All right. Well, hello and welcome to our session on the Case Insights on Philanthropy Survey for Australia and New Zealand. I'm Fiona South and I manage the survey in this region. I'm presenting today from Sydney and more specifically the land of the Woolamoggle 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. And I'd also like to acknowledge First Nations peoples from the lands wherever you are in 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 and we'll also be sharing copies of the slides. Also joining us today from CASE, I have Deborah Trumbull, who is our Senior Director of Research and she's based in Washington DC and will be giving us a bit of an introduction to CASE Insights. Supporting the survey, we also have our committee, many of whom are on the call today. And while this would be their first time to be completing the survey on our new platform, they do have considerable experience in completing the survey and an understanding from the practitioner's perspective of how to apply the guidelines to the questions. So, as I say, we'll have an introduction to CASE Insights from Deborah and the Global Standards and some key definitions. I'll then move on to looking at our Australia and New Zealand survey with a little bit of background for those of you who are new to it, and then we'll switch over to the live platform and demonstrate how that works. OK, over to you, Deborah, if that's OK. Great, thank you. Hi, everyone. I'm really pleased to be here today. I'm the Senior Director of Research at CASE, so I'm with the CASE Insights team. And this slide really just gives you a little bit of a sense of the kind of work that we do in CASE Insights. You'll see we conduct a number of surveys in these different topical areas that you see in this little design here, all circling the CASE Global Reporting Standards, which is really our base for all of the work that we do. It's the kind of underlying, you know, definitions and guide that we use across all of our surveys. So we have surveys in philanthropy, such as this survey. We have surveys around alumni engagement, campaigns, advancement operations, which is really just a broad category to capture some of the one-off surveys that we conduct around areas or topics that might bridge multiple disciplines within advancement. And marketing communications is the area that we're going to be growing over the next couple of years to begin to provide some benchmarks around those measurements. All right, next slide. Here you can get a sense, this slide is really just showing our philanthropy and alumni engagement and campaign surveys, so you can get a sense of where we are right now in terms of our philanthropy surveys. We've been expanding. We've actually added two new surveys this year that are both in a pilot year. There's a philanthropy survey in Latin America, so we have a small group of institutions there who are piloting this survey, and also a survey for international and independent schools that are outside of the U.S. so that we can build our benchmarks for schools as well as higher education. And of course, you can see here we've highlighted the survey in Australia and New Zealand. One thing, I'll just pause on this slide for a moment just to say that, you know, Case Insights has been on a real journey the last few years. The, you know, the first global reporting standards came out in March of 2021, and since then we've been working to align all of our surveys with those standards. We've also spent the last, I don't know, 18 months or so working on moving all these surveys and building some new ones on our brand new platform, and that's what you're going to see today. I do just want to say that it has been quite an undertaking. If you've ever worked in any sort of database conversion or system conversion project, I'm sure you understand. We have now launched 14 surveys in the new system, so it's been a real, I don't know, it's been a real fun project. Honestly, it's been a lot of work, but I think you're going to see today it's a really user-friendly system. It's allowed us to build in a lot of error checks that we weren't able to build in our past system, and I also want to thank Fiona South for all the work she has done in getting this survey ready to open. And of course, as I mentioned, all of our surveys are built on the case global reporting standards where, you know, we, in addition to providing this common set of definitions, and of course from a research standpoint where we love having these definitions so that we know how we're counting things in all of our surveys, but of course the standards also offer a lot more information about principles of practice for the profession of advancement, guidance on campaign counting, donor control, those sort of areas. So I definitely recommend if you do not have access to your standards, every member institution receives one digital copy of the standards, so if you don't know about that or you haven't accessed that, I do recommend you do that because there's a lot of great information in there beyond what you need for this survey. And then, of course, just to highlight these two different lenses on fundraising counting that are used in the standards and are in this survey and in all of our philanthropy surveys across the globe, there are two different ways of counting giving that we are using. One is new funds committed and the other is funds received. I think, you know, if you've taken the survey before, you're familiar with these. The terminology changed a little bit in recent years, but really new funds committed, we're measuring the impact of your team's fundraising efforts, so counting those new pledges at their full value. We're looking at, you know, outright gifts that are coming in in that category as well, realized bequests and legacies, and then in the funds received method, that's really more about counting the money as it's coming in, so we're looking at outright gifts as well, but instead of looking at pledges, we're looking at pledge payments. Just to cover a little bit of detail here, the color bars at the bottom is really there just to highlight those bars that are in orange are the same in both methods of counting, so there are certain types of gifts that appear in both categories, but the blue bars is where the real difference is, and you'll see we put some footnotes here. Those newly established irrevocable planned gifts, those are really specific to some regions, so just keep that in mind. You know, it sounds like those are not things that apply in your region, so I think that's it. That's really my main point there. All right, and then, of course, what are we including in this survey? We're including all philanthropic giving and using those two counting methods to capture that giving, so I just thought it would be nice to remind everyone when we were working on the global standards, I know that one of the key challenges was every region has different tax laws and different ways of thinking about charitable giving, and I know that the committee of volunteers from all of CASE's regions came together to talk about how to make these standards truly global, and this definition is one that really served as a touch point for that task force to consider any time we were, you know, trying to marry different practices from different regions, so I think it's just nice to reiterate here that, you know, what we're looking at is we want you to count all the giving that comes in that is voluntary, that's coming from private, you know, from its private financial support, and the sole benefit or the sole purpose is to benefit the institution's mission without the expectation that the donor will receive anything in return other than recognition and stewardship, so I think that's just a lovely definition to remind all of ourselves what we're counting in this survey. Great, thank you very much, Deborah. So, moving back, I guess, to the Australia and New Zealand survey. I believe it is in its 13th year now, and some of the committee have been on it for most of that time, so thank you very much, big shout out to them. It was previously known as the CASE Supportive Education Survey, and it was modelled on what was the CASE Ross survey in the UK and Ireland. It collects fundraising and donor data to measure the philanthropic performance of higher education institutions, and it's great for benchmarking between institutions, and allow us to understand and estimate the impact of philanthropy on the sectors. So, last year we had a record 35 institutions take part, that was the data from 2023, so far we have 33 institutions registered for this year's survey. I'd love to get that up to 35, so if you know anyone who's sitting on the fence and wondering whether to register, do encourage them to take part. The survey, as we've said, is now hosted on the new CASE Insights survey website, which I will show live very shortly. It is very similar to previous years, thankfully, in terms of the questions, just to highlight a couple of changes. So, a few of the questions have moved sections to improve the flow, and there have been question numbers that have been adjusted in line with the new layout. I know this is a little bit challenging if you've got coding and so on for your reporting, so please give me a shout if there's anything I can do to help. I have been doing some mapping documents, so I can help if you're struggling at all with the new layout, but the question content is very much as before. At the beginning, a few of the questions have been deleted because the new survey platform does allow us to save information about the institution's name, contacts, and job titles. There is just one brand new question, but it is purely a filtering question which asks if you run, sorry, if you publish an alumni relations magazine. That is just to help us a little bit. We've always asked about what the costs are associated with that, but we didn't ask the question, do you run one at all? Now, the other change we have is there have been some global changes to the way our pledges are reported, and Deborah, if I could please just ask you to step in for a moment. I have a table which has been taken from our case global reporting standards which just outline these changes, and I think this should have been emailed to all of you over the last month or two. Yeah, so when we first released the global reporting standards by making them digital, one of the things that we had planned was that it would allow us to have more frequent updates, have the ability to be more flexible if there were things that needed clarification, and after the standards first went out, so that was March of 2021, we did have an update to the standards in March of 2024, so about a year ago, and one of the updates that does affect this survey is how we are asking you to count those ongoing recurring donations, so those could be through direct debit or some sort of automatic bank transfer. It could be monthly, it could be quarterly, but those ones that are set up to be indefinite without an end date are now to be treated in new funds committed in the same way that they are treated in funds received as the payments come in. I think, and I don't know, I know we have someone on the call today who was on the committee that helped us make this change, but I think one of the reasons was that for some institutions it was really a challenge to try to wrangle that data to just a specific time period. I know in some regions they were counting five years value, but of course not all of those payments come in at 100% over five years, so there was some concern that maybe there'd be some over-counting there, so anyway, all of that said, the change was made to count as the payments come in. I can say anecdotally, I work with a university in the UK, and they told me that they were very, very concerned. They ran their data both ways, and their numbers were almost identical, so I hope that that is true for most of you, that this won't be a big burden, but will hopefully make your lives a little bit easier. Okay, thank you Deborah. This slide here, I'm not going to talk through it all, but it just points where you might find some further guidance as you're filling in the survey. I'll just make a quick mention that we have a survey guidance document now, and this incorporates elements of the previous reporting rules as well as the question-by-question guide. It's not identical, but it's a very similar document as having those two separated out. We do still have a validation spreadsheet, which was a document that we did previously recommend that people filled in prior to putting their data in on Qualtrics. It has the validation that used to exist in that document, and for the most part, I think all the questions have been updated to the new wording and ordering. However, I do just want to bring to your attention that not all of the validation that is on the platform is on that spreadsheet. So if you choose to use that validation spreadsheet, when you move over to the platform, you may find some additional validations kick in. The goal really, I think, is to stop doing the validation on the Excel and encourage you to do it live on the platform, but we do recognize that many institutions have filled it in a different way historically, so we're keeping that in for the moment. Okay, now this is the point at which I'm going to move off from the PowerPoint and hopefully transition smoothly to sharing the screen for our Case Insights survey website. So I will just stop sharing there and start my new sharing. Now hopefully this will load up nicely. I think it's come up. I think I'm logged in, so I'm actually going to log out of this screen. Can I just check? Can you all see now a login screen? It's got my email address on it. So hopefully most of you have had a go at trying to access this. If you haven't, please do have a go as soon as possible, and if you have and you're not being able to get in, please drop me an email as soon as possible so I can try and resolve this because I understand everybody who's registered for the survey should have been set up with a user account by now. So I'm going to start by logging in. And just to let you know, because I'm logging in and I'm a case person, I have menus on here that you won't have. So I believe from the conversations, you'll have a home screen, possibly the general and this survey menu, but don't panic if you're not seeing the others, they are case screens that are there. Now I've got these three active surveys. I'm not quite sure how many you'll see, whether you'll just see the Australia and New Zealand or whether you'll see other ones. Now you can either, if you have this dashboard, you could be able to click on that survey directly, but you may also see the surveys another way. So if you're under the survey menu screen, you may, Debra do correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think you may find you're having to scroll down and find the survey you're looking for. So here we have the case insights, Australia and New Zealand. Yeah, Fiona has administrative rights. So she's seen lots more surveys on her list than you will see. It should be really straightforward. You'll see anything that you've signed up for that's open at the moment. Okay, that's great. So I had a few more, but it should be really obvious, but just please, please just shout out if anything is not, as you might expect, or you're having any difficulties. Now, the first thing, and I know I think quite a few of you have done this, which is great, is to click the button to say, my institution will complete this survey. When you do that, that will trigger and let us know that you're planning to do it. And it enables communications to go out and communications perhaps not to go out. So perhaps remind us that would say you haven't logged on and you haven't said you're gonna fill it in, won't come. Is that correct? They can avoid reminders by clicking that button. Yes, one of the things that is really great about this system is that we can use all of these features to help us filter and send messages to you directly from the system. So it, not only does it help us keep track of who's checked in, who has started, how much have they completed, have they completed, but we can also use all of those things as filters to communicate with you. So it's really helpful if you're checking in and clicking those buttons. And you can have multiple users for this system. And we actually encourage that if people leave the institution, it's great to have another contact who is stored on there. But you will need to make, I guess, your own decisions as to how many people you want to have access to input the data on here. So, okay, so I've now clicked to say that I will complete this survey. And I've actually been in here a little bit earlier and put in some data as though I'm a test institution. You might question some of my values that I put in, but the survey as it's showing at the moment looks pretty happy with me. It thinks I've filled in most of the data other than you can see this data sharing agreement. And it is not coming up with any error messages. And I will show how that can change if you put some data in that the system is not so happy with. So before you get to the questions, we just have a couple of screens which gives you a bit more information about the survey and about the resources. I'm not gonna read through all of these, but it's quite nice and easy to navigate. Go to the next section. You'll see a few notes with some links taking you to places where you can get extra support. And I'll just add something that's on that page, Fiona. You'll see that we included both Fiona's email address as well as our general insights at case.org email address in case you have any questions. Just know that if you email our insights address, most of the folks responding in that inbox are in Washington, DC. So there will be some delay in response, which is why we made sure to have Fiona's email address as well since she is in region and will be able to respond to you a little bit more promptly. Thanks, Debra. Yeah, I mean, you could put both in perhaps and then you covered all the bases. Can't hurt. Okay, so now we go to the actual survey itself. And as I say, one of the first changes, I guess, is that we've moved, and I think this is true pretty much of all of our surveys now, we've moved our data sharing agreement to the very beginning of the survey. Now, you are at this point saying that the data has been checked and signing up to the data sharing agreement, which is below. And we understand that if you are actually filling this in, in order, it may, you know, it's possible you haven't yet checked it. So you are able to go on to the next section without filling this in, and it won't give you any error messages. I haven't filled it in. And at the moment I've said, no, I do not confirm the data's been reviewed. However, should you leave it as a no at the end, it will not let you submit the survey. So you will have to go back to this section. So I'm going to just now move on to a nice easy section, which is the background information about your institution. Is this big enough? Can I just check? Can people actually read the screen here? I'm not gonna go through every question. Okay, that's great. So I filled in all these questions in a way that works. And so if I were to save this, it would be quite happy for me to move to the next section, but I'm just gonna demonstrate what could happen if you give a response it doesn't like. So in this box, if for example, I miss out a digit and I wanted to say that I started our program in 2000, but I missed off a zero. And then on this overseas offices question, this is actually a filter. At the moment I've said no, and therefore I can't type anything in the country's box. Were I to have said yes, the country's box would open up and it would ask me for a response. So I'm just going to save it and demonstrate what happens when it doesn't like your responses. So you're gonna get this alarming message with an indication that you've made a fatal error and you have to fix it. And then a list of where the problems is. So it's highlighting the two questions that are causing issues. If I were to click on one of them, it will take us back to that section. And I click on it, it appears now in the right-hand side, I click and it's highlighting in red that it does not like what I've put in this box. So basically my number was too young, it was too early. I couldn't have started a fundraising program in 200. And it's also not very happy I said that I had overseas offices, but I didn't say which country. So I'm not gonna put Australia, let's say I'm just gonna put a couple in that box. And it should allow us now to move on. But just while I'm on this screen, I will just show a couple of other features. We have a little bit of information on the platform, which just outlines what that section's about. We also have hover pop-up texts. Now on the ones in this section, they are relatively short. And so you probably can just hover over them and read the definitions. But you will see in particular, when we get to section B, we have some longer wording and you might need to actually click on them. I'll show it here. If I were to click on this hover, instead of just hovering, it will open up as a bigger box on the screen, which I can close down. And we have some of our questions, our dropdowns, radio buttons, and so on. This question on currency offers you many, many currencies, but you will find it will only allow you to put Australian dollars or New Zealand dollars as your responses. I'm gonna move to next section. It tells you it might take two minutes to check for problems. I don't think it ever has taken two minutes so far. So hopefully you won't find that. Deborah, I'm just seeing there are a few questions coming up on the chat. I'm just gonna check whether any of these need. Okay. I think we're good so far. I love Stephanie's comment about the fatal error. I know. Surveying taken very seriously. It's quite worrying, isn't it? And then the sort of skull symbol that comes up. Yeah, I was quite worried when I first started using the platform earlier. Well, no, it's the end of last year when I was doing the school survey and I got very anxious about this, but I'm not so worried now. So section B, now this is the big section. And I guess as you're filling it in, you may well have questions about the questions themselves. So please do come to us if you can't find the information you need in the guidance notes. We do have a bit more text on this section than there are on some of the others because we did just wanna make sure some of the key points are pulled out. For example, bequest is often a confusing area. And so we do wanna make sure people are just including bequests from those donors where it's gone through probate. As I mentioned, there are some quite big explanations here which are quite difficult to read as a hover text. So I strongly recommend you actually click on those boxes so that you can see the full width. And this includes much of the information actually in the question by question section of the survey guidance. So I've filled in the data here in a way that I know the platform is happy with, but I will just quickly show one or two errors that it might pick up on. So if we take our box at the top, I've said that I had 10 million there as new funds committed. So if I scroll down to the $1 million gifts, and if I said that I'd had a hundred $1 million gifts, I hope it's going to tell me that that's not an acceptable response. So let's see what happens. Hopefully again, yeah, so a fatal problem again. So the number of $1 million gifts multiplied by $1 million cannot exceed total new funds committed. So I click on here again on that right-hand side, and it will take me to the box and highlight it in red. So I will just make that numb. Oh no, sorry. Okay, so it's highlighted the two boxes where there is a problem. So either my total new funds committed is too small in which case I need to increase that, or my number of gifts is too big. Now I'm going to reduce the number of gifts because if I change my total new funds committed, I'm going to get a lot of other validations come up as we go to subsequent sections. Okay, just scrolling down. So we've also got our annual funds questions here. Now this is one section where we did bring three of the questions from section F up around bequests. So now we have all of the bequests questions within this section of the survey. So I'm going to move on. We've got some slightly simpler sections coming up. Again, hopefully it will not take two minutes. So we have our philanthropic income by purpose as before, and with some hovers giving you the definitions for each of those categories. These boxes auto-calculate, so you cannot enter anything in this grayed out box at the bottom. It will add it up for you. And one of the checks it will hopefully be doing is to check that your total value in this gray box is the same as the one in section B, and it also needs to be the same as the one in section D, which we'll come to shortly. I think there is a margin of error of a couple of dollars allowing for rounding, and I appreciate many of you won't be putting in figures to the nearest sense, but it is allowing for that possibility should you wish to do that. So on to the next section, which is a very similar set of tables. This time we're just looking instead of the purpose, the source of your gifts. Again, Ovid X coming up as we go through. Please do, yeah, do let me know if you've got questions as we go along. Otherwise, I will just move on and we can have questions at the end. So next section, section E. This is a section which looks at the gift bands or contribution level. And because there are a few calculations to be done on this and it's perhaps a little more complicated, we did put a bit of information on the platform itself up here, as well as putting some of the ways to calculate in the, I think we've got, yes, we've got column headers with pop-ups here, as well as row headers. This was some questions that we changed a couple of years back. We used to just use for the number of donors, but we are now asking for the combined value of donations as well. There's a little bit of change to the question numbering here, because I think it used to go E1 to E4, but we've put it in single grids. So again, auto-calculating boxes at the bottom. We'll get to section F, and this is a little bit shorter than it used to be, because as I say, we've moved the bequest questions from section F to section B. And there are some validations coming in on all of these. For example, if I was to say that my number of alumni donors was much higher than my total number of donors, I think it will complain, or I hope it will. So I'm just going to test that and see what happens. I'll just add, as you all can see, we've been able to build much more robust validations within this system than we've had in the past in our Excel document or even in our old system. So it's really, what we're really hoping, obviously this will benefit us, that we will feel a little bit more confident in the data that's coming in, but it will also be a benefit to you because we won't have to come back to you as many times in email if we see a data point that we think is not quite right. So the goal is to take care of as much of the checking as possible in the system so that when we do offload that data to do our analysis, there's just a lot less likelihood we'll have to circle back to you later looking for corrections. So I think it's going to benefit all of us. And if you do spot anything that's not validating in the way you expect, please, please do come back to me. This is the first year we've had the validations up in this way and it is possible that something may not be quite right. And we'd love for you to let us know if that seems to be the case. I think what I just did there has upset two of the figures in fact, because now not only do I have my total number of alumni donors bigger than my total donor numbers, but now I've got more donors than I have contact, more alumni donors than I have alumni in total. So that's a real fail, that one. It's very unhappy with me for that response. So I think all of the errors I've shown so far have been fatal errors. You may find there are one or two, and I know there's certainly one at the end of the survey, which I'll demonstrate, which is not a fatal error. So you get a slightly less serious response on that one. So I'm going to move on. I hope it's okay now to section G. And you're getting towards the end now, we only go up to section H, so we're nearly there. On this one, if you are not in campaign, you will not have to answer most of the questions. So if I was to change my response and click no, the next three, I don't know if you saw that, the next three questions disappeared. So you won't have to answer those. And I'm not going to re-input those, so I'll just click no, and it should allow me to move on to the next section. Okay, we're nearly there. Section H, that's the final section. And in terms of question numbers, now this is looking a lot shorter because we only go up to H6, whereas it used to be H12. The reason for that is we've actually just put some of the questions into grids together, so we've reduced the question numbers here. I think in terms of actual changes, the only two are, as I think I mentioned, we now have a question, sorry, I'm scrolling a little there, H3, which asks if you publish an alumni magazine in the survey year. And so if you don't, because we find a lot of people don't anymore and it used to flag a lot of zeros and we'd have to go back to everybody and say, do you publish an alumni magazine or not? Is this an error? So you will only be asked to put the magazine costs in if you have indicated you publish a magazine. And I'm going to say no. The other change is we used to ask you to give us the total number of full-time equivalents and then manually, and then break it down into the direction support roles. And quite often they didn't quite add up. And I found that every time I went back and queried people, they would give me figures and they did indeed add up. So we have removed the need to give us the total number and we have just asked for the breakdown. If that presents challenges that I have not anticipated, please just let me know there. So that's question H4 and H5. You are asked to give the breakdown and not the total number. The final question is one that I know presents problems for many of you at the final submission stage because you don't know what your total institutional spend is at this point. So you could, if you put nothing, now I think this may actually trigger a couple of responses. So I'm just going to see if you don't put an answer, it's going to come up, I think with a serious error, perhaps, or yeah, a serious problem. Now here, it says you can give me a comment. You can tell me why it is that you haven't put a number in, which may be, we're not allowed to release that figure yet. It's not yet available. And I believe you should still be able to submit the survey without that value in. However, there is another validation. This question does validate against the expenditure on the other questions in this section. So I'll just go back to these. So I think if you put a zero in, it's going to be a bit unhappy because it reckoned, this number should be bigger than say, or magazine costs plus staff costs for alumni relations and fundraising costs, but it should be set up again as a serious error. So it should still let you submit. While I'm just talking about putting a zero in, I would really like to encourage people, if possible, not to use zeros unless it is actually a genuine, there was no money raised or we didn't have any staff costs. As you can imagine, if we put zeros in, when we come to interpreting the data and they're not spotted, they are really going to throw our means and medians out when we're reporting on the data. But we are a small region and there is a reasonable chance I will pick up on it, but it may not be always the case. If this, however, is causing you problems and stopping you being able to submit your survey because you really can't let us know a figure, you haven't been able to calculate it, it's not a figure you're allowed to release, and it is saying that you cannot submit the survey without putting a number in the box and you do have to put a zero, please could I ask that you email me and get advice so that I can help you with that or at a minimum, mark it up at my end so that I know how to handle that. Okay, so I think that's just a very quick run through. I haven't gone through all the questions, but as I say, there should be reasonable information in the guidance notes and I'm really happy to have people come back with questions on this. So I'm now going to move on. So if I say, and mark complete, I think I'm still gonna get that institutional spend error, but hopefully I can, can I put a comment? I haven't actually, I think I'm just gonna, what happens? I'm going to ask Deborah to, just to round off here with what should be the final screens. I think actually, do I need to scroll down to the bottom? Shall I have those screen? I think it's a good, yeah, it's a good idea just to start at the bottom. So when you do get all the data entered and as Fiona has pointed out, you can see any errors that have popped up on this screen, right? In each section, you'll see those little icons like that little exclamation point or the skull images. Now, in this case, we're just kind of leaving this exclamation point for now, but once you enter the comment, it will clear. So once you see your survey is completely clear of errors, then you wanna come down to the bottom. It's a good idea to run this check at the bottom where there's the little magnifying glass. It'll do like one more quick check of the survey to make sure you've checked everything. And you'll see Fiona's gonna run it here and it will sometimes pick up things that you haven't thought to do. And mostly it's things around the data sharing agreement. Sometimes folks aren't filling that out right away. They're going straight in and filling out the rest of the survey. And we do have a check that runs at the very end to make sure that that's been completed. So you'll go in and you'll fill all that out. You also have the option to print a PDF of the survey with all of the values that you've entered. So this is just a great for your records, right? You can print this out, it prints to PDF and you'll have a record of everything that you've entered. And then the last step is to go back up to the top of the page and you will click a box that says my survey is complete and ready for review. Now, what happens at this point, again, this is where these little trigger buttons, we run reports every week when a survey is open to check and see if folks have submitted any data. So this lets us know that you've submitted. We can start looking at your submission. We can see if there's any issues that maybe our validation didn't catch or if we have any questions about data points, then at that point we can reach out to you. And then we go through a process of kind of accepting and verifying that we feel that the data is clean and ready to be accepted. So- I got a little loop there, sorry, Debra, because I was correcting my errors. No, oh gosh, okay. Yeah, so it's really, I mean, it's really straightforward. I will say if, just to reiterate what Fiona said about validations, if you're having trouble submitting, if you're getting an error and you don't think you should be, please let us know. All of these things, we did all of these things manually. We built every one of these sections. We built every validation formula. We've tested them thoroughly, but we could have missed something. So please let us know. Even if it's not something we can fix right away, there are ways we can accept the data if we feel that it's clean, even if the error message is there. So, to Fiona's point, don't, please don't go back in and start putting zeros places to remove errors. Just reach out to us and let us know if you're having any challenges and we'll make sure we get everything processed and submitted properly. Okay, I think that's pretty much it. I think that's it in terms of marking the survey as complete. I've just turned off the sharing of that one. I'm going to just wrap up with the final few slides and I think we've got a few questions in the boxes. So we'll switch over to that. So is this now showing my PowerPoint again? Yes. Okay, so the submission date is the 9th of May. I had wanted to make it slightly shorter because we normally have six weeks and you ended up, I think, with seven. The reason being is we hit the Easter and April holidays period in Australia and New Zealand and to take us well clear of that, and Anzac Day, it is down as the 9th of May. And there are my email addresses and the insights address. And also just to flag for anyone who's got availability in May, we have our Asia-Pacific Annual Advancement Conference and we would love to see you there. If you haven't booked already, we've got the early bird rate until the 15th of April. Okay, so now I'll just switch back to the chat and see. I'm afraid I haven't been monitoring this the whole way through. So just take me a moment. Sorry. So Fiona, if I just jump in, the majority of the discussion in the chat has been between me, Natalie, and Diana, but it could be relevant to everyone. It's about the change to how we count recurring gifts. It's quite hard to answer it all in the chat. So I could try and talk about the logic a little bit more and just clarify. Yeah, if that's all right, John, that would be great. Thank you. And as well, as we can see in the conversation, it's obvious that part of the issue as always that we're dealing with is our own systems and how they do or don't work for us. So the main thinking behind this change, when we talk about recurring gifts, I guess it's worth making a distinction and I'll talk from certainly what I know at Auckland, but what I've heard other people say. We have two types of gifts. You could count as recurring gifts. We have monthly payments, which tend to arise from an annual appeal. Tent, in our case, are done by credit card. I think some institutions would do direct debits. And then monthly, and they're the $20, $50 a month type gifts. It's those that the change to the counting is intended to stop. The thinking is that they are actually really difficult and really inaccurate to count if you project because there's a high attrition rate. Very few of those will last five years. Or if they are donors who stay loyal for the five years, if you're doing your job well, you'd be trying to ask them to increase the value of the gift and to try and work out and automatically get it from your system when the value increased. And then do you report the increase sort of three years through that five period? And then are we doing, let's say it's $20 and I go to 30. Do I need to add on in my next case report $10 a year for three years? And now they've committed two further years. So now I'm doing $30, it's nightmare. And it was intended to simplify that. So take away the uncertainty of what the donor may do and take away the complexity of accounting. The other type of gift, which people would talk about as recurring gifts are often paid annually, often support a prize or a scholarship or an award, that kind of thing. Certainly the way we approach it is we will set this up as a pledge. And even if the donor has indicated it's open-ended, we limit that to a five-year pledge based on the old case counting rules. But also when it's something more substantial, the thinking is by forcing the five-year limitation and that's the prompt from a stewardship point of view to make sure you are checking in, revalidating their support, potentially asking them for more so the value of the prize increases over time. So those are the two different scenarios. And I think that was kind of how the understanding of the group went. Now, the definition says if there's an end date, yes, you do know you should be able to calculate the value. And I saw your comment there, Natalie, that gifts coming in from that community, they're forcing you to have an end date. Yeah, I can see that that's messy. But if they're still the monthly gifts, all those points I made about the variability and the uncertainty do still apply. So, I mean, I can't, I'm not saying it's necessarily all easy, this change, but that's kind of, hopefully the thinking behind it might explain why it's happened. And kind of how you may be able to approach the separation of the data to make reporting easier. I hope that made sense. It's quite a, one of those topics it's quite hard to get your head into. No, thank you, John. Appreciate that. And the consultation on that, I mean, I was representing Australia and New Zealand on the case committee. There were about four or five people on there from institutions across Canada and the US and then a couple from the UK as well. So it's kind of a global consensus that came to that point. Thank you, thank you. Okay, I'm just scrolling through the other questions there. I think these have been addressed. There was a question about the institutional spend. So yes, that should be possible to submit without that. And yes, we'll add an extra decimal place to the FTEs. Okay. One thing I just thought of, Fiona, related to the institutional spend that if you don't have that data available, but a month later or two months later, you do have it available. This system makes it really easy for us to reopen the survey so that you can add in any data that's missing. Either if it's something simple, we can add it in for you. If it's something a little more complex, we may open it up and ask you to enter the data. That way, in case it triggers a validation error, you'll have the ability to correct it. But it is really convenient for not just adding data later, but also correcting any errors that you discover six months later or nine months later, you realize something you entered was incorrect. We can, it's really easy to go back in and make changes. That's great. Thank you. Thank you, Debra. Yeah, and so it should mean that querying process, which sometimes goes on for weeks at the end of this whole platform will be reduced somewhat. So, yeah, but I'm excited. It was, I had moments, I will say that I said to Debra, can we not just leave it on Quartrix for one more year? And no, she was very right. This is gonna be great and I'm excited for it. Okay, I'm gonna stop sharing because I don't have any more. I'll just add as we wrap up in terms of next steps. So one thing to know is that this system does give us the opportunity to build benchmarking. We are in the process of working on that now. My hope is that we will have your historical data and this year's data in the new system in a benchmarking format for you to access. It is quite complicated. Again, as I say, we're moving all of these surveys, we're trying to get all of this data loaded. There is a chance that your data will live on two systems for a short period of time. We're doing everything we can for that not to be the case. We want everything to be in this one system so that you have access to it right away and be able to run queries and see trends and pull your data. So just know that we are deep in planning all of that as we speak and you'll be hearing more from us on how to access that when it's available. Great, thank you, Deborah. And thank you in advance to all of you who will be doing the hard work now collating the data and getting that up on the platform. But I say, do keep shouting out if there's anything that's unclear. As we go through, okay. I think that's all the questions there. I'm sure there'll be more to follow as you start entering the data. And I say, I don't think everybody's checked in, but hopefully nobody's actually had any problems doing so who's tried, but again, that might be one for our insights team. Okay, all right, well, thank you and enjoy the rest of your week. Thank you all.

CASE Insights

Philanthropy Survey

Australia

New Zealand

platform

data accuracy

alumni engagement

benchmarking

Asia-Pacific Conference