanthropic results. So it's a really tough, tough year. Okay. I think my observation is, I'd agree with Rachel, and also everyone's back, kind of everyone that's working is back to doing their normal job. And the impact of that is everybody is working very hard because everyone is trying to get everything going again, making all the demands on each other's teams, whether it's alumni relations, planning events, or looking to the support from advancement services and so on. And so I think the sense I get is it's been a hard year, whatever the results numerically may say. Yeah, absolutely. I agree with that. And I think the challenge that we're now going to see, and it's probably not going to be reflected in the 2023 results, but I think in time again, we'll see that lagging effect of the cost of living crisis and the rental crisis and the impact that that's putting on student load and decreases in student load across universities. And so while institutions are coming out of that COVID lull and having to tighten their belts because of COVID, there's now another, there's going to be another round as institutions look to tighten again because of the change in load. But it's also where having this data can be really important because I think that the benefit that advancement shops have is that they are a revenue generating area for the university. So they can use this data to try and make the case to keep that investment in that area while other areas are potentially having to tighten their belts. Just one, unrelated to that, but one of the points, we've discussed it as a committee over the last few years, we've increasingly tried to put a little bit of observation and explanation against the survey data, rather than just commenting on this has gone up 10% full stop, we've tried to speculate as to why a number has changed. But we can only comment so far, we only know so much. And we're not doing the report for our own benefit, we're doing it for the whole community. And so if you read the report and think it would be helpful if this was in it, or this wasn't in it, then please do feed that back to, don't tell me, but tell Fiona. You can talk to any of us about it, but do let us know what makes it relevant and helpful for you. Thank you, John. Yeah, look, absolutely reach out to me, not just about the process, and if you've got problems doing the survey, but about the data itself, always willing to either answer that or pass things on to the committee as we work together. Yeah, and I think, yeah, I'm sorry, just one more question. Oh, yeah. Okay, the issue around health and medicine, I don't know whether any of the committee want to comment on that. My own observation is yes, those institutions that do have medical departments do raise more, I'm not always sure whether it's because of having a medical department, or is it because they're more established in the group of faiths, but I will, I might just hand this over to those who are expert. Can you see the question? Yeah, I might have a go at answering that. I think there are greater opportunities often in the medical field. As an example, our fundraisers that are aligned to the medicine faculty have higher KPIs, because the opportunity is greater. In the survey, there's a question which asks if your institution participates in medical research. So while there's not a question in our survey that breaks it down by discipline in this way, you can identify who's doing it. In the global survey, or in the pilot of that, there was a question that tried to categorize it more. But I think the category other had a very large amount in it, which shows the difficulty of trying to categorize something globally. And so it's not been fully implemented yet. Okay, thank you. Well, I think we're at our time. But oh, please do. Please do get in touch. And sorry, Deborah, did you have a comment on that data also? No, no, we're all set. Okay, splendid. Right. Well, I hope to see as many of you as possible participating in our next survey and love to support you in any way I can in the process. So you know, just stay in touch. And thank you very much to all those who did participate and gave us the data that we've been using on the presentation today. Thank you.

Philanthropy Survey

Australia

New Zealand

funds committed

funds received

outlier gift

total alumni

contactable alumni

total donors