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


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


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.


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


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.


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)


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


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


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%


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%


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


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%


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.


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


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


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.



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%


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.


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.


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

New Setting a Course for Sustainable Philanthropy · 2017. 1. 18. · When examined by school...

Documents

Transcript of New Setting a Course for Sustainable Philanthropy · 2017. 1. 18. · When examined by school...