The problem of selecting appropriate indicators for the evaluation of higher education programs is discussed. A set of indicators and a model for assessing institutional advancement programs are presented as a framework for the institutional manager. (Author/SF)

The importance of evaluation for institutional development is discussed from the perspective of the manager. It is suggested that the higher education manager can use evaluation to obtain feedback about program effort, performance, and effects that will aid in the decision-making process. (Author/SF)

The design and findings of an evaluation of the alumni records, broadcasting, development, health science relations, information services, publications, and state and community relations programs as well as the vice-president's office at the University of Michigan are described. (Author/SF)

The design and findings of a communication audit conducted in the division of university relations at the State University of New York at Buffalo are discussed. (Author/SF)

Indicators of fund-raising costs and productivity are discussed and trends in fund raising are assessed. It is suggested that less of the educational and general expenditures are going to college and university advancement programs, but that gift-dollar costs remain constant. (Author/SF)

The use of Management by Objectives (MBO) for evaluating the public relations, publications, internal and external relations, alumni relations, development, and special events programs of the University of Georgia is discussed. (Author/SF)

Although the ratio of program costs to dollars raised is an important measure of effectiveness, there are many variables among colleges and universities that must be considered when fund-raising efforts are assessed. Both tangible (size, academic offerings, type of institution) and intangible (spirit, energy, ability) variables are discussed.…

The costs and revenues of 25 of the nation's most effective development and university relations programs are analyzed. Insights into organizational structures, comparative costs, support strengths and weaknesses, and campaign goals are noted. (Author/SF)