Custom Benchmark Report

Transcription

1 Custom Benchmark Report Prepared for By Rhiannon Cutler and Tim Baines Crowe Clark Whitehill LLP December

2

3 Custom Benchmark Report Dear John We are pleased to provide you with a custom benchmark report comparing your school s key fundraising and development information with that of similar schools. The peer group with which your school is being compared is set out on page of this report. Note that, under Office of Fair Trading regulations we are not able to provide you with a named list of peer schools, but we are always happy for you to provide us with a list of potential comparator schools and for the search criteria we use to fit this group as closely as possible. You should however note that schools you might normally compare with may not have development departments and that this survey only deals with schools which have such departments. The data in this report is drawn from the National Fundraising and Development Survey published in June. If you would like to obtain further copies of this survey please contact Rhiannon Cutler on or rhiannon.cutler@crowecw.co.uk The National Fundraising and Development Survey had 8 returns, covering around % by value of all giving in UK schools in the year /. Over the years we have been asked many times how best to use benchmarking data as every school is unique. This is self-evident and clearly every school must interpret benchmarking data in the light of its own fundraising focus, the age of its development office and the resources it has available. Schools may also have very different alumni and parental profiles. However, benchmarking data can be an invaluable tool to inform strategic and investment decisions. Thank you for the support you have given to our benchmarking work. I would also draw your attention to our two other major benchmarking surveys on Teacher Salaries and Benefits and Financial Benchmarking. Do contact us if you would like further information on either of these. As always we are also keen to receive feedback on our work and any ideas for improvements or additions to future surveys. If you have any such comments do feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely Rhiannon Cutler Independent Schools Consultant Crowe Clark Whitehill LLP December

4 Table of Contents Custom Benchmark Report Your selected peer group How we establish a suitable peer group Your peer group Development Organisation Development set-up Legal structure Connected organisations Self-funding Fundraising focus Fundraising focus in Focus on Bursaries Focus on Capital Campaigns Focus on Annual Funds Focus on Legacies Development team size, role levels and salaries Number of development staff Role levels of development staff and total development staff resource available Salaries paid to development staff Additional information about the senior development professional Development team activity Lights, Camera, Action The cost of running a development office Total expenditure Percentage of expenditure spent on salaries Expenditure type Giving Donor connections and nature of initiatives supported How much is given and to what? Fundraising profits Profits averaged across and Profits per pupil averaged across and Return on Investment The fundraising database Records on the database Database records as multiple of pupil numbers Split of data records Wealth checking Name of database Communications Website Use of consultants Publications

5 Your selected peer group Custom Benchmark Report How we establish a suitable peer group Our aim is to provide you with a report of real value. To do so it is imperative that we establish with you which schools you would be most similar to (from a development perspective) so that the comparison of the data from the peer group and your own school is as useful as possible. This same peer group can then be tracked over a number of years. There are certain standard criteria which we usually look at in determining a school s peer group in all our surveys. These include UK region, whether the school is independent or maintained, the type of school i.e. boarding, day/boarding or day, the number of pupils, the percentage of senior/junior pupils in the school and the sex of those pupils. These parameters can be infinitely varied in order to establish a suitable benchmarking group. However, in a development context, otherwise similar schools may be surprisingly different. For example one school may be raising money for a capital project, another for bursaries. One may have just started its development activity whilst another may have been working in this area for many years. To reflect this we offer the ability to commission up to three benchmarking reports for one price. So a school might compare itself in one report with schools of similar size and type and in other reports it might compare itself with schools fundraising for the same thing or with development departments open for a similar length of time. Please speak to us about your requirements. We also have the ability to create a peer group based on any of the questions asked in the development survey questionnaire. Do contact us if you would like to discuss this further. Clearly every school is unique in its history and culture but our experience over many years of conducting benchmarking surveys is that most schools have more in common than might first be expected. This means that, as long as comparative data is considered with the understanding that it can never give the whole picture, it can provide a true external view which is difficult for development directors, bursars, heads and governors to obtain in any other way. Your peer group We have established the following peer group selection criteria for you and the data in this report is based on this peer group. If you wish to discuss any aspects of this selection please let us know. As noted in the introduction we cannot benchmark against a named list of schools but if you do have schools in mind with which you would you like to compare yourselves and can provide us with a list, we are always happy to seek to match the benchmark criteria against your list as closely as possible. Key Indicator Number or range Number of Schools in Peer Group Number of pupils in the school as a whole Greater or equal to Boarding percentage Greater or equal to AND Less or equal to 8 Girls percentage Junior/prep and pre-prep percentage ISC region DevtOfficeOpen Other criteria Other criteria Not Selected Not Selected Not London or South East More than Years Not Selected Not Selected Other criteria Not Selected

6 Number of Schools Development Organisation An important aspect of understanding development is to understand how it is organised in any particular school. This organisation can then be compared with peer schools. Key questions asked in the survey were; ) When was the development office set up? ) Is the school a charity? ) Is development carried out via a separate fundraising foundation? Custom Benchmark Report ) Does the school have a direct connection with a livery company or other sponsoring organisation which regularly gives financial support? ) Is development activity expected to be wholly selffunded? Graphs and pie charts covering each of these questions are shown below. Development set-up The chart below indicates the age of the establishment of development offices in your peer group, shown in years. Most data suggests that the longer the office has been established, the more successful it is likely to be. This is a key piece of information in interpreting the financial data shown later in this report. Age of development office Age of development office = 7. Mean = 9.9 Median = 9. Years Legal structure The pie charts below compare the legal structure of the development activity of and your peer schools. The first chart indicates whether your school and peer schools are charities or not. The second chart shows whether development at and peer group schools is carried out via a separate charitable fundraising foundation or not. Is the school a charity? Separate fundraising foundation? % % Yes No Yes No % % = Yes = Yes

7 Connected organisations Custom Benchmark Report Some schools are fortunate enough to have direct connections to a Livery Company or to another organisation which regularly gives financial contributions to the school and is often willing and able to give significant sums to get fundraising projects off the ground. The pie chart below indicates the percentage of your peer group schools which have such a connection and the note below it gives the mean and median of sums which have been given by these organisations (only for those schools with such a connection) over the past years. Other supporting organisation? 88% % Yes No = No For the schools which had such a connection the mean sum given was,9, and the median was,. The sum given for was. Self-funding The pie chart below shows the proportion of schools in the peer group whose development offices are required to be entirely self-funded. Self-funding? % Yes No % = No

8 Fundraising focus The importance of fundraising focus A vital element in considering the makeup and activities of a development team is to ascertain what the fundraising focus of the school has been in the last two years. If a school is fundraising for bursaries, the approach, resources needed and events held will inevitably be quite different to a school whose fundraising focus is geared towards a major capital project. Custom Benchmark Report The other important area to take into consideration is the stage of a project or campaign a school development office is currently at. A school in the feasibility stage of a major campaign would expect to be spending money but would not yet be actively seeking donations. In contrast, a school carrying out an active telephone campaign for an Annual Fund would expect to both incur costs and generate income. The charts below indicate the fundraising focuses and campaign stages which your school and your peer group schools were at in. Fundraising focus in The table below provides an overview of the fundraising focus of in by comparing it with each school in your selected peer group. Each school s fundraising focus is shown as a bar representing % of the available focus. The potential areas of focus, namely bursaries, capital campaign, annual fund, legacies and other are then shown as separate colours, with the length of each colour on the bar representing the proportion of % of available time that activity or focus took up in. The following pages then take each of the four focus areas and examine them in more detail. Your school is the first bar in the chart below. Fundraising focus % 9% 8% 7% % % % % % % % * * = Bursaries Capital Annual Legacies Other The above graph projects the overall picture of time spent by and your peer schools on different fundraising focuses in. In order to show you how the percentage of time spent by A Day Boarding School on an individual fundraising focus compares with time spent by your peer group schools, we have broken the above graph down into four separate graphs; one for bursaries, one for capital campaigns, a third for annual funds and a fourth of legacies. The red line shown on each of the following graphs shows the mean or average amount of time spent by your peer group on each fundraising focus. In order to put the following data into context, it is useful to be able to read each graph in the light of the stage of fundraising focus your peer schools are in, so under each bar chart we have provided you with a pie chart which shows this information.

9 Focus on Bursaries Custom Benchmark Report The bar graph below shows the percentage of time spent in by and peer group schools on bursaries. Fundraising focus - Bursaries * * = Bursaries Peer Mean The pie chart below shows the stage of bursary campaign at which and peer group schools are in. Bursary stage % % % % Planning Stage Feasibility study Quiet Launch Fallow period Fully Open Wind down % % = Fully open 7

10 Focus on Capital Campaigns Custom Benchmark Report The bar graph below shows the percentage of time spent in by and peer group schools on capital campaigns. Fundraising focus - Capital * * = Capital Peer Mean The pie chart below shows the stage of a capital campaign at which and peer group schools are in. Capital campaign stage % 9% % % Planning Stage Feasibility study Quiet Launch Fallow period Fully Open Wind down 9% % = Fully open 8

11 Focus on Annual Funds Custom Benchmark Report The bar graph below shows the percentage of time spent in by and peer group schools on the Annual Fund. Fundraising focus - Annual * * = Annual Peer Mean The pie chart below shows the stage of an Annual Fund at which and peer group schools are in. Annual Fund stage % % % Planning Stage Feasibility study Quiet Launch Fallow period Fully Open Wind down % % % = Planning stage 9

12 Focus on Legacies Custom Benchmark Report The bar graph below shows the percentage of time spent in by and peer group schools on legacies. Fundraising focus - Legacies * * = Legacies Peer Mean The pie chart below shows the stage of a legacy campaign at which and peer group schools are in. Legacy stage % % Planning Stage Feasibility study Quiet Launch Fallow period Fully Open 8% % % = Fallow Period

13 Number of Schools Development team size, role levels and salaries Custom Benchmark Report This section of the report provides information on your development team, its size and the role levels of members of the team, compared with your peers. It also examines salaries paid to members of the team. In order to facilitate comparisons between schools we have provided the following standardisation; ) We work only in full-time equivalent numbers of development team staff based on a full working year (i.e. not just term-time) ) In our questionnaire we asked for each staff member to be placed in one of four role-levels. These were director, manager, clerical and graduate levels. Whilst roles can never be precise this can give an indication of the relative seniority levels of team members. The graph below therefore compares the full-time equivalent number of staff in the development team at with its peer group. After this graph, we then compare the split of the total development resource between the four seniority levels in your development office and your peer group. In order to give a fuller comparison of the true level of development resource available at your school and its peers we have then introduced the concept of resource rating. Our system gives a resource rating of to a full-time development director, to a fulltime development manager, to a full-time clerical staff member and to a full-time graduate, with proportionate reductions made for less than full-time roles. Totalling the resource rating for your school and the peer schools then allows a more useful benchmark of the comparative resources available to you. This is shown in a spread graph. The final section shows the average levels of salary paid to director, manager and clerical level staff in your and peer group schools. Note that the figures are expressed in full-time equivalent salaries so the figures shown will not be the actual salaries paid if staff are not full-time. They will however be shown on a comparable basis, or what we like to call a level playing field. Number of development staff The graph below shows the number of full-time equivalent development staff at your school in comparison with peer group schools, regardless of role levels in the office. Number of full-time equivalent development staff..... Number of full-time equivalent development staff =. Mean =. Median =. Number of staff

14 Number of Schools Custom Benchmark Report Role levels of development staff and total development staff resource available The table below shows the proportion of full time equivalent development staff in your school and the mean level in your peer group, split by role level. Level Peer Schools Director Level.7 Manager Level.7 Clerical Level.. Graduate Level. Total FTE staff.. The graph below looks at the resource rating available to your school and your peer schools (see introduction for details about how this is calculated). The higher the resource rating, the higher the total level and seniority of the resource available to the schools shown below. Total Resource Rating Total Resource Rating A Day Boarding = Mean = Median = Rating

15 Number of Schools Number of Schools Number of Schools Salaries paid to development staff Custom Benchmark Report The graphs below indicate the salaries paid to members of the development team in compared with your peer schools. These are expressed in full-time equivalent terms. If your school does not have a staff member in such a role the graphs are still shown but the field for your school is marked with a zero. The first graph deals with salaries paid to staff at a development director level. Salary of Director level staff..... Salary of Director level staff =, Mean =,7 Median =, Salary The second graph shows salaries paid to staff at a development manager level. Salary of Manager level staff.... Salary of Manager level staff =, Mean =,88 Median =, Salary The third graph shows salaries paid to staff at a development clerical level. Salary of Clerical level staff Salary of Clerical level staff =, Mean =, Median =, Salary

16 Custom Benchmark Report Additional information about the senior development professional Our survey asked questions about the background of senior development professionals. Note that, whilst in most cases the senior development professional was someone at director level, this was by no means always the case. Comparing salaries of one senior development professional at a director level with another at manager level is unhelpful. However, comparing information about the experience of the senior development professional is. The table below therefore compares the experience of the senior development professional at with that of the mean result for the senior development professionals in your peer group schools. The Senior Development Professional Peer Schools Percent Female Female 8 Time at your school (Years).. Educational Development (Years).. Total Development (Years) Previous role at school (Percent "Yes"). Fee remission granted (Percent "Yes") Yes 7 Fee remission amount (Percent). Number in team.. Team prior experience (Years).. Hire own staff (Percent "Yes") Yes 7

17 Development team activity Lights, Camera, Action the Development Activity model Development staff are asked to undertake a very large range of activities. These can range from research to database management, communications and the holding of and attendance at internal meetings, events to direct asks. They are also often asked to undertake roles disconnected with any direct development or fundraising activity such as organising alumni reunions and events or carrying out school marketing. Our challenge was to find a way of categorising activities such that one school could compare what its team does with another. To do this we established a development activity model which we have called Lights, Camera, Action. The concept is that, in order to bring a theatrical performance to its first night a great deal of preparation work is needed. Development reflects a similar concept. One cannot launch a major capital campaign or annual fund without planning work i.e. research, database management and external communications, and yet, of itself, the planning will not raise money. No activity is more or less important than any other each is needed in order for development to be successful. The development activity model separates development roles into four parts; ) Off-Stage activity i.e. activity not directly connected with the core development function in the office. This includes school marketing, alumni Custom Benchmark Report relations (without a development focus) and all other non-development activities ) Lights activity database management, research, internal meetings and administration ) Camera activity events, communications, friend raising and development marketing ) Action activity- direct asks, major campaigns and annual funds This section compares the activities carried out by the development team in with those carried out by your peer schools, split into the four stages above. Our research suggests that offstage activity is usually at its highest in the first year of establishing a new development office, as the team seeks to define their development roles. Lights activity is usually at its highest in the second year as extensive database and research work takes place and Camera activity is at its highest in year three or four as the team organises events and moves from friend-raising to direct fundraising. In most cases, apart from easy wins, our research suggests that it will usually take to years for a team to get from start-up to major campaigns, annual funds or major direct asks. Also, the split of time spent in Lights Camera and Action areas will be reflective of the current campaign or fundraising focus adopted by your and peer group schools. You may therefore wish to refer back to the section on Fundraising Focus when looking at the data provided here. Lights, Camera, Action The pie charts below compare the development team activity of with your peer group schools. If you require more detailed breakdowns of time spent within each of the four main areas, please contact us. Lights Camera Action Lights Camera Action 9% 7% 7% Off Stage Lights Camera Action 9% % 7% Off Stage Lights Camera Action % 7% Peer Group

18 > 8. Number of Schools The cost of running a development office One of the most common questions we are asked is How much does it cost to set up and run a development office? There is no clear answer to this, as it depends very much on the type and size of school and what the development office is hoping to achieve. It also very much depends on what other roles the development office is expected to take on outside of the mainstream development role. These nondevelopment roles/activities could include organising events on behalf of the alumni society or carrying out school marketing. Custom Benchmark Report Our questionnaire asked for office running costs for the academic years and. We provided a suggested split of expenditure by type of cost and this is reported in this section. We are of course aware that it is difficult to get consistency of reporting by expenditure category and therefore the analysis below should be read in this light. However, the total costs, the proportions spent on salaries and the approximate split between other expenditure areas are we hope useful in establishing broad parameters. If schools want to dig further into the analysis of costs within the peer group below, please contact us. Total expenditure The graph below provides information on the total development expenditure of compared with peer group schools. The information presented below covers the academic year /. High level information for the academic year 9/ is shown underneath the graph. Total development expenditure / Total development expenditure / =,9 Mean =,8 Median =,7 Expenditure In 9/ s total expenditure was 8,. The mean expenditure of the peer group in 9/ was 7,99 and the median was,. Total expenditure in for increased by.% over, with the median increase in the peer group being.%.

19 Number of Schools Percentage of expenditure spent on salaries Custom Benchmark Report The chart below indicates the percentage of the total development expenditure in that was spent on salaries at A Day Boarding School and in peer schools. Salaries percentage Salaries percentage 8 = 7. % Mean =.% Median =.% Salaries percentage Expenditure type The table provides information on areas of development expenditure the year / for and your peer group schools. Key Indicator Units A Day Boarding School Median Mean Total expenditure,9,7,8 Salaries percentage % 7... Salaries 8, 8, 9, Database,9,, Marketing,, 9,99 Communications,,7 Events, 7,,78 Donor Meetings,,7 Overseas,,7 Administration,,,9 Other,77 7

20 Giving Custom Benchmark Report Who gives? This section examines who gives and the kinds of fundraising focuses donors give to. In the donor connections section we asked schools to estimate, for the academic year, who had given donations i.e. what the donor s connection with the school had been. We found that the donor varied by type of school, with alumni usually giving the most, but parents appeared to donate more commonly in girls schools and in the maintained sector. We then asked what fundraising focus was donated towards i.e. bursaries, capital, other restricted or unrestricted. Both questions asked for percentage estimation answers in respect of giving. The survey also asked how much was raised and categorised funds raised by type of giving. We provide charts below for schools to show this information. Donor connections and nature of initiatives supported The graphs below show the nature of the donor s connection with and peer group schools in. Donor connections Donor connections % % % % % Governor Gift Alumni Gift Parents Gift % % % % % Governor Gift Alumni Gift Parents Gift Staff Gift Staff Gift Peer Group % Trusts Gift Other Gift % Trusts Gift Other Gift The pie charts below consider the fundraising focus given to by donors, again as an estimated percentage for the year. Note that this section looks at actual giving, whereas the earlier fundraising focus section looked at team time. Fundraising focus given to in Fundraising focus given to in 7% Peer Group 9% % 9% % Bursary Endowment Bursary Restricted Capital Other Restricted Unrestricted 8 % % 7% % % Bursary Endowment Bursary Restricted Capital Other Restricted Unrestricted

21 > 7 Number of Schools > 7 Number of Schools How much is given and to what? Custom Benchmark Report This graphs below show how much money was raised in and in in and in your peer schools. Total giving 7 Total giving =, Mean = 8,7 Median =, Total giving Total giving Total giving 8 =, Mean = 9,9 Median = 8,9 Total giving 9

22 Custom Benchmark Report The pie charts below then indicate, for and for the peer group, the nature of giving in. Split of giving Trusts Split of giving Trusts % 9% Legacies Major Gift % % % Legacies Major Gift % % Annual Fund 8% Annual Fund % Other Other Peer Group The next two pie charts show this same information for. Split of giving Trusts Split of giving Trusts 7% 9% Legacies Major Gift % % % Legacies Major Gift % 9% % Annual Fund Other % Annual Fund Other Peer Group

23 > 79 Number of Schools > Number of Schools Fundraising profits Fundraising profits can be seen as a very emotive subject in a school. On the one hand Governors and Senior Management may have unrealistic expectations based on the age of the development office or the stage of fundraising activity or a campaign the development office is at, when actually little or no profit should reasonably be expected at certain stages. On the other hand development teams are expected to generate a profit as part of their raison-d etre and it is only reasonable that as such they should be held to account. Nevertheless the information below should be read with a significant degree of caution applied. As profits fluctuate to such a degree in the development sector it is dangerous to consider any Custom Benchmark Report one year in isolation. For this reason we have not considered s profit alone and have instead provided information below on the average profit across and combined. This is shown in the first graph. However, finding out that a small school is achieving a lower profit than a larger school is not necessarily very helpful. We have developed the concept of profit per pupil i.e. dividing the actual profit figure by the number of pupils in the school. This allows a degree of comparability across schools of different sizes to assess relative performance. Per pupil profit information is shown in the second graph below. Profits averaged across and The graph below shows the average profits achieved by and its peer schools over and. Average profit / 7 Average profit / =, Mean =, Median = 7, Profit Profits per pupil averaged across and The graph below shows the average profit per pupil achieved by and its peer schools over and Average profit per pupil / 7 Average profit per pupil / = Mean = 7 Median = Profit

24 Return on Investment Custom Benchmark Report Return on investment is a phrase used widely in the development community and is clearly very important. It is usually defined as fundraised income divided by fundraised costs or to put it another way round how much income has been raised for every of costs (or investment). However, partly because the ratio is simple it is also very dangerous as too much can be read into it, particularly if the time period considered is too short. So, for example money can be spent in years and of a capital campaign when income is only expected to be raised in year. Furthermore, legacy development will have a very long time period for payback. However, since the ratio is an important one the average return on investment for and your peer schools averaged over the years and is shown below. The lower returns (shown in red) represent losses over the -year period. We do however stress that great caution should be exercised in reading too much into these numbers alone. Return on Investment Return on Investment Break-even * * =

25 Number of Schools The fundraising database Our research indicated significant differences between otherwise similar schools in relation to the quality of information on the fundraising database. Some schools had many years worth of student and alumni records, with not just up to date s etc. but information on school years, interests, professions and event attendance. Other schools had very little. Our survey asked schools to rate the quality of the information on their database and we provided guide criteria to be used but this question was not answered well and will be explored more in later surveys. However, some areas were answered well and this section therefore covers; Custom Benchmark Report ) The total number of records held ) The split of the above records by type ) The total number of records held as a multiple of the total number of pupils in the school. This gives a better feel for a comparison between schools of different sizes ) The name of the database being used ) Whether wealth checkers have been used and whether this service was helpful ) The most recent time at which data cleansing took place Records on the database This section examines the total number of records held on school databases and the split of this total number into the categories of alumni, parents and former parents. Schools also hold details for other organisations and connections on their databases, but as these are so disparate we have excluded them from analysis. The graph below indicates the total number of records held on your database compared with those at peer schools. Please note our comments in the introduction of this section which refer to the quality of records. Total number of database records 7 Total number of database records =, Mean =,8 Median =,98 Records

26 Number of Schools Database records as multiple of pupil numbers Custom Benchmark Report The potential number of database records will of course vary with the size and age of the school, such that larger schools are more likely to have larger numbers of database records than smaller schools as they will inevitably have a larger potential contact market. In order to establish a comparable approach to the number of records on the database the graph below compares the number of database records with the total number of pupils currently at the school and then expresses the number of records as a multiple of the pupil numbers. So a school with records and pupils would have a multiple of in the graph below (i.e. years worth of pupil roll). This allows schools to see whether they have more or less comparable database records than their peers after adjusting for school size. Database records as a multiple of pupil numbers Database records as a multiple of pupil numbers = Mean =. Median =. Records Split of data records The pie charts below then show the percentage of contacts at and its peer schools who are alumni, parents and former parents. Note as before that we have excluded Trusts etc. as the way these are recorded is very variable. Split of database records Split of database records % 7% Alumni Parents 7% % Alumni Parents Former Parents Former Parents 78% Peer Group 8%

27 Wealth checking Custom Benchmark Report Some schools employ external wealth checkers to help determine which of their alumni is most targetable for major gifts. The pie charts below indicate whether or not peer schools have done this and, if they did so, to what extent it was considered to have been a useful exercise on a scale of to (with being very useful and being of no use). Use of wealth checkers Never used Usefulness of wealth checkers % More than years ago to years ago 9% % % % to years ago 9% % % Less than year ago/current % % = Never used = Name of database The pie charts below show which database and peer group schools are using and the time at which these schools last carried out data cleansing, Which database? % % % % % % = Raiser's Edge InTouch IRIS Donor Strategy Raiser's Edge WCBS PASS WebAlumnus Other When data cleansing last took place 8% % % % % % % Database has just been set up Cleansing is constant More than years ago - years ago Less than year ago Less than months ago Never = Less than months ago

28 Communications Development departments communicate with their alumni, parents, contacts and donors in a variety of ways. This section explores a number of the ways in which contacts are communicated with. The section covers websites, publications and the use of consultants. Our questionnaire also asked for Custom Benchmark Report information on events held but the quality of the data provided was not good enough to be used in this report. The area of events will be examined more in later surveys. Website The survey asked whether development had its own section on the school website or whether development has its own website which sits separately from the school. The data for the peer group is shown below. Separate section of school website? Dedicated development website? % Yes No Yes No 7% % 8% = Yes = Use of consultants Development offices often use consultants. The chart below indicates whether or not your school and the peer group have used external consultants during their establishment. Use of consultants? % Yes No 88% = No

29 Custom Benchmark Report The table below indicates, for those schools which have used consultants, which areas consultants were asked to advise on. Consultancy areas A Day Boarding School Peers (% Yes) Feasibility Study No 7 Telephone Campaign No Capital Campaign No 8 Development Strategy No Wealth Checkers No Other No Publications Development offices are involved in the preparation of a variety of publications. Some relate more to the school and its marketing, whilst others are specifically focussed on development. The first table below indicates which publications are produced by the development office of and compares this with the percentage of publications which are produced by the development teams in peer schools. The second table then indicates, only for those schools which produce each publication, the percentage of peer schools which write, design and then print each publication internally, as opposed to using external resources. The information below allows schools to get a feel as to the comparative publication workload across peer group development offices. Publication types A Day Boarding School Peers (% Yes) Devt Newsletter Yes Annual Review No School Magazine Yes 7 Event Invites Yes 9 Fundraising Letters Yes 9 Legacy leaflets Yes 88 Alumni Publications No 8 7

30 Custom Benchmark Report Peer Group Written Internally Designed Internally Printed Internally Written Internally Designed Internally Printed Internally Publication type % % % Development Newsletter Yes Yes No 9 9 Annual Review Blank Blank Blank 9 School Magazine Yes No No Events Invites Yes Yes Yes 7 8 Fundraising Letters Yes Yes Yes 9 Legacy Leaflets Yes No No Alumni Publications Yes Yes No 8