CASE-Ross_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
dkrishnaswamy@case.org or europe@case.org
+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 insti-
tutional 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 demon-
strates 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 estab-
lished regional fundraising surveys with the new Standards and define a set of core metrics, across advance-
ment 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’s AMAtlas 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•
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•
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 universi-
ties 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•
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•
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.
All average trend figures are for institutions that participated in the survey for all four years 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–2020.
1
Not all participating institutions provided a break down of total donors into sub-categories.
2
•8•
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•
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 partici-
pating institutions at the time of report release. 2. Emerging (22 institutions)
• 10 •
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 •
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 •
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)
13% 9%
14% 14% Programme Founded:
23%
1989 or earlier
1990 to 1999
23%
36% 45% 2000 to 2004
19%
2005 to 2009
2010 or later
100% 72% 32%
27%
32%
46%
27% 32%
14%
14%
4% 4%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile
Mission groups3 by cluster 2019–2020

(n=96; % number of institutions)
5% 9%
11%
Mission Group:
4%
4% Russell Group
27%
43% University Alliance
36%
MillionPlus
Not in a Mission Group
86%
100%
81%
68%
57% 55%
14%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile
This includes the Russell Group, University Alliance and MillionPlus.

3
• 13 •
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)
25
17
14
10 11 10
8
Less 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.
Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate.

4
See the table on page 12 for more information on key indicators.

5
• 14 •
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)
Elite 43% 21% 16% 18%
Established 25% 8% 49% 10% 8%
Moderate 17% 15% 50% 11% 6%
Developing 9% 4% 37% 12% 32% 6%
Emerging 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.
Organisations include trusts, foundations, companies, lotteries and other organisations.

6
• 15 •
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)
4%
New gift/pledge size:
32% 29%
34% Largest
43% 40%
46%
Second largest
8% Third largest
9% 9%
6% Other new funds secured
6%
7% 11% 14%
12%
90%
7% 10%
9%
53% 57%
50%
39% 36% 33%
Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All

(n=1) (n=7) (n=28) (n=26) (n=22) (n=10) (n=94)
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)
Elite
(n=1) 50% 50%
Established
(n=7) 29% 57% 14%
Moderate
(n=28) 14% 7% 54% 18% 7%
Developing
(n=26) 11% 15% 58% 8% 4% 4%
Emerging
(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
• 16 •
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
*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)
Elite 41% 9% 39% 11%
Established 22% 14% 46% 8% 6%
Moderate 23% 13% 46% 12% 5%
Developing 15% 12% 35% 8% 14% 17%
Emerging 10% 14% 32% 25% 4% 15%
Fragile 13% 4% 28% 38% 17%
All 25% 12% 43% 11% 5%

Companies Lottery Other organisations
Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate.

7

8
• 17 •
Total number of institutions that received cash income at different income levels 2019–2020
26
19
15
12
9 9
5
£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%
Largest
49% 7%
10% 10% Second largest
5%
8% 6% 7% 14% Third largest
6% Other cash income received
8%
93%
17%
69%
64% 63% 6%
56%
50%
28%

(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 •
Individuals contributed 31% of the largest cash

gifts received by all institutions.
Sources of largest cash gifts 2019-2020

(% number of institutions)
Elite
(n=1) 50% 50%
Established
(n=7) 29% 14% 43% 14%
Moderate
21% 11% 47% 14% 7%
(n=28)
Developing
11% 15% 54% 8% 8% 4%
(n=26)
Emerging
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.
• 19 •
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)
Other cash income

received
Cash income
from legacies
89% 88% 86%

91% 95% 91%
97%
11% 12% 14%

9% 5% 9%
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)
Elite
9% 61% 19% 4% 8%
(n=1)
Established
3% 82% 11% 3%
(n=7)
Moderate
11% 59% 25%
(n=27)
Developing
12% 48% 27% 4% 8%
(n=25)
Emerging
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-face or tailored proposal Legacy Unsolicited Other*

*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 •
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)
Established
(n=6) 34% 38% 13% 8% 7%
Moderate
(n=24) 43% 21% 24% 10%
Developing
(n=21) 54% 14% 25% 6%
Emerging
(n=16) 40% 5% 52% 3%
Fragile
(n=4) 38% 39% 10% 14%
All
(n=71) 42% 24% 22% 8% 3%
Telethon Direct mail Email Piggy Back Other*
*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 •
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 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 •
Individuals accounted for 97% of total donors.
Composition of donor population 2019–2020

(n=68 to 96; % number of donors)
Elite 77% 22%
Established 82% 14%
Moderate 70% 27%
Developing 66% 29%
Emerging 46% 50%
Fragile 58% 34% 4%
All 72% 25%

Companies Other organisations*
*Other organisations include Lottery and Other types of organisations.

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% 73%
71% 70%
62%

(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 •
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)
5.3%
1.3% 1.3%
1%
0.6%
0.1% 0.05%
(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 •
Fundraising and alumni based on total advancement costs and total funds
secured. Numerous factors, however, influence
relations investments 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 •
Mean fundraising and alumni relations investments by cluster 2019–2020

(% of fundraising and alumni relations investments)
25% 30% 30% Investments:

30% 34% Alumni relations
46%
Fundraising
59%
75% 70% 70%

70% 66%
54%
41%

(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
36
24 23
9
2 2
0
£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 •
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%

23% 23% 21% Investments:
27%
Fundraising non-staff
Fundraising staff
84% 81% 81%

77% 77% 79%
73%

(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% 24% 23% 23% Investments:

27% 27%
33% Alumni relations non-staff
Alumni relations staff
78% 76% 77% 77% 73%

73%
67%

(n=2) (n=7) (n=27) (n=24) (n=21) (n=11) (n=92)
• 27 •
Fundraising and alumni 48% of these staff members were employed in

Elite and Established institutions.
relations staff 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.

9
• 28 •
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%
-0.1%
-3% -4%
-17% -18%
-24%
New funds Largest new Cash income Cash income Largest cash
secured gift/pledge received received from gift
(n=81) (n=80) (n=81) legacies (n=79)
(n=42)
• 29 •
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
5%
4.4%
3.6%
3%
3%
2%
1.4%
1.0%
-4%
Contactable alumni Total donors Alumni donors

(n=79) (n=79) (n=77)
• 30 •
Fundraising and alumni • Mean alumni relations staff and mean alumni
relations non-staff investments decreased by 8%
relations investments 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
15%
11%
8% 7%
6.3% 6.4% 5% 5.3%
4%
1%
-0.5% -0.5%
-3% -4% -6%
-9% -8%
-10%
-16%
-31%
-33%
Total Fundraising Fundraising Total Alumni Alumni Alumni

fundraising 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)
• 31 •
Fundraising and alumni • The mean number of alumni relations staff

decreased by 4% since 2018–19.
relations staff
• 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
5%
3.9%
3.6%
0.1%
-1%
-4%
Fundraising staff Alumni relations staff

(n=81) (n=80)
• 32 •
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

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

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

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 •
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
from organisations £14,923,782* £10,749,558 £347,436 £223,581
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 •
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)
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
from individuals £1,451,974 £1,331,789 £2,292,937 £72,445
from organisations £3,053,042 £2,720,313† £6,173,736‡ £242,464
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
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 •
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)
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
from individuals £5,513,447 £877,468 £170,667 £10,580
from organisations £8,295,140 £3,128,177 £324,470 £298,450
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
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 •
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
Response rate 63% 67% 67% 44% 33% 44% 33%
Scottish and Northern Irish higher
education institutions
Response rate 86% 89% 74% 64% 74% 84% 74%
UK higher education institutions
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.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reports that there were 169 higher education providers in the UK during 2018–19
10
which reported student data to HESA (2020).
• 38 •
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 •
For further information about this report contact europe@case.org.
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

CASE-Ross_2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE-Ross_2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE-Ross Support of Education:

United Kingdom and Ireland 2021

CASE-ROSS EDITORIAL BOARD

COVER ART CREDIT

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT

With much gratitude,

AVERAGE INVESTMENTS IN FUNDRAISING

INTRODUCTION Cluster Analysis

Key indicators 2019–2020

n Total Mean Median

Age of development and alumni relations programme by cluster 2019–2020

Mission groups3 by cluster 2019–2020

Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile

This includes the Russell Group, University Alliance and MillionPlus.

New funds secured secured reflect the success of current fundraising

Mean new funds secured 2019–2020

New funds secured* Largest pledge†

Elite £226,409,024 £6,000,000

Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate.

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

Individuals contributed 34% of the total new funds

Mean sources of new funds secured 2019–2020

Elite 43% 21% 16% 18%

Established 25% 8% 49% 10% 8%

Moderate 17% 15% 50% 11% 6%

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

Emerging 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

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

On average, the largest single new gift/pledge

Three largest gifts/pledges as a percentage of new funds secured 2019–2020

Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All

Alumni Non-alumni individuals Trusts and foundations Companies

Cash income received from legacies7; it excludes new pledges where

Mean cash income received 2019–2020

Cash income received Largest cash gift

Elite £232,304,488 £5,300,000*

Individual donors contributed 37% of all mean cash

Sources of cash income received in 2019–2020

Elite 41% 9% 39% 11%

Established 22% 14% 46% 8% 6%

Moderate 23% 13% 46% 12% 5%

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

Emerging 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

Legacies are donations received from a donor's estate.

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

On average, an institution’s largest cash gift

Three largest gifts as a percentage of mean cash income 2019–2020

20% 20% 19% Cash gift size:

Elite Established Moderate Developing Emerging Fragile All

Individuals contributed 31% of the largest cash

Sources of largest cash gifts 2019-2020

Mean cash income received from legacies 2019–2020

Cash income from legacies Cash income per legacy*

Elite £20,456,640 £78,908

Overall, 9% of cash income received came from

Cash from legacies as a percentage of total cash income 2019–2020

Other cash income