New Setting a Course for Sustainable Philanthropy · 2017. 1. 18. · When examined by school...
Transcript of New Setting a Course for Sustainable Philanthropy · 2017. 1. 18. · When examined by school...
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
December 2016
Setting a Course for Sustainable PhilanthropyThe Role of Boards and Fundraising in Independent Schools
PAGE 5
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
For years Pat Bassett, former president of the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS),
stressed the importance of schools diversifying their revenue sources beyond tuition. In his article
“Twenty-Five Factors Great Schools Have in Common,” Pat states schools must “create a financially
sustainable future by means other than persistently large annual tuition increases, recognizing that
being the best value, rather than the highest price in town, offers the strongest value proposition.”
Independent schools recognize that sustainability involves expanding non-tuition revenues and
that philanthropy has the potential to be the most consequential component in that mix. With this
in mind, Marts & Lundy wanted to compare our knowledge of what makes a successful fundraising
board with the reality of board members’ involvement in fundraising at independent schools and how
it relates to a school’s fundraising success. Our premise is that alumni and parent donors give more
generously when their independent school board is an active, informed, visible and vocal advocate
for a school’s strategic vision and fundraising priorities. When this philanthropic environment exists
for a school, tuition dominance can begin to ease and the school can chart a more financially
sustainable course.
Rachel Connell
Senior Consultant & Principal
Introduction
PAGE 1
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Key FindingsCampaigns are crucial.
PreK– 9 schools were 2 – 3 times less likely than other schools to have been in any
campaign stage, including post-campaign, since 2013. They also raised much less on
average overall and from their boards.
Set clear expectations.
98% of schools expect board contributions. Only 17% have an explicit minimum.
Boards are professionalizing.
67% of schools elect new board members annually, and 72% enforce term limits.
But…
36% of schools do not have Development participation in board nominations.
These schools raise nearly half the total giving compared to schools that include development.
Don’t leave wealth on the table.
Only 11% of schools rated wealth as their highest priority in board nominations.
Nominate your constituents.
New board nominees are equally likely to be friends of current board members as actual donors.
Schools choosing from donor lists raise more from their board and overall.
Nominate, then educate!
Schools with regular fundraising education for their boards raised 45% more on average than
those with irregular or no board education.
PAGE 2
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Independent Schools
Buyers:Parents
Students
Providers:Faculty
Background and Methodology
We conducted a survey with select independent schools with a focus on understanding:
• current board giving and fundraising performance
• key characteristics of high-achieving fundraising boards
• current priorities in today’s board recruitment
• the level of philanthropy education done with boards
• any correlations between board engagement and fundraising success
Based on these findings, we have identified actions schools and their boards can take immediately
to optimize board leadership in the philanthropic health of their schools.
But we begin with a snapshot of the terrain in today’s schools.
The Disruptive and Ongoing Pressures on Independent Schools
Financial sustainability has always been a key charge for an independent school board of trustees,
but the competitive environment and disruptive pressures schools face today are very different from
those just 10 years ago.
Figure A: Disruptive and Ongoing School Pressures
New Entrants:Charter Schools Homeschooling
Substitutes:Online Schools
(for credit)Khan Academy
PAGE 3
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Figure A represents a five forces diagram* for independent schools and illustrates the wide range
of pressures schools face today. Years ago, Buyers — or parents — were the primary pressure alongside
competition from other independent and parochial schools. Today, independent schools are bombarded
from all sides.
Parents remain a critical pressure point, as they must be convinced that investing in an independent school
education is worth it. But their child, the prospective student, is increasingly empowered by their parents
to make the actual school choice, so both groups require dedicated resources and attention to secure
the enrollment.
Charter schools and homeschooling continue to grow nationwide representing New Entrants that many
families consider a comparable and economical alternative to independent schools. Khan Academy and a
host of online schools — some providing academic credit, others supplemental education — are Substitutes
that give parents and students the option of bolstering public education for free or more reasonable fees.
Finally, there is the faculty as Providers of the independent school education. They are the most significant
cost driver in the traditional independent school business model with its promise of significantly smaller
classroom sizes than public school. No teacher answered the call expecting to get rich; however, they
do want to earn a decent living. Independent schools must be able to provide competitive salaries, benefits
and professional development for their teachers or risk losing their key asset.
These five forces underscore the “best-value imperative” that allows a school community to thrive and
survive. The truly strategic school boards are looking beyond tuition to philanthropy to help them diversify
income in both the short term and long term and shine a spotlight on the important work their schools do.
But how many boards are using their role as stewards to maximize philanthropy? Do they have the tools
they need to do so? Is fundraising positioned appropriately in board roles and responsibilities?
The Characteristics of Our School Respondents
Two school groups participated in collecting data. The Association of Delaware Valley Independent Schools
(ADVIS) partnered with us, as they indicated the board’s role in fundraising was a recurring area of interest for
their 130-plus member schools. The second group consisted of 103 additional independent schools, both
day and boarding across multiple school categories including PreK – 9, K–12, 6 –12 and 9 –12. Advancement/
Development Directors in both groups received the same online questionnaire with 45 questions related to
board giving, participation, recruitment and the role of the development committee. Of the 233 institutions
that were invited to participate, 65 responded (24 from ADVIS and 41 from the other group) resulting in a
28 percent total response rate.
* The five forces analysis of competition within an industry is associated with its principal innovator, Michael E. Porter of Harvard University.
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
PAGE 4
We primarily segmented responses by operating budget (Figure B). We also looked at schools by category,
as we were particularly interested in capturing any differences between grade offerings (Figure C). Respondents covered the range of categories with the top three responding being 9 –12, PreK– 9 and K–12.
Forty-two schools identified as day schools and 16 as boarding schools, with the balance being either day/
boarding or not identifying. The partnership with ADVIS weighted our results heavily to the mid-Atlantic;
however, we had representation from a total of 18 states.
Figure B: Annual Operating Budget
Figure C: Grade Offerings
9 – 12 PreK– 9 K– 12 6 –12 Unknown
2% (1)
12% (8)
25% (16)
29% (19)
32% (21)
31%Below $10M (20)
26%$25M – $49M (17)
5%$50M+ (3)
38%$10M – $24M (25)
PAGE 5
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Giving Patterns in Relation to Operating Budgets and Board Size
Is there a relationship between giving and school operating budgets? Between board giving and board size?
We expected that the schools with the largest operating budgets also enjoyed the largest average total
giving and average board giving — indeed, that was the case.
Figure D: Average Total Giving by Annual Operating Budget
Figure E: Average Board Giving by Annual Operating Budget
Using the average of three years of total giving data, there was a wide disparity of giving across operating
budgets (Figure D). Only three respondents had operating budgets of $50 million or higher, and they
enjoyed average total giving of almost $23 million, while schools with budgets under $10 million recorded
average giving of $800,000. Correspondingly, these same three large schools had higher average board
giving, $7.1 million, than the rest of the sample (Figure E).
There may be a staffing factor at play, assuming that schools with larger budgets are more able to fully staff
advancement, though there are small schools with small budgets that resource advancement sufficiently
and do well.
When examined by school category, average total giving and board giving offered a few surprises. It was not
surprising that PreK– 9 schools represented the majority of the smaller budget schools, but it was surprising
just how low average total giving and average board giving were for the cohort at $799,000 and $133,000,
respectively. Campaign status could be one factor influencing this. The PreK– 9 schools surveyed were
much more likely not to be in some phase of a campaign than all the other groups.
Below $10M $10M – $24M $25M – $49M $50M+
$0.8M
$4.2M
$7.9M
$22.9M
Below $10M $10M – $24M $25M – $49M $50M+
$0.1M$0.6M
$1.5M
$7.1M
PAGE 6
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Without a fundraising initiative as part of the regular life cycle of the school, it is difficult for board leadership to raise the philanthropic sights of the school community and their fellow trustees.
The second surprise came with the leader in average board giving by school category. The supposition
was that the 9 –12 schools’ dominance in average total giving at $7 million would also extend to average
board giving — that was not the case. That distinction went to 6 –12 schools, which boasted average board
giving of $2.8 million, more than twice the $1.2 million level of 9 –12 respondents. Again, this could be
due to campaign status, as 6 –12 schools report being slightly more likely to be in the quiet or public phase
of a campaign.
Campaign status is important because a healthy philanthropic cycle for schools includes regular fundraising
campaigns synchronized with board and head of school strategic visioning. You can have one without the
other, but neither is optimized when they are disconnected. The strategic vision is weaker because there is
no philanthropic support to take it to the next level, and philanthropy is stunted because it is not connected
to a larger purpose.
Another surprise in the survey sample was the lack of significant relationship between board size and board
giving. Based on previous board studies, we had expected to see larger boards associated with larger
average percentage of total giving from the board. Two-thirds of schools reported a board size of 20-plus
members, with the average number of board members coming in at 23. Average giving from these larger
boards represented 18 percent of total giving for the schools, not notably larger than the 14 percent of
total giving for schools with a board size of 19 or fewer (Figure F). Larger independent school boards also
often include more nondevelopment trustees — such as educators, strategic planners, architects, etc.
This may account for the less significant than expected difference in board giving between smaller and
larger independent school boards.
Figure F: Board Giving as an Average Percentage of Total Giving by Board Size
2012 – 2015
14%
18%
1 – 19 Member(s)
20+ Members
PAGE 7
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
All four operating budget categories realized a percentage of board giving higher than the 10 percent
national average reported in a 2012 Nonprofit Research Collaborative survey. Schools with budgets from
under $10 million through $49 million were almost identical in their average board giving percentages
ranging from 14 to 17 percent (Figure G).
When percentage of board giving was segmented by school category, the 6 –12 schools continued to
lead the way, with boards providing 24 percent of total giving.
Of critical, and not surprising, note here is that the three largest schools based on operating budget enjoyed a
much higher board percentage of total giving than the rest of the sample. Their average of 31 percent suggests
that the philanthropy message and responsibility may run deeper with these schools and their boards.
Interestingly, all of this stands in juxtaposition to Marts & Lundy’s ongoing New York City board giving
research of a wide range of nonprofits, which, for three years, has recorded that the smaller the
organization’s budget, the larger the board’s percentage of total giving. In 2014 alone, board percentage
of giving in surveyed New York organizations with budgets of less than $9.9 million was 46 percent versus
14 percent in 2016 in independent schools with budgets in the same range.
To what might we ascribe the difference? First, the small New York nonprofits put a greater emphasis
on wealth when recruiting board members than schools with a similar operating budget. Second, all but
two of the small schools in our sample were day schools where the majority of board members are current
parents versus alumni, which is more often the case in boarding schools. This means that these board
members are already paying tuition, sometimes as much as $40,000 a year per child, before they make
a philanthropic commitment to the school. At the end of the day, however, there is little doubt that if the
percentage of board giving for schools was more in line with that of NYC nonprofits, schools would be
in a stronger position to manage the disruptive and ongoing forces outlined earlier. With more non-tuition
revenue available to support faculty retention (the providers), schools might be able to curtail tuition
increases for the majority of their families (the buyers). Additionally, these boards would be visible models
of the importance of philanthropy to the rest of the school community.
Figure G: Board Giving as Percentage of Total Giving by Annual Operating Budget
Below $10M $10M – $24M $25M – $49M $50M+
14%
17% 16%
31%
PAGE 8
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
The Effect of Giving Expectations
It was encouraging to see that schools are comfortable making giving a requirement of board service, which
seemed a struggle for many not long ago. Only one survey respondent reported no annual gift expectation
from board members. Interestingly, unlike organizations in other nonprofit sectors where a giving minimum
or “entry fee” is more common, the majority of schools have not crossed into that territory. Just over
80 percent of schools reported there is no specific giving amount expected of board members. Only
11 schools reported their school’s minimum giving expectation, and all told the minimum gift averaged
$4,665. Sixty-seven percent of schools calculate the minimum as “give only” from the specific board
member while 10 percent calculate it as “give and get.” As the independent school board’s understanding
of its role in philanthropy increases, it will be interesting to see if board giving expectations become more
explicit in the years to come.
Board Governance Practices
In our experience with schools, irregular board elections, unlimited board terms and enforcement
of attendance were real challenges to effective board governance. Reassuringly, the survey points to
professionalization gaining ground across all school categories. Based on the survey sample, a healthy
67 percent of independent schools elect new members annually. Seventy-two percent of respondents
always enforce term limits, with the average term being three years and the average number of terms
allowed at two and a half.
When a governance committee decides not to renominate an existing board member, 71 percent report the
reason is lack of attendance at meetings or board activities (Figure H). With these fundamentals secured, the
board nominating committee is better able to be strategic as they recruit and train an effective governing body.
Figure H: Most Important Factor(s) in the Decision Not to Renominate a Board Member
Rarely attends meetings or participates in activities and events
Disruptive personality
Other
Unable to make minimum financial contribution
71%
15%
13%
2%
PAGE 9
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Board Composition and Profile
To elevate philanthropy’s role in board conversations, and the health of the school, the board must
include members who understand the critical role of fundraising and are, themselves, generous donors
to the school. But many schools either struggle to successfully recruit alumni or parents of wealth
or do not make it a priority.
For our respondents, specific talents and expertise overwhelmingly carried the day, with 74 percent of
them ranking it most often as one of the most important criteria when nominating a board member. Wealth
was second at 52 percent, and diversity representative of the school’s constituency was least frequently
selected at 29 percent (Figure I). (This stands in contrast to participants in our NYC board survey in which
three-quarters of organizations cited wealth as the most important criteria and 65 percent cited talent
and expertise.) It seems prioritizing talents and expertise comes at the expense of philanthropy, as those
participants that identified wealth as the most important criteria in board nominations had an average total
giving 44 percent higher than those that prioritized talents and expertise and 37 percent higher than those
that placed a premium on diversity.
Respondents were also asked to rate the priority of philanthropic capacity more precisely in the selection
of board members, and it was concerning to learn that only 11 percent rated philanthropic capacity as
their highest priority, 27 percent rated it as considered but not a priority and the majority, 62 percent, rated
philanthropic capacity in between these two extremes as “a priority” (Figure J).
Figure I: The One or Two Most Important Criteria in Board Member Nominations
NY Board Survey
70%65%
37%
Independent Schools
52%
74%
29%
Wealth Specific Talents and Expertise Diversity
PAGE 10
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
When we segmented by grades, we saw that only respondents in the 9 –12 cohort reported philanthropic
capacity was the highest priority in board selection. Many, though not all, respondents in this group have
more mature philanthropy programs, so this was not too surprising.
Only the PreK– 9 cohort listed it as “considered but not a priority” more often than “a priority.” This may
signal that philanthropy is not getting sufficient consideration in board recruitment in a school cohort that,
we demonstrated earlier, also struggles with low average giving.
The majority of PreK–9 schools have very small advancement shops — oftentimes only one staff member.
The Director in these environments must devote a large portion of time to day-to-day management of
volunteers and the mechanics of executing their annual fund program and fundraising events. In these
environments, having a cohort of philanthropists and fundraising volunteers at the board level who discuss
and model philanthropy is crucial. All of this is likely relevant to why PreK–9 schools were least likely to
report being in some phase of a fundraising campaign.
But it is not simply the PreK– 9 schools. Independent schools across categories lag far behind other
nonprofits in recruiting wealth to their boards. Some share that this is an extension of philanthropy
historically being considered a “necessary evil” and contrary to the school culture. This is a dangerous
legacy for many reasons. A balanced board includes a healthy representation of trustees with the capacity
and willingness to invest deeply in the school, emboldening the board’s understanding of its responsibility
for philanthropy. Moreover, major donors expect the board to set the bar in investment in school priorities,
with many taking into consideration board members’ philanthropic leadership when determining their gift.
Figure J: The Importance of Philanthropic Capacity in Selecting Board Member Candidates
Highest priority
A priority
Considered but not a priority
11%
62%
27%
PAGE 11
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Encouraging Progress Toward Board Diversity
Strategic board recruitment is never a quick process, and school efforts to build board diversity should
be no different. Fifty-five percent of schools reported that diversity was identified as the characteristic
most difficult to find when recruiting new board members. Wealth came second, cited by 42 percent
of respondents.
Schools have long expressed a desire to have their boards be more reflective of their constituency.
Through interviews for this project and the New York board research, we learned that some independent
schools that started working decades ago to recruit and enroll people of color are making real progress
in this regard. For instance, some New York City schools are realizing that their work to attract a diverse
student population is now translating to more ethnic diversity on their board. There is a markedly larger
proportion of alumni of color aged 40 and under than in previous generations. Like their peers, many
of these alumni have careers and incomes that would make them candidates for trustee consideration.
Through young professional networks and other alumni engagement programs, these New York schools
are connecting with alumni of color with strong affiliation to the school and an ability and interest to serve.
Source of Nominations and the Role of Advancement
Schools are fortunate to have a committed constituency at the ready to enlist as trustees. Parents (current
and past) and alumni already have invested in the school and have experienced its benefits. With nominal
engagement, they can remain proselytizers of the education they received and ardent supporters.
When exploring the most effective sources of new board members, we found schools that recruit board
members from donor lists and staff recommendations enjoy higher overall giving at $15.1 million versus
$12.1 million for schools that recruited through friends and business associates of current board members.
It was concerning, therefore, to see that friends and business associates of current board members
were identified by 54 percent of respondents as the significant source of board nominations. Staff
recommendations came in just a bit higher at 58 percent and nominations from donor lists at 49 percent.
This indicates that many schools do not know their constituencies well enough, both in terms of skills
and expertise and in engagement. While these “friends and business associates” are likely wise, altruistic
individuals, there is no direct connection or inherent fondness for the school. If they are recruited because
of their skills and expertise, then they are apt to consider this intellectual capital their primary “gift” to the
school and their philanthropy will be limited. Only the 9 –12 cohort selected “from our donor lists” more often
than the other suggested sources, which is logical since they identified philanthropic capacity as the highest
priority in board selection.
Aside from the 9–12 cohort, all other schools most often selected “friends and business associates of current board members” when identifying new board candidates.
PAGE 12
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Figure K: Average Board Giving by Advancement’s Participation in Board Nominations
2012 – 2015
Perhaps the reliance on “friends and business associates” can be better understood by the fact that
36 percent of schools shared that advancement has no role in nominations. Schools that left advancement
out of the nominating process received a lower percentage of their total giving from their board (13 percent
versus 18 percent) and lower average board giving of $2.0 million versus $2.8 million (Figure K). From
providing candidate research to vetting trustee prospects via volunteer engagement programs or visits,
involving advancement in the nomination process helps schools focus their recruitment efforts by providing
qualitative and quantitative insights into the philanthropic capacity and inclination and overall
fit of board candidates.
Board Orientation and Fundraising Effectiveness
Setting clear expectations and educating new board members on their role on the board is critical for both
the school and the new trustee. A full 95 percent of schools reported having a formal orientation for new
board members.
Does that orientation include fundraising and philanthropy education? For 56 percent of respondents
the answer is no. They reported having no fundraising education of any kind as new members joined the
board of an independent school (Figure L). Forty percent of respondents said they received some kind
of fundraising education at orientation, with four percent reporting that fundraising education was provided
only to those trustees assigned to the development committee.
The results were similarly worrying in terms of the frequency of fundraising education for board members
outside of orientation. Fifty-two percent indicated the board receives some kind of regular fundraising
education — annually, quarterly or at all board meetings. The other half of respondents reported fundraising
education is delivered on an “irregular” basis — or never at all.
These findings suggest two things. First, board members’ understanding of their role in an organization’s
philanthropic and programmatic success remains limited, and second, many schools struggle to create
the mechanisms or dedicate the resources to integrate fundraising and philanthropy into the roles and
responsibilities of an independent school board.
But there is a payoff for those that do make this a priority. Schools that have made efforts to incorporate
philanthropy and fundraising education into board orientation and ongoing education enjoy average total
$2.8M
$2.0M
DOD/VP does participate in board nominations
DOD/VP does NOT participate in board nominations
PAGE 13
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Figure M: Highest Ratings for Effectiveness of Board Members in Select Board Tasks
giving 45 percent higher than their fellow independent schools that do not. Development committee
members should be sponsors and leaders in providing the education, helping their board colleagues
understand philanthropy’s short- and long-term role in schools.
Board Members and Fundraising Responsibilities
Schools were asked to rate the effectiveness of board members at performing a host of responsibilities
associated with fundraising and relationship development. Highest marks in effectiveness went to
development committee members for their service, and board members that commit to chairing an event
or campaign or hosting an event in their home, business or club. These three areas saw effectiveness ratings
ranging from 68 to 74 percent (Figure M).
Figure L: Inclusion of Fundraising Skills During Board Member Orientation
Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective N/A
Serve on the development committee
Chair event of campaign; attend events
Host events in their own home/business/club
74%
71%
7%68%
19%
19%
14% 11%
7%
5%
3%
2%
56%No
12%General fundraising education,
but not skills-focused
28%Yes
4%Only for development committee
PAGE 14
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Tellingly, as the tasks began to focus more on direct and individualized board member work with donors,
effectiveness plummeted. Only 31 percent of respondents reported trustees as effective in making
introductions to prospective donors and 21 percent as effective in making personal visits to prospective
donors (Figure N).
Figure N: Lower Ratings for Effectiveness of Board Members in Select Board Tasks
Figure O: Effectiveness of Board Members in Development Committee Tasks
But of the schools that reported their trustees being effective at making personal visits to prospective
donors (only 21 percent of the cohort), they enjoyed an average total giving of $17.6 million. This was
second only to the one-third of schools surveyed that reported their trustees as effective at personally
making the introduction to a prospective donor. This group boasted $18.4 million in total average giving.
In other words, when board members are trained in fundraising and philanthropy and subsequently
enlisted to help advancement secure gifts, the school realizes significant monetary benefit.
Advancement directors were also asked to address development committee effectiveness (Figure O).
Advancement directors, school heads and development committee chairs struggle to integrate philanthropy,
and its associated work, regularly into board conversations, and survey responses reveal there is indeed
still a great deal of work to be done. Only 53 percent of schools reported development committees as being
effective in representing philanthropy in board and community conversations and 32 percent as effective in
providing ongoing fundraising training and motivation to their board colleagues.
Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective N/A
Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective N/A
Personally make the introduction to a prospective donor
Ask friends or business associates to give
Make personal visits to prospective donors
31%
24%
21%
33% 22% 14%
22%
38% 16%
33% 21%
26%
Represent the role of philanthropy in board and community conversations
Help create a long-term vision for philanthropy
Provide ongoing training and motivations to full board regarding philanthropy
53%
45%
32%
26% 14% 7%
21%
19% 32%
17% 17%
18%
PAGE 15
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
There could be a number of reasons for this starting with the official charges of these committees
and whether they are actually practiced. But for the 45 percent of schools that reported development
committees helping advancement create the long-term philanthropic vision, these schools also boasted
average total giving of $15.7 million. Those development committees that are engaged in helping the
school create its philanthropic vision are equipped to proselytize to their board colleagues and the school
community, potentially lofting the philanthropy conversation to its appropriate place alongside admissions
and not subordinate to it. From there, the school is both optimally resourced to support its teachers and
students and optimally positioned to tackle the disruptive and ongoing forces in the marketplace.
Key Success Factors in Advancing Board Philanthropy
1. Incorporate philanthropy into the board-supported strategic vision. Not simply as a means to an end but as part of the fabric of the school.
2. Invest time and resources in regular board philanthropy education.
3. Invest in advancement sufficiently so that you know and have relationships with
your closest constituencies (alumni and parents) and can strategically recruit your board members
from there.
4. Include advancement in the nominating process. The advancement relationship
with governance must be as strong as it is with the development committee.
5. Create a multiyear board recruitment plan with wealth as a top priority
and systematically work toward achieving it.
6. Manage board composition, profile and size so that your school has the board
it needs to respond to the increasingly competitive environment.
7. Engage board members deliberatively and regularly. The Head of School,
Director of Advancement and Board Chair must actively involve board members in the school
beyond board meetings.
8. Conduct fundraising campaigns. Campaigns are essential to school growth programmatically
and financially and must be a regular, reliable part of the life cycle of a school. They are a critical
instrument that builds community, elevates and celebrates philanthropy and helps a school distinguish
itself from its competition.
PAGE 16
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
Closing Thoughts
To be an independent school in 2016 is to be barraged from all sides by competition (new and old), financial
pressures and an increasingly proactive customer base. To be a board member of an independent school
today necessitates your dealing at the highest strategic levels with the complexities behind and impact
of these pressures. Our research, survey and conversations indicate independent school boards are eager
to respond and have made significant gains in professionalizing their board structure, processes and work,
all of which have greatly benefited the schools they serve.
Philanthropy and fundraising, though, often remain on the sidelines for boards, subordinate to enrollment
and other areas of school business. Advancement programs are stuck in a fundraising cycle of peaks and
valleys driven by campaign timelines instead of a long-term philanthropic plan integrated with the strategic
vision of their school. From recruiting board members with philanthropic capacity to providing regular
education and training to board members, there is much opportunity for boards and their schools.
Indeed, Marts & Lundy believes schools realize a significant shift in their financial picture if they can expand
and deepen the board’s role in building a culture of philanthropy. What is required is a sustained attention
to advancement and equipping board members with the information and skills necessary to be active
participants in fundraising. With that in place, integrating philanthropy into the full community will be easier,
board stewardship optimized and philanthropy poised to provide maximum impact to your school.
PAGE 17
MARTS & LUNDY SPECIAL REPORT
A special thank-you to Alison Rane, Associate Consultant, Analytical Solutions, for her
outstanding work throughout the research itself and in the preparation of this report.
We also thank the Association of Delaware Valley Independent Schools (ADVIS)
for partnering with us to explore this key issue for independent schools.
TEL +1 201-460-1660 / WEB WWW.MARTSANDLUNDY.COM
SERVING CLIENTS WORLDWIDE WITH OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA