Philanthropy and the Engaged Campus

1. Philanthropy and the Engaged Campus David J. Weerts University of Minnesota

2. Topics for this Session Challenging prevailing models of fundraising and academic work: What is our contribution to society? What might philanthropy look like at an engaged campus? A Tale of Two Cultures: Stereotypes, pressures, and the lives of faculty and advancement professionals Engagement as a unifying approach to advance public and campus needs (conceptual model of philanthropy and the engaged campus) Practical strategies to consider at UNH

3. What is the salient object? Vase/face as “figure” or “ground.” Gestalt theory of perception

4. Figure/Ground in Higher Education? Faculty and advancement professionals often frame institutional needs as the “figure,” and public interests and societal needs as the “ground.” Conversely, community partners/donors see higher education as “ground” not the “figure”: Society has problems, universities have disciplines! (KY/Davies) “Lots of people have never been to campus and the University may as well be Mars to them. We need to demystify what the university is all about.” -Community partner (family perceptions?)

5. Seeing Ourselves as “ground”: Donor Perspectives Today’s transformational donors are interested in building communities, not institutions (Strickland, 2007). Today’s transformational donors invest in issues and expect results. They seek values-driven organizations and expect organizations to accept their ideas and opinions, not just their money (Grace and Wendroff, 2001). “We have learned that people give to Emory not to help it move up in the rankings, but because they believe that the institution is making a difference in the world.” --Francine Cronin, Associate Vice President for Annual Giving, Emory University

6. Philanthropy and the Engaged Campus? Reframing the Dialogue… Asking New Questions Traditional discourse on philanthropy: higher education as “figure” What can donors, alumni, and friends do to better support our campus? Discourse reframed: societal needs as “figure,” higher education as “ground” What are the most pressing needs, challenges, and opportunities facing our community, region, and nation? How can our campus be an instrument to addressing these challenges? How do we engage donors, alumni, and friends to be strategic partners in meeting these community, regional, and national goals?

7. Moving from higher education “figure” to “ground” Some evidence to consider… Lessons from the Center for Democracy and Citizenship, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Lessons from the Institute on Aging, University of Wisconsin-Madison

8. It’s not about the rankings… reframing Emory as an engaged campus http://www.mainspringmc.com/emory/dec06/powerofemory.html

9. Discussion Point: How does our discussion about “figure” and “ground” relate to academic work and fundraising efforts currently underway at UNH?

10. Building a culture of “engaged philanthropy” starts from the inside-out!Changing the way we think about each other and our potential donors…

11. Prevailing Perceptions of Our Colleagues? Professor as eccentric, self-absorbed? Fundraiser as glamorous jet-setter? Professor as absent-minded, unpredictable? Fundraiser as salesman on the make?

12. Discussion Point: UNH Faculty Perspectives… What are your daily pressures? How are you rewarded as a scholar? Current strategies for raising support for your research and programs? Experiences working with development officers on gift proposals?

13. Discussion Point: UNH Advancement Officer Perspectives… What are your daily pressures? How are you rewarded as a gift officer? Who do you take your direction from in designing gift proposals? Dean, chair, faculty, donors, etc.?

14. How we view donors and vice versa? “We show up, they give us some potato chips and a little lunch and then tell us what they plan to do. We aren’t asked anything substantive.” --Major donor, UW-Madison Board of Visitors member One development officer explained, “A good development officer has the ability to make a venture philanthropist believe that the institution’s goals are her own” (Boverini, 2006, p. 99). Donor cultivation often limited to getting buy-in for a pre-existing plan. (Leave the money at the stump?)

15. Public engagement as a strategy to serve the public good and build a financially healthy campus...

16. Public Engagement and Higher Education “The publicly engaged institution is fully committed to direct,Two-Wayinteraction with communities and other external constituencies through the development, exchange, and application of knowledge, information, and expertise for mutual benefit.” American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) Task Force on Public Engagement, Stepping Forward As Stewards of Place. (2002)

17. What do we REALLY mean when we say public engagement? A Lesson from East St. Louis and the University of Illinois-Urban/Champaign

18. Community-University Engagement and Models of Knowledge Flow (Weerts, 2007)

20. IMPLICATIONS FOR PHILANTHROPY What does an engagement model of institutional advancement look like compared to the traditional model?

21. Traditional Model of Institutional Advancement Advancement guided by traditional view of higher education as producer, disseminator of knowledge (one-way flow, knowledge as commodity). External stakeholders provide input—but limited– when formulating strategic directions for institutions. Institutional boundaries are rigid, uninviting.

26. Engagement Model of Institutional Advancement Guided by belief that knowledge lies inside and outside of traditional academic boundaries—external partners valuable collaborators in building a better world. Institutional vision developed via shared public agenda: focus groups, dialogues with stakeholders (faculty, staff, students, legislators, community groups, corporate partners, alumni, philanthropists) to map strategic directions for the institution.

31. Engagement model limitations…a long, difficult road to reform! Requires cultural transformation at all levels of the institution (Eckel & Kezar, 2003) Process of negotiation and strife among internal and external partners. What are the appropriate boundaries between stakeholder input and institutional control of the leadership and management?

32. Reform Institutional Reward Structures Faculty: Promotion and tenure must support engagement, provide incentives via seed grants, administrative support, etc. Advancement officers: Rewards must be based on engaging external partners who possess knowledge, compelling interests, and financial or political capital to advance a shared public agenda.

33. Capacity and Interest of Stakeholder Participation? Can we assume that donors, community partners, and public officials have the time and interest to be deeply engaged in the work of the institution? Does enough trust exist between campus leaders and external partners for this model to work effectively? If not, how does one build that trust?

34. But the benefits outweigh the costs! Transformational relationships = long term commitment, advocacy, and support for a campus committed to public purposes.

35. Thank you for your time and attention! Luncheon dialogue and discussion…