Row

About the Alumni Engagement Metrics (AEM) Survey

In 2019, CASE launched a new Alumni Engagement Metrics survey to enable institutions to measure alumni engagement across four “modes”: Philanthropic, Volunteerism, Experiential, and Communications. Now in its second year, 372 institutions from 16 countries took part. The survey framework was created by a volunteer task force of alumni relations professionals and defines alumni engagement as "activities that are valued by alumni, build enduring and mutually beneficial relationships, inspire loyalty and financial support, strengthen the institution’s reputation and involve alumni in meaningful activities to advance the institution’s mission.

A full report of key survey findings is available for download from the survey website. You can also access the Guidance Document for specific inclusions and exclusions across the four modes. For more in-depth analysis, consider ordering a Made-to-Order GPS report with up to 20 peers of your choice and a review call with an AMAtlas team member. Contact Jenny Cooke Smith for more information.

All comparisons in the following slides are presented as Medians.

Row

AMAtlas Peers

Peers Years Participated
Peer3 2
Sample Institution 2
Peer1 1
Peer2 1
Peer4 1
Peer5 1

Peer Algorithm

AMAtlas peer groups are based on a combination of core data points from the Alumni Engagement Metrics survey and additional appended variables. An algorithm is used to select the five institutions most similar to yours based on data for fiscal year 2020. Appended variables are highlighted in green; AEM survey variables in blue. Appended variables include institutional classifications and, where applicable, responses from CASE regional fundraising surveys.

The following visualizations show trends in your institution and institutions similar to yours based purely on the selected data points. Your peer group is not necessarily an academic or aspirational peer group. Additionally, if you also receive a GPS report based on your participation in an AMAtlas fundraising survey, your algorithm-based fundraising and AEM peer groups will be different due to the varying groups of institutions that participate in each survey.

Note: Scroll down to the Next Steps section for information about selecting your own peer institutions for comparison as well as suggestions about how to implement data-driven strategies using these results.

Algorithm Weights

Row

Alumni Relations Expenditures

The expenditures include only the staff and non-staff direct costs involved in alumni relations activities. A response of 0 was still considered a response while a blank response indicated the answer was omitted.

The totals, shown on the top of each graph, are converted to local currency in Sample Country. For grouped data, the median spending for each category was calculated and then were summed to obtain a total.

Expenditures

Percentage of Institutions by Expenditure Categories Reported

Your institution completed 4 out of 4 categories. The table below shows the percentage of respondents by group who provided responses by expenditure category.

Alumni Relations Median Staff FTE

Row

Proportion of Alumni who are Contactable and Engaged

Contactable Alumni per Staff FTE

Row

Percentage Engaged by ANY Mode

Percentage Engaged by ANY mode is a metric that divides the number of legally contactable alumni by the number of alumni who were engaged by at least one of the four modes. Review engagement by each mode for insight into how the 24,652 alumni are engaged with your institution. Percentage Engaged by any mode can vary based on the data your institution captures. Review Confidence Levels to see how your institution’s confidence in the comprehensiveness of data captured compares to peers and other survey respondents.

Row

Sample Institution and AMAtlas Peers

Sample Country/Region and All AEM

Row

Confidence Level

Respondents were asked to provide a Confidence Level for Volunteer, Experiential, and Communication modes. The graph shows the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were confident that the data captured was representative of institutional activities and events. Your institution indicated the following:

Confidence Level Heat Map

Responses are visualized by Heat Map, with yellow indicating the highest level of confidence and purple the lowest. The figures denote the percentage of respondents in each group that indicated they were confident in their responses for each of the three modes. The cell color indicates the corresponding heat level.

Row

Change in Total Engagement from Previous Year

Hover over each bar to see percentage change by mode. As you review, keep in mind that as nascent metrics, it is not uncommon to see large shifts as institutions capture additional data. Review the Engagement by Mode section below to learn more about philanthropic, volunteer, experiential, and communications results.

Percentage Change in Total Engagement

Row

Engagement by Mode

Engagement by mode shows the percentage of legally contactable alumni engaged in each of the four modes. If your institution did not provide responses for Communication, your data will only show results for three modes. Note that the axis for each of the graphs changes based on the range of data for each comparison group. For further analysis, review percentage engaged by mode by alumni category in Data Miner or in the custom Made-to-Order GPS Report.

Row

Sample Institution

AMAtlas Peers (Median)

Row

Sample Country/Region (Median)

All AEM (Median)

Row

Next Steps

Row

Downloadable Source Data

Alumni Relations Expenditures Data

Proportion of Alumni who are Contactable and Engaged Data

Percentage Engaged by ANY Mode Data

Confidence Level Data

Change in Total Engagement from Previous Year Data

Engagement by Mode Data