CASE-Ross Report 2021

CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021 Generating Philanthropic Support for Higher Education

Findings from data collected for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020 © 2021 Council for Advancement and Support of Education Original publication date: April 2021 All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or used in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer: While the publisher has used its best efforts in preparing this document, it makes no representations or warranties in respect to the accuracy or completeness of its contents. No liability or responsibility of any kind (to extent permitted by law), including responsibility for negligence is accepted by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, its servants or agents. All information gathered is believed correct at publication date. Neither the publisher nor the author is engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

CASE-ROSS EDITORIAL BOARD The Editorial Board members helped manage the project by contributing their time and expertise at each stage of developing this report. They were involved with survey review, script creation, survey promotion, data collection, data verification, analysis, report writing and dissemination. The 2019–2020 Editorial Board consisted of: l Sandra Jackson, Deputy Director and Head of Development Services, University of Bristol l Tania Jane Rawlinson, Director of Development and Alumni Relations, Cardiff University l Frances Shepherd, Director of Development and Alumni, University of Glasgow l Tom Smith, Prospect Research and Database Officer, Loughborough University l Martin Wedlake, Deputy Director of Strategy and Operations, University College London

AUTHOR Divya Krishnaswamy, Senior Research Analyst (Project Lead), CASE

CASE STAFF Bruce Bernstein, Executive Director, Global Engagement (Europe and Africa) Leigh Cleghorn, Deputy Director (Europe) David Bass, Senior Director – Research

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, we would like to thank the institutional staff who gave their time to provide information about the philanthropic income of their institutions and those who submitted case studies to support the publication of this report. A special thanks to all the new institutions participating in the study for the first time. We are grateful to the CASE-Ross Editorial Board for their continued guidance and support.

COVER ART CREDIT © yuoak, Getty Images

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Divya Krishnaswamy Senior Research Analyst CASE [email protected] or [email protected] +44 (20) 3752 9726

COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT AND SUPPORT OF EDUCATION

case.org London Mexico City Singapore Washington, D.C. CONTENTS

PRESIDENT’S NOTE...... 4 FOREWORD ...... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 8 Key Findings...... 8 INTRODUCTION...... 10 Cluster analysis...... 10 Interpreting the charts and tables ...... 11 KEY INDICATORS...... 12 New funds secured...... 14 Cash income received...... 18 Alumni and donors...... 22 Fundraising and alumni relations investments...... 25 Fundraising and alumni relations staff ...... 28 TRENDS IN KEY INDICATORS...... 29 Philanthropic income...... 29 Alumni and donors...... 30 Fundraising and alumni relations investments...... 31 Fundraising and alumni relations staff ...... 32 Trends by cluster...... 33 FINDINGS BY MISSION GROUPS...... 35 FINDINGS BY OTHER GROUPS...... 36 FINDINGS BY PEARCE REVIEW GROUPS...... 37 APPENDIX...... 38 Response rate...... 38 Participating institutions...... 39 CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

PRESIDENT'S NOTE

For almost 20 years the CASE-Ross Survey has documented the growth and evolution of higher education advancement in the United Kingdom and Ireland. As the Editorial Board’s Foreword demonstrates, CASE- Ross data is a valuable tool providing insights into the impact of external factors, like the ongoing pandemic, institutional practice, notably sustained investment in advancement functions, and program level strategy on fundraising outcomes. Throughout the past year educational leaders and advancement professionals have proven themselves innovative and nimble. They have rapidly adapted primarily in-person alumni engagement and fundraising programs to online activities that have proven successful in sustaining relationships. They have also been successful in newly engaging previously uninvolved alumni and stakeholders who are motivated by institutional missions and vision. Fundraisers have adapted their appeals in many contexts to raise support for students impacted by the crisis and the scientific research that has helped to pave a pathway beyond. Institutional strategy has also played a critical role in sustaining and growing fundraising capacity. Findings from this survey, as well as AMAtlas surveys of higher education fundraising in the US and Canada, demonstrate that even in years when overall giving declines as a result of economic and other external factors, many institutions sustain or grow fundraising. This reflects the importance of unstinting institutional support of advancement programs. While the pandemic has posed many challenges, the CASE-Ross survey demonstrates the resilience of philanthropic relationships sustained through consistent engagement and stewardship. The CASE-Ross survey has long been a critical resource for UK educational leaders and advancement professionals and has become an important model for the global advancement profession. In March of 2021, CASE published the first CASE Global Reporting Standards, an internationally applicable set of reporting standards informed by fundamental ethical and professional principles. Members of the CASE-Ross Editorial Board as well as other dedicated volunteers from the UK and Europe provided invaluable guidance and support in the development of the new Standards. They include the CASE-Ross methodology of counting new funds secured along with cash income as a central element. Over the next two years, CASE will be engaging with volunteers and industry partners to align our established regional fundraising surveys with the new Standards and define a set of core metrics, across advancement roles, while preserving valuable longitudinal and regional data. This work will enable benchmarking across national borders while ensuring that all CASE members have access to transparent, industry standard data and can benefit from the metrics, analytics, and reporting resources provided by CASE’sAM Atlas team. With sincere thanks to the members of the CASE-Ross Editorial Board and the dedicated advancement professionals who contributed to this year’s survey and who do so much to advance education to transform lives and society.

With much gratitude, Sue Cunningham President and CEO CASE

• 4 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

FOREWORD

2020’s global Coronavirus pandemic turned 2019–2020 into an unprecedented and difficult year for every- one, including universities, and their development and alumni relations programmes and teams. The fortitude, commitment, flexibility and care shown by advancement professionals across the UK and Europe, in the face of the pandemic, was wholly admirable. Many professionals helped support key aspects of university “pivots” to address issues which the pandemic exacerbated. The pandemic meant that 2019–2020 was a year of two (unequal) halves – one pre-COVID, and one which tracked the pandemic’s early months. The CASE-Ross report for the 2019-2020 year does not distin- guish between those two distinct timeframes, though the pandemic’s impact is evident across many of the data points we track. The overall story of the year, including those challenging early months of the pandemic, is strongly positive. The sector delivered more than £1 billion of New Funds Secured from philanthropic sources for the third year running. Strong momentum would seem to have been maintained, even as other sectors saw their income from giving [or fundraising income/voluntary income] decimated. That said, the story seems to be bifurcated in some areas of higher education advancement. Maturity, and institutional commitment to development and alumni relations, mattered more than ever. Mindful of this split, we reviewed our cluster analysis closely this year. Notably, initial cluster analysis left us with a large emerging cluster, where we saw widely varied performances. Further analysis showed that this cluster divided naturally into a group of 22 Emerging, and 11 Fragile institutions. (Last year’s Emerging cluster might have benefitted from a similar approach, so we recommend that this year’s charts are read on their own; they are perhaps more finely tuned and accurate, rather than representing a significant sector shift to more “fragile” institutions.) The more mature five of the six “clusters”: Elite, Established, Moderate, Developing and even Emerging reported relatively consistent results and appear to have weathered the start of the pandemic. The Elite, Moderate and Emerging clusters have all posted fundraising results that are slightly down on last year, but this is in the context of a particularly strong 2018-19 and is not necessarily a cause for concern. Because these institutions are responsible for more than 95% of gifts, this strong performance means that an overall New Funds Secured remained above the £1 bn mark for the THIRD year in a row. The fall of £236 million from last year is a return to 2017–18 performance levels, and it is worth remembering that the 2018–19 all-time high included a single new pledge of £150m for one elite institution. The sector’s focus on the long-term relationship based major gift model appears to have paid strong dividends. Unlike transactional or product-based fundraising, UK higher education’s approach seems to have nurtured and maintained long-term donor affinity and momentum. Universities’ willingness to invest in asking, and donors’ ongoing willingness to give, does not seem to have been affected materially by the pandemic in the last quarter of the 2019–2020 financial year. News and analysis of the broader charity sector has frequently included reports of dramatic losses in fundraising success, with attendant reductions in expenditure on fundraising. Our figures show that whilst many universities reduced overall expenditure in 2019–2020, staffing numbers did not decline much. We deduce – and anecdotal evidence also tells us – that reduced spend was the result of pausing on visits and events (including overseas travel), rather than significant staffing cuts. But at the very Fragile end of the spectrum (which now includes a number of institutions classed as Emerging in previous years), there have been advancement team closures and reductions. Notably, fewer institutions since the mid-2000s participated in the CASE-Ross survey. (Even some relatively mature offices

• 5 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021 were unable to complete the survey, or provide all its data points, due to staff pressures. We hope to welcome them back to the full survey next year.) In 2019–2020, it seems, institutional commitments to fundraising suffered for some institutions with the least mature programmes. Stop-start investment in fundraising is a dangerous game. It can lead to damaged relationships and in turn to philanthropic income languishing and failing to recover when it is felt investment can again be made. Consistent investment, appropriately tailored to institutional needs and opportunities, has proven time and again to lead to success – as the continued growth in all the other clusters demonstrates. Where there was success, what was it that counted? Institutions that showed impressive results have told us their success relied on strong donor relationships, on institutional agility, and/or being well aligned with strategic planning in their institutions. When some or all of those factors were in play, advancement teams could respond to the crisis even as institutional needs evolved rapidly. They could demonstrate authenticity of need to donors who knew them well already and could showcase real impact to donors. Some universities found success through fundraising for research efforts associated with the pandemic and vaccine. Others moved rapidly, and successfully, to appeals which focused on new and urgent student needs during the crisis. Of course, we will also be watching carefully for the pandemic’s impact on the 2020–2021 year. At this stage it is very difficult to predict. Some institutions seem to be faring well. We know that non-salary spend may be far lower than in previous years, with no travel and few events possible. Telethons were more complex to run. But we have heard that online engagement with alumni is opening up new territories and opportunities – fertile ground for global engagement of a mobile, agile alumni community. Case studies of successes, and failures, will be important for the sector to share in the coming months. The CASE-Ross Survey continues to highlight sector trends and patterns we have observed over time. Some longer-term trends have continued during 2019–2020: • Investment in alumni magazines declined for the third year in a row; • Contactable alumni numbers continue the long-term trend of inexorable rise; • Very large gifts continue to contribute significantly to the sector’s success. Some trends we are watching were more difficult to chart in a tumultuous year: • Telethons seem to have slowed for the second year running for the subset of institutions who report on this data, though it is unclear whether this was due to strategic choices, or to lockdown pauses. • Crowdfunding continues to grow donor numbers, but again the pandemic may be a factor. Did emergency appeals open doors to new audiences? • While total staff numbers dipped very slightly (both in fundraising and alumni relations), a few significant institutions did not report staff – and median staff numbers held largely constant. The 2020–2021 numbers may offer a better picture of pandemic impact. We also observe fluctuations in “contactable” alumni with interest; we aim to consult with the sector about the causes here, and significance of this fluctuation. More generally, both our Editorial Board and CASE remain committed to keeping colleagues in Europe informed and consulted, whilst CASE globally updates its surveys and programmes. (See Sue Cunningham’s notes above about the wider landscape). We feel real pride that the CASE-Ross Survey, now passing its 20th year, has helped provide much of the context for the recently revised Global Standards, and for data collection in the forthcoming CASE “core metrics” programme. Our goal as an Editorial Board together with CASE is to ensure that European colleagues have the data and tools they need to enable benchmarking, inform their programmes, and identify communities of best practice. We will do our best to provide early information about, and consultation on, updates and changes in the CASE-Ross Survey. We will stay in touch, and continue the discussion at CASE events and programmes, in the months and year to come.

• 6 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Most of all, we are full of appreciation for the outstanding commitment which advancement colleagues have shown to their universities, to their students and colleagues, and to their donors and alumni over the past year. Our work is valuable, is valued, and truly changes lives. This survey gives an idea of the financial impact which our work has – and all of us can be proud of the positive impact we have on people, on places, and on learning and discovery at our institutions. Thank you to all of the institutions who participated in the CASE-Ross Survey 2019–20!

With thanks, CASE-Ross Editorial Board

• 7 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CASE-Ross Survey Supporting Document TOTAL NEW FUNDS SECURED IN prescribes definitions for recording philanthropic 2019–2020 WAS £1.09 BILLION income, guidance on eligible funding and provides • The total new funds secured in 2019–2020 was general guidance on completing the survey. Philan- £1.09 billion. thropic income includes gifts/donations or grants • The mean philanthropic funds secured in that are eligible and fall within the boundaries 2019–2020 decreased by 17% since 2018-19. of philanthropic intent. Philanthropic support is • On average, institutions sourced 66% of their new reported in two ways: funds from organisations (including companies, • New funds secured in a year includes the value trusts and foundations and lottery) while the of new gifts/donations received and new pledges remaining 34% was contributed by individuals. confirmed in the year at their value for up to five • Amongst 79 institutions that provided the data, years; it excludes legacy payments and cash pay- 219 donors made gifts or pledges of £500k or ments made against pledges secured in previous more during 2019–2020 (excludes elite and fragile years. New funds secured reflect the success of institutions). current fundraising activity. • Cash income received includes all cash income TOTAL CASH INCOME RECEIVED IN received during the year and includes new single 2019–2020 WAS £1.03 BILLION cash gifts, cash payments received against pledges • The total cash income received in 2019–2020 secured in the current or previous years and cash was £1.03 billion. from legacies; it excludes new pledges where • The mean cash income received in 2019–2020 payment has not been received. Cash income decreased by 0.1% since 2018–19. reflects the success of the current and past years’ • On average, institutions received 63% of cash fundraising activity. income from organisations (including companies and trusts and foundations), while individuals Key Findings1 contributed 37%. • Total cash income from legacies was £85m in For 2019–2020, overall average new funds secured 2019–2020 from 986 legacy donations. decreased by 17% over those received during 2018–19. Average cash income also decreased AVERAGE NUMBER OF DONORS GREW slightly, by 0.1% over 2018–19 figures. BY 3.6% The average value of the largest new gifts/ • 94 participating institutions reported a total of pledges and average value of the largest cash gifts 214,115 donors. received by institutions decreased by 24% and 4% • Average donors increased by 3.6% since 2018–19 respectively. Average donor numbers have increased and average alumni donors increased by 5% since by 3.6% while the average number of alumni 2018–19. donors has increased by 5% since 2018–19. • Among institutions that provided breakdowns of Average figures for investments in both donor types2, 97% were individuals and 3% were fundraising and alumni relations have decreased trusts and foundations, companies, lotteries or by 9% and 16% over 2018–19 levels. other organisations. • 1% or 149,715 of the reported 10.8m contactable alumni made contributions during the year.

1All average trend figures are for institutions that participated in the survey for all four years 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020. 2Not all participating institutions provided a break down of total donors into sub-categories.

• 8 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

AVERAGE INVESTMENTS IN FUNDRAISING AND ALUMNI RELATIONS DECREASED BY 9% AND 16% RESPECTIVELY • In 2019–2020 the total expenditure on alumni relations was £46m and the total expenditure on fundraising was £107.5m. • Average fundraising investment decreased by 9% and average alumni relations investment decreased by 16% over the previous year. • Staff costs accounted for 79% of average fund raising expenditures and 73% of average alumni relations expenditures.

• 9 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

INTRODUCTION Cluster Analysis Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was first conducted The first CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey in 2013 on data from the CASE-Ross surveys in (as it is now known) was carried out in 2002 and 2011–12 to explore the possibility of uncovering built on previous surveys undertaken within the groups of institutions that had similar fundraising Ross Group; the survey has been conducted profiles and has been repeated every year. LCA was annually since then. used to group institutions, into different clusters The survey methodology has been adapted for based on certain defining variables that provided use in other CASE surveys on philanthropic sup- the most information about key characteristics port for education in Australia and New Zealand, of fundraising activities and for which there was continental Europe, South Africa and Canada. sufficient variation between institutions to offer During 2012–13, the CASE-Ross survey was distinct patterns and differentiating factors. These offered online for the first time. Its methodology variables are: also changed substantially (differentiating it from its predecessors) and was enhanced following a review 1. Average cash income received over three years that included scoping interviews with key stake- 2. Average largest cash gift received over three years holders and development directors. 3. Average number of donors over three years The CASE-Ross Support of Education Survey, 4. Average proportion of contactable alumni UK and Ireland, 2019–2020 was open to partici- making a gift over three years pants from 16 September 2020 to 24 November 5. Average fundraising costs per pound received 2020. Invitations to participate were sent to 161 over three years higher education and specialist institutions in the 6. Average number of fundraising staff (full-time UK alone that are involved in some form of fun- equivalent) over three years draising or alumni relations activity. Ninety-three Average figures for these variables across a three- institutions across the UK participated yielding a year period were used to ensure that comparisons response rate of 58% (see Appendix for details). were based on performance over time rather than Two higher education institutions from Ireland any single year. In earlier years, a five-cluster solu- and the Institute of Cancer Research in the UK tion offered a good statistical fit for the data and also took part in the survey. A total of 96 institu- made substantive sense; however, since 2015–16, tions across the UK and Ireland participated during additional analysis on the Emerging cluster was 2019–2020. conducted and it was found that the institutions in Participating institutions provided data for the this cluster could be further divided into two sub- 12-month period from 1 August 2019 to 31 July clusters producing a total of six clusters in recent 2020. Data has not been reweighted to estimate years. The same process was first applied to the funds raised and other data for non-participating 2019–2020 dataset of 96 institutions using Latent institutions so reported totals only account for a GOLD® v5.0 software. However, this left us with portion of philanthropic support for higher educa- a large, emerging cluster, where we saw widely tion in the UK and Ireland. varied performances. Further analysis showed that CASE Research staff, with the support of the this cluster divided naturally into a group of 22 Editorial Board, queried data submitted by institu- Emerging, and 11 Fragile institutions. Through tions against an exhaustive set of logic, ratio, arith- most of this report, data has been presented broken metic and substantive tests and survey participants down for the following six clusters of institutions: were asked to confirm or correct their responses. 1. Fragile (11 institutions) Benchmarking data was made available to participating institutions at the time of report release. 2. Emerging (22 institutions)

• 10 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

3. Developing (26 institutions) in mean and median figures may reflect the 4. Moderate (28 institutions) outliers in the data reported by a cluster. Or it 5. Established (7 institutions) could reflect the varied nature of fundraising 6. Elite (2 institutions) operations and/or maturity of fundraising operations across participating institutions. • The number of institutions given as the base (n) Interpreting the charts for a chart or table indicates the number of insti- and tables tutions that provided data for a response to a • Through most of this report (other than trends by question or for the given variable or variables. key indicators) data has been presented broken • For variables that were calculated from the down by the six clusters. responses to more than one question in the survey, • Descriptive statistics, mainly using the measures first, the variable was calculated for each institu- of central tendencies – arithmetic mean/average tion and then the mean was calculated at a cluster and median – were used to analyse the data and level and at an ‘all institutions’ level. report on key variables on a confidential and • Aggregates reported for ‘all institutions’ are aggregated basis. calculated for all participating institutions that • Mean figures provide a snapshot of the overall provided a response. group’s performance including outliers, while • All income figures in this report are reported in median figures highlight the exact midpoint Pound Sterling. Data reported in Euros were in fundraising figures across participating converted to Pound Sterling using an average institutions. of the conversion rate for the survey period • A normally distributed cluster has mean and (€1 = £0.87872 or £0.88). median figures that are quite similar. Differences

• 11 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

KEY INDICATORS The following section reports on new funds secured, broad overview of the return on investment and cash income received, contactable alumni, donors economic impact of fundraising across institutions and investment in fundraising and alumni relations in the UK and Ireland. staff and activities. These key indicators provide a

Key indicators 2019–2020

n Total Mean Median

Philanthropic Income New Funds Secured 95 £1,095,544,345 £11,532,046 £2,074,440 Cash Income Received 95 £1,029,708,309 £10,839,035 £1,821,564 Alumni Total Alumni 94 14,946,539 159,006 142,941 Contactable Alumni 94 10,863,823 115,573 104,110 Alumni Donors 90 149,715 1,664 496 Donors Total Donors* 94 214,115 2,278 941 Individual Donors† 94 207,991 2,213 870 Organisations Donors‡ 92 6,087 66 39 Costs Fundraising Costs 91 £107,536,718 £1,181,722 £550,182 Alumni Relations Costs 92 £46,121,465 £501,320 £268,839 Alumni Magazine Costs 52 £4,231,505 £81,375 £43,269 Staff Fundraising Staff (FTE) 91 1,499 16 8 Alumni Relations Staff (FTE) 94 757 8 4

All figures reported in this table are for all institutions that provided the data; this table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies. *Total donor figures include individual and organisational donors. †Individual donor figures include alumni donors and non-alumni donors; not all institutions provided a breakdown of total donors into these sub-categories. ‡Organisation donors include trusts and foundations, companies, lottery and other organisations; not all institutions provided a breakdown of total donors into these sub-categories.

• 12 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

A clear progression of fundraising capacity and and fewer staff may fluctuate more from year to performance is apparent, ranging from the nascent year as a result of discontinuities in staffing and programmes in the Fragile cluster to the long- investment and may be disproportionately impacted established, well-resourced and highly productive by changes in operations, programmes, or donor programmes in the Elite group. interests. It should also be noted that even in mature It should be noted that the fundraising perfor- institutions, fundraising can vary widely from one mance of institutions with less mature programmes year to the next.

Age of development and alumni relations programme by cluster 2019–2020 (n=96; % number of institutions)

9% 14% 14% 13% Programme Founded 23% 1989 or earlier 1990 to 1999 23% 2000 to 2004 36% 19% 45% 2005 to 2009 2010 or later 100% 72% 32% 27%

32%

46% 27% 32% 14% 14% 4% 4% lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile

Mission groups3 by cluster 2019–2020 (n=96; % number of institutions)

5% 11% 9% Mission roup 4% Russell roup 4% 27% 43% niversit Alliance 36% MillionPlus Not in a Mission roup 86% 100%

81% 68% 57% 55%

14%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile

3This includes the Russell Group, University Alliance and MillionPlus.

• 13 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

New funds secured secured reflect the success of current fundraising activity and demonstrate the true impact of devel- New funds secured in a year are new gifts/donations opment efforts inclusive of new gift funds received received and new confirmed pledges4 (counting in a year and the value of future commitments. multi-year value for up to five years) from donors Gifts given by individuals via charitable vehicles that are made during the year. The funds pledged such as a personal trust or foundation or from a may not have been received during the year. New privately held company are also recorded as gifts funds secured include all legacy gifts where the from an individual. funds have been received during the year; and The total value of new funds secured for all exclude cash payments made against all other gift institutions was £1.09 billion.5 pledges secured in previous years. Thus, new funds

Mean new funds secured 2019–2020

New funds secured* Largest pledge† (n=95) (n=94)

Elite £226,409,024 £6,000,000 Established £43,441,593 £14,687,840 Moderate £8,576,448 £2,780,372 Developing £3,293,637 £1,419,028 Emerging £549,247 £218,367 Fragile £77,660 £35,725 All £11,532,046 £2,433,206

This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies. *Note that one institution from the Fragile cluster, did not provide data for this question. †Note that one institution each from the Fragile and Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

Total number of institutions that secured new funds at different income levels 2019–2020 (n=95; number of institutions)

17 14 10 11 10 8

ess than £100,000 to £500,000 to £1m to £5m to £10m to £20m and over £100,000 £499,999 £999,999 £4,999,999 £9,999,999 £19,999,999

Note that one institution from the Fragile cluster, did not provide data for this question.

4Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate. 5See the table on page 12 for more information on key indicators.

• 14 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Participating institutions (excluding Elite institu- remaining 19% were secured by Developing and tions) secured 219 confirmed pledges of more Emerging institutions; there were no confirmed than £500k each. Of these, 81% were secured by pledges of more than £500k received by Fragile Established and Moderate institutions, while the institutions.

Number of donors that gave or pledged new funds at various contribution levels 2019–2020 (n=79)

20 Gift range: 226 £5,000,000 £500,000–£4,999,999 1,039 £50,000–£499,999 £5,000–£49,999 2,929 £1–£4,999

86,222

Note that many institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question. This chart represents less than half of the total donors who gave to the sector.

Individuals contributed 34% of the total new funds secured while organisations6 contributed 66%.

Mean sources of new funds secured 2019–2020 (n = 87 to 96; % of income)

lite 43% 21% 16% 18%

stablished 25% 8% 49% 10% 8%

Moderate 17% 15% 50% 11% 6%

Developing 9% 4% 37% 12% 32% 6%

merging 9% 25% 31% 20% 12%

Fragile 9% 3% 10% 13% 62%

All 22% 12% 39% 12% 8% 7%

Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies Lottery Other organisations

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

6Organisations include trusts, foundations, companies, lotteries and other organisations.

• 15 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

On average, the largest single new gift/pledge accounted for 29% of average funds secured by institutions.

Three largest gifts/pledges as a percentage of new funds secured 2019–2020 (% of income; chart shows mean figures)

New gift/pledge size: 29% 34% 32% 40% argest 43% 46% Second largest 8% Third largest 9% 9% 6% 6% Other new funds secured 7% 11% 14% 12% 90% 7% 10% 9% 57% 50% 53% 39% 36% 33%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=1 n=7 n=28 n=26 n=22 n=10 n=94 This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies. Note that one institution each from the Fragile and Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

Individuals contributed 24% of the largest gifts/ As noted earlier, gifts given by individuals via other pledges received by all institutions. Just under half vehicles (such as their personal trust/foundation the number of participating institutions (48%) or own company) are recorded as gifts from an secured their largest new gift/pledge from a trust individual. or foundation.

Sources of largest gifts/pledges 2019–2020 (% number of institutions)

lite n=1 50% 50% stablished n=7 29% 57% 14% Moderate n=28 14% 7% 54% 18% 7% Developing n=26 11% 15% 58% 8% 4% 4% merging n=22 18% 41% 32% 9% Fragile n=10 27% 9% 28% 18% 9% 9% All n=94 13% 11% 48% 19% 7%

Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies Lottery Other organisations

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies. Note that one institution each from the Fragile and Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

• 16 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Cash income received from legacies7; it excludes new pledges where payment has not been received. Cash income Cash income received includes all donations reflects the success of the current and past years’ received during the year. This includes new single fundraising activity. cash gifts, cash payments received against pledges The total cash income received by all institutions secured in the current or previous years and cash in 2019–2020 was £1.03 billion8.

Mean cash income received 2019–2020

Cash income received Largest cash gift (n=95) (n=94)

Elite £232,304,488 £5,300,000* Established £36,740,029 £11,118,806 Moderate £8,225,599 £1,677,423 Developing £2,457,348 £500,263 Emerging £560,411 £156,883 Fragile £138,226* £68,086* All £10,839,035 £1,563,177

This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies. *Note that some institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

Individual donors contributed 37% of all mean cash income received.

Sources of cash income received in 2019–2020 (n = 90 to 96; % of mean cash income)

lite 41% 9% 39% 11%

stablished 22% 14% 46% 8% 6%

Moderate 23% 13% 46% 12% 5%

Developing 15% 12% 35% 8% 14% 17%

merging 10% 14% 32% 25% 4% 15%

Fragile 13% 4% 28% 38% 17%

All 25% 12% 43% 11% 5%

Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies Lottery Other organisations

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

7Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate. 8See the table on page 12 for more information on key indicators.

• 17 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Total number of institutions that received cash income at different income levels 2019–2020 (n=95; number of institutions)

19 15 12 9 9 5

ess than £100,000 to £500,000 to £1m to £5m to £10m to £20m and over £100,000 £499,999 £999,999 £4,999,999 £9,999,999 £19,999,999 Note that one institution from the Fragile cluster, did not provide data for this question.

On average, an institution’s largest cash gift accounted for 19% of the average cash income received by the institution.

Three largest gifts as a percentage of mean cash income 2019–2020 (% of income; chart shows mean figures)

20% 20% 19% Cash gift size: 30% 28% argest 7% 10% 10% 49% 5% Second largest 8% 6% 7% 14% Third largest 6% ther cash income received 8% 93% 17% 69% 64% 63% 6% 56% 50%

28%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=1 n=7 n=28 n=26 n=22 n=10 n=94

Note that some institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

• 18 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Individuals contributed 31% of the largest cash gifts received by all institutions.

Sources of largest cash gifts 2019-2020 (% number of institutions)

lite n=1 50% 50% stablished n=7 29% 14% 43% 14% Moderate 21% 11% 47% 14% 7% n=28 Developing 11% 15% 54% 8% 8% 4% n=26 merging 4% 23% 32% 32% 9% n=22

Fragile 36% 37% 18% 9% n=10 All 18% 13% 43% 17% 7% n=94 Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies Lottery Other organisations

Mean cash income received from legacies was gifts (and provided the number of legacy gifts). On £1.3m across 64 institutions that received legacy average, the value of a legacy gift received was £76k.

Mean cash income received from legacies 2019–2020

Cash income from legacies Cash income per legacy* (n=64) (n=63)

Elite £20,456,640 £78,908 Established £1,996,626 £115,202 Moderate £911,213 £88,125 Developing £348,044 £64,303 Emerging £62,694 £47,717 Fragile £10,000 £10,000 All £1,335,671 £76,527

This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions. *Note that some institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

• 19 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Overall, 9% of cash income received came from legacies.

Cash from legacies as a percentage of total cash income 2019–2020 (n=64; % of income)

ther cash income received Cash income rom legacies

86% 91% 89% 88% 91% 95% 97%

11% 12% 14% 9% 5% 9% lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions. Only institutions that provided figures for cash income from legacies have been included.

Sixty eight percent of cash income from individuals was received as a result of face-to-face meetings or tailored proposals.

Cash income received from individuals by communication trigger 2019–2020 (% of income)

lite 9% 61% 19% 4% 8% n=1 stablished 3% 82% 11% 3% n=7 Moderate 11% 59% 25% n=27 Developing 12% 48% 27% 4% 8% n=25 merging 15% 63% 14% 6% n=21 Fragile 17% 69% 3% 6% 5% n=8 All 8% 68% 18% 5% n=89

Mass solicitation Face-to-ace or tailored proposal egac Unsolicited ther*

*Other includes Unknown and Other types of communication triggers. Note that some institutions, including a member of the Elite cluster, did not provide data for this question.

• 20 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Telethon campaigns accounted for 42% of all mass solicitations, followed by direct mail which total cash income secured from individuals via accounted for 24%.

Cash income received from individuals by mass solicitation 2019–2020 (% of income)

stablished n=6 34% 38% 13% 8% 7% Moderate n=24 43% 21% 24% 10% Developing n=21 54% 14% 25% 6% merging n=16 40% 5% 52% 3% Fragile n=4 38% 39% 10% 14% All n=71 42% 24% 22% 8% 3%

Telethon Direct mail mail Pigg ac ther*

*Other includes Text and Other types of mass solicitation. Note that some institutions did not provide data for this question including both members of the Elite cluster.

• 21 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Alumni and donors in the world and who have not opted out of communications. Contactable alumni refer to addressable alumni The average number of donors across all (former students of the institution) – those who participating institutions (that provided both total have reliable postal or email addresses anywhere donor and alumni donor figures) was 2,213.

Mean number of alumni and donors 2019–2020

No. of Contactable Total Alumni Number alumni alumni donors donors of legacies (n=94)* (n=94)* (n=90)† (n=90)† (n=63) Elite 325,952 282,324 44,175 34,434 246 Established 286,521 220,864 4,523 3,746 22 Moderate 193,247 143,389 3,098 2,518 18 Developing 119,232 84,607 1,054 657 6 Emerging 141,625 98,462 420 200 1 Fragile 88,617 54,571 78 50 1 All 159,006 115,573 2,213 1,664 16 This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies. *This includes institutions that provided both alumni figures and contactable alumni figures †This includes institutions that provided both total donor figures and alumni donor figures.

Number of alumni donors making cash contributions by gift range 2019–2020 (n=78)

17 Gift range: 169 £1,000,000 £100,000–£999,999 716 £10,000–£99,999 £1,000–£9,999 3,309 £1–£999

103,278

Number of legacies received by gift range 2019–2020 (n=58)

205 207 Gift range: 195 £1,000,000 £100,000–£999,999 £10,000–£99,999 77 £1,000–£9,999 £1–£999 5

• 22 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Individuals accounted for 97% of total donors.

Composition of donor population 2019–2020 (n=68 to 96; % number of donors)

lite 77% 22%

stablished 82% 14%

Moderate 70% 27%

Developing 66% 29%

merging 46% 50%

Fragile 58% 34% 4%

All 72% 25%

Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies Other organisations*

*Other organisations include Lottery and Other types of organisations. This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

Institutions reported that they could contact 73% of their alumni via at least one of two contact mediums – email or post.

Percentage of contactable alumni 2019–2020 (contactable alumni as a percentage of total alumni)

Total alumni Contactable alumni

87% 77% 74% 71% 70% 73% 62%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=2 n=7 n=27 n=25 n=22 n=11 n=94

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions.

• 23 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

On average, across all participating institutions, 1% of contactable alumni made a gift.

Percentage of alumni donating 2019–2020 (alumni donors as a percentage of the contactable alumni)

53%

13% 13% 1% 06% 01% 005% lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=1 n=7 n=27 n=25 n=21 n=9 n=90

Only institutions that provided both alumni donor and contactable alumni figures are included.

• 24 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Fundraising and alumni based on total advancement costs and total funds relations investments secured. Numerous factors, however, influence charitable giving decisions and impact an institu- Fundraising costs are costs associated with the tion's ability to secure philanthropic support. For efforts to gather and process new funds secured and example, the value of institutional leadership and cash income received. It includes the cost of the other academic time invested in fundraising can staff undertaking fundraising activity and advance- be substantial and the cost of this time is outside ment services (staff expenditure) and the other the scope of this report. Similarly, advancement costs of running and maintaining the fundraising activities benefit institutions in multiple ways and operations (non-staff expenditure). When the cost advancement activities yield returns in the form of of both staff expenditure and non-staff expendi- alumni engagement, annual and major giving and ture is combined this equals the total fundraising legacies over the course of years or decades. expenditure. Overall, £154m was invested in fundraising Alumni relations costs are costs associated with and alumni relations in total across all institutions. engagement activity with an institution’s alumni 70% of the total investment was for fundraising and community, including staff and non-staff and 30% was for alumni relations. Institutions expenditure. spent about £4.2m on alumni magazines annually. The return on investment in fundraising and alumni relations could, in theory, be calculated

Mean fundraising and alumni relations investments 2019–2020

Alumni Fundraising and Alumni Fundraising relations alumni relations magazine Institutional investments investments investments investments expenditure (n=91) (n=92) (n=95) (n=52) (n=94) Elite £18,951,357 £6,434,404 £25,385,761 £572,698* £1,903,384,500 Established £2,752,340 £1,185,276 £3,937,616 £207,614* £855,926,418 Moderate £1,204,674* £510,520* £1,653,937 £104,061* £348,025,832* Developing £460,135 £240,101* £681,767 £40,428* £178,844,743 Emerging £260,673* £220,300* £459,111* £27,106* £296,765,709 Fragile £50,474* £71,176 £107,884 £8,019* £124,709,773* All £1,181,722 £501,320 £1,600,606 £81,375* £336,392,107

• 25 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Mean fundraising and alumni relations investments by cluster 2019–2020 (% of fundraising and alumni relations investments)

25% Investments: 30% 30% 30% 34% Alumni relations 46% Fundraising 59%

75% 70% 70% 66% 70% 54% 41%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=2 n=7 n=28 n=26 n=21 n=11 n=95

Total number of institutions that made fundraising and alumni relations investments at different levels 2019–2020 (n=95; number of institutions)

24 23

9 2 2 0 ess than £100,000 to £500,000 to £1m to £5m to £10m to £20m and over £100,000 £499,999 £999,999 £4,999,999 £9,999,999 £19,999,999

This includes investments on fundraising, alumni relations and alumni magazines.

• 26 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

On average, staff costs accounted for 79% of total fundraising expenditures.

Mean staff and non-staff fundraising investments 2019–2020 (% of fundraising investments)

16% 19% 19% 21% 23% 23% 27% Investments Fundraising non-staﬀ Fundraising staﬀ

84% 81% 81% 79% 77% 77% 73%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=2 n=7 n=27 n=26 n=21 n=8 n=91

Of the average alumni relations costs, 27% was spent on non-staff costs and 73% on staff costs.

Mean staff and non-staff alumni relations investments 2019–2020 (% of alumni relations investments)

22% Investments: 27% 24% 23% 23% 27% 33% Alumni relations non-staﬀ Alumni relations staﬀ

78% 73% 76% 77% 77% 73% 67%

lite stablished Moderate Developing merging Fragile All n=2 n=7 n=27 n=24 n=21 n=11 n=92

• 27 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Fundraising and alumni 48% of these staff members were employed in relations staff Elite and Established institutions. The ratio of average FTE fundraising staff to A total of 2,256 staff (full-time equivalent or FTE) average FTE alumni relations staff was 2:1 across all were employed in fundraising and alumni relations participating institutions. This figure was highest for roles across the sector9. Elite institutions where the average ratio was 2.4:1.

Mean fundraising and alumni relations staff 2019–2020

Fundraising staff Alumni relations staff FR/AR staff ratio* (n=91) (n=94) (n=89) Elite 252.4 104.4 2.4 Established 34.5 17.4 2.0 Moderate 16.8 8.5 2.5 Developing 7.4 4.1 2.4 Emerging 4.1 3.6 1.5 Fragile 1.0 1.4 0.8 All 16.5 8.1 2.1

This table has been compiled using responses to multiple questions. *Only institutions that provided both fundraising and alumni relations staff figures were included.

9See the table on page 12 for more information on key indicators.

• 28 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

TRENDS IN KEY INDICATORS Trends are calculated using data from a base of 81 consistent year-over-year samples. Since institutions institutions that provided information for a key set did not provide data for all key indicators for all of variables for all four years – 2016–17, 2017–18, three years, samples sizes vary. 2018–19 and 2019–2020. Trends are based on

Philanthropic income • Mean cash income received decreased by 0.1% since 2018–19. • Mean new funds secured decreased by 17% since • Mean cash income from legacies decreased for the 2018–19. second year, by 3% since 2018–19. • In the case of the largest new gift/pledge received, • In the case of the largest cash gift received, the the mean percentage decrease was 24% since mean percentage decrease was 4% since 2018–19. 2018–19.

Mean percentage change in philanthropic income 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

% change 2016–17 to 2017–18 % change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020

43%

30%

21% 22% 18% 13% 12% 5% 7%

-01% -3% -4%

-17% -18% -24%

New unds argest new Cash income Cash income argest cash secured gift/pledge received received rom gift n=81 n=80 n=81 legacies n=79 n=42

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

• 29 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Alumni and donors continued growing by 3% and donors by 3.6% since 2018–19. • The mean alumni and mean donors both increased • Mean number of alumni donors increased for again for the third year; contactable alumni the second year, by 5% since 2018–19.

Mean percentage change in alumni and donors 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

% change 2016–17 to 2017–18 % change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020

5% 44% 36% 3% 3% 2% 14% 10%

-4%

Contactable alumni Total donors Alumni donors n=79 n=79 n=77

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

• 30 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Fundraising and alumni • Mean alumni relations staff and mean alumni relations investments relations non-staff investments decreased by 8% and 33% respectively since 2018–19. • The mean fundraising and alumni relations invest- • Mean alumni magazine investment decreased for ments have decreased since 2018–19, by 9% and the third time, by 10% since 2018–19. 16% respectively. • Mean fundraising staff and mean fundraising non-staff investments decreased by 0.5% and 31% respectively since 2018–19.

Mean percentage change in fundraising and alumni relations investments 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

% change 2016–17 to 2017–18 % change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020

15% 11% 8% 63% 64% 7% 4% 5% 53% 1% -05% -05% -3% -4% -6% -8% -9% -10% -16%

-31% -33%

Total Fundraising Fundraising Total Alumni Alumni Alumni undraising staff non-staff alumni relations relations magazine n=75 investment investment relations staff non-staff investment n=72 n=73 investment investment investment n=34 n=75 n=74 n=74

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

• 31 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Fundraising and alumni • The mean number of alumni relations staff relations staff decreased by 4% since 2018–19. • The mean number of fundraising staff increased by 0.1% since 2018–19.

Mean percentage change in fundraising and alumni relations staff 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

% change 2016–17 to 2017–18 % change 2017–18 to 2018–19 % change 2018–19 to 2019–2020

5% 39% 36%

01%

-1%

-4%

Fundraising staﬀ Alumni relations staﬀ n=81 n=80

This chart has been compiled using responses to multiple questions and hence the sample size varies.

• 32 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Trends by cluster tution identified as moderate in 2019–2020 would be included in the moderate cluster for the three The composition of clusters, as determined by the years prior even if they were identified as “develop- cluster analysis described on page 10, varies from ing” in prior-year cluster analyses. Since institu- year to year. To provide accurate year-over-year tions did not provide data for all key indicators for comparisons, the following trends have, however, all three years, samples sizes vary. been calculated using clusters consisting of the same 81 institutions for each year. For example, an insti-

Mean percentage change in philanthropic income by cluster for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

Variable Year Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile 2016-17 to 2017-18 25% 9% 6% 8% -10% 70% New funds 2017–18 to secured 2018-19 30% 2% 26% -7% 87% -44% (n=81) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 -35% 19% -15% 63% -58% -56%

2016–17 to 2017-18 3% 10% 3% 12% -26% 20% Cash income 2017–18 to received 2018-19 14% 8% 15% -3% 26% 29% (n=81) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 -5% 7% -2% 24% -4% -38%

Mean percentage change in donor numbers by cluster for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

Variable Year Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile 2016-17 to 2017-18 10% 6% -4% 2% -27% -26% Total 2017–18 to donors 2018-19 -2% -10% -1% -1% -18% 16% (n=79) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 2% 11% 1% 1% 22% -14%

2016–17 to 2017-18 0% -9% -5% 5% -17% -32% Alumni 2017–18 to donors 2018-19 -8% -16% 14% 18% 41% 23% (n=77) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 8% 15% 6% -16% -20% -8%

• 33 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Mean percentage change in fundraising and alumni relations costs by cluster for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

Variable Year Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile 2016-17 to 2017-18 1% -5% 4% 0% -14% 15% Fundraising 2017–18 to costs 2018-19 4% 12% 8% -2% 6% -3% (n=75) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 -3% -24% -7% -4% 6% 1%

2016–17 to 2017-18 2% 24% 14% 7% 11% 26% Alumni 2017–18 to relations costs 2018-19 22% 2% -2% 6% -2% -15% (n=75) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 -18% -25% -13% -14% 9% -10%

Mean percentage change in fundraising and alumni relations staff by cluster for 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020

Variable Year Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile 2016-17 to 2017-18 4% -1% 4% 10% -6% 3% Fundraising 2017–18 to staff 2018-19 2% -6% 3% 3% 6% -35% (n=81) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 8% -12% -5% -3% -5% 17%

2016–17 to 2017-18 1% 1% 6% 24% -4% 8% Alumni 2017–18 to relations staff 2018-19 9% 2% -1% 2% 15% 4% (n=80) 2018–19 to 2019-2020 7% -8% -6% -9% -10% -11%

• 34 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

FINDINGS BY MISSION GROUPS

The Russell Group is an Association of 24 research- professional training, research and development, intensive institutions in the UK. enterprise and innovation. The University Alliance represents institutions The MillionPlus is the Association for Modern in the UK that are leaders in technical education, Universities in the UK and the voice of 21st century higher education.

Key indicators for Mission Groups 2019–2020 (mean figures) Russell Russell Group University Group excluding Oxbridge Alliance MillionPlus (n=23) (n=21) (n=3) (n=11) Philanthropic income New funds secured £38,786,586 £20,917,782 £362,356 £318,075 New funds secured from individuals £10,781,856* £6,572,499 £159,181 £160,863# New funds secured from organisations £16,278,748* £14,345,282 £193,842 £171,836 Largest new gift/pledge £6,957,535* £7,003,132 £51,833 £192,145 Cash income received £35,881,554 £17,174,608 £514,806 £329,169 Cash income received from individuals £10,797,790* £6,425,049 £167,370 £103,153 Cash income received from organisations £14,923,782* £10,749,558 £347,436 £223,581 Cash income received from legacies £2,995,169 £1,332,171 £8,641‡ £118,398# Largest cash gift £4,694,012* £4,665,156 £88,750 £116,006 Number of legacy gifts 25* 15 1‡ 1# Alumni Total alumni 269,813 264,466 232,405 96,800 Contactable alumni 206,806 199,613 128,584 67,780 Donors Total donors 5,595* 3,723 1,079 133# Individual donors 5,452* 3,608 1,055 118# Alumni donors 4,295* 2,860 734 64# Organisation donors 148* 119 24 14# Costs Fundraising costs £3,223,485 £1,725,592 £348,240 £126,252 Alumni relations costs £1,298,290 £809,137 £207,566 £93,915 Non-staff production and distribution costs of alumni magazine £181,862* £155,806† £39,948‡ £23,181# Staff Fundraising staff 44 24 6 2# Alumni relations staff 21 13 4 1 *n<23, †n<21, ‡n<3, #n<11

• 35 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

FINDINGS BY OTHER GROUPS

GuildHE is an officially recognised representative subject areas including art, design and media, music body for UK Higher Education. Member institu- and the performing arts, agriculture and food, tions include some major providers in professional education, maritime, health and sports.

Key indicators for other groups 2019–2020 (mean figures) Arts Medical Specialist†† GuildHE (n=7) (n=6) (n=17) (n=7) Philanthropic income New funds secured £4,185,044 £5,630,858 £7,052,463 £136,142 New funds secured from individuals £1,785,080 £1,202,502 £3,162,989 £18,559 New funds secured from organisations £2,702,889* £5,314,027† £4,369,238‡ £117,583 Largest new gift/pledge £1,939,403 £2,133,753 £3,490,741 £45,190 Cash income received £4,588,319 £3,598,717 £8,137,813 £315,277 Cash income received from individuals £1,451,974 £1,331,789 £2,292,937 £72,445 Cash income received from organisations £3,053,042 £2,720,313† £6,173,736‡ £242,464 Cash income received from legacies £466,607 £1,032,407† £652,703‡ £172,879# Largest cash gift £1,448,055 £757,837 £3,784,436 £107,502 Number of legacy gifts 7 64† 24‡ 2# Alumni Total alumni 49,534 17,000† 46,182‡ 45,374 Contactable alumni 29,406 14,154† 31,495‡ 36,221 Donors Total donors 819 2,790 1,507 120# Individual donors 765 2,756 1,463 110# Alumni donors 115 290† 337‡ 66# Organisation donors 52 61† 52‡ 9# Costs Fundraising costs £707,998 £761,846 £819,498 £98,846 Alumni relations costs £98,290 £158,058 £230,802 £53,607 Non-staff production and distribution costs of alumni magazine £10,369* £38,194† £23,981‡ £16,616# Staff Fundraising staff 9 7 9 1 Alumni relations staff 2 2† 3‡ 1 *n<7, †n<6, ‡n<17, #n<7 ††Includes institutions grouped under the categories of arts and medical.

• 36 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

FINDINGS BY PEARCE REVIEW GROUPS

The 2012 HEFCE Pearce Review of Philanthropy sector responded to the Thomas Report on in UK higher education looked at how fundraising Voluntary Giving to UK Universities 2004. changed over the previous 10 years and how the

Key indicators for Pearce Review groups†† 2019–2020 (mean figures) Pre-1960s 1960s 1990s 2000s (n=29) (n=20) (n=17) (n=7) Philanthropic income New funds secured £16,358,332 £3,941,609 £507,800 £199,968 New funds secured from individuals £5,365,346 £819,946 £235,242 £10,676# New funds secured from organisations £11,364,786* £3,211,497† £270,911 £189,532 Largest new gift/pledge £5,448,228 £1,252,790 £202,159 £115,749 Cash income received £13,828,680 £3,992,133 £496,713 £309,398 Cash income received from individuals £5,513,447 £877,468 £170,667 £10,580 Cash income received from organisations £8,295,140 £3,128,177 £324,470 £298,450 Cash income received from legacies £1,264,942* £283,067† £33,118‡ £3,000# Largest cash gift £3,620,859* £634,625† £132,872‡ £141,810# Number of legacy gifts 14 5 1 1 Alumni Total alumni 218,928 178,510 180,857 54,800 Contactable alumni 160,653 134,884 120,126 41,854 Donors Total donors 2,992 2,462 548 78 Individual donors 2,894 2,395 529 71 Alumni donors 2,384 1,880 281‡ 53 Organisation donors 100 67 19 6 Costs Fundraising costs £1,409,456 £657,737 £275,119 £49,650 Alumni relations costs £715,243 £318,983 £209,457 £58,984 Non-staff production and distribution costs of alumni magazine £121,203* £70,018† £27,824‡ £5,687# Staff Fundraising staff 20 11† 4‡ 1# Alumni relations staff 11 5 4 1 *n<29, †n<20, ‡n<17, #n<7 ††Review of Philanthropy in UK Higher Education, 2012.

• 37 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

APPENDIX Response rate

Response rates for UK higher education institutions 2013 to 2020*

2013– 2014– 2015– 2016– 2017– 2018– 2019– 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

English higher education institutions Invited to participate 131 128 144 133 133 133 133 Number participating 101 91 90 87 80 77 76 Response rate 77% 71% 63% 65% 60% 58% 57% Welsh higher education institutions Invited to participate 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 Number participating 5 6 6 4 3 4 3 Response rate 63% 67% 67% 44% 33% 44% 33% Scottish and Northern Irish higher education institutions Invited to participate 21 18 19 22 19 19 19 Number participating 18 16 14 14 14 16 14 Response rate 86% 89% 74% 64% 74% 84% 74% UK higher education institutions Invited to participate 160 155 172 164 161 161 161 Number participating 124 113 110 105 97 97 93 Response rate 78% 73% 64% 64% 60% 60% 58%

*Two higher education institutions from Ireland and the Institute of Cancer Research in the UK also participated in the survey.

10The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reports that there were 169 higher education providers in the UK during 2018–19 which reported student data to HESA (2020).

• 38 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

Participating institutions 51. The Royal Veterinary College 52. The University of Edinburgh 1. Abertay University 53. The University of Manchester 2. Aberystwyth University 54. The University of Nottingham 3. Aston University 55. The University of Sheffield 4. Bath Spa University 56. The University of Warwick 5. Bournemouth University 57. The University of West London 6. Brunel University London 58. Trinity College Dublin 7. Cardiff University 59. Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance 8. City, University of London 60. University College London 9. Cranfield University 61. University of Bath 10. Edinburgh Napier University 62. University of Bedfordshire 11. Glasgow Caledonian University 63. University of Birmingham 12. Goldsmiths, University of London 64. University of Bradford 13. Guildhall School of Music & Drama 65. University of Brighton 14. Heriot-Watt University 66. University of Bristol 15. Imperial College London 67. University of Cambridge 16. Keele University 68. University of Cumbria 17. King's College London and King's Health Partners 69. University of Dundee 18. Kingston University 70. University of East Anglia 19. Lancaster University 71. University of Exeter 20. Liverpool Hope University 72. University of Glasgow 21. Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine 73. University of Huddersfield 22. London Business School 74. University of Hull 23. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine 75. University of Kent 24. Loughborough University 76. University of Leeds 25. Manchester Metropolitan University 77. University of Lincoln 26. New Model Institute for Technology & Engineering 78. University of Liverpool 27. Newcastle University 79. University of Oxford 28. Northumbria University 80. University of Reading 29. Nottingham Trent University 81. University of Roehampton 30. Plymouth University 82. University of Salford 31. Queen Margaret University 83. University of Southampton 32. Queen Mary University of London 84. University of St Andrews 33. Queen's University Belfast 85. University of Stirling 34. Royal Academy of Music 86. University of Strathclyde 35. Royal Agricultural University 87. University of Suffolk 36. Royal College of Art 88. University of Surrey 37. Royal College of Music 89. University of Sussex 38. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland 90. University of the Arts London 39. Royal Holloway, University of London 91. University of the West of England 40. Royal Northern College of Music 92. University of the West of Scotland 41. Sheffield Hallam University 93. University of Westminster 42. SOAS University of London 94. University of Wolverhampton 43. Solent University 95. University of York 44. SRUC 96. York St John University 45. St. George's, University of London 46. St. Mary's University, Twickenham 47. Swansea University 48. The Institute of Cancer Research 49. The London School of Economics and Political Science 50. The Open University

• 39 • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

For further information about this report contact [email protected].

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) is the professional organization for advancement professionals at all levels who work in alumni relations, communications, and marketing, development, and advancement services. CASE’s membership includes nearly 3,600 colleges, universities, and independent elementary and secondary schools in more than 82 countries. This makes CASE one of the largest nonprofit education associations in the world in terms of institutional membership. CASE serves more than 90,000 advancement professionals on the staffs of member institutions. CASE has offices in Washington, D.C., London, Singapore, and Mexico City. The association produces high-quality and timely content, publications, conferences, institutes, and workshops that assist advancement professionals in performing more effectively and serving their institutions.

AMAtlassm is a global resource for educational advancement-related metrics, benchmarks, and analytics, providing a data-rich resource for schools, universities, and colleges.

case.org/amAtlas