 |
 |
|
Table of Contents
Summary of Findings 26
Survey Participants 36
Dimensions of the Sample 37
Chapter One: Promotional Vehicles 39
Chapter Two: Cost of Raising Funds 51
Chapter Three: Personnel Issues 65
Chapter Four: Best Fundraising Vehicles 69
Chapter Five: Booster clubs 82
Chapter Six: The Annual Fund 87
Chapter Seven: Gifts of Non-Monetary Assets 95
Chapter Eight: Campaign Consultants 98
Chapter Nine: Fundraising Feasibility Studies 105
Chapter Ten: Office Funding and Structure 107
Chapter Eleven: Auctions 115
Chapter Twelve: Growth Rate of Various Kinds of Fundraising 121
Chapter Thirteen: Rewarding Donors 129
Chapter Fourteen: Raising Money from Faculty and Staff 132
Chapter Fifteen: Fundraising Software 135
Other Reports of Interest from Primary Research Group 138
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Total Quantity of Pieces Mailed in the Past Year to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors 39
Table 1.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Total Quantity of Pieces Mailed in the Past Year to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors, Broken Out by Type of College 39
Table 1.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Total Quantity of Pieces Mailed in the Past Year to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 39
Table 1.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Total Quantity of Pieces Mailed in the Past Year to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 39
Table 1.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Total Quantity of Pieces Mailed in the Past Year to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 40
Table 1.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Mail Pieces to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors per Student 40
Table 1.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Mail Pieces to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors per Student, Broken Out by Type of College 40
Table 1.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Mail Pieces to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors per Student, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 40
Table 1.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Mail Pieces to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors per Student, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 41
Table 1.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Mail Pieces to Raise Funds from All Potential Donors per Student, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 41
Table 1.11: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Advertise through Google, Yahoo!, or Other Search Engines 41
Table 1.12: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Advertise through Google, Yahoo!, or Other Search Engines, Broken Out by Type of College 41
Table 1.13: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Advertise through Google, Yahoo!, or Other Search Engines, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 41
Table 1.14: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Advertise through Google, Yahoo!, or Other Search Engines, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 42
Table 1.15: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Advertise through Google, Yahoo!, or Other Search Engines, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 42
Table 1.16: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed Blogs for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 42
Table 1.17: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed Blogs for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 42
Table 1.18: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed Blogs for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 42
Table 1.19: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed Blogs for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 43
Table 1.20: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed Blogs for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 43
Table 1.21: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed E-Newsletters for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 43
Table 1.22: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed E-Newsletters for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 43
Table 1.23: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed E-Newsletters for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 43
Table 1.24: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed E-Newsletters for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 44
Table 1.25: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Developed E-Newsletters for Specific Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 44
Table 1.26: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on Pages of the College Website Devoted to Fundraising for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 44
Table 1.27: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on Pages of the College Website Devoted to Fundraising for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 44
Table 1.28: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on Pages of the College Website Devoted to Fundraising for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 44
Table 1.29: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on Pages of the College Website Devoted to Fundraising for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 45
Table 1.30: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on Pages of the College Website Devoted to Fundraising for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 45
Table 1.31: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on the General College Website for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 45
Table 1.32: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on the General College Website for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 45
Table 1.33: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on the General College Website for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 46
Table 1.34: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on the General College Website for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 46
Table 1.35: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Posted Content on the General College Website for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 46
Table 1.36: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Announcements through Listservs for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 46
Table 1.37: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Announcements through Listservs for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 46
Table 1.38: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Announcements through Listservs for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 47
Table 1.39: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Announcements through Listservs for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 47
Table 1.40: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Announcements through Listservs for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 47
Table 1.41: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Emails to Past Donors for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 47
Table 1.42: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Emails to Past Donors for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 47
Table 1.43: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Emails to Past Donors for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 48
Table 1.44: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Emails to Past Donors for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 48
Table 1.45: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Emails to Past Donors for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 48
Table 1.46: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Banner Ads or Website Sponsorships for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years 48
Table 1.47: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Banner Ads or Website Sponsorship for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 48
Table 1.48: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Banner Ads or Website Sponsorship for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 49
Table 1.49: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Banner Ads or Website Sponsorship for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 49
Table 1.50: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Have Used Banner Ads or Website Sponsorship for Particular Fundraising Campaigns in the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 49
Table 1.51: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent on Telephone Solicitation, Either In-House or Outsourced, Including Spending for Labor, Scripts, Telecom Costs, etc., in the Past Year (in US$) 49
Table 1.52: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent on Telephone Solicitation, Either In-House or Outsourced, Including Spending for Labor, Scripts, Telecom Costs, etc., in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 50
Table 1.53: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent on Telephone Solicitation, Either In-House or Outsourced, Including Spending for Labor, Scripts, Telecom Costs, etc., in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 50
Table 1.54: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent on Telephone Solicitation, Either In-House or Outsourced, Including Spending for Labor, Scripts, Telecom Costs, etc., in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 50
Table 1.55: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent on Telephone Solicitation, Either In-House or Outsourced, Including Spending for Labor, Scripts, Telecom Costs, etc., in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 50
Table 2.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Marginal Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Excluding Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead 51
Table 2.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Marginal Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Excluding Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Type of College 51
Table 2.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Marginal Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Excluding Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 51
Table 2.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Marginal Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Excluding Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 51
Table 2.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Marginal Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Excluding Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 52
Table 2.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Including Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead 52
Table 2.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Including Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Type of College 52
Table 2.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Including Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 52
Table 2.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Including Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 53
Table 2.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Cost of Raising Funds as Expressed as a Percentage of Total Funds Raised, Including Costs of Salaries, Benefits, and Overhead, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 53
Table 2.11: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$) 53
Table 2.12: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 53
Table 2.13: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 54
Table 2.14: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 54
Table 2.15: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 54
Table 2.16: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$) 54
Table 2.17: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 55
Table 2.18: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 55
Table 2.19: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 55
Table 2.20: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget, Excluding Salaries, Benefits, and Office Space, for the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Duties for the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 55
Table 2.21: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$) 56
Table 2.22: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 56
Table 2.23: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 56
Table 2.24: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 56
Table 2.25: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 57
Table 2.26: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$) 57
Table 2.27: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 57
Table 2.28: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 57
Table 2.29: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 58
Table 2.30: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Salaries and Benefits for Employees of the Office of Advancement or Similar Office that Performs the Same Functions in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 58
Table 2.31: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$) 58
Table 2.32: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 58
Table 2.33: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 59
Table 2.34: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 59
Table 2.35: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 59
Table 2.36: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$) 59
Table 2.37: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 60
Table 2.38: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 60
Table 2.39: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 60
Table 2.40: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Cost for Office of Advancement Employee Salaries and Benefits per Student in the 2007-2008 Academic Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 60
Table 2.41: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement for the 2006-2007 Academic Year 61
Table 2.42: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement for the 2006-2007 Academic Year, Broken Out by Type of College 61
Table 2.43: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement for the 2006-2007 Academic Year, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 61
Table 2.44: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement for the 2006-2007 Academic Year, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 61
Table 2.45: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement for the 2006-2007 Academic Year, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 62
Table 2.46: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement in the 2007-2008 Academic Year 62
Table 2.47: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Broken Out by Type of College 62
Table 2.48: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 62
Table 2.49: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 63
Table 2.50: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the Office of Advancement in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 63
Table 2.51: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Square Feet of Office Space is Allocated to the Office of Advancement or Office with Similar Responsibilities 63
Table 2.52: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Square Feet of Office Space is Allocated to the Office of Advancement or Office with Similar Responsibilities, Broken Out by Type of College 63
Table 2.53: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Square Feet of Office Space is Allocated to the Office of Advancement or Office with Similar Responsibilities, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 64
Table 2.54: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Square Feet of Office Space is Allocated to the Office of Advancement or Office with Similar Responsibilities, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 64
Table 2.55: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Square Feet of Office Space is Allocated to the Office of Advancement or Office with Similar Responsibilities, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 64
Table 3.1: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Awarded Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in Any Form, for Employees that are Most Responsible for Fund Raising, in the Past Year 65
Table 3.2: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Awarded Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in Any Form, for Employees that are Most Responsible for Fund Raising, in the Past Year, Broken Out by Type of College 65
Table 3.3: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Awarded Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in Any Form, for Employees that are Most Responsible for Fund Raising, in the Past Year, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 65
Table 3.4: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Awarded Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in Any Form, for Employees that are Most Responsible for Fund Raising, in the Past Year, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 65
Table 3.5: Percentage of College Advancement Offices that Awarded Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in Any Form, for Employees that are Most Responsible for Fund Raising, in the Past Year, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 66
Table 3.6: Level of Merit-Based Pay or Bonus Awarded by College Advancement Offices with Merit-Based Pay Policies 66
Table 3.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Full Time Staff that Qualified for Any Form of Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in the Past Year 66
Table 3.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Full Time Staff that Qualified for Any Form of Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in the Past Year, Broken Out by Type of College 66
Table 3.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Full Time Staff that Qualified for Any Form of Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in the Past Year, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 66
Table 3.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Full Time Staff that Qualified for Any Form of Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in the Past Year, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 67
Table 3.11: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Full Time Staff that Qualified for Any Form of Merit-Based Pay or Bonuses in the Past Year, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 67
Table 3.12: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Employing One or More Full Time Grant Writers 67
Table 3.13: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Employing One or More Full Time Grant Writers, Broken Out by Type of College 67
Table 3.14: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Employing One or More Full Time Grant Writers, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 67
Table 3.15: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Employing One or More Full Time Grant Writers, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 68
Table 3.16: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Employing One or More Full Time Grant Writers, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 68
Table 4.1: Effectiveness of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 69
Table 4.2: Effectiveness of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 69
Table 4.3: Effectiveness of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 69
Table 4.4: Effectiveness of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 69
Table 4.5: Effectiveness of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 70
Table 4.6: Effectiveness of Telethons as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 70
Table 4.7: Effectiveness of Telethons as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 70
Table 4.8: Effectiveness of Telethons as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 70
Table 4.9: Effectiveness of Telethons as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 71
Table 4.10: Effectiveness of Telethons as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 71
Table 4.11: Effectiveness of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 71
Table 4.12: Effectiveness of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 71
Table 4.13: Effectiveness of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 72
Table 4.14: Effectiveness of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 72
Table 4.15: Effectiveness of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 72
Table 4.16: Effectiveness of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 72
Table 4.17: Effectiveness of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 73
Table 4.18: Effectiveness of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 73
Table 4.19: Effectiveness of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 73
Table 4.20: Effectiveness of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 73
Table 4.21: Effectiveness of Live Auctions as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 74
Table 4.22: Effectiveness of Live Auctions as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 74
Table 4.23: Effectiveness of Live Auctions as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 74
Table 4.24: Effectiveness of Live Auctions as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years Effectiveness of Appeals to Faculty and Staff as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 75
Table 4.25: Effectiveness of Appeals to Faculty and Staff as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 75
Table 4.26: Effectiveness of Appeals to Faculty and Staff as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 75
Table 4.27: Effectiveness of Appeals to Faculty and Staff as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 75
Table 4.28: Effectiveness of Appeals to Faculty and Staff as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 76
Table 4.29: Effectiveness of Appeals to Faculty and Staff as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 76
Table 4.30: Effectiveness of Bequests as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 76
Table 4.31: Effectiveness of Bequests as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 76
Table 4.32: Effectiveness of Bequests as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 77
Table 4.33: Effectiveness of Bequests as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 77
Table 4.34: Effectiveness of Bequests as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 77
Table 4.35: Effectiveness of Facility Naming Gifts as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 77
Table 4.36: Effectiveness of Facility Naming Gifts as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 78
Table 4.37: Effectiveness of Facility Naming Gifts as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 78
Table 4.38: Effectiveness of Facility Naming Gifts as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 78
Table 4.39: Effectiveness of Facility Naming Gifts as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 78
Table 4.40: Effectiveness of Raffles as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 79
Table 4.41: Effectiveness of Raffles as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 79
Table 4.42: Effectiveness of Raffles as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 79
Table 4.43: Effectiveness of Raffles as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 79
Table 4.44: Effectiveness of Raffles as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 80
Table 4.45: Effectiveness of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years 80
Table 4.46: Effectiveness of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 80
Table 4.47: Effectiveness of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 80
Table 4.48: Effectiveness of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 81
Table 4.49: Effectiveness of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Method Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 81
Table 5.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of Athletic Booster Clubs Maintained by the College 82
Table 5.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of Athletic Booster Clubs Maintained by the College, Broken Out by Type of College 82
Table 5.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of Athletic Booster Clubs Maintained by the College, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 82
Table 5.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of Athletic Booster Clubs Maintained by the College, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 82
Table 5.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of Athletic Booster Clubs Maintained by the College, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 83
Table 5.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised by and from the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs (in US$) 83
Table 5.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised by and from the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 83
Table 5.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised by and from the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 83
Table 5.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised by and from the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 83
Table 5.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised by and from the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 84
Table 5.11: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Funds Raised by and from Booster Clubs that Went Directly to the College’s Athletic Programs 84
Table 5.12: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Funds Raised by and from Booster Clubs that Went Directly to the College’s Athletic Programs, Broken Out by Type of College 84
Table 5.13: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Funds Raised by and from Booster Clubs that Went Directly to the College’s Athletic Programs, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 84
Table 5.14: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Funds Raised by and from Booster Clubs that Went Directly to the College’s Athletic Programs, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 85
Table 5.15: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Funds Raised by and from Booster Clubs that Went Directly to the College’s Athletic Programs, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 85
Table 5.16: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs Managed Directly by the Office of Advancement or Fundraising 85
Table 5.17: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs Managed Directly by the Office of Advancement or Fundraising, Broken Out by Type of College 85
Table 5.18: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs Managed Directly by the Office of Advancement or Fundraising, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 86
Table 5.19: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs Managed Directly by the Office of Advancement or Fundraising, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 86
Table 5.20: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of the College’s Athletic Booster Clubs Managed Directly by the Office of Advancement or Fundraising, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 86
Table 6.1: Percentage of Annual Fund Efforts Outsourced Vs. Percentage Done in House 87
Table 6.2: Percentage of Annual Fund Efforts Outsourced Vs. Percentage Done in House, Broken Out by Type of College 87
Table 6.3: Percentage of Annual Fund Efforts Outsourced Vs. Percentage Done in House, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 87
Table 6.4: Percentage of Annual Fund Efforts Outsourced Vs. Percentage Done in House, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 88
Table 6.5: Percentage of Annual Fund Efforts Outsourced Vs. Percentage Done in House, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 88
Table 6.6: The College’s Definition of Annual Fund Revenues 88
Table 6.7: The College’s Definition of Annual Fund Revenues, Broken Out by Type of College 88
Table 6.8: The College’s Definition of Annual Fund Revenues, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 89
Table 6.9: The College’s Definition of Annual Fund Revenues, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 89
Table 6.10: The College’s Definition of Annual Fund Revenues, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 89
Table 6.11: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Expenses for Printed Promotional Materials Specifically Intended for the Last Annual Fund 89
Table 6.12: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Expenses for Printed Promotional Materials Specifically Intended for the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Type of College 89
Table 6.13: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Expenses for Printed Promotional Materials Specifically Intended for the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 90
Table 6.14: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Expenses for Printed Promotional Materials Specifically Intended for the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 90
Table 6.15: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Expenses for Printed Promotional Materials Specifically Intended for the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 90
Table 6.16: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Professional Staff Time Spent on the Last Annual Fund, in Man Hours 90
Table 6.17: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Professional Staff Time Spent on the Last Annual Fund, in Man Hours, Broken Out by Type of College 91
Table 6.18: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Professional Staff Time Spent on the Last Annual Fund, in Man Hours, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 91
Table 6.19: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Professional Staff Time Spent on the Last Annual Fund, in Man Hours, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 91
Table 6.20: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Professional Staff Time Spent on the Last Annual Fund, in Man Hours, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 91
Table 6.21: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Student Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund 92
Table 6.22: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Student Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Type of College 92
Table 6.23: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Student Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 92
Table 6.24: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Student Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 92
Table 6.25: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Student Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 93
Table 6.26: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Non-Student Clerical Staff Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund 93
Table 6.27: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Non-Student Clerical Staff Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Type of College 93
Table 6.28: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Non-Student Clerical Staff Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 93
Table 6.29: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Non-Student Clerical Staff Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 94
Table 6.30: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Estimated Number of Man Hours of Non-Student Clerical Staff Labor Spent on the Last Annual Fund, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 94
Table 7.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Total Assets and Funds Raised by the College in the Last Year that can be Described as Non-Monetary Assets such as Real Estate, Artwork, Memorabilia, and Other Objects that are not Financial Instruments* 95
Table 7.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Total Assets and Funds Raised by the College in the Last Year that can be Described as Non-Monetary Assets such as Real Estate, Artwork, Memorabilia, and Other Objects that are not Financial Instruments*, Broken Out by Type of College 95
Table 7.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Total Assets and Funds Raised by the College in the Last Year that can be Described as Non-Monetary Assets such as Real Estate, Artwork, Memorabilia, and Other Objects that are not Financial Instruments*, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 95
Table 7.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Total Assets and Funds Raised by the College in the Last Year that can be Described as Non-Monetary Assets such as Real Estate, Artwork, Memorabilia, and Other Objects that are not Financial Instruments*, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 96
Table 7.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Percentage of Total Assets and Funds Raised by the College in the Last Year that can be Described as Non-Monetary Assets such as Real Estate, Artwork, Memorabilia, and Other Objects that are not Financial Instruments*, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 96
Table 7.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Costs Accrued in the Past Year to Appraise, Sell, Rent, Tender, House, or Otherwise Dispose of or Care for Assets, (in US$) 96
Table 7.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Costs Accrued in the Past Year to Appraise, Sell, Rent, Tender, House, or Otherwise Dispose of or Care for Assets, Broken Out by Type of College ( in US$) 96
Table 7.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Costs Accrued in the Past Year to Appraise, Sell, Rent, Tender, House, or Otherwise Dispose of or Care for Assets, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College (in US$) 97
Table 7.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Costs Accrued in the Past Year to Appraise, Sell, Rent, Tender, House, or Otherwise Dispose of or Care for Assets, Broken Out by Value of Endowment (in US$) 97
Table 7.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Costs Accrued in the Past Year to Appraise, Sell, Rent, Tender, House, or Otherwise Dispose of or Care for Assets, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment (in US$) 97
Table 8.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Consultants to Conduct Fundraising Campaigns or to Otherwise Enhance the College’s Fundraising Capabilities (in US$) 98
Table 8.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Consultants to Conduct Fundraising Campaigns or to Otherwise Enhance the College’s Fundraising Capabilities, Broken Out by Type of College (in US$) 98
Table 8.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Consultants to Conduct Fundraising Campaigns or to Otherwise Enhance the College’s Fundraising Capabilities, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College (in US$) 98
Table 8.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Consultants to Conduct Fundraising Campaigns or to Otherwise Enhance the College’s Fundraising Capabilities, Broken Out by Value of Endowment (in US$) 98
Table 8.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Consultants to Conduct Fundraising Campaigns or to Otherwise Enhance the College’s Fundraising Capabilities, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment (in US$) 99
Table 8.6: Expected Expenditure on Campaign Consultants Over the Next Two Years 99
Table 8.7: Expected Expenditure on Campaign Consultants Over the Next Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 99
Table 8.8: Expected Expenditure on Campaign Consultants Over the Next Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 99
Table 8.9: Expected Expenditure on Campaign Consultants Over the Next Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 100
Table 8.10: Expected Expenditure on Campaign Consultants Over the Next Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 100
Table 8.11: Size of the Development Consultancies Used 100
Table 8.12: Size of the Development Consultancies Used, Broken Out by Type of College 100
Table 8.13: Size of the Development Consultancies Used, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 101
Table 8.14: Size of the Development Consultancies Used, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 101
Table 8.15: Size of the Development Consultancies Used, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 101
Table 8.16: Attitude toward the Use of Campaign Consultants and Other Fundraising Consultants 101
Table 8.17: Attitude toward the Use of Campaign Consultants and Other Fundraising Consultants, Broken Out by Type of College 102
Table 8.18: Attitude toward the Use of Campaign Consultants and Other Fundraising Consultants, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 102
Table 8.19: Attitude toward the Use of Campaign Consultants and Other Fundraising Consultants, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 102
Table 8.20: Attitude toward the Use of Campaign Consultants and Other Fundraising Consultants, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 103
Table 8.21: Self-Evaluation of the Sample Colleges’ Fundraising Efforts Relative to Peer Institutions 103
Table 8.22: Self-Evaluation of the Sample Colleges’ Fundraising Efforts Relative to Peer Institutions, Broken Out by Type of College 103
Table 8.23: Self-Evaluation of the Sample Colleges’ Fundraising Efforts Relative to Peer Institutions, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 104
Table 8.24: Self-Evaluation of the Sample Colleges’ Fundraising Efforts Relative to Peer Institutions, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 104
Table 8.25: Self-Evaluation of the Sample Colleges’ Fundraising Efforts Relative to Peer Institutions, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 104
Table 9.1: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have Used an Outside Consultant or Firm to Conduct a Feasibility Study for a Fundraising Project 105
Table 9.2: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have Used an Outside Consultant or Firm to Conduct a Feasibility Study for a Fundraising Project, Broken Out by Type of College 105
Table 9.3: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have Used an Outside Consultant or Firm to Conduct a Feasibility Study for a Fundraising Project, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 105
Table 9.4: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have Used an Outside Consultant or Firm to Conduct a Feasibility Study for a Fundraising Project, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 105
Table 9.5: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have Used an Outside Consultant or Firm to Conduct a Feasibility Study for a Fundraising Project, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 105
Table 9.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent on Last Study by Outside Consultants by Colleges Using Consultants for Feasibility Studies (in US$) 106
Table 10.1: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Receiving Funding from the General College Administrative Budget 107
Table 10.2: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Receiving Funding from the General College Administrative Budget , Broken Out by Type of College 107
Table 10.3: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Receiving Funding from the General College Administrative Budget, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 107
Table 10.4: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Receiving Funding from the General College Administrative Budget, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 107
Table 10.5: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Receiving Funding from the General College Administrative Budget, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 107
Table 10.6: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Funded from a Percentage of Funds Raised 108
Table 10.7: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Funded from a Percentage of Funds Raised, Broken Out by Type of College 108
Table 10.8: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Funded from a Percentage of Funds Raised, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 108
Table 10.9: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Funded from a Percentage of Funds Raised, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 108
Table 10.10: Percentage of College Advancement Offices Funded from a Percentage of Funds Raised, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 108
Table 10.11: Percentage of College Advancement Offices That Receive Funding from a Specific Student Fee Assessed Specifically for Advancement 108
Table 10.12: Percentage of College Advancement Offices That Receive Funding from a Specific Student Fee Assessed Specifically for Advancement, Broken Out by Type of College 109
Table 10.13: Percentage of College Advancement Offices That Receive Funding from a Specific Student Fee Assessed Specifically for Advancement, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 109
Table 10.14: Percentage of College Advancement Offices That Receive Funding from a Specific Student Fee Assessed Specifically for Advancement, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 109
Table 10.15: Percentage of College Advancement Offices That Receive Funding from a Specific Student Fee Assessed Specifically for Advancement, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 109
Table 10.16: Percentage of Sample College Advancement Offices that Receive Funding through Services Offered by the Advancement Office 109
Table 10.17: Percentage of Sample College Advancement Offices that Receive Funding through Services Offered by the Advancement Office, Broken Out by Type of College 110
Table 10.18: Percentage of Sample College Advancement Offices that Receive Funding through Services Offered by the Advancement Office, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 110
Table 10.19: Percentage of Sample College Advancement Offices that Receive Funding through Services Offered by the Advancement Office, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 110
Table 10.20: Percentage of Sample College Advancement Offices that Receive Funding through Services Offered by the Advancement Office, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 110
Table 10.21: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the College’s Office of Advancement 110
Table 10.22: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the College’s Office of Advancement, Broken Out by Type of College 111
Table 10.23: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the College’s Office of Advancement, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 111
Table 10.24: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the College’s Office of Advancement, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 111
Table 10.25: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Number of FTE Positions Allocated to the College’s Office of Advancement, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 111
Table 10.26: Change in the Number of FTE Positions in the Office of Advancement Over the Past Two Years 112
Table 10.27: Change in the Number of FTE Positions in the Office of Advancement Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Type of College 112
Table 10.28: Change in the Number of FTE Positions in the Office of Advancement Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 112
Table 10.29: Change in the Number of FTE Positions in the Office of Advancement Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 112
Table 10.30: Change in the Number of FTE Positions in the Office of Advancement Over the Past Two Years, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 113
Table 10.31: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget for the Advancement Office in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Including Spending for Salaries and Benefits, but not Including the Cost of Office Space 113
Table 10.32: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget for the Advancement Office in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Including Spending for Salaries and Benefits, but not Including the Cost of Office Space, Broken Out by Type of College 113
Table 10.33: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Overall Budget for the Advancement Office in the 2006-2007 Academic Year (in US$), Including Spending for Salaries and Benefits, but not Including the Cost of Office Space, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 113
Table 10.34: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Projected Overall Budget for the Advancement Office in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Including Spending for Salaries and Benefits, But Not Including the Cost of Office Space (in US$) 114
Table 10.35: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Projected Overall Budget for the Advancement Office in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Including Spending for Salaries and Benefits, But Not Including the Cost of Office Space (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 114
Table 10.36: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Projected Overall Budget for the Advancement Office in the 2007-2008 Academic Year, Including Spending for Salaries and Benefits, But Not Including the Cost of Office Space (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 114
Table 11.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised through Auctions in the Past Year (in US$) 115
Table 11.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised through Auctions in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 115
Table 11.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised through Auctions in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 115
Table 11.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised through Auctions in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 115
Table 11.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised through Auctions in the Past Year (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 116
Table 11.6: Percentage of Colleges that have Conducted an Online Auction, Either Stand Alone or in Conjunction with an Auction Held at a Physical Site 116
Table 11.7: Percentage of Colleges that have Conducted an Online Auction, Either Stand Alone or in Conjunction with an Auction Held at a Physical Site, Broken Out by Type of College 116
Table 11.8: Percentage of Colleges that have Conducted an Online Auction, Either Stand Alone or in Conjunction with an Auction Held at a Physical Site, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 116
Table 11.9: Percentage of Colleges that have Conducted an Online Auction, Either Stand Alone or in Conjunction with an Auction Held at a Physical Site, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 116
Table 11.10: Percentage of Colleges that have Conducted an Online Auction, Either Stand Alone or in Conjunction with an Auction Held at a Physical Site, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 117
Table 11.11: Attitudes toward Online Auctions as a Fundraising Tool 117
Table 11.12: Attitudes toward Online Auctions as a Fundraising Tool, Broken Out by Type of College 117
Table 11.13: Attitudes toward Online Auctions as a Fundraising Tool, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 117
Table 11.14: Attitudes toward Online Auctions as a Fundraising Tool, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 118
Table 11.15: Attitudes toward Online Auctions as a Fundraising Tool, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 118
Table 11.16: Self-Evaluation of College’s Online Fundraising Efforts, Including Web Promotions, Website Development, Fundraising Blogs and Listservs, Podcasts and Other Internet-Based Promotional and Fundraising Efforts 118
Table 11.17: Self-Evaluation of College’s Online Fundraising Efforts, Including Web Promotions, Website Development, Fundraising Blogs and Listservs, Podcasts and Other Internet-Based Promotional and Fundraising Efforts, Broken Out by Type of College 119
Table 11.18: Self-Evaluation of College’s Online Fundraising Efforts, Including Web Promotions, Website Development, Fundraising Blogs and Listservs, Podcasts and Other Internet-Based Promotional and Fundraising Efforts, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 119
Table 11.19: Self-Evaluation of College’s Online Fundraising Efforts, Including Web Promotions, Website Development, Fundraising Blogs and Listservs, Podcasts and Other Internet-Based Promotional and Fundraising Efforts, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 119
Table 11.20: Self-Evaluation of College’s Online Fundraising Efforts, Including Web Promotions, Website Development, Fundraising Blogs and Listservs, Podcasts and Other Internet-Based Promotional and Fundraising Efforts, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 120
Table 12.1: Performance of Telethons as a Fundraising Vehicle 121
Table 12.2: Performance of Telethons as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 121
Table 12.3: Performance of Telethons as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 121
Table 12.4: Performance of Telethons as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 121
Table 12.5: Performance of Telethons as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 122
Table 12.6: Performance of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Vehicle 122
Table 12.7: Performance of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 122
Table 12.8: Performance of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 122
Table 12.9: Performance of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 122
Table 12.10: Performance of Direct Mail as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 123
Table 12.11: Performance of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Vehicle 123
Table 12.12: Performance of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 123
Table 12.13: Performance of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 123
Table 12.14: Performance of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 123
Table 12.15: Performance of Web-Based Fundraising as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 124
Table 12.16: Performance of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle 124
Table 12.17: Performance of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 124
Table 12.18: Performance of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 124
Table 12.19: Performance of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 124
Table 12.20: Performance of Brick Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 125
Table 12.21: Performance of Raffles as a Fundraising Vehicle 125
Table 12.22: Performance of Raffles as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 125
Table 12.23: Performance of Raffles as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 125
Table 12.24: Performance of Raffles as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 125
Table 12.25: Performance of Raffles as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 126
Table 12.26: Performance of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle 126
Table 12.27: Performance of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 126
Table 12.28: Performance of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 126
Table 12.29: Performance of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 126
Table 12.30: Performance of Capital Campaigns as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 127
Table 12.31: Performance of Appeals to Students and Faculty as a Fundraising Vehicle 127
Table 12.32: Performance of Appeals to Students and Faculty as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Type of College 127
Table 12.33: Performance of Appeals to Students and Faculty as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 127
Table 12.34: Performance of Appeals to Students and Faculty as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 127
Table 12.35: Performance of Appeals to Students and Faculty as a Fundraising Vehicle, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 128
Table 13.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Plaques, Medals, and Other Mementos or Gifts to Reward Donors (in US$) 129
Table 13.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Plaques, Medals, and Other Mementos or Gifts to Reward Donors (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 129
Table 13.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Plaques, Medals, and Other Mementos or Gifts to Reward Donors (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 129
Table 13.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Plaques, Medals, and Other Mementos or Gifts to Reward Donors (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 129
Table 13.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Plaques, Medals, and Other Mementos or Gifts to Reward Donors (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 130
Table 13.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Events Designed to Celebrate the Generosity or Other Virtues of Key Givers to the College (in US$) 130
Table 13.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Events Designed to Celebrate the Generosity or Other Virtues of Key Givers to the College (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 130
Table 13.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Events Designed to Celebrate the Generosity or Other Virtues of Key Givers to the College (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 130
Table 13.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Events Designed to Celebrate the Generosity or Other Virtues of Key Givers to the College (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 131
Table 13.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year on Events Designed to Celebrate the Generosity or Other Virtues of Key Givers to the College (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 131
Table 14.1: Percentage of Colleges that Stage Particular Campaigns Aimed Specifically at the College’s Faculty and Staff 132
Table 14.2: Percentage of Colleges that Stage Particular Campaigns Aimed Specifically at the College’s Faculty and Staff, Broken Out by Type of College 132
Table 14.3: Percentage of Colleges that Stage Particular Campaigns Aimed Specifically at the College’s Faculty and Staff, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 132
Table 14.4: Percentage of Colleges that Stage Particular Campaigns Aimed Specifically at the College’s Faculty and Staff, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 132
Table 14.5: Percentage of Colleges that Stage Particular Campaigns Aimed Specifically at the College’s Faculty and Staff, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 132
Table 14.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised in the Past Year by Faculty and Staff in All Campaigns (in US$) 133
Table 14.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised in the Past Year by Faculty and Staff in All Campaigns (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 133
Table 14.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised in the Past Year by Faculty and Staff in All Campaigns (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 133
Table 14.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised in the Past Year by Faculty and Staff in All Campaigns (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 133
Table 14.10: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Raised in the Past Year by Faculty and Staff in All Campaigns (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 134
Table 15.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year to License or Purchase Software to Assist Specifically in Fundraising (in US$) 135
Table 15.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year to License or Purchase Software to Assist Specifically in Fundraising (in US$), Broken Out by Type of College 135
Table 15.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year to License or Purchase Software to Assist Specifically in Fundraising (in US$), Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 135
Table 15.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year to License or Purchase Software to Assist Specifically in Fundraising (in US$), Broken Out by Value of Endowment 135
Table 15.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Amount Spent in the Past Year to License or Purchase Software to Assist Specifically in Fundraising (in US$), Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 136
Table 15.6: Percentage of Sample Colleges that Use Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge Fundraising Software 136
Table 15.7: Percentage of Sample Colleges that Use Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge Fundraising Software, Broken Out by Type of College 136
Table 15.8: Percentage of Sample Colleges that Use Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge Fundraising Software, Broken Out by Public or Private Status of the College 136
Table 15.9: Percentage of Sample Colleges that Use Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge Fundraising Software, Broken Out by Value of Endowment 136
Table 15.10: Percentage of Sample Colleges that Use Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge Fundraising Software, Broken Out by Size of FTE Enrollment 137
Back
© Primary Research Group 
