CAREERS IN UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT
with Brenda V. Cross, Jami Moss, Rebecca Sutcliffe, & Kimera K. Way
Hosted by Paula Foster Chambers
The following Guest Speaker Discussion originally took place on WRK4US in April of the year 2003. Because WRK4US has a confidentiality policy, all names and email addresses have been altered or removed, except for the moderator's and the Guest Speakers'.
The discussion can be read in two ways- by simply scrolling down and reading the whole thing, or by clicking on the topical links below, which take you to specific places within the discussion. The discussion can also be printed out in its entirety for your reading convenience.
Special thanks to Daniela Bleichmar who volunteered her time to edit this discussion and prepare it for posting on the web. If you are interested in editing a future discussion, your help will be much appreciated; email Paula Foster, WRK4US List Manager, at pfchambers@sbcglobal.net
Introduction of Guest Speakers
What is "university development"? How does it work?
How does one get started in development?
How does development work within the university? What are the main funding sources?
Has funding for university development decreased lately?
Are there research positions in development?
Salaries
Applying for jobs: how closely must a candidate match the stated requirements?
Other types of development/advancement jobs
Is higher ed development hurting right now?
Alumni giving / Successful asking
Alumni's reasons for contributing or not
Alumni giving and "customer satisfaction"
Integrated asking
Close of discussion
RELATED LINKS
Introduction of Guest Speakers
Brenda V. Cross, Ph.D.
Relationship Builder (Director of Development)
The College of Sciences and Arts
Michigan Technological University
bvcross@MTU.EDU
Greetings Colleagues,
In May I will celebrate my fourth year as Director of Development for the College of Sciences and Arts at a highly technological university in the Midwest.
I completed my Master's degree in 1988 in Counseling and Education, and spent 13 years working in student affairs/counseling-oriented positions. My last job, prior to becoming a Development Officer was as Dean of Students and Director of Student Support Services at a small private college in the area. I was working on my dissertation while holding down what felt like two full time jobs. The demands of my Dean of Students job had reached a point where I no longer had any time or energy to think about my dissertation, even evenings and weekends were consumed. So I began discretely inquiring about other opportunities.
When the Development opportunity presented itself, I wasn't sure that I had the skills or expertise to be an outstanding fund raiser, but I needed a change, and believed that I could do it. Previously I had experienced success writing grants and heading volunteer fund raising efforts. They were willing to take the chance on me, and I was confident that I had transferable skills.
My professional background had been divided between some form of education and stints in the corporate world, primarily in sales/marketing. Wherever I've lived I have been actively involved in community service of some type. In Farmville I was president of my local United Way, was a founding member of an educational foundation, was a founding member of the new local YMCA, and on the board of a number of other community agencies that involved fundraising.
Like many of you, some of my jobs have been strictly about a paycheck. There were bills to be paid, there was adventure to be had, and the mountain was there, so I climbed it. My time in the corporate world was more about money than any form of service, giving back, or fulfilling personal mission.
Being in Development in higher education comes close to providing that satisfying sense of service, and making a difference in people's lives. As I've grown older it has become increasingly important to me to like the work that I do, and feel that I'm making a difference. I am constantly in search of a balance between doing what I love and being able to meet my financial needs.
I've rattled on about my background, and told you very little about what the Director of Development actually does. I build relationships with alumni and friends of the College of Sciences and Arts. From those relationships, after a period of cultivation, some of these alumni and friends give annual, major, and/or planned gifts to the university.
I serve 13 department chairs and the Dean of the College. I meet often with the Dean and Department Chairs to plan strategies and prepare for upcoming travel to visit alumni. On a typical day in the office I alternate between email and telephone approaches to get appointments for future travel, or just keeping in touch with my donors and prospects. I write thank you letters and prepare written proposals. To document all of my contacts, I send contact reports to our research department so that records of my contacts are maintained in the central data base (Banner).
Michigan Tech is a terrific place to work, and provided me with immediate opportunities to go to Fund raising school. We were just entering the public phase of a capital campaign, and I was worried that I wouldn't be able to learn all that I needed to learn in order to be successful at fund raising. Under the leadership of some very talented and effective management, we ended our $140 million capital campaign a year and a half early, and $6 million above goal. I have to confess that my contribution to the overall amount raised was minuscule by comparison, but it certainly does feel good to be on a winning team, and I learned a lot about fund raising in the process.
The tightening economic picture, state and federal budget cuts, threats of terrorism, war, lay-offs, and low markets, will continue to make for a challenging time in fundraising. This could present more opportunities for new people to enter the development arena. If you decide to pursue a career in Development, it might be difficult, but there will never be a dull moment, you will learn a lot, and you'll meet many new and interesting people.
This will sound a little bit contradictory, but the thing that I love most is also the thing that I find most challenging. I love traveling all around the country meeting the interesting alumni - hearing their stories, and learning of their love for Michigan Tech. But then I have to ask them for money. I can do a soft "ask", but I struggle with how forcefully to push for their support. I am most comfortable listening to them and then - making the case - and asking how they want to be involved in helping the university fulfill its mission and achieve its goals. I am less comfortable with overcoming objections when they say they do not want to give, or they offer to give $100 when we need, and they're capable of giving thousands. Also, there are aspects of the traveling that can be wearying, especially post 9/11, and during winter storms in the U.P.
The biggest lesson I learned is that it is not about me, and it is not about the money. It is about the mission of the organization, the goals of the prospective donor, and matching up the two.
Your questions are welcome!
Jami Moss
Director of Annual Giving
Columbia Theological Seminary
Decatur, Georgia
MossJ@CTSNET.EDU
My academic career: I wanted to be an English professor since my freshman year of college. But during the last year or two of my graduate career, I'd started to ask some serious questions about this choice. Was a tenure-track job -- any job -- worth living in a place I didn't like? Was I really willing to move several times over the next few years? How much longer could I stand not having the financial stability to fulfill some rather modest but nevertheless lifelong dreams, such as owning a house with a garden? By the time I finished my Ph.D. in 1999, I'd begun to feel like I was putting my whole life on hold just to chase after that elusive job. On top of all that, despite seven years of teaching experience and consistently good evaluations, I had never come to love the classroom.
My new career: Still, I persevered along the academic job track. As I was finishing my dissertation, I began seeing a wonderful job counselor in my university's career office (free!) to talk through some of these questions and come up with a plan. Together, we determined that *where* I lived was perhaps one of the most important things to me, so I picked about six cities where I would be willing to settle for the foreseeable future. (You should have seen the look on the face of our English department career advisor when I told her that one.) I looked into both academic and nonacademic careers and ultimately landed a three-year teaching postdoc at Georgia Tech. It took about, oh, a month to realize that I wasn't going to stay in academia. I'll be happy to share the gory details of that final decision if anyone cares to hear, but I'll focus instead on how I ultimately ended up in my current job.
During that year at Tech, I spent a lot of time investigating the nonacademic job world--reading books for career changers, telling everyone I knew I was looking, attending nonacademic career workshops, polishing my resume, etc. In July 2001, I left Tech to work at a dot.com that produced software for educational and nonprofit institutions. After about six months or so, it became clear to me that it wasn't the best fit for me. So I started thinking about what I liked about my current job and was surprised to realize that it was the sales and marketing part --talking to people, learning what their needs were, and traveling to visit clients.
So one day I was sharing all this with a friend, and I said, "Do you know of any career where I could schmooze for a living?" "What about university development?" she said.
I started looking into this more carefully, asking around about what development work was like. My friend eventually put me in touch someone in development at Emory. Other friends put me in touch with other Emory development folks. Around the same time a neighbor who worked in development at Columbia Theological Seminary --a Presbyterian seminary two miles from where I lived-- also told me about a job there and gave my resume to her boss.
Good thing I had started all that networking, because about a month after that conversation with my friend the dot.com downsized (to 3 employees) and I found myself in early "retirement." Luckily for me, my initial contacts eventually turned into informational interviews, which eventually turned into real interviews. After two months of interviewing with both Emory and the seminary (a long time, I know, but it was the summer and hard to coordinate schedules), I eventually withdrew from the Emory interviews, even though I was one of the final two candidates, to take the job at the seminary.
Life in my new Job: I've yet to regret that decision. Even though I've been in this job only since September 2002, I'm already planning to stay here as long as I can. In many ways my job is not typical of a traditional university development officer because our school is so small (about 200 students on campus), but it may well be typical of other small shops.
So, about my workdays. My title is Director of Annual Giving. With that glamorous title comes a staff of 1.3 --myself and an assistant I share with the Director of Major Gifts and the Director of Planned Giving. I usually arrive at work around 8:45 and leave by 5:30, with an hour for lunch. (These relatively short hours are apparently not typical of many development jobs.) I have put in 60+ hours weeks when it's been required, but then again, I also get 4 weeks paid vacation, 2 weeks continuing ed leave, and very generous sick leave. One thing that surprised me about leaving academia: I did not miss the "free" schedule. Because I can't take off the afternoon just because I'm feeling the urge to get outside, I get a lot more work done and have ended up with far more free time than I had before -- no more Saturdays feeling guilty because I'm not writing!
As I expected, my work does require good social skills. Roughly twice a month, I travel somewhere in the Southeast to visit donors, and I also have lunch and phone conversations with "my" donors on a regular basis. But my job also involves quite a bit of planning--determining the next step with a donor, deciding who will receive our next direct mail and what our message will be, looking at the data from our last mailing to understand what was successful and what was not. I spend about 3-5 hours a week in meetings with colleagues, a large chunk of time writing (usually very short but carefully worded letters or planning statements), another big chunk working with our database, and the rest of the time being nice to people so they'll give us money.
The best part of my job is my colleagues, who are warm, friendly, sociable, and very committed to our institution and our mission. I work on very little wholly alone; I'd say at least 50% of my time is spent interacting with others. I may spend hours working on a direct mail piece, but someone else will eventually read the piece and give me constructive feedback. This collaborative spirit stands in stark contrast to much of my academic work. The donors are also quite amazing--their willingness to give their time and resources to us continually astounds me.
When I think of what I miss in academia, I'm sorry to say it's very little. Occasionally I get twinges when I go to the occasional lecture or talk to one of our students about postmodern theory -- that intellectual stimulation is hard to beat. But then again, in most ways I think my intellectual life is richer than it used to be. I read books just for fun on a wider range of subjects that I ever encountered in grad school. I go to lectures at art museums on things completely unrelated to my old field (Victorian literature). I get to talk to others about *their* interests, which are so varied and fascinating. For example, one 85-year-old lady, one of our donors, meets me occasionally for lunch and lectures at our modern art museum. She earned a master's in art history while she was in her 70s and traveled to Russia to visit museums just a few years ago. And lunch with her is considered "work"!
I'll look forward to your questions!
Rebecca Sutcliffe
Acting Director of Research &
Curriculum Innovation
Division of Research
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
sutclirj@CLARKSON.EDU
Dear List members:
First let me say thank you for allowing me to join the discussion. It's an honor for me to participate and I'm pleased to share with you my "career path."
I earned my Ph.D. in English at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. It was a somewhat unconventional doctorate: for my dissertation, I wrote a biography that was also a critique of the biographical genre. That led me to study business and professional writing and to publish in that area.
By the time I was writing the final chapters, I'd traveled from London, where I was doing some of the research, to Austin, Texas, where I did more of the research, to Salt Lake City, where I completed the research, and where my future husband was completing his Ph.D. I got several teaching gigs in several different departments at the University of Utah, where I continued to pursue my interest in how women write their way into professions or business. In particular, my experience teaching and consulting as an adjunct for the MBA program got me interested in business plan writing: how people convince other people to back their ideas with money.
That led me to an interest in people who do Development, or fundraising (sometimes called "friendraising") for a living. Eventually, when my husband was offered a position at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, I jumped at the chance to apply for a job as Assoc. Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations in the Development office at Clarkson. In between Utah and Clarkson I'd held a regular tenure track faculty position for about two years, and hated it. Teaching just is not my thing. One-on-one counseling and consulting is what I really enjoy. I like helping people, one-on-one, learn to be better writers.
I stayed in Development work for about 3 years, and then, because I'm most interested in raising money for research, I moved to the Sponsored Research Office, which is where I am today. Mainly the job involves coordinating, facilitating and monitoring all University-wide efforts to enhance and support research, research funding, and knowledge transfer; overseeing and coordinating representation, lobbying and negotiation with external bodies on research-related matters; ensuring that Clarkson has up-to-date
University-wide policies on research and mechanisms to monitor their application; addressing the research service needs of individual researchers, their departments and schools, and leading the initiative to explore, write and develop University-wide funding projects and to establish partnerships with other academic institutions, business and community organizations, foundations, and government agencies. This last item is probably the single most important part of my position. Basically, I'm a yenta, putting people and institutions together in mutually beneficial research relationships. Except for the emphasis on research, this is also what I did in my time in Development. It's about creating relationships, and what I learned about language and writing in my degree has really helped over these five years "outside" the academy.
The best part of my position is being able to take someone's idea for research and putting that person and idea together with someone else and growing it into a multimillion dollar and multi-institution research effort. It is extremely rewarding, when, for example, a beginning researcher is able to get funding for her breast cancer research because I was able to help her "translate" it to a funding source. Most of what I do is "translation," of highly technical and scientific language into meaningful and visionary statements of what the outcomes will likely be. I also like digging my hands into a real challenge, like how to establish policy in an academic setting, on conducting classified research, that is, research that might not be shared with the academic community because it is essential to national security. Or like how to create a policy on research or scientific misconduct that treats everyone fairly and is workable given the small, private university environment we're a part of at Clarkson.
What I dislike intensely are details. I'm a language person and vision person: details bore me, but in this position accuracy is critical and every cent and every person-hour of productivity must be monitored and reported on. Thankfully I have a very talented and experienced staff of 2 award administrators and several support staff to handle the details, but I still have to know them myself.
All in all, I wouldn't go back to being a faculty member. I plan to stay in University administration, where I can move higher education forward at a more global level than in the trenches. I'm lucky, because being at a small institution allows me to be involved in a lot broader array of activities than I would be involved in were I at a much larger or State system school. For example, I'm permitted to receive grants in support of my own research, and to be included as a co-PI on grants, something that allows me to take an active role as a "para-faculty" member. It's the best of both worlds, really, and, although I didn't plan it that way, it couldn't have worked out better.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about what I do and how I got here. Thanks again for letting me be part of your discussion.
RJS
Kimera K. Way
Executive Director of Development,
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
WAYKK@UWEC.EDU
Greetings - this is my introduction to you. Am looking forward to your questions.
BS - Journalism - U of Wyoming; MA U of Kansas - Communication Studies
Career in higher education - Frankly, I never had this perfect career outlined for myself. I thought I would stay in public relations, but once I finished my master's degree, I toyed with the idea of going on with my master's degree and seeking a vice presidency. Then, I got into fundraising and found my true calling. My biggest challenge right now is balancing family demands with trying to maintain a satisfying and rewarding career.
How I got started in my job: My route to a career in fundraising was rather indirect and not well planned. My first intention was to be a newspaper reporter and remain in my home state of Wyoming. However, upon graduation from the University of Wyoming, I was offered the opportunity to return to my first alma mater, a private women's college in Missouri. I worked as the director of public information for Cottey College (Nevada, MO). Then, wanting to get further west, I went to Emporia State University for what I thought would be a short stint in the public relations office. Fourteen years later, I left as a fundraiser. I was happy in my role as the director of university relations when the president called me in his office to inform me that they were letting go of the head of fundraising and the Foundation. He asked if I would go "over there" on an interim basis. I laughed at him. When I realized he was serious, I took the challenge, applied for the job on a permanent basis, survived a national search and became the assistant to the president for institutional advancement at Emporia State University (KS). That was 12 years ago. I've been fundraising ever since. My degrees are in journalism (BS) and communication studies (MA), not bad preparation for my current work as executive director of development at UW-Eau Claire.
What my current day is like: Every day in my job is different and it seems like every day is about 2 hours in length. The time flies so quickly, I often barely have time to catch my breath. We are in the midst of our first comprehensive campaign at UW-Eau Claire, so much of my time is spent working on campaign issues -- identifying donors, developing proposals, strategizing with my staff, obtaining appointments, calling on prospects, and, of course, asking for money. This is my third major fundraising campaign for a university. I do not travel extensively in this current job, although I did in my previous job as executive director of development at Michigan Technological University. Part of this is by job design; part because 65% of our alumni are within 80 miles of the university. I spend a lot of time working with departments to discuss their private support needs, developing proposals and matching needs with donors. I also supervise the development operation, so I spend a great deal of time working on system issues, gift entry issues, staffing issues. I supervise annual giving, major gifts and planned giving, so time is spent working with those areas to ensure they have the tools they need to be successful. I also staff the president of the foundation and to some extent the chancellor. I work closely with a designer and writer on creating all of the fundraising printed materials and web site.
What do I like about the job/what don't I like? I love working with donors -- making the plan come together. I love talking to departments to learn their needs, coming up with the perfect match and then working with the appropriate entities to make the ask and secure the gift. It's a wonderful feeling to satisfy so many people -- the donor(s) and the beneficiaries of their generosity. I love being part of the philanthropic process -- working with people who are happy to give away their assets. My favorite part is helping create or bring out that "joyful donor." I love the creative part of developing the proposals and coaching people to see how this can all work.
What I like least is the necessary, but often challenging, details of managing any organization. Personnel issues are my most challenging. Bringing people along who are reluctant to be part of the team. Coaching those who don't want to be coached. By nature, I love change. Most people hate change, so I have to constantly temper my desire to constantly tweak things with the reality that people can only take so much change. I try to empower people, but I also want my agenda to be completed, so I have to constantly balance those conflicting situations.
What I don't miss about the traditional academic life is the routine nature of it and its ambiguity. I love that I've NEVER been bored in the 12 years I've worked in fundraising. Every day you start out with virtually a clean slate. I don't miss being at the mercy of 18-21-year-old students who can have such an impact on your professional life through their course evaluations and their interest in what you are providing them. I don't miss many of the restrictions of most other areas of a university. Because we are with the foundation, we have certain degrees of budgetary and decision-making independence most other areas do not have. I love that flexibility.
Conclusion: The war and economy notwithstanding, this profession still is a great profession with many opportunities for professional development and growth. I constantly am amazed by the American culture that believes you can change the world if you have the will and resources to do so. I am proud to be part of that process of working with others to do good things. At the same time, it's very challenging right now. It's difficult to hear stories of people who face losing their retirement funds, who are living on significantly less than they were three years ago and who have lost jobs. It's heartbreaking to hear stories of students who can't afford college, who lack the resources they need to achieve their goals. Yet, I think by nature, advancement professionals are the eternal optimists. We look for the positives. That's what makes our work so stimulating and rewarding. I very much look forward to answering questions, responding to inquiries, and providing more insights on various issues in our profession.
What is "university development"? How does it work?
QUESTION FROM A.B.
I'm finding these introductions very interesting and yet at the same time completely abstract. I'm having a hard time understanding the discourse of "relationship cultivation," which all of the speakers have used in one form or another. One has a job in which one comes in at 9 AM, gets on the phone to someone and starts to set up lunch dates with them at which they will be schmoozed and "worked" for donations? Really?
And then there are "management teams," "campaign objectives," "goal coordination," and "strategic initiatives." And there is "Greek," too. Is a campaign objective a new science center, a gymnasium, a new dorm?
I wish the speakers could perhaps slow down a bit, or could step outside of their language-code and explain some of the nuts and bolts.
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe:
Development does have its own language. And, like any other profession, the language changes over time. It used to be that most universities went along day to day raising operating funds and then every now and then having a campaign, which is a concerted effort to raise excitement, awareness, loyalty and funds for specific projects. Universities have so many constant and varied needs these days that campaigns are becoming more or less the continuous form of fundraising for many schools. You can see what a campaign is all about by randomly picking a university's web page to visit. Ten to one they'll have a campaign going, with a logo in the corner of the home page. Campaigns take a lot of planning, from developing "suspect" and "prospect" lists (people who might be inclined to give with a lot of "cultivation," over several years, and people who have given and may be ready to give more significant gifts within the next year or two, certainly before the end of the campaign. These are most likely to be alums but may not always be.
Day to day? Development officers don't pick up the phone in a vacuum. They have learned the priorities of the University, learned about who is out there who might give to these priorities, learned about what cultivation has taken place in the past (has the donor given before? Who said thanks and how? What are the donor's interests? How expressed? Has the donor been on campus recently?) and then developed a plan, in concert with other university administrators, on how to cultivate further. A special dinner with the President for all major prospects who've given more than $5,000 in the past? Tour of the labs? Visit during alumni reunion? If a Foundation, a letter of interest? Full proposal? Day to day, there are myriad little tasks that have to be done to get to these bigger goals. Always, it's an ongoing process of matching prospects to projects.
In developing the plan, first and foremost must be people's connection to the institution and how to strengthen it. You can't just pick up the phone and call someone cold. That rarely works and might turn off a potential donor. Even in calling a Foundation, you've got to do your homework, and prepare thoughtful probing questions that will also help the person on the other end of the phone learn about you. It really is a process of "getting to know you, getting to trust you, getting to a mutually beneficial relationship." Donors always get something in return, whether it's fulfilling a need to be needed, or for a Foundation, fulfilling the mission it was created for. Everyone is going to be a donor at some stage in their lives: you have to work to make sure that donation comes to *your* institution.
COMMENT FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe:
I hope I didn't sound too flip on the previous post. Asking for money is hard work and takes a lot of preparation. I just wanted to add that it took me a long time to learn how to do it. This is the girl who, in grade seven, ate two crates of chocolate bars so she wouldn't have to ask people to buy them for some school fundraiser I promised to participate in. Asking for money made me squirm. However, I learned that there are organizations out there (and individuals) actively seeking to give their money away to support good programs and projects. Foundations are obligated by law to give away 5% of their assets annually. I told myself that they might as well be giving it to my organization and "my" projects.
COMMENT FROM A.B.
Thank you for your remarks. I find after reading your account that I "sort of" get it, or at least get what it is I do not get. It lies here: "Donors always get something in return, whether it's fulfilling a need to be needed." People give their money away in order to feel needed? Really? Wow! That's ... incredible.
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe:
Yes, they really do. Let me give you an example. We have an older, local alumnus here who lost his wife several years ago. He loves acting and performing and had belonged to a local little theatre group before it went defunct. He was, frankly, lonely and looking for a way to connect to his community and contribute to theatre.
Clarkson is not known for its theatre program: we are an engineering school and don't have any music, theatre or arts programs, except classes in film and photography. But we do have a very active extracurricular performing arts group made up of students, faculty and staff who put on two big productions per year. Our alumnus became involved with this group, helped produce several plays, and even acted in some of them. Then he became interested in making a bequest to the theatre group. He didn't have enough money to start his own theatre, but by making this bequest to CU he could have his "own" theatre group, and in the process contribute to student and community life. I believe giving to Clarkson met a real need for him to be needed by his community, and was within what he as one person could do.
I wasn't part of getting this gift, but I know the person who was got a tremendous sense of satisfaction from it. I know our alumnus feels more connected to Clarkson and the community than ever. And I also know that we'll perhaps put his future gifts and those of others like him together to try to fund a performing arts center. That's how the cultivation never ends.
ANSWER FROM Kimera K. Way
I think it boils down to something even more basic. Donors give their money away because they believe in causes and a world greater than them and they believe that by using their resources they can affect change. It may sound simplistic and somewhat mushy, but it's at the heart of why most people give away their money. I had a donor who said it like this -- each of us wants to leave a bit of our stain on the earth. Truly -- I was there when he said it.
COMMENT FROM V.J.
Might I also add that one reason why people give away their money or give of their time is because they recognize they are blessed and thereby have the responsibility to give back to their community.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
I'd be interested to hear the comments of other speakers on the point I'm about to make. It's been my experience so far that in fundraising (that is, in actively soliciting potential donors one-on-one), it's very helpful if you yourself are a "donor" --that is, if you make charitable contributions on a regular basis. It helps you understand the motivations for giving, which can range from "wanting to feel needed" to a deeply held belief that wealth ought to be shared rather than hoarded.
Practical reasons such as tax write-offs or avoiding estate taxes are a component of giving, but financially they just don't provide enough incentive in and of themselves. (Those who work in planned giving --that is, helping individuals who want to make a bequest to an institution, purchase an annuity, or make some other sort of long-range "investment"-- might have a different opinion, of course.) Maybe that's where part of A.B.'s confusion comes in; when it comes to charitable giving, the usual mercenary motives aren't quite as big of a factor as you might imagine.
COMMENT FROM Kimera K. Way
We tell our volunteers and our staff that you can't ask other people to make gifts if you aren't giving yourself. In my previous job, when we hired new staff, we told them that our job is to ask people for money and as such, we need to be leading by example. We didn't make it a condition of employment, but from the get-go, people knew that our own personal giving was part of the organizational culture. How can you ask others to give if your aren't leading by example? Most people today in philanthropy understand that, but it hasn't always been the case. I've worked with boards where certain members were insulted you asked them to make a gift.
COMMENT FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
I'd agree [with Jami]. There are as many reasons for giving as there are people and situations. Tax write offs are sometimes enough for some people, as is the need to be needed. I also agree that it helps to understand what motivates giving if you yourself are a donor. It definitely helps to be a donor to the cause you yourself are asking funds for. How can you ask someone else to support something you yourself don't financially support?
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
I also agree that it helps to understand what motivates giving if you yourself are a donor. It definitely helps to be a donor to the cause you yourself are asking funds for.
Rebecca's comment above reminds me of something that might be helpful for those considering a career in development. One reason I came to work at the seminary was because I was already donating money to very similar causes and had heard good things about this place. Sharing the same interests as our donors has made my work much more enjoyable and probably a whole lot easier. So if this type of career is something you're thinking about, you might start by investigating institutions you already support or would be willing to support. Just an idea.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
I agree with Jami, Kim, and Rebecca that it is important to be a donor, at whatever level you can afford, to the cause to which you are asking donors to contribute. Our staff members are 100% participants in the Campus Campaign, but we have to continually remind our volunteers of the need to give before they ask someone else to do so.
Jami also mentioned that in her view, the usual mercenary motives aren't as big a factor in fundraising. In general I would agree that is true, but in recent years I have come across more than one prospective donor who is seeking some form of quid pro quo for giving. Those are the ones that I hand off to the Vice President. Decisions like that have to be made at higher levels within the organization.
How does one get started in development?
QUESTION FROM B.Z .
I have been an academic since 1988. I am considering a career in development because , 1) Personal reasons: I am tired of moving, uprooting my family, and living like a snail with my home on my back, 2) the reality of our world: a) Institutions (especially public) are truly hurting in the corporate world, b) Education is falling through the cracks in the business world, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences, c) the institution needs to seek resources from other sources, namely the corporations themselves...
My question: how does one begin? language-code, nuts and bolts...
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
I'd start by visiting CASE and looking at the job ads in the Chronicle for development professionals and learning what they're looking for. I'd also heed the advice of previous posters and look at your reasons for giving to charity. If you currently do any charitable giving, why do you give? What do you want to see in the organizations to whom you donate? I'd then also look at the general literature on the charitable giving world. One good online publication to start with is the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which also hosts several listservs you might want to lurk on for awhile.
www.philanthropy.com
Then I'd start asking around at your own institution if you, as a faculty member, can help with any aspect of the campaign or current fundraising targets. Could you volunteer to be the faculty liaison for the campaign? Could you volunteer to run a special phonathon night at the alumni fundraising telephone bank? It doesn't have to be at your institution: what societies do you belong to? They may be looking for help with a development project. Ask your development office if they need help writing a grant proposal in an area in which you have some expertise. They'll likely be thrilled to have the help and you'll learn a lot. You may also want to visit the Development offices of schools nearby to interview or job-shadow a development officer for a day.
Then hit the job market with your new skills and knowledge of Development.
ANSWER FROM Jami Moss
Rebecca has some great suggestions. I'd stress as well that networking and informational interviewing are great ways to get started. (It's also excellent practice for future development work.)
One other thing you might try is to call the development office at your undergraduate alma mater, explain your situation, and as if there is someone there who would be willing to grant you an informational interview over the phone. Most will be happy to do so since you represent a potential donor. My own story should offer you some reassurance about doing this: Before I got my job in annual giving, I called my undergraduate university's Annual Fund office cold and said (in a nutshell): "Hi, I'm a graduate of this school and am applying for a job as an Annual Fund director in Atlanta, but I don't know what an Annual Fund is. Could you tell me?" Believe it or not, they did not treat me like a blithering idiot but instead were quite helpful. Oh, and yes, I made a donation immediately.
Finally, I thought it might be helpful to tell you how our own office is divided, just to get you started on some terminology:
Annual Giving (me): In a nutshell, we raise money to meet the annual operating expenses of the school--everything from scholarships to new computers to new lawnmowers to faculty research funds. We have to raise a certain amount of money every single year to meet those expenses. Many development types see annual giving as the backbone of fundraising --it's often considered an "entry-level" job, but you need a strong annual fund to make sure you can pay the bills every year without tapping into your endowment. (If you tap into that endowment you obviously will reduce your income from it for the next year and the next and the next.)
Major Gifts: In our office, a "major gift" = $10,000 or more. In much larger institutions this figure is probably much higher, but in essence a major gifts officer solicits the big bucks, from either individuals or corporations. It's my sense that major gifts officers are often perceived as the "movers and the shakers," the schmoozers and glad-handers. For what it's worth, ours has a Ph.D. in history.
Planned Giving: Estate bequests, annuities, gifts of stocks or other securities, and a whole enormous array of other gifts that involve just a bit more than dashing off a check. As an English Ph.D., this area is pretty
much out of my league. You have to be very detail oriented and interested in financial markets for this one.
Foundations and Grants: We don't have someone doing this full-time, but all of us at one time or another have to work on grant applications or applications for funding from foundations. I'd say this is the most
writing-intensive part of development, so it might be good for someone less interested in the "people" side of the field.
ANSWER FROM Kimera K. Way
This is good information, but I'll be very frank. As desperate as we are for qualified people in the fundraising arena -- I get invitations to apply for jobs weekly - as someone hiring, I would not even look at a person's resume if they did not have directly applicable fundraising experience.
If you truly are interested in moving into the fundraising profession, I'd first do some volunteering to chair fundraising committees - United Way, any local charity, church, etc. and get direct hands on experience as a volunteer. That also will tell you whether you really like this. Then, I'd try to pick up some seminars - there are tons through CASE, the Indiana School for Philanthropy, and others. Then, I'd try to see if your institution's staff would let you volunteer on a project or so some type of direct work.
The best way to get experience is to volunteer a lot. One other bit of advice - find a mentor. The wonderful thing about our profession is we like to help people and we're not afraid to share information. Ask the director of development at your institution, or someone there in the professional fundraising role, to mentor and coach you. These folks are always getting asked about people who might be interested in fundraising positions. If they know you, know your skills and can advocate for you, that's a good route to the profession.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
Kimera raises an excellent point here. My example of calling my alma mater's Annual Fund was a bit flip. My intention was to explain how someone could start off gathering information about fundraising as a profession and to ease any concerns that you might have about looking stupid (along the you-can't-do-any-worse-than-I-did lines).
I don't know if this point applies here as well, but I feel I should also note that I never applied for a job merely by sending in my resume. All the people who saw it did so because one of their friends handed it to them and said, "This person would be good for this job even though she has no fundraising experience." Getting those contacts was crucial --also, I think that doing so probably helped convince my bosses that I could make similar contacts on the job. If you're good at this sort of thing, development might definitely be something for you to consider.
Finally, for those of you considering this field, I should also note that even though I had no direct fundraising experience, I did have an unusual "skill set": a sales background, academic credentials, and volunteer experience of all kinds. And for what it's worth, my current boss indeed turned me down initially.
I don't mean to turn this into The Story of My Life, but these examples might help B.Z. and others like her get a sense of what sort of things might be valuable in development work. It also raises another question I'd like to ask the other presenters: How did you all manage to translate your specific *academic* experiences into development jobs? Did you ever encounter the skepticism about the Ph.D. that's been discussed elsewhere on this list? And how do you perceive a Ph.D. when you encounter it on someone's resume?
How does development work within the university? What are the main funding sources?
QUESTION FROM Paula Foster Chambers
Speakers, maybe you can enlighten me on something. I have occasionally wondered how a university cobbles together enough resources to operate -for it seems clear that tuition fees alone are not enough. My current understanding is that in addition to tuition, universities also fund themselves through various types of grants (some for research, perhaps others for other things), proceeds from for-profit activities such as athletic events, and donations from alumni (which is where several of you come in). But that's awfully vague and imprecise. Would you be able to clarify the following:
* What sources of income do *most* universities rely on? (In other words, can you revise and improve my list?)
* What is all that money used for?
* What percentage of the university's total income comes from the Development department that you work for?
* What would happen to your university if the Development office were to suddenly disappear?
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
Our institution is private, so relies heavily on tuition revenue. We are also residential, meaning all students are required to live in university-supplied housing. Therefore, a lot of our revenue comes from housing and meal services. By far the biggest source of revenue outside of tuition is endowment. Charitable organizations are permitted by law to use 5% of their endowment income annually, and we are permitted to "draw down" periodically from the endowment principal.
These days, as the value of endowments goes down due to rough market conditions, development offices' role in raising endowment funds is becoming more and more important. Raising funds for endowment can be tough, though, since many donors want their money to be used in the here and now, and don't want to see any part of it sitting in a "reserve account" for any reason. Endowed funds often go to support programs and scholarships and so are absolutely critical to the University.
Contributions from alumni come to the general fund usually, when they are not earmarked for specific programs. Their importance is increasing too, as tuition costs rise and fewer and fewer students can afford higher education.
Aside from those sources, "ancillary services," such as sports complexes, printing services, bookstore and licensing of the University's image are other sources of income. For universities with robust intellectual property portfolios, such as those with medical schools, licensed IP and patents can be very lucrative sources of additional income. Research Foundations in public institutions or Sponsored Research Offices in other institutions, like ours are an important contributor to IP income. We also generate overhead, or indirect cost dollars, that accompany each research contract, and go to pay the university's shared unallocable costs, such as heat and light.
For private universities that contribute to the state economy, an additional source may be state funding in the form of direct appropriations for targeted projects (a capital project that provides construction jobs in a state rep's district, for example). We do get state dollars under state-funded tuition programs, but those come to us indirectly, from the student's tuition.
From what I've said above about endowment, for a private university, the Development office's contribution is crucial.
ANSWER FROM Jami Moss
Thanks for those great questions. I can't answer all of them, but I can tell you what I know about my particular school.
* What would happen to your university if the Development office were to suddenly disappear?
This seems to be the biggest question people have about what we do. I do know that our endowment would be half of what it is now were it not for substantial development efforts in the last decade. Because of our healthy endowment, we can offer more scholarships, hire more faculty, buy books for our library, expand our programs, and keep our technological equipment up to date.
I'm not entirely sure that the exact budget of our school is public record, so I don't want to divulge a lot of monetary figures here. But I will say that our development offices raised an amount equivalent to half of our total budget last year. By the most conservative estimates, we raise about 2 1/2 times as much money as we spend. In other words, the university's return on its investment is approximately 125%.
Although I can't give specific dollar figures, I can give percentages. Here's a breakdown of funding percentages for our institution for this year:
o Endowment60.5%
o Tuition and Fees17.7%
o Other Income9.3%
o Annual Fund5.2%
o Other Gifts and Grants5.2%
o Denominational Support2.1%
I would caution that these figures vary widely from school to school. For example, as a religiously affiliated institution we receive virtually no support from our state or from the federal government, negligible income from merchandise sales, and nothing from athletics. Our endowment is also very large for a school of our size, and our income from tuition relatively low.
I'm interested to hear what the other presenters have to say on this subject!
ANSWER FROM Kimera K. Way
I'm going to address this from a state university perspective, which used to be much different than the private colleges, but in today's environment, find themselves looking and acting more like private universities. Used to be we called ourselves state-supported universities. Now we call ourselves state-assisted.
The vast majority of our budget comes from tuition and state tax dollars in the form of allocations decided upon by the legislature and governor. Like virtually every state in the US these days, our state has significant budget shortfalls, and we're looking at serious budget reductions. The severity of them depends greatly on the political strength of higher education in the state and it's ability to compete with K-12 and prisons. These cuts come upon the heels of previous budget reductions. In many ways this is like what happens in private business, but since we haven't been used to this process of evaluating what we absolutely need to survive and making hard decisions, it's been painful. This is complicated by the fact that the legislature wants to cap our ability to raise tuition as a funding source. So it's a delicate balancing act.
Other revenue sources are federal grants for research activities and private support. There is a small revenue stream from self-supporting areas that are called auxiliary enterprises - your student union, recreation programs, athletics (sometimes) and the like.
The vast majority of the budget goes for personnel and instruction --about 80%. Getting rid of people to balance the budget is very tricky, especially when you have unions and faculty tenure. Private funding and research grants here represent a small --less than 20% -- but growing source of revenue. In the future, private support will take on an even larger share because it is the only potential growth area for the future (of course, this depends on a stronger economy than what we currently have).
If development went away at our institution, it would not close the doors, but it would have a significant and direct impact on our students. Approximately 75% of our students receive some form of financial aid, including more than $750,000 in scholarships from the Foundation. If we went away, that $$$ would not be available. Nor would programs have opportunities to get equipment, renovate labs and facilities and obtain faculty development funds. Some might consider these resources a luxury, but in today's funding environment, they are rapidly becoming a necessity.
I should mention that you really can't make development disappear completely. State institutions all have their own separately incorporated non-profit entities --their foundations or endowment associations. Money has been contributed to those entities, where even if the staff and development function disappeared, there would be this pool of money that would need to be managed and disbursed and it could NOT just be absorbed by the university because in doing so, it would be absorbed by the state. That's a whole other issue and discussion item, but I just wanted to point out that at state institutions, it's a complicated issue to suggest this type of operation would simply disappear.
Has funding for university development decreased lately?
QUESTION FROM Y.J .
Morning, all.....
I've found the discussion thus far fascinating, especially in terms of my own recent job search. One of the speakers (and I can't off the top of my head remember which one) mentioned working in her university's Office of Sponsored Research (or something similar). I was wondering if she (and any of the other panelists) might address any challenges in that realm. We've heard about the difficulties that state universities have faced in light of severe state budget cuts. Are you finding the same sorts of challenges and loss of funding sources when seeking out research assistance? Are foundations and philanthropic organizations as generous? How consistent have outside levels of funding been? How does the current economic climate affect your ability to obtain such funds?
Thanks in advance--I look forward to reading the responses.
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
That must be me. We are lucky and have not yet faced severe shortfalls in projected assistance from industry partners. Probably this is because of the difference between gifts and grants. Gifts come to Development (supposedly) with no strings attached; grants have very specific and detailed strings (deliverables). In times of industry downsizing, industries' own r&d wings are being clipped --therefore they need to look to universities to get their research and development done for them. So actually a turn-down in the economy can sometimes be a boon for sponsored research. Additionally, unfortunately with the terrible events of 9/11 and the need for heightened security, a technological university like mine becomes very involved in assisting the government with its needs, so our government funding has actually *increased.* Of course, the future is always uncertain, but the economy is fueled on technological innovation. Producing excellent graduates and providing research that is desirable are two ways to keep our mission relevant. Our sponsored research has steadily grown, doubling from 1996 to the present. This is direct result, not of just of my work, but of the effort of the whole university to attract great students, attract and retain top faculty, mesh teaching and research so that even undergrads are publishing, and maintain ties to our communities.
ANSWER FROM Brenda V. Cross
Though my foundations and corporate relations are limited, I would have to agree with Rebecca that so far, our research efforts have probably profited from the downturn, and our foundation relations coordinator is very optimistic and upbeat about grant prospects. These things seem to operate almost in a *flavor-of-the-month* fashion, so we urge our departments to keep their wish lists updated and be prepared to respond to RFPs on very short notice. It has been difficult to get the message across to some departments, but we have found that those early birds who are prepared are the ones who enjoy the bounty of grant and research funding.
COMMENT FROM W.R.
Greetings, everyone. Some of the speakers mentioned their previous experiences in working or volunteering in fundraising or development for the United Way. Today's NYTimes has an article about how United Way is struggling amidst the economic squeeze. It's "Usually Resilient United Way Now Predicts a Leaner Year" by Stephanie Strom. Folks who have registered (for free) with the NYTimes online (www.nytimes.com) can view the article from the website as I did. The article begins: "United Way's 2002-03 campaign is shaping up to be one of the worst fund-raising periods in three decades for the organization." Ouch.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
Thank you for bringing the NY Times article to our attention. It certainly covered most of the salient issues non-profits are facing. I guess I have to agree with Dickens: It's the best of times and the worst of times... as pointed out toward the end of the Times article.
Yes, it will be a leaner year for many of us, yet, there is opportunity in adversity, and these lean times are causing those of us who are in fund raising, and those who depend upon fund raisers, to reevaluate our priorities and how and why we do things. Call me the eternal optimist, that's ok - I believe we will come through even these difficult times with stronger relationships with our donors, a broader donor base, and more honest and efficient operations.
COMMENT FRON Paula Foster Chambers
With the economy the way it is, all nonprofits (including universities) are struggling right now. A few are booming, but most are struggling. That's why working in Development really means something, in my opinion. Though some of us may feel a bit squeamish about working with the financial side of a university, as opposed to the academic side, Development is absolutely necessary to the continued existence of all colleges and universities. Without it, there would be no academic side.
Are there research positions in development?
QUESTION FROM C.J.M.
Thanks so much for the useful information our discussants have provided thus far --it's especially helpful to me to have some of the terms/language explained.
New question: in perusing university and college websites, I've seen postings that call for researchers in development/advancement offices. I assumed that people who fill such jobs work primarily in researching potential donors: is that correct? More broadly, I hope some or all of you could speak to the research function in development/advancement, since it seems like a natural for those who seek to transition out of the faculty stream into non-faculty work.
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
C.J.M. wrote: I assumed that people who fill such jobs work primarily in researching potential donors: is that correct?
That's correct as far as what the researcher did in our office. We only had one full-time researcher, but others have more staff. And it does usually refer to "prospect research." Our researcher responded to requests from the whole office, so if, as happened, one of our faculty members bumped into an alum at a museum while at a conference and got him talking about a project that we want to follow up, she could look up that alum, his year, major, club affiliations, giving history etc. on our internal systems. But it goes beyond that, into what market researchers do in companies.
If he was judged to be a viable "suspect" (and I hate those terms, btw), she'd also use purchased databases to research (and here I'm going to make Paula [Foster, list manager] squeamish again), public records like how much he sold each of his homes for and what sort of stock he trades in. She's also use private sources to determine his income, the ages of his children, his hobbies, club memberships, etc. We might search other databases available through our library to look for articles on him or notices about his job moves (we already have a "clipping service" that sends us notices on all our alumni). This preliminary research gives us a way to approach him and perhaps match his interests and level of giving ability to a potential project. While it may seem invasive, most of the information is publicly available and does ultimately help the University and the donor understand one another.
The researcher might also do research on companies and organizations, as well as on topics related to particular projects. Ultimately, our president makes the big "asks," and he certainly doesn't have time to know everything there is to know about each of our alumni, so the researcher helps prepare "talking points," for meetings and events with potential donors.
COMMENT FROM Paula Foster Chambers
Uh --for the record-- I do not feel squeamish about development. I just had a feeling that some subscribers do. Only a hunch on my part and very possibly incorrect.
ANSWER FROM Kimera K. Way
You are correct in that research is researching information about potential donors to help us determine capacity, interests, and various aspects of a prospect's life that may make the timing for asking for a gift better or worse than other times.
There are a variety of methods that are used to gather information --some of it as basic as the local newspaper. Before anyone gets worried about this thought of big brother watching over you, you should know that all the information reviewed and evaluated is information available by law through open records.
Obviously you have to tread lightly in your research function --prospective donors don't want to get the idea you are stalking them. However, the research function is very critical. We have thousands of constituents and limited staff and time. The research function helps us evaluate and prioritize prospects so that we are focusing our efforts in the right areas. The work they do in assessing capacity is critical.
ANSWER FROM Jami Moss
The other speakers have very clearly summarized the function of our prospect research office as well. I would just add that in our office at least, the prospect research job is the lowest-paid and is considered entry-level. The position nevertheless could be a good one for someone looking to get into development because it's another great way to learn a bit about the field in general and to get your proverbial foot in the door. And even at entry level, it pays a more than the postdoc I had fresh out of graduate school!
COMMENT FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
Second that, and you'd end up with encyclopedic knowledge of the prospect pool, which would make you perfect to move up in the organization.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
I'd like to address the following point C.J.M. made: More broadly, I hope some or all of you could speak to the research function in development/advancement, since it seems like a natural for those who seek to transition out of the faculty stream into non-faculty work.
It's very much true that research is the most natural-seeming segue from academia into development work. As Paula also points out, it seems that many of us who were once on the academic track are indeed "squeamish" about what one of my friends calls "money-grubbing." Certainly that was my view at first.
I suspect, however, that far, far more of us "academic" types have much more of a gift for development than we might realize. If you're good at networking at conferences, if you enjoy teaching and working with students, if you have many friends amongst your colleagues, you may well find that you have the knack for making connections that's so vital to good development work. You might also find that you enjoy it --a lot of what we do is as much about building relationships as it is about the ask.
You will also be surprised at how many big donors *love* talking to someone with a Ph.D. Many of the very wealthy folks I've worked with have a strong interest in the arts and literature (a long tradition of their families giving to the symphony and museums and so on), and they think a Ph.D. in English is just the bee's knees. I've had as much fun talking to them as to many of my academic colleagues.
COMMENT FROM K.A.
I agree with Jami. I find that donors feel quite privileged to be visited by someone with a Ph.D. and first-hand knowledge about teaching. It adds instant credibility which always helps with the relationship building.
In the major-gift end of development, I find that I don't really have to actually "ask" someone for money. We expect about 12-18 months worth of cultivation work, which, if done well, leads the donor to ask us things like "how does one get involved with....." or "how could I remember the university in my estate...." Annual giving is a completely different endeavor, where you ask on every visit. Two years in the trenches is worth it, though, for the ability to get paid to chat with people about something they love --higher education. AND for the ability to feel like you didn't waste your time on your advanced degrees.
As for continuing involvement in the classroom, at our university, we have a program that allows administrators with Ph.D.s to create a freshman course to their liking (with certain parameters, of course), with a limited class size of 15, taught 2 hours/one day a week, only in the fall. Your "stipend" is access to $3000 of university funds for travel, books, computers etc....This is a great deal for any university and a brilliant deal for anyone in development because it builds on that credibility factor I mentioned.
[K.A., a participant in the discussion and a development professional, was invited by list manager Paula Foster Chambers to describe her position and background.]
I'm assistant director of gift planning (major-gifts) for the University of XXXX, as I'm sure you know, a rather large research institution --LARGE being one of our handicaps because it is so difficult to establish significant relationships with all our alumni. I also focus half of my portfolio on the School of Nursing, so I'm getting intense college or unit experience as well. I have to say that I do love this job and I guess it's because I honestly do not care if a donor gives a penny to the school. Really. This is because I know the only quota we have to meet is in the number of visits, not the number of dollars raised. We've found that if we shoot for 20 visits a month (strategically chosen with the help of those invaluable researchers!), then we'll come across the gifts. I think this lack of desperation to land the gift carries over into the visit; they don't feel pressured at all to talk about money. When I visit someone, I focus on hearing their stories, listening to their concerns (the background in admissions is hugely beneficial) and simply getting to know them. Sometimes I leave, knowing a thank you card is all they really want, other times I'll track down counselors for their kids to talk to about admissions, and still other times I'll explore an interest they shared. It's donor driven and wonderfully fulfilling. I really do ask myself often, "am I really getting paid to do this?" Bottom line: you have to like talking to people about themselves.
COMMENT FROM Kimera K. Way
We consider our prospect research people and integral part of our fundraising team. They are not the lowest paid people. I believe that our prospect research people are as valuable as our fundraisers because if they are good they make our jobs easier and more productive.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
I apologize if my message implied that prospect research people were not considered valuable --they are very valuable, and we could not function without ours either. In fact, the head of the prospect research department probably makes as much or more as some of our fundraisers. The people actually doing the research itself, however, are simply not paid as much as our fundraisers. I am wrong on one point--I guess research staff technically aren't the lowest-paid people because our support staff (our reception and our staff associates) are probably paid less. As I said in my previous post, our prospect researchers certainly make more than I did as a postdoctoral fellow teaching at a research university.
COMMENT FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
And this brings up salaries. Just what are Development people making these days? For those of you interested in this, the Chronicle of higher ed has some salary information. I recall in 2002 they published an article on how salaries for women in development tended to be lower paid. What else is new?
CASE did a survey quite recently, but there is a hefty charge for ordering it. Does anyone want to share ranges? I recall seeing something somewhere that said Director of Development positions range from $60K to $120K. Depends on the region of the country.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
I don't have access to the CASE survey Rebecca mentioned, so I'll have to offer just anecdotes here, based on what I know from others and from my own search.
I believe that we start prospect researchers at somewhere between 30-35K, and I think our staff salaries go as high as 70-80K. For the area I live in, however, our salaries are considered low for development staff. At the research universities around here --Emory, Georgia Tech, and the University of Georgia-- I'm sure the salaries (especially at Emory) are a bit higher. I think your average mid-level salary seems to be around 50K-60K. But I
caution that this is a bit of a narrow sample.
Although these salaries are not spectacular in corporate terms, many of them do offer fabulous benefits --I get terrific health insurance, retirement, and vacation at this job, and many universities are similarly situated.
COMMENT FROM K.A .
I've got no problem discussing salaries. I think it gives hope to other Ph.D. folk that there is a profitable life outside academia (and hopes of paying off those pesky student loans). In the annual giving capacity, I started at $30K, moved to $45K in 2 years. At the major-gift level, as an assistant director, I make $62.5K. As an assistant dean of a college --as the development person for the individual school, like Nursing-- you'd make around $75K. If you wanted to focus on corporate/foundation work, involving grant writing and such, you can look to make $45-60K as well. This is a good area for someone who likes to do research and write grants but isn't too crazy about tons of visits with individuals.
Now, with the Ph.D. you can look to moving up to Vice President level in 5 years for a smaller university, 7-10 years for a larger one. VPs make $90-130K from what I understand. The only unfortunate thing is that when you move from being a front-line officer to management, you get more money but less "face time" with donors. Donors are just old students, still a joy to talk to and still the reason I'm here!
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
Glad you asked about salary ranges.
The July/August 2002 issue of Currents, the journal for CASE (Council for Advancement and Support of Education) carried the 2002 CASE Salary Survey results. Here's the Readers' Digest Version:
9775 Respondents
Salaries ranged from a low of $20,000 to more than $100,000.
According to the survey, a typical advancement officer has slightly more than 9 years of experience, working 4 1/2 years as a major gifts development officer, and earns between $40,001 and $60,000 annually.
Advancement managers have the highest salaries and the most experience. They're 14% of respondents to the survey, and were most likely to earn six-figure salaries than professionals in any other segment of advancement. Thirty-six percent of advancement managers earn more than $100,000.
Seventy-five percent of respondents who manage alumni operations earn more than $40,000 and 38% earn more than $60,000. Twenty-five percent of those who report to a CEO or board make more than $100,000.
Applying for jobs: how closely must a candidate match the stated requirements?
JOB POSTING FROM D.A .
Associate Director of Development
Responsible for creating and implementing new annual giving programs, including national membership, web-membership, alumni, and patrons programs and annual gala with net fundraising goal of $550K. Will work closely with senior management to develop gift opportunities, prepare presentation materials, and to support the identification, cultivation, solicitation and stewardship of individual donors. Will manage a national program of cultivation and benefit events. Must have at least 5 years of experience in development (preferably in cultural or arts organizations), strong interpersonal skills, direct personal solicitation experience, persuasive oral and written communication ability, and computer proficiency in relevant applications (i.e., word processing, spreadsheet, database).
Please forward your cover letter and resume to Jessica Urena at: jessica_urena@sundance.org.
COMMENT FROM Paula Foster Chambers
I am glad you posted that job description, because I happen to be applying for development jobs right now at nonprofits all over Los Angeles (long story), and I keep getting thrown clauses just like this, from the Sundance posting:
> Must have at least 5 years of experience in development
It seems like most of the jobs I actually *want* have fairly steep requirements like this regarding how much related experience they want me to have. I have all of the 'soft skills' they constantly mention (excellent written and oral communications skills, strong organizational and project management skills, analytical ability, etc.) but lines like this make me wonder whether I would be wasting my time to apply.
On the other hand, a wise person once told me that there is no perfect candidate for any job: if a person actually HAD every single thing the job posting says is required, they'd be applying not for that job, but for the next level up. That makes a lot of sense to me and makes me think "What the heck --go ahead and apply."
So --this is for anyone who has ever screened resumes and/or observed the hiring process in Development offices: how discouraged should we be when we read job descriptions that we PARTIALLY resemble? What guidance can you give us regarding which elements are the most crucial and which can more easily be fudged, in the field of Development?
ANSWER FROM Kimera K. Way
I advise people to look at key words in a position description and then make sure those words appear in the cover letter and/or resume. For example if it asks for five years of fundraising experience and you don't have five work years but you've done volunteer work and been involved in fundraising through that, incorporate those experiences under the heading for fundraising experience.
There is no 100% fit for any one job, but you do look for transferable skills. Give specific examples of how your current experiences relate to some of the key skill sets they are seeking.
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
Kimera has some great suggestions. In addition, I'd say that your "presentation" is crucial. In your Development position, your written work will be your organization's foot in the door. It has to be letter-perfect and over-all, it has to be engaging, without being flashy or gimmicky. And it has to show that you've done your homework (remember that research position we were discussing?). Make absolutely sure that you've visited the web site and read everything about the organization that you can get your hands on. Reference these materials in your cover letter ("My experience interacting with parents while running a day-camp for children would provide useful perspective for your effort to raise funds to support your youth after-school program.") Remember that resourcefulness and thinking on your feet are assets in development: show that you have these by compensating for what you might lack in formal preparation/experience. Experience doesn't necessarily have to have been gained in a formal (read "paid") Development position.
Other types of development/advancement jobs
QUESTION FROM S.T.
I'm in university communications where I've held positions as Assistant Director of Marketing and Communications and PR Specialist, which are in the Development/Advancement area. The thought of development/advancement makes me more than squeamish. As an introvert, I would never be able to travel, schmooze, or ask others for donations face-to-face. However, I'd have no problem doing so in writing. In fact, when I wrote alumni publications, I didn't necessarily solicit donations, but I tried to
write articles that would facilitate the process by showing where needs existed, updating readers on the campaign status, and providing information on how to contact the university if interested in donating.
Are there any opportunities for those who prefer written communication (and the occasional phone call) over building relationships face-to-face? Is it possible to ascend to an administrative position in development/advancement without having to do the "asks," traveling, and schmoozing?
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
First, yes, there are positions out there for people who want to do mostly writing. For awhile, we had a contract writer and we were considering hiring a full-time "proposal development" person. This person would mostly work internally, developing proposals by interviewing the main people involved. I'd say, however, that this position is not a line position though, meaning there'd be no real career path in development. So the answer to your second question is, no, there really is no way to move ahead in development without talking to people. Since it really is about relationship building, you can't do that without a lot of face-to-face interaction, and as someone here said, you have to like people. That doesn't mean you have to be a party girl, but you do have to have a genuine interest in people and in what makes them tick. Without that, I doubt you'd enjoy development work .
ANSWER FROM Jami Moss
S.T. wrote: Is it possible to ascend to an administrative position in development/advancement without having to do the "asks," traveling, and schmoozing?
You say you've worked in university communications and as a PR Specialist. That sounds like a great fit for you with many possibilities to advance into a higher administrative position --Director or VP of Communications, for instance. Maybe it really isn't necessary for you to consider fundraising per se --I guess it would depend on your longer-term goals.
That said, let me add that my position with the annual fund does require *less* direct donor contact than, say, that of the Director of Major Gifts --mostly because the bulk of my job involves planning our direct mail campaigns and phonathons. In a given month, I'm working with somewhere between 4 and 10 donors on a personal level, but that's not even half of what's required by our other field officers. Of course, I do have lots of contacts with students who work for our phonathon, and overall I'd think it would be hard to enjoy my job if I were shy. But I offer it as a possibility, depending on just how introverted you are.
Overall, however, I would affirm what Rebecca says: I think the people who *enjoy* development work the most enjoy the one-on-one contacts with donors. That's really the ultimate question, I think --you may do well at development if you're very shy, but you have to consider if it's something you'd like.
P.S. I'm curious about one thing: Didn't your PR work involve a lot of "schmoozing," especially with the press? Or did you focus primarily on press releases and other sorts of written materials?
ANSWER FROM Kimera K. Way
Well as one of those so called "schmoozers" I don't really like the title --I hate to have this impression that's all we do. But, I'm not going to take issue with it here.
I would suggest that you pursue grant writing opportunities --either through the Foundation office or through your institution's research and grants office. Grant writing is a very valued skill and you can do well become adept at it.
COMMENT FROM K.A.
I agree. If you truly love development work, and especially if you love the entity for which you are developing resources, than the schmooze factor never even comes up. If you thought of what you do as "schmoozing" you'd be viewed immediately as insincere and ineffective. Relationship building requires sincerity and the heart-felt desire to help donors guide their monies where they'll have the most impact, for the institution and for the donor.
If one views development as "schmoozing," "shmarmy" or any other such words, then this field of work is probably not the best fit.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
As one of the first people in this discussion to use the term "schmoozing," I want to thank both Kimera and K.A. for pointing out that it's problematic. You have to believe that what you do is important.
This is where I think that people with a Ph.D. or other advanced degree can bring great value and insight to a development operation. Who better understands the value of an education than someone who's spent several years in school past the undergraduate degree --often with almost no hope of significant financial recompense?
COMMENT FROM K.A.
You're absolutely right, Jami. As a Ph.D., and this may sound strange, I do feel like what I do is sort of noble --I am furthering the cause of higher education and making it easier for those who seek higher degrees; and I am educating donors to the truth of university budgets. I guess because I have those things in the front of my mind always, the money factor rarely enters into the picture. If you talk with love, admiration and awe of your institution and higher education in general, then donors will want to be a part of that. If
you talk in turns of neediness and sinking, they'll simply jump ship.
The develop business is part counselor and part dating game host, really. (dating game as in you hook up your donor with the part of the university they want to be involved with --and everyone's happy!).
Is higher ed development hurting right now?
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
The following is from today's CASE (Council for the Advancement and Support of Education) newsletter. I thought it might be of interest.
GIVING TO HIGHER ED DROPS IN 2002
The Council for Aid to Education's Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) 2002 survey indicated that private contributions to America's higher education institutions fell by 1.2 percent in FY2002, to $23.9 billion. The drop, the first decline in 15 years, is attributed to the poor performance of the stock market and the lackluster economy. The survey also uncovered a 13.6-percent drop in alumni giving, even while contributions from sources such as corporations and foundations remained stable. Researchers found a decline in giving for capital projects such as new buildings and endowments, and an increase in giving for current operations.
CASE President Vance T. Peterson issued the following statement on the VSE findings: "While any decline in giving is unwelcome, these results are better than might have been expected given the current economic climate. When compared, for example, with the 11.2 percent decline in the New York Stock Exchange during the same period, the decrease in giving is remarkably slight.. However, some of the survey's findings, such as the reported 13.6 percent decrease in alumni giving, may be causes for concern. Higher
education has not seen a drop in alumni giving since the mid-1970s, and those declines were of 5 percent or less. While there is nothing in the data to suggest why the drop was so severe, a close eye should be kept on this important indicator by researchers and advancement practitioners alike."
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
Thanks for this update, Jami.
..."while there is nothing in the data to suggest why the drop was so severe, a close eye should be kept on this important indicator by researchers and advancement practitioners alike."
Even I, the eternal optimist realize that when over 2 million Americans lose their jobs in 2 years some of my alumni are in that number. Add to that the 50% reduction in investment portfolios and we have a serious situation that calls for lots of empathetic listening and judicious, informed asking.
Alumni giving / Successful asking
COMMENT FROM Paula Foster Chambers
Interesting article, Jami. It made me think of a phone call I received a few weeks ago from my PhD alma mater, probably from someone on the Development staff. She wanted me to make a donation, but I declined, and apparently I am not alone because according to your article, many other alumni are reducing or ceasing their contributions.
It may interest the Development folk on this list to know my reasons for declining:
* While I was in the PhD program, I never had a clear sense of the role that alumni giving played in the regular operations of the school. I never even knew that alumni made gifts at all. If the development folks had communicated with me, even a little bit, while I was there, to build a relationship with me and explain to me how important alumni giving is, then maybe I would have known more and been more ready to pitch in.
* Grad school seemed, from my subjective vantage point, very expensive! Parking was steep, books were outrageous, the paychecks were small, etc. To me, it seemed like the university was a big profit-making machine -not a needy, dependent, nonprofit organization. When that woman called and asked for money, then, my perception and hers were misaligned. I truly wondered why on earth they needed money and almost disbelieved her while she was making her pitch.
* The person on the phone was unable to bridge the gap by articulating why alumni gifts are important and how they are used. All she was able to say was THAT they were important, not why --and she assumed that the university was still important to me.
Based on this one admittedly subjective experience of mine, I believe it is very possible for the downward trend in alumni giving to be reversed. All it takes is a little relationship-building with students while they are still students and not yet alumni. If Development, in conjunction with the Alumni Association, were to become a part of students' lives, then alumni would be more inclined to give.
COMMENT FROM D.W.
This experience as a graduate student --of the sense of the university as a money making machine contrasts so completely with my own undergraduate experience, where professors went out of their way to understand the talents and aspirations of individual students, where our department chair had weekly teas and frequent dinners for students. And where majors were designed to mesh with the talents and aspirations of the students. Today, research opportunities for undergrads are mushrooming, as well as well conceptualized international work.
It's a place I feel very strongly about, and have given to every year since asked. In fact, I look forward to the student volunteer phone call each year. What is your major? How is dorm life? What do you like best about the school now?
The connection to the school is very strong. I've given as much as I could afford to give (not much) to the general fund each year, and to projects that are specific to my major--I've given more than I can afford.
Can I continue to give? Only after I find work. there comes a time when you're just stretched beyond what is reasonable financially.
But there are institutions that students cherish. Sadly, I worry about the fiscal health of the school. Liberal arts colleges are becoming terribly expensive to maintain. Perhaps because they know how to invest in creating a true community, and commit themselves to doing so.
I fell in love with my field there. And had the joyous experience of sharing it with professors who had the time to give. It's an amazing thing, to be able to fully immerse yourself in something you love to do and have others around you who also enjoy it.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
Paula, I didn't get the phone call yet, but I did get a letter from my Ph.D. alma mater, and I laughed when I opened the letter and realized what it was about. But the altruist in me spoke up and said "send them $5 along with a copy of the $90,000 balance on those student loans, and a note saying you'll give more when the loans are paid off."
This [your comments] is helpful, valuable information. Here we are doing a few things to build relationships with some of our students (especially undergrads), but you have just taught me a valuable lesson about the importance of establishing and maintaining relationships with graduate students too.
I agree that grad school is a bank breaker, and if you're fortunate enough to get an assistantship, you sometimes feel like an indentured servant.
Paula Foster Chambers wrote: The person on the phone was unable to bridge the gap by articulating why alumni gifts are important and how they are used.
Therein lies the problem. We advancement types absolutely MUST be able to bridge the gap - tell the story - state the case. We should be able to give such a convincing elevator speech that it could cause a homeless person to wish they had some money so they could support our cause. Fact is, we have to ask some questions, do some research, grease those skids before we get in your face or ear asking you for your hard earned cash.
COMMENT FROM K.A.
Paula, You make some valid points here. It's a bit trickier to cultivate donors while they are still students, that is, most would resent the notion of having to give anymore than they already have after they leave. I, for one, was left quite UN-indebted to my Ph.D. program.
Relationship building for our institution begins when the graduates are young professionals, obviously not of major-gift status yet. But nonetheless, we keep in touch and try to involve them when and where they'd like. The larger problem you mentioned is the in articulation of funding sources, designations and purposes. By giving detailed accounts of our budget and expenditures, our institution has been able to BEGIN to defeat the notion that we're "rich." I don't know how much the develop officer asked you for on the phone, but major asks are never done this way. Annual giving asks are conducted this way, in part, and are usually done by students --this might be the reason for the ineffective "ask."
COMMENT FROM Q.W.
[In response to Paula Foster Chambers's comment.]
I'm not sure that having fundraisers making contact with students while they're students would increase alumni giving. I think that students resent being asked for (more) money before the ink is even dry on their diplomas. They're still concerned with finding work, paying off loans, etc. For that matter, you could argue that they had just made a rather significant financial contribution to the university. Some of them will be paying for it for years.
As for graduate students, well, I think both tuition paying students and students on assistantships feel rather under-served by their institutions. It would probably be more effective to develop the student services aspect of the school with regard to the graduate student population if the institution hopes to secure their future gratitude in the form of any kind of financial contribution.
COMMENT FROM Paula Foster Chambers
I did not mean to suggest that development officers ask students for money. I only mean establish contact with them and build awareness in their minds. A very simple communication campaign can be created --even over email-- with the following rather modest purposes in mind:
* Show them that despite their own perennially pinched pocketbooks, the university is *not* a profit-making machine --it relies on a variety of funding sources to make it possible for students to have the experiences they're having.
* Acquaint them with some of the types of contributions (small and large) that alumni have made, and how the money was used for all these really cool things.
* Offer opportunities to get to know some of the more active alumni --maybe throw a few little "mentoring coffees" throughout the year, featuring active alumni from a variety of professions? That would help students begin to see that even though they are "just" students right now, one day they will become alumni, and maybe they, too, will be active alumni like these folks.
And BTW I agree with the earlier suggestion that it is easier to feel sentimental about one's original (bachelor's) alma mater than to feel that way about one's grad school.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
Paula Foster Chambers wrote: I did not mean to suggest that development officers ask students for money. I only mean establish contact with them and build awareness in their minds. A very simple communication campaign can be created --even over email-- with the following rather modest purposes in mind.
I don't know if my earlier response to your posting reflected it or not, but I had no doubt that you were suggesting that development establish a non-solicitation based relationship with students while they are in their "pre-alumni" stage. It was clear to me that you were encouraging us to make ourselves known to students as facilitators of the funding for their scholarships, fellowships, lab equipment, etc.
Paula Foster Chambers wrote: Show them that despite their own perennially pinched pocketbooks, the university is *not* a profit-making machine --it relies on a variety of funding sources to make it possible for students to have the experiences they're having.
Acquaint them with some of the types of contributions (small and large) that alumni have made, and how the money was used for all these really cool things.
At Tech our Alumnus magazine, our Tech Fund annual report, and the Tech Fund web site provide some of these things.
Paula Foster Chambers wrote: Offer opportunities to get to know some of the more active alumni -maybe throw a few little "mentoring coffees" throughout the year, featuring active alumni from a variety of professions? That would help students begin to see that even though they are "just" students right now, one day they will become alumni, and maybe they, too, will be active alumni like these folks.
Three times a year we bring groups of select alumni on campus in an event called Destination Tech (formerly known as Fly-In). We wine them, dine them, and give them an opportunity to meet with groups of students. They also have dinner with the president, deans, vice presidents, department chairs, attend whatever sporting event that happens to be in season (hockey, basketball, football, etc.); attend whatever cultural events happen to be scheduled (concerts, theatre, dance, lecture, etc.). The alumni are given several opportunities to interact with students during the weekend, and as I sit typing this, I can envision other ways that we could increase student involvement in Destination Tech. Thanks for the creative ideas!
Paula Foster Chambers wrote: And BTW I agree with the earlier suggestion that it is easier to feel sentimental about one's original (bachelor's) alma mater than to feel that way about one's grad school.
The greater affinity for the bachelor's alma mater was the one point I had failed to mention in my earlier post. Of the three institutions from which I have degrees, my baccalaureate institution is the nearest and dearest to my heart, and the one that I support most consistently, second only to my church, and the institution for which I work.
COMMENT FROM P.U.
I think Paula brought up a good point about relationships between your students life and feelings towards giving. This bring sup my question, how well does someone in development work with the other departments, get to know not only the departments needs, but the departments work?
Here is my experience: As I was nearing graduation for my Master's in International Relations, I went to the Careers Center for help in locating a job. The person assigned to help me a) did not even know the school offered such a degree and 2) said "we can't help you get a job with the State Dept. -- apparently believe that is the only thing you can do with International Relations. This experience seriously affected my reaction when I received 3, yes 3, requests for donations from the Alumni group within 1 month of graduation. My exact reaction was "I would give money if I had a job." That was five years, the school has still not received a dime from me because I was ignored by the Career Center and then received 3 requests for money so quickly after graduating.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
Paula's point about "cultivating What you describe is *exactly* what we're trying very, very hard to do here at the seminary. We also have a hard time cultivating our alumni, especially since ministers on the whole make as little or even less than humanities PhDs. (On the flip side, however, their churches do tend to be imbued with a culture of giving that most graduate programs lack, and most are in the habit of tithing *somewhere.*) We're working to change that and have had some success so far --our annual giving has actually gone up just a bit this year.
We have the advantage, however, of being able to get to know every student who comes through these doors personally, an almost impossible task if you're at a big state school.
As others have pointed out, however, grad students as a whole are notoriously disloyal to their grad school alma mater--undergraduate institutions are more likely to receive a gift. So the whole problem Paula experienced could be on one level a case of costs vs. benefits --development offices that have to cover the whole university may not be willing to invest a lot of money in cultivating graduates who will most likely not be able to make big gifts. Along these lines, it's interesting to note that law, business, and med schools often do have VERY active development staff because they know their graduates are likely to have the capacity to make major gifts at some point.
I don't mean to make it sound as if graduate students are unimportant, but just to explain another facet that might underlie Paula's encounter. Another thing: I suspect some development officers may lack a strong understanding of the graduate school experience and are therefore clueless as to what a Ph.D. candidate goes through--all the more reason to get PhDs into this field!
The smart place to handle cultivation might be within the individual departments. I know that had my own Ph.D. program had some way, for example, to donate to a scholarship fund for Ph.D. students, I might have considered it. Maybe. (Our department was so sadly so dysfunctional I'm not sure about this.)
COMMENT FROM K.A.
Paula: Great suggestions. The mentoring aspect is working well for us, especially when the individual college/schools/units take the lead on this. I've actually had donors who ask how they can interact more closely with upcoming graduates, so we'll customize something for them (again, one of those cool things that came out of an assessment visit!). We've also had great feedback when we incorporate graduate music students into events as the key entertainment; they sell their CDs, play wonderful music and get firsthand interaction with donors/former students. The donors see their dollars in action in an albeit small way and the grad students see solid philanthropy models. It also makes for a fuller University event, if that makes sense.
We also have a giving society that new graduates are encouraged to participate in --$5, 10, 15-- it doesn't matter. The idea, the prestige, is to be one of those that never broke the chain since graduation. They seem to like this!
Finally, we've tried to enlist presidential forums, the university newspaper and website to inform students of the budget constraints, how they're caused, how their solved.
It's a long process but it's rewarding.
Alumni's reasons for contributing or not
COMMENT FROM Kimera K. Way
Many of the donors I work with give because they view their college experience as transformational. They attribute that experience as responsible for their success in life. It also was a time in their lives when they connected with someone - a faculty member, mentor, fellow student - who believed in them and who truly touched their lives. They also have this inherent belief that we were put on this earth to make it better for those who follow. Frankly, what we do to cultivate that isn't much - either the college experience was rewarding and positive or it wasn't regardless of whether it was the bachelors, master's or Ph.D. experience.
I also think that those many alumni who don't give to us blame the institution for a negative experience or the development staff for not doing a good job of cultivating them because they just plain feel guilty for saying no -- they don't want to take responsibility for their decision, so they blame "us" - the institution. Most people have a hard time saying no, so they look for a reason to make them feel better about saying no. I don't take those "no's" personally but people still feel bad, so they want us to be the bad guys.
People either have a giving heart or they don't. Our job is to tell the story succinctly, with passion and often so that those who have that giving heart will know that we need them. Then, our job is to show them the various ways they can give that meet their needs at the time.
I've had donors who only got their graduate degrees from us and I have donors who only attended here a couple years. Something about what they connected to here touched them. That, coupled with the giving heart, was the motivation. So much of philanthropy rests within the donor. Our basic role is that of the facilitator. I call myself Yenta (the matchmaker from Fiddler on the Roof) -- I have needs and I have donors - I just put them together.
People are people regardless of the level of education. When you analyze some of the top donors in the country and at most institutions, you'll see that they give to a lot of things. I read the donor lists of all the other charities in my community and it's amazing the number of people who show up on all of them.
I always chuckle at people who say - oh we only have teachers as our graduates, they don't make much and they don't give much. Or, a lot of our graduates are doctors, lawyers, etc. I have gotten some of my largest gifts from people who were teachers -- they understand that concept of giving back. Capacity to give doesn't mean much if you don't have inclination and the giving heart.
My advice to anyone interested is to tell the story of your program, institution or activity simply and with passion. Don't try to outthink yourself. Put your story in front of your constituents as often as you can and interact with your constituents with sincerity and passion for what you do. Donors today are very smart and pretty knowledgeable about this process. I tell my staff we're not the only ones asking them for money. So we have to be there and be there better than anyone else.
That's why I love our work - that we as a culture believe so much in the value of a college education. It's one of those things that can never be taken away. Our job is to remind people of that.
COMMENT FROM D.E.
Kimera Way wrote: "I also think that those many alumni who don't give to us blame the
institution for a negative experience or the development staff for not doing a good job of cultivating them because they just plain feel guilty for saying no -- they don't want to take responsibility for their decision, so they blame "us" - the institution. Most people have a hard time saying no, so they look for a reason to make them feel better about saying no. I don't take those "no's" personally but people still feel bad, so they want us to be the bad guys. People either have a giving heart or they don't."
This may be true in some cases, but I don't think it's a fair characterization of people's motives for not giving. I contribute to many charities, but I will never give a dime to my graduate institution because of its impossible bureaucracy and mistreatment of graduate students. It's not because I don't have a giving heart. Also, colleges and universities are competing with people's desire to give to charities involved with hunger, human rights, poverty, disease, the environment... issues that to many of us seem more important in the grand scheme of things that whether our alma mater can build a new gym.
Of course, I certainly don't think it's the development staff's fault if students come away bitter or reluctant to give because of the culture of the institution. But I don't think it should be written off as just an excuse for being stingy.
COMMENT FROM Jami Moss
I'd like to address a few points Kimera raises in her post. Relevant excerpts:
I also think that those many alumni who don't give to us blame the institution for a negative experience or the development staff for not doing a good job of cultivating them because they just plain feel guilty for saying no -- they don't want to take responsibility for their decision, so they blame "us" - the institution . . . . People either have a giving heart or they don't. Our job is to tell the story succinctly, with passion and often so that those who have that giving heart will know that we need them.
Kimera, you make some good points here about the "guilt factor," and I agree that the most loyal donors are not always the ones with the most money. But I do wonder if this description is entirely an accurate assessment of the experience of graduate students in the humanities. Personally, I give a minimum of 10% of my income away and have done so even when I made a lot less than I do now. so I'd probably qualify as a "giving heart." But it's unlikely I'll give any of that money to my Ph.D. program. Among graduate students, this doesn't seem to be unusual. Departmental politics, teaching assistantships that frankly took advantage of graduate students' position, administrative failure to understand the difficulties of the job market and plan accordingly, etc. --well, it would be hard for someone to make a case that I should facilitate that.
Of course, this evidence is only anecdotal--anyone have any statistics on this? I would like to be wrong on this.
That said, I might be willing to give to my Ph.D. program if someone would make a good case to me. Here's a sample of what could work on me (it's poorly worded, but you should get the idea): Graduate school, as you well know, can be one of the most arduous and difficult experiences you'll have. But looking back, we hope we gave you something whose value has more than exceeded the time and energy you put into it. Other students are going through the same thing you did. Here's an example. Would you consider helping students like X?) But no one's done this yet.
COMMENT FROM S.I.
Some of you may remember me from the Consultants discussions we had about a year ago. The company I work for (among other types of things) does surveys of alumni to determine (among other things) why thy give and why they don't. There are large difference across the alumni of different schools and even across categories of alumni of the same schools.
While (obviously) I can't speak about specific finding one of the things we often find is people who say that they can't afford to give to their alma mater donate regularly to other organizations.
As someone else mentioned the degree of association or identification is often a key determinant of giving behavior - of course what aspects of the school people identify with can and often does vary by things like era, gender and other characteristics.
Regarding soliciting from former graduate students - one of the things my schools does if have faculty make the call and tell you what they need the money for. It always works with me.
COMENT FROM K.U.
I have read only about 1/2 of this thread so far... Usually not such a WRK4US slacker, but...
What I would say about grad students and 'asks'.
I finished my Ph.D. August 2002. I happen to have done my PhD at the same place I took my BA. Therefore, at various times throughout my grad student career, I would get these asks for money from my (BA) alma mater. I was always irritated as it seemed -- and in fact I did a stint in Development at the same university during grad school, so I have some idea of what the database capacities were -- that those asking should KNOW that as a current grad student, I was probably not in a situation to give money (I am one with loans, who also stipended and taught my way through). Furthermore, after asking to be NOT asked explicitly until I finished the PhD, I would still get calls 2X / year.
I too, really have/had no clear idea why/how alumni funds are used, except very generally. The way to get grad students to give once they have finished would probably have something to do with connecting them directly to alumni giving. That is, grad students are actually very knowledgeable (imagine, one day you are a grad student, the next day a PhD, and usually many years in the making) and love to chat about their fields. Alumni might be interested in that -- higher higher learning -- perspective. Also, students could use the information about how donations [do or COULD] make their lives better as students. Is there a way to tie these together? After all, as many have noted, eventually some of those PhDs will be in high level positions elsewhere, etc.
So, lessons?
1. if you are told by an alum not to contact for $ with some given constraints (my case: until I was out of the university as a student), respect them.
2. figure out ways to relate grad students (while _in vitro_) to alumni giving, maybe even (and this would be easier in a smaller place, for sure) through direct contact.
Ah, hope that was not too much blather.
COMMENT FROM E.H.
I'd like to add that I'd probably be more likely to give to my Ph.D. school than my B.A. school, since my Ph.D. schools have alumni events that don't cost as much and are often right downtown rather than in a distant suburb (and I don't own a car).
Both schools have good speakers at the events, though.
Alumni giving and "customer satisfaction"
QUESTION FROM W.A.
I've become intrigued by the turn this discussion has taken in regards to the challenges involved in convincing alumni to donate.
As with many list members, I have degrees from three institutions (and in my case in two countries) and I've never felt compelled to donate to any of them, yet I do donate a reasonable amount of both money and time to other "charities." The main reason is that these institutions, particularly two of them, left me feeling unsatisfied as a "customer" of their services and their learning environment. Employee strikes interfered with my education, bureaucrats often hampered accomplishing basic tasks, some faculty members played some nasty political games with me, etc. Of course I had great experiences too --I loved being a student-- but I often felt these experiences were in spite of, rather than because of, the university.
Enough of my story, now my questions.
I'm probably judging this in the consumer-oriented cultural context of our times --as a consumer of education services. I received poor customer service and therefore don't feel enough pride or loyalty in my connection to these institutions to donate.
I'm wondering if our panelists --particularly those who've been doing the work for a while -- can comment on whether they feel that other potential donors are evaluating the university along the same lines? If so, is this new and growing, or a basic "fact" of donation solicitation? How do you handle this as a solicitor of donations? Does your department or group participate in institution-wide strategy sessions and discussion your challenges with representatives of other areas of the university? (What I'm getting at is that if one department --such as career services --is letting graduating students down severely, then this will be their last impression of the school thereby reducing their inclination to donate.)
I guess I'm wondering if there is more to the role of University Development than forging relationships with donors --forging better relationships with other staff, for example.
ANSWER FROM Rebecca Sutcliffe
While giving because you got good service, or not giving because you didn't, are two ways of looking at alumni donations, there are other broader ways to look at it, and alumni offices need to tap into more than "loyalty" to a particular institution. They also need to cultivate a culture of philanthropy, which is much more than "payback." Alumni may also give to individual programs --you may have had a lousy experience with the Registrar, but why should that hamper your giving to your Department, for a travel fund for grad students, for example? Most folks who've been through higher education end up believing that higher education is responsible for their higher paycheck (borne out by stats) and higher standard of living. That higher standard of living, extended to more people, makes for better living and economic standards for a greater number of people --opportunity extended. There are those who chose a particular institution because, regardless of faculty games or poor service in the cafeteria, overall provide a great education. Alumni offices need to work cooperatively with other areas (and often do) to host events on campus for current students so those areas see the importance of their impact on future alums, but the Alumni office also has to work with other senior administrators to make absolutely sure that the value of the degree is never diminished:
that top faculty continue to be hired, overall good teaching takes place, surveys get responded to in changed programming that is responsive to civic and market needs, etc. Alumni offices can do this in a variety of ways, but the most important is service on committees that have oversight of such things. In sum, it's an ongoing process of education, both of current students and of service areas, that excellent educational experiences make excellent graduates, make a tradition of giving back to the place that helped make you what you are.
ANSWER FROM Jami Moss
I've seen a lot of articles for development officers that do discuss our work in terms of "customer service," so W.A., please realize that what I'm about to say is about this issue and not necessarily about you or your experiences.
As a former educator, I'm somewhat disturbed by this kind of language. I do think that students ought to be treated with respect and that they bring valuable experiences to the table. But I also know that unlike a customer, a student is not always right --they have come to the institution to learn from others who are offering their experiences and their knowledge. (And I've learned a lot from my students, too.) But my gut tells me that students are more than mere customers who are purchasing a commodity, and those of us working to facilitate their education are more than "retailers" who have to tailor that commodity to their desires.
That said, I spend a lot of time talking to our students, eating lunch with them, getting to know them. (Again, with only about 120 students living on campus, the situation here is radically different from a large university.) I *never* ask them for money. Whenever I get the chance, I ask them what they need, what their experiences are like, what they would like to see happen, what they need us in development to do to make their experiences better. Sounds suspiciously like customer service, doesn't it? But I guess I think of it in terms of dialogue and education --teaching them about what I do so that they'll help me down the road, learning from them so I can do my job better.
COMMENT FROM K.A.
You're right on target, W.A. Our university, as are many other types of "non-profits," is realizing that, in fact, higher education is a business. As our state funding this year drops to 18% (after we were required to return 7% to the state), we're forces to be more outwardly focused, more consumer related ---we call this "donor driven."
First, we have a president who is so wise and sincere in the entire cultivation process; he truly enjoys meeting with any alumni, whether they've given $25 or $25,000. He wants to see new, younger faces at events for a couple of reasons: not only because it's the right thing to do to include them but also because it's good business to cultivate donors early on in their careers/lives instead of waiting until they're retired to hit them up for the huge or mega gifts. He's never "schmoozing" --he's simply sincere and attentive.
He's also redirecting this rather large ship to emphasize our relevance to the community: to our city, state, country and more. How do we do this? With a wonderful marketing group! They do the research to find out WHAT donors want from us, thus we can serve them better. We also strive to highlight the teaching, outreach and research aspects, all of which contribute to our economy and well-being. It makes people think differently about this ivory tower we're in. Facts speak the truth, not abstract notions of our goodness.
Finally, in those face-to-face meetings, when we're faced with he disgruntled customer, I frankly ask if I may represent their concerns to the university. Then I come back to see what I can do. For instance, one such major donor had been angry for 15 years at a dean, who was now gone --but the damage was done. The present dean, after hearing this, remedied the situation immediately with personal letters, a dinner for the donor, his family and friends AND capped it all off with making him distinguished alumnus --a recognition which he had deserved for, oh about 15 years. You can't solve all of the problems but you can listen, sympathize and offer to help where you can. I cannot get a donor's child in, but as a teacher, I can encourage them to make use of the system for their own success. Donors appreciate this very much.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
W.A., thank you for sharing your story --it is important for us to understand a variety of perspectives on this. They are all valuable and informative.
As I read this, I felt compelled to speak to the customer-service question, which I feel not enough people in general take seriously, unfortunately quite a few of them are in higher education. I posit that just because people resist or resent the trend toward the customer-oriented cultural context, it does not change the perceptions that result in certain realities: students vote with their feet (declining enrollment/retention) and donors vote with their check book (declining gifts).
W.A. wrote: �I'm wondering if our panelists can comment on whether they feel that other potential donors are evaluating the university along the same lines?�
Short answer: Yes, many do. I agree with Kim that folk who have a giving heart will give, however, my experience has been that people who had bad experiences at the institution that never had an opportunity to get the bad feeling off their chest remember the pain and anger, so if they have a giving heart, their church or other charities are the beneficiaries of their largess, not the college or university.
W.A. wrote: If so, is this new and growing, or a basic "fact" of donation solicitation?
I'd say it is a little bit of both. In my travels I have encountered alumni who are still so angry about experiences that they either refuse to grant me an appointment at all, or if they see me, they use the appointment time to vent about their terrible experience. As a former counselor, I find it easy to listen and empathize with them. I find it more difficult to convince them that the Tech of 2003 is very different from their Tech of the 1950s or 60s.
W.A. wrote: How do you handle this as a solicitor of donations?
I generally just listen and empathize. If their beef is something that can still be addressed in some fashion by someone at the university, I bring it back and pass it off to the appropriate person. I send a letter or make a phone call back to the prospective donor, saying I passed their concern along and to whom, suggesting that they are likely to receive a phone call from the person.
W.A. wrote: Does your department or group participate in institution-wide strategy sessions and discussion your challenges with representatives of other areas of the university? (What I'm getting at is that if one department --such as career services-is letting graduating students down severely, then this will be their last impression of the school thereby reducing their inclination to donate).
Unfortunately, no. I agree that it is certainly something that we should strive to do, but I think it was Jami who alluded to the dysfunctional nature of her graduate institution or department. When an institution is unhealthy with silos, stove pipes, and bunker mentality among its players, institution-wide discussions and strategy sessions are Utopian dreams.
W.A. wrote: I guess I'm wondering if there is more to the role of University Development than forging relationships with donors -- forging better relationships with other staff, for example.
In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, where everybody that you talk to is perceived as a stepping stone to the next big gift, forging relationships with staff is really low on the advancement officer's list of priorities. It is a heck of a nice idea, and certainly one that could advance the agenda if implemented thoughtfully, but it would be a Gargantuan task, and one that some pretty high level people at the institution would have to endorse. Never mind the reality that the internal Campus Campaign would probably double if such an effort were undertaken.
COMMENT FROM E.D.
I think this is a fascinating discussion, even if it has more about blowing off post-doc steam than discussing these career paths. I want to make a comment about the discourse of students as consumers, by way of responding to what Brenda just wrote.
The problem with the discourse of students as consumers is that it assumes that the business models these emulate are themselves optimal. The CEO who must satisfy stockholders in the next quarter will be loathe to make long-range decisions that may involve short term sacrifice, even if the company will benefit in the long run. Such a person will also be unlikely to think of "costs" and "profits" in broader social terms, not only in narrow financial terms. It seems that a university, unlike a publicly traded company, has greater latitude on these issues, so in that sense the appeal to a business
model for higher ed is likely a rhetorical cover, rather than a practice grounded in deep understanding. I don't read the Harvard Business Review or Fast Company, but I've read around enough to know that those models of doing business are coming under scrutiny. I also know that the widespread revolution in management during the 1990's was due to rethinking the premises of relationships between employers and employees, and that the original impetus for doing so came from Japan.
That universities pride themselves on acting like businesses but do not really know what they're doing comes out in two comments that Brenda makes. This is not suggesting that Brenda doesn't know what she's doing, or that her university acts like a business; I'm simply using two of her statements as examples of a discourse we might find in many places. Also, she did acknowledge that building relationships inside the university would likely raise contribution levels.
First is the idea that it's a reality that "students vote with their feet...and donors vote with their check book." Calling this a "reality" suggests that this is a good basis for making institutional policy, curricular changes, etc. Second is the idea that it's a fantasy that a university could do any work to improve relations with internal constituencies. That seems to suggest that any factor with indirect impact on how students vote with their feet and how donors vote with their check book isn't worth paying attention to. I don't see how a university can have it both ways.
On this list in general, we talk a lot about networks: career paths, networking, building relationships, the circulation of ideas among groups of people. The conversations all tend to make of us amateur sociologists who are always tracing ways to find new, subtle, and indirect paths to the same goal. People who subscribe to this list are networkers, who understand that we don't live in a simple Newtonian social universe. That's why I think there's been such a strong reaction to the perception that grad students and staff aren't worth favoring from a development perspective. We see how these things matter.
Regardless of what advancement officers think their priorities are, the idea that development relationship building should occur within universities remains a reality that's consistent with the business model in higher ed.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
E.D., in my 17 years in higher ed, I have seen students leave institutions that they perceived as uncaring, unresponsive, or otherwise not very student or service-oriented. In my 4 years in development, I have had a number of prospective donors tell me that there is nothing I can say or do to convince them to given to an institution that disrespected, mistreated, or otherwise provided an unsatisfactory
experience. Perception = Reality for some.
In my view, the institutions that enjoy successful fundraising and excellent retention are the ones that treat their employees well, and whose culture is one of caring and outstanding customer service. I'm not asking colleges and universities to try to mold themselves into the business model, but "knock their socks off customer service" is the way that homes, schools, churches, colleges, universities, and businesses will thrive and do well. It starts with the individual, and spreads to become the culture.
COMMENT FROM C.D.
Rebecca Sutcliffe wrote: Most folks who've been through higher education end up believing that higher education is responsible for their higher paycheck (borne out by stats) and higher standard of living.
Really? My "higher educational" experience, in conjunction with my own naiveté, is in fact responsible for my diminished value and diminishing standard of living.
Rebecca Sutcliffe wrote: but the Alumni office also has to work with other senior administrators to make absolutely sure that the value of the degree is never diminished.
Well, they have already failed in this because their "highest" degree, the Ph.D., isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Rebecca Sutcliffe wrote: that top faculty continue to be hired, overall good teaching takes place,
Pardon me while I choke laughing ....
Rebecca Sutcliffe wrote: In sum, it's an ongoing process of education, both of current students and of service areas, that excellent educational experiences make excellent graduates, make a tradition of giving back to the place that helped make you what you are.
Ah, there is so much I wish I could give back -- I had a stomach virus yesterday and had diarrhea. I should have bagged it all up and put a stamp on it.
What I find so utterly galling is when, as an interim, non-tenure-track faculty member, I am asked twice yearly to contribute to the annual faculty giving fund.
You people have balls, I'll give you that.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
C.D.: I am truly sorry that you have experienced such utter frustration and disappointment in your higher educational experience. I would be interested in interacting with you off-list, in an effort to allow you to vent your spleen. There is nothing I or any of the rest of us can do to undo the myriad of injustices that you have suffered, however, I would like to lend an ear, and learn from you how to treat my own frustrated alumni better when I encounter them.
I'm going away from my computer for the weekend, but I would be interested in re-engaging you on Monday if you are so inclined.
COMMENT FROM L.H.A.
I'm afraid I have to second your thoughts, C.D. That's why I'm on this listserve in the first place.
And while I'm on the topic, let me mention a particularly cheap trick that both my undergraduate school (a state land grant school) and my graduate school (one of the top ranked public universities in the country) have tried. They have someone who identifies herself as a current student call me and tell me they're updating their alumnae records; she goes over my current info, asks for any updates, and then tells me about this fabulous, beautifully-bound volume containing up-to-date information on all graduates for only $80.00 and how many copies can she put me down for? I really resent these sorts of sales tactics.
COMMENT FROM K.A.
C.D. wrote: their "highest" degree, the Ph.D., isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I think the value of the Ph.D. transcends the paycheck, and I say this as one who will be paying off Sallie Mae for the rest of my life. As far as paychecks, I think it obviously depends on what the degree is in; it seems if you're in engineering, you'll be set. Humanities? You'd be better off working in development for sure.
COMMENT FROM Q.W.
Everyone is entitled to their own views on how to boost student involvement with and support for their alma mater(s). A worthy goal, I think. However, I still think that current students are best encouraged to become involved with their alumni groups as an extension of the university community, not cynically cultivated by the university administration for their potential as future financial donors under the auspices of the university development office.
Students simply are not that dumb. Students are only likely to become graduates who identify themselves as alumni if they are well served by the institution as students. And I see nothing in this assertion that suggests students are "customers" in that shallow "customer always knows best" retail mentality or that students and alumni can't distinguish between hardships they're experiencing due to external cultural and economic circumstances and their recognition that they are a low priority as students.
Rebecca Sutcliffe wrote: "you may have had a lousy experience with the Registrar, but why should that hamper your giving to your Department?"
Students expect to have lousy experiences with over-taxed student "services" like the Registrar, financial aid, the cafeteria etc, especially at large research institutions. But when it becomes plain that many faculty regard teaching and (especially) student advising as service work to be avoided as much as possible in favor of their real careers as scholars, writers, and self styled "intellectuals," while preaching to each other --in a variety of rhetorics-- the necessity of not pandering to their students' career interests, well, then you're in a whole other psychic terrain. Then the alumni purse will resolutely close. And I'm not even anti-intellectual.
To change the subject: Like other posters to the list this week, I'm also interested in the language in which university funding is being cast. When approximately did fundraising become "university development"? This seems like a recently evolved term to me, and one that does seem suggestive of future opportunities for people with advanced degrees in the humanities.
QUESTION FROM J.O.
This is a question for all of our wonderful speakers, as well as other list-members who might want to contribute a response.
Recently, discussion has turned towards comparing how one feels about one's undergrad institution(s) in comparison/contrast to one's grad institution(s). A subtopic of this, at least if one of these institutions is a large university, is the comparison/contrast of giving to the large, general Annual Fund or to smaller, departmental or focused campaigns.
A personal example --I've received solicitations from the WAA (general alumni organization), the College of Letters & Science (where my department is housed), the Maison Française, and, now that I'm Academic Staff at my degree-granting institution, several internal giving campaigns. I should explain that the latter are not always intended for university fundraising but are often focused on community giving. Regardless, this seems to me to be a plethora of "asks" from a single institution!
So my question (yes, I'm finally getting to it!): Are there ways that various campaigns can be well-integrated so that a single potential donor does not receive multiple asks? Or is this sort of tag-team approach more common?
ANSWER FROM K.A.
J.O., you ask the eternal question!
With U of XXXX, the alumni association is separate from the actual University; we don't even share databases.
The individual college/school/units call their donors annually through our phone-a-thon program. Then there's the high-end annual giving society that covers the president's office and university overall--the President's Associates (PA). If you give to the president's office via the PAs, then your college would still contact you; however, if you gave to your college THROUGH the PAs, then you'd be taken care of for the year. Does that make sense?
That's as integrated as we were ever able to get really.
ANSWER FROM Jami Moss
As I write this, even at our tiny school, the major gifts officer is sending a mailing asking alumni to give to a scholarship; our planned giving director has a mailing going out; I'm working on my fiscal year-end appeal to send at the beginning of next month; and we are launching a new giving society for the Annual Fund. These multiple requests are a big issue, one that we haven't satisfactorily resolved. We do keep track of who's made gifts for any purpose this year, and I try not to solicit those folks for the Annual Fund.
Another thing that might account for multiple mailings is that a school's fiscal year may be different from the calendar year (ours ends June 30). So you could send a check on June 15 and still receive a solicitation in September for the next year, and if you wait till the next June to send your check you'll keep receiving solicitations up to that point.
(J.O., I know how things are at University of XXXX --I got my degree there!)
ANSWER FROM Brenda V. Cross
You're right, J.O. That's a lot asks!
There are ways that the various campaigns can be well-integrated so that a single potential donor does not receive multiple asks, but it requires either a culture of great cooperation, trust and fairness, or one characterized by tight-fisted control of the data base. I tried searching back through earlier postings to clip a quote that described the more ideal way of doing Development. It talked about departmental/advancement cooperation in the strategic planning and implementation of development. I believe that the universities that do development well without abusing their donors and prospects are the ones who have a highly centralized development function that works closely with schools, colleges, departments to assure that an alumnus doesn't receive 8 different solicitations from their alma mater.
My husband's doctorate is from the University of XXXX. He got a letter the other day that said in effect: If you respond positively to this solicitation, we will not call or write you again this year to ask for a gift. We really liked that, and wrote the check that very day.
The "tag-team" approach is probably an indication of an organization in transition, or one without a strong, effective overall development strategic plan.
FROM Paula Foster Chambers
Well, it's Friday April 11 and this Guest Speaker Discussion must now come to a close. On behalf of all subscribers, I would like say a very grateful "Thank You!" to our four Guest Speakers, Rebecca, Brenda, Jami and Kimera. They shared very generously of their time, knowledge and experience, for which we are much in their debt. Thanks as well to those of you who asked questions and kept the discussion going.
The next Guest Speaker Discussion will take place in May or June, exact dates TBA, and will address the subject "Careers in Translation." Until then, you are free to use the list in whatever manner you choose as long as it is consistent with the list's purpose: to share information and encouragement regarding nonacademic careers for humanities, education and social science PhDs.
COMMENT FROM Brenda V. Cross
This week has been one of enlightenment and many great ideas. My two favorites are Jami's proposed script for Ph.D. alumni solicitation, and the one suggesting research into graduate alumni giving.
Thank you all for excellent questions and thoughtful discussion. Finally, I want to remind us all that there are many perspectives out there, and there is never one right answer to any question. There is plenty of room for a variety of approaches and solutions.
www.case.org
Website of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, the professional society for development people. Information about work in higher education, including job postings in all areas (including development).
www.foundationcenter.org
Details on foundation giving.
www.philanthropy.com
The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which also hosts several listservs.
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2003/04/2003040701c.htm
Article from the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Development and Fund Raising: What's the Difference?"