|
|
 |
|
History Departments and Fund-Raising Activities
Michael J. Galgano, Editor Taking the initiative in raising private monies to support academic programs has never been common among collegiate history departments. For most academicians, as the essays in this issue attest, departmental solicitations are seen as distasteful and somehow demeaning. At the same time, fund-raising does offer an opportunity for departments to identify and secure new revenues enabling them to accomplish a variety of goals. History depart- ments seldom stand at the front of the queue when academic oper- ating budgets are distributed. Further, relatively few of our alumni are as philanthropic as those touting athletic prowess on campus; therefore, there is a need to supplement ordinary revenues. With thoughtful planning, creative ideas, and careful attention to detail, history departments can appeal effectively to alumni and friends for financial assistance to provide scholarships, enhance programs, and encourage faculty. Our own modest correspondence with new history graduates at James Madison University has raised over $10,000, sufficient to endow two scholarships, in the past three years. In the opening essay, Charles Sydnor, President and Professor of History at Emory and Henry College, offers thoughtful insights for departments interested in becoming more actively involved in private fund-raising. His suggestions regarding researching ideas and cooperating with endowment officers are especially helpful. Strategies must be carefully thought through and represent the collective will of the department. T. Harri Baker, Professor of History at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, details a fascinating fund-raising venture implemented at his institution. The ``Evenings with History'' series, sponsored by the University History Institute, provides scholarly lectures to community subscribers. The series has raised sums for library development and it demonstrates the important use of fund-raising activities to build stronger ties between an academic institution and the community. The final two essays, contributed by Gordon W. Kirk, Chair of the Department of History at Western Illinois University, and Ken Wolf, Acting Chair of the Department of History at Murray State Universi- ty, describe successful fund-raisers using institutional phonathons. Both discuss the problems and pitfalls in gaining faculty backing, the need to coordinate with institutional professionals, and the personal rewards involved in participation. Alumni solicitation by telephone, whether from students or faculty, can generate substantial resources to assist departments. These ideas, and others like them, can be of enormous benefit to departments everywhere as we all attempt to increase our activities in an era of limited resources. If you and your colleagues have engaged in any fund-raising enterprises, please let me know so that we can include them in future issues. In closing, I ask also that you plan to attend the OAH Council of Chairs meeting on 24 March during the OAH Annual Meeting in Washington. The meeting is set for the Caucus Room at the Washington Hilton from noon to 1:30 and discussion will focus on the prospective expansion of history faculties in the next decade and the need for adequate planning. Raising the Scratch for History Charles W. Sydnor, Jr. The invitation to compose this brief essay is welcome therapy. Since anyone in this position is viewed with extreme suspicion by colleagues and former departmental buddies, some words about bona fides may be in order at the outset. I work as a college president, but consider myself a professional historian. Until about ten years ago, I worked at a frenetic pace accumulating a solid reputation as a teacher of undergraduates and graduates, while pursuing an active agenda of research and publication, both here in the United States, as well as in Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany. Having produced one substantial book, a wad of articles, and the scripts for two prominent television documentaries, I seemed headed for a long and happy career in the teaching and writing of history. At that point, I knew nothing about ``raising money'' and cared even less about it. As a mellowing and tenured associate professor, I shared the view held by many of my colleagues that the college presidency was the world's second oldest profession. Then, something terrible happened. I was recruited to become the executive assistant to a college president. The pace of research and publication came to a screeching halt. I had to chair admin- istrative committee meetings, drive trustees to the airport, make deals with the bail bondsman on behalf of fraternities, and assist in buttering up rich people. My colleagues thought this tragic, a terrible waste of talent, and an abject sellout. This professional disaster was followed by an even larger catastrophe: I moved from academe to become a political hack, as the executive assistant and speech writer for the Governor of Virginia. In this new and lower life, I survived three years, before making the final descent: I became a college president. Old friends sadly observed that my ruin was now complete; I had made the worst of a once promising career, in the long slide downward from winning prizes given by the American Historical Association to the indignities of fund-raising, back-slapping, and speech-making before civic clubs and other suspicious, right-wing organizations. In all of this, I even had to admit that the political experience of writing speeches was invaluable: trying to become an ex-speech writer is a little like attempting to be a former prostitute, once you have done it successfully for a living, everyone naturally assumes you just love to do it for free. And they appreciate the effort. But there was powerful method in the service of Clio amidst all this apparent professional degeneracy and squalor. I had figured out how to enable the historians to gain control of an entire college. Here, at Emory and Henry, we have what most of you only dream about or fantasize; the president is a historian, the Dean of the Faculty is a historian; the sociologist is really a historian (a neat but easy trick in interview and hiring control); and the history department is exceptionally strong, overrun with students, and the beneficiary of whatever largesse I can manage shamelessly to deploy to their benefit. And since the Dean and I are both counted as catalogue members of the department, we hold our annual and well-lubricated ``departmental working dinner'' in the gourmet dining room of a nearby four-star hotel. Such conspicuous demonstrations of the historians' preeminence have been enormously beneficial to the college. They have demolished the natural arrogance of the English department, deflated the well-heeled presumptions of the economists, and demoralized everybody in psychology, political science, and physical education. (They all have dinner meetings every other year at the local Waffle House.) More seriously, and more to the point, as a caveat to the subject of this essay when considering strategies for raising money for worthy, or even crucial projects that benefit a history department and its curriculum, it helps immensely if historians are already in control of the place. Even if that is not the case, there are some general approaches that can be followed, which will be both helpful to, and appreciated by, the development or fund-raising office in the administration of any college or university seriously committed to finding private monies to support academic programs and faculty development. These approaches are offered as suggestions for consideration by history department members and chairs interested in the substantial possibilities that private philanthropy offers to the future of historical studies. In sum, and in sequence, they are as follows. First, recognize that an organized, consensus effort by the department can produce real results. Go to the Vice-President for Development, or whomever, and lay out the need or the idea for raising money. In the process, don't just state the problem; do the research and the creative work in writing that articulate a compelling case for the project, whether it is a merit scholarship for history majors, a restricted endowment to provide income for books for the library, departmental equipment needs, computer hardware, or whatever. The mistake many academic departments make is assuming that the development or fund-raising office of the institution should do this for them. These administrative personnel simply cannot. Given the pressures to raise general institutional funds, and to secure annual support from alumni and friends, they just don't have the time. Moreover, they invariably do not possess the background, experience, or the knowledge to develop proposals for prospective donors that historians, as content experts, clearly do. Second, don't be surprised to receive an enthusiastic reception from the development office, and from the administration of the institution, if the process described above is followed, and if the development office feels they can sell it. Presidents and development officers WANT to raise money for their institutions. Good programs in institutional fund-raising can respond to academic proposals developed by departments because good development offices are constantly enlarging the circle of institutional friends and supporters. And good ideas and creative proposals for raising money are as important to institutional development as new monographs and fresh interpretations are to the progressive accumu- lation of historical knowledge. Third, avoid at all costs the loose-cannon syndrome. Do not, as a department, or as individual historians, develop and pursue fund-raising projects and solicitations on your own. Work with and through the institutional development office. This is absolutely critical. The development officers will know who the supporters and prospective donors are, what particular interests they have, and the types of projects and programs they are likely to find inspiring or interesting enough to respond to with a gift to the college or university. More than anything else, this will strengthen the odds for success. Much in the common sense calculus of raising money depends on matching the nature of the project or program with the particular interest of the established contributor or the prospective donor. Most people who have accumulated enough wealth to become seriously interested in philanthropy simply will not give away significant sums of money to support projects or to create programs in which they have no interest. The alumnus who gives to support athletics may, or may not respond to a proposal to create a merit scholarship in history, just as the wealthy widow who gives to the institution to support cultural and artistic programs probably has no interest at all in athletics and would be offended if approached by the institution and asked to contribute to the basketball program. Fourth, in working with the development office, try to recognize that their success, and the institution's achievements in raising funds, depend absolutely on good will. Donors want to feel good about what they do; they want to sense that the money they give makes a difference and is consistent with their own interests. Consciously or unconsciously, men and women who contribute generously to higher education frequently view their philanthropy more as an investment than as an act of charity. This is why it is absolutely essential that the approach to raising money by asking for gifts be a coordinated, institutional endeavor. Fifth, unless there are extraordinary circumstances involved, don't have the department chair, or members of the department, assume the prerogative of making the ask. This is a role that the development officers and the president of the institution must play. This is what they should know how to do. If the department's proposal is compelling, and addresses a palpable need, or very clearly will change, strengthen, or enrich some aspect of the department or institution's academic life, the development officer and the president should know how to cast the proposal, who they might approach with it, or how to find the right individual, foundation, or even corporation, likely to respond. Sixth, in venturing into institutional advancement as a department, be prepared for failure. Presidents and development officers are told ``no'' far more times than ``yes'' when soliciting donors even if the nature of the proposal may fit perfectly with the scope of the proposal. The best big league batting averages in fund raising seldom rise above .300. And the development officer or the president might opt not even to take a turn at bat with the department's project if it risks confusing or getting in the way of something else that may be a momentary, but much higher priority in the college or university's development program. Raising money is as much a matter of timing as it is an endeavor in good will and an exercise in understanding donor interest. If the proposal has compelling merit, it will succeed eventually, even if the project strikes out the first eight times the ask is made. One of the earliest lessons a college or university president may have to learn is the correlation between the importance, or even the exciting dimensions a project or proposal has, and the long and often frustrating period required to secure the gifts to fund it. In my own experience, the projects in philanthropy I thought would attract immediate and even electric interest, invariably have been those that required the longest time to bring to success. Finally, in working with development officers and the president, be sensitive to their reluctance to undertake what I call ``stuffing the fat lady into the Volkswagen.'' Pitching the project to the potential interest of the donor carries with it the equally important obligation of matching the financial need to the donors' ability to address it. This means that success may be achieved only in small increments. The project may be of a nature better suited to the interests of several or even a handful of potential donors, rather than to the interest and ability of one generous supporter. If that is the case, as it often is, then the department will have to raise and sustain a level of interest in assisting and supporting the institutional development office over a long period of time. In any event, and in every instance, an endeavor into the important field of philanthropy by a history department can only serve to strengthen and enrich the institution. The effort is an education in itself. Among the most interesting and stimulating people I have met across the last ten years are the men and women I have come to know, and to have as friends, as a result of the privilege of asking them for money to support Emory and Henry College. And, in the final analysis, the internal advantages to the department of history will be substantial. If the department undertakes to assist the institution in raising money, inevitably the development officers, the dean or deans, and the president of the college or university will learn as much, or even more about the strengths and the value of the department and its members than the normal crush of business leaves them time to learn; because, in the most important sense, the department will have become an integral partner in helping them to address what the demands of the times have fashioned into the most important item on their agenda. Fund-raising and Community Relations at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock T. Harri Baker The Department of History at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), in cooperation with a group of community history enthusiasts, has created a successful fund-raising and community relations project. It could readily be duplicated or adapted by other departments. The basis of the project is the University History Institute, a nonprofit corporation that sponsors an annual subscription series of six lectures by UALR history faculty. A subscription is $80 each year, and in the first three years of operation there have been more than fifty subscribers a year. The proceeds so far have produced $5,000 to purchase research materials in history at UALR. Perhaps more important, the Institute has opened possibilities for additional funding and for community relations projects with potentially larger benefits. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is a state-supported institution of about 10,500 students, offering a full range of baccalaureate degrees and about thirty masters and professional degrees, including a Masters in Public History. The Department of History has sixteen full time faculty. Because of its history and location, UALR has a tradition of community service and offerings for nontraditional students. All the students commute to campus, and their average age is 27. The university and the Institute have the advantage of their location in a major city. The state capital, Little Rock, is the political, cultural, and financial center of Arkansas. The greater metropolitan area has a population of about 350,000. The idea that became the University History Institute began four years ago, when members of the history faculty were sitting around lamenting the decline in maintenance budgets and funds to under- write travel and research. That led to the idea of trying to raise money from the community. And that in turn led to the department calling together a small group of community people who had some kind of tie with the history department. That first group included a lawyer who enjoyed reading history, a woman long active in historic preservation, a contractor who had donated scholarship funds, and a businessman and his wife who had been working toward liberal arts degrees at UALR. It was the community group that suggested the subscription series. The faculty members agree that it never would have occurred to them that people would pay to hear them talk. The department as a whole approved the idea, with some admitted skepticism at that point. The basic structure fell into place quickly, and the first subscription series of lectures was held in the 1987-1988 academic year. As the Institute prepares for its fourth year, here is a summary of the way it works. The community people organized themselves as the University History Institute, Inc., formally incorporated as a non-profit corporation under Arkansas laws. (The lawyer in the group donated the legal work.) The Institute has its own self-perpetuating board of directors, now nine persons. The board includes one history faculty member who serves as secretary to the Board (currently the author of this article). The Institute has an interest-bearing account with the university development office for receiving and disbursing funds. In Arkansas, donated money in such accounts remains ``private money,'' not subject to the regulations and procedures pertaining to state funds. The Institute Board could have chosen to use a private bank account, but wished to maintain a link with the university's development program. The Institute's first and still most visible function is sponsorship of the subscription series of lectures, called the ``Evenings with History'' series. Early each spring all faculty members submit one paragraph summaries of possible topics. These are ranked by each member of the board and an equal number of department faculty. The Board then makes the final choice. The Board and faculty look for variety by period and area. In addi- tion, the goal is a talk that is sound in scholarship and method- ology, but popular in presentation. The Board made it known quickly that literally ``reading'' a paper, as historians are accustomed to doing at their own meetings, was not appropriate for this audience. (See the list accompanying this essay for sample topics.) The six presentations each year are on the first Tuesdays of October, November, December, February, March, and April. Tuesday was an arbitrary choice, as was the total of six lectures. January is skipped because of the possibility of inclement weather. The sessions are held at a local hotel which gives the series an atmosphere not easily duplicated on campus. In addition, because UALR offers a full range of night classes, parking is difficult on the campus. Each session begins with refreshments (coffee, soft drinks, fruit and cheese tray) at 7:30 p.m. followed by the talk at 8 p.m. Each talk is held rigidly to no more than 45 minutes, but the question-and-answer period usually runs for another half hour. The basic solicitation for subscribers is through a mass mailing conducted each summer. The department assembled a general mailing list for the Central Arkansas area now numbering almost one thou- sand names. The list includes members of many professional groups, such as doctors and lawyers; major civic leaders and public officials; all area subscribers to the state historical quarterly; and individual names suggested by faculty and Board members. The annual mailing consists of a brochure outlining the purpose of the Institute and the ``Evenings with History'' series, the coming year's presentations, and the cost of subscription. Current subscribers also get a special cover letter and extra brochures, urging them to resubscribe and to tell a friend. The brochure makes clear that the goals of the Institute include research support and reminds potential subscribers that it is a non-profit corporation. Although the brochure stops short of explicitly saying that a subscription is tax-deductible, it almost certainly is for most subscribers. The $80 subscription fee was set arbitrarily, as the Board's best guess at an amount low enough to encourage sufficient subscribers and high enough to cover the costs and produce a net profit. The brochure encourages contributions of more than $80 by designating individuals giving more than the subscription fee a ``Fellow of the Institute.'' Each year about five or six individuals have made out their subscription check for $100. A subscription entitles the subscriber to bring one guest to each session. Subscriptions are also transferable if the subscriber cannot attend a particular session. The Board is also very lenient about allowing additional guests, as they may be future subscrib- ers. As an additional benefit, subscribers can get check-out privileges at the university library at half the fee charged the general public. The direct mail solicitation, plus special efforts by Board members, produced forty subscribers the first year, and about fifty-five in each of the following years. So far the renewal rate has been approximately sixty percent, thus giving the programs both continuity and new members each year. Also invited to each session as guests of the Board that is, at no charge are all members of the history faculty, with spouses or a guest, all student members of Phi Alpha Theta, and selected university administrators. Attendance at each session ranges from eighty to 120, mostly subscribers and their guests. Gross income for the project has been more than $5,000 a year. The bulk is from subscriptions, the rest from miscellaneous and corporate donations. The annual overhead is high, about $2,000 a year, including the cost of producing the brochure and mailings and the cost of the sessions. The latter includes hotel meeting room rental costs and refreshments, at about $220 per session. The faculty presenters do not receive compensation. The Board's finances and the department's state funding are kept rigidly separate. Even mailings are done with stamps purchased from Board funds. The Institute has its own letterhead, using its name and the university's street address. Although no direct transfer of funds is involved, the department does allow the faculty member who serves as the Board's secretary released time from one course during the academic year. The Board has legal control over its funds, but has chosen to take the advice of the department on their use. The department recommended that the Board fund major acquisitions of research-oriented library materials, such as large single collections. After the first year the Board authorized a $1,000 grant, and after the second year the Board authorized a $1,500 grant. Each of those grants has been matched by the UALR library, thus doubling the amount available. The department solicits applications from the faculty, and presents to the Board either one or two applications for the total amount available. So far, the Board has accepted the department's nominations. The Board is deliberately holding a portion of each year's net proceeds toward building an endowment. It has also recently discussed conducting some other kind of fund-raising, with a goal of major support through gifts. The Board has obtained corporate donations of about $500 a year to defray the costs of the lecture series. Board meetings occur about four or five times a year, usually a luncheon meeting at an off-campus location. The Board elects its own officers, a president, vice-president, and treasurer. Also attending these sessions are the department chair, two or three other faculty members, and the department's Institute coordinator, who is formally a voting member and secretary of the Board. At each stage in the development of the concept, the department kept the university administration, specifically the dean, chief development officer, provost, and chancellor, fully informed. The administration is pleased with the entire project and generally cooperative. The chancellor, for example,held a reception at his home for the subscribers before one of the sessions,and plans to make that an annual affair. The history department also involves the Institute and its subscribers in the department's annual visiting historian lecture. Each year the department brings in a speaker from the Organization of American Historians' Lectureship Program or the American Historical Association's speakers' bureau for a public address. The Institute becomes a co-sponsor of the speaker, which helps in securing grants to defray the speaker's expenses. The Institute and the department host a private reception for the speaker, with Institute subscribers as the special guests. The subscribers enjoy the opportunity to meet nationally-known historians, and the visiting scholars appreciate the informal social gathering with community representatives. The direct benefits are obvious. The department has library materials it could not otherwise have afforded. The faculty members have enlarged their experience in explaining complex historical subjects to intelligent lay audiences. The whole effort has a good deal of favorable publicity,both within the university and in the community generally. In addition to the Institute's funding of the department's research activities, the department has noticed a significant increase in donations designated for the history program in the annual university fund drive. The indirect benefits are probably even larger. The history department now has a dedicated and even eager advisory board and an equally loyal larger community of subscribers and former sub- scribers, all knowledgeable about the capabilities of the depart- ment and committed to its interests. Some subscribers have taken UALR history courses for credit or audit. The social aspects of each ``Evenings with History'' session, where subscribes, faculty, and the best students meet and talk with each other, have been especially valuable. Both the department faculty and the Board have come to realize that community relations may, in the long run, be more important than the immediate financial bene- fits. As the University History Institute and the department prepare for the fourth annual ``Evenings with History'' series, no one can predict where all this might eventually lead. But then, four years ago no one would have predicted the success so far. For additional information on the UALR University History Institute, please contact either Dr. Deborah Baldwin, chair, or Dr. T. Harri Baker, University History Institute Coordinator, Depart- ment of History, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 South University, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204, telephone (501) 569-3235. ``Evenings with History'' Topics in 1987-1988 Series ``The U.S. Military Command and Vietnam: Lessons Learned and Not Learned'', ``Was Alexander Really Great?'', ``The Founding Fa- thers and the State Church'', ``The Holocaust and the Historians'', ``The Development of Popular Religion and Art in Early China: Worship and Depiction of Sacred Mountains'', ``The `New Woman' in Turn-of-the-Century Arkansas'' Topics in 1988-1989 Series ``The Impact of the Civil War on the South: The Implications of the New Social History'', ``Why the Russians Behave Like Russians'', ``Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition: Religion and War in Crusading Europe'', ``What Is Fascism?'', ``Opening a Continent: Canada's Voyageurs and the Quest for Fur'', ``Teddy Roosevelt and the Rise of the Modern Presidency'' Topics in 1989-1990 Series ``The Urbanization of Black America, 1890 to the Present'', ``Women as Priests and Bishops'', ``The Myth of the French Revo- lution after the French Revolution'', ``Pancho Villa: Hero or Bandit?'', ``The Origins of the American Cult of Cleanliness'', ``The Nature of Ancient Greek Civilization'' Fund-Raising by the Department of History at Western Illinois University Gordon W. Kirk, Jr. The unexpected deaths of two colleagues within two months prompted the Department of History to become involved in fund-raising five years ago. Our initial goal was to establish an endowment of $20,000 to fund two scholarships of $1,000 each to honor our deceased colleagues. Since then the endowment in the two scholarship funds has reached $36,000, and seven students are currently receiving scholarship support. This fall the depart- ment embarked on a new fund-raising drive to increase the total endowment to $50,000 by 1992 which will enable us to raise the stipend of each scholarship from $1,000 to $2,000. In addition, the department is seeking to bolster its general fund in order to secure additional computer equipment for faculty and students and to support student organizations. This essay will elaborate on the fund-raising efforts of the WIU History Department over the past five years in order to identify successful strategies and problems encountered and to provide additional suggestions for history departments embarking on fund-raising activities. The initial fund-raising efforts of the department in 1985 centered on faculty, family and friends of our deceased col- leagues, and history alumni. Although the gifts of the first two groups were most generous,this essay will focus on fund-raising efforts aimed at our alumni. The rationale for this is that departments can begin fund-raising activities aimed at their alumni without experiencing the trauma of a colleague's death. Moreover, our alumni have accounted for about one-third of the money raised by the department over the last five years. After deciding to establish two scholarships to honor our deceased colleagues, the department sought contributions from alumni. Like most colleges and universities, Western Illinois University's Development Office conducts an annual alumni phonathon to raise money. Students and volunteers do the call- ing, and most of the pledges received are not designated for a specific academic area. The Development Office enthusiastically supported our request to have the History Department conduct its own phonathon with the proceeds going to our scholarship fund. Viewing this as an excellent way of raising money and broadening the donor base of the University, they agreed to cover all tele- phone expenses. Problems, however, remained. Having been annoyed themselves by telephone solicitation and reticent about asking former students for money, several faculty were understandably reluctant to make phone calls. The loss of two colleagues in less than two months and the need to do something constructive helped many, but not all, of them to overcome their apprehensions. A second problem revolved around inadequate alumni records. The alumni office had the names and addresses (many outdated) of about one thousand alumni; telephone numbers for over half of them, however, were either missing or inaccurate. We took several steps to address these problems, as well as other measures, to ensure the success of the phonathon. From the outset, participation in the phonathon was voluntary; one cannot and should not try to compel faculty to participate in this type of activity. A representative of the Development Office provided a brief orientation on alumni telephone solicitation at a depart- ment meeting. Although reassuring some, several still did not want to call alumni; they volunteered to call long distance in- formation to secure the phone numbers of those alumni for whom we only had an address. Prior to the phonathon, student workers checked out-of-town phone books for missing numbers. The department also sent letters to all alumni notifying them of the deaths of two faculty, informing them of the upcoming phonathon, and soliciting funds. This resulted in direct contri- butions of about $600 and set the stage for the forthcoming phonathon. The initial donations reassured several faculty that it would be relatively easy to ask history alumni to contribute to a worthy cause. It also made the initial contact easier for faculty when they called. The last step in preparation for the phonathon was to reorganize the alumni list in order to maximize contributions. Assuming that those who had previously donated to the University would be most likely to contribute, we separated out previous donors. Although not a long list, there were enough previous donors so whoever wanted to could start out with two or three likely contributors. This was important in building faculty confidence and enthusiasm at the outset. More significantly, several faculty culled the list of alumni to identify former students they would like to call. This proved to be extremely successful; faculty who did this had much more success than those who did not. Some of my colleagues even checked their old grade books to refresh their memories. With these preparations and substantial faculty participation, the phonathon on 4 March 1985, generated over $5,000 in pledges to the History Memorial Scholarship Fund. Virtually all faculty, even those who had previously not wanted to call, contacted alumni. The success of the phonathon also served to raise faculty morale at a time when it was especially low. Follow up to the phonathon was also important. The Development Office sent all those who made pledges reminders and thank-you letters. Likewise, we also sent thank you letters and another acknowledgement when the pledge was honored. In addition, the annual History Department Newsletter carried a story about the phonathon and listed the names of all donors. Several things became apparent from this first effort at fund-raising. Prior preparation was essential. Faculty were most successful when they contacted former students, particularly alumni who had previously contributed to the University. Second, a substantial number of alumni (approximately two hundred) were willing to contribute when contacted directly by someone in the department. Third, a department phonathon using only faculty could not be an annual affair, and high faculty participation had been due to a tragic set of circumstances. Consequently, instead of another phonathon the following year, we wrote to previous donors thanking them for their past support and encouraging them to respond favorably to the forthcoming in- stitutional phonathon. We further requested they designate their gift to the department. In the next three years, the department Newsletter was the only means employed to solicit gifts from our alumni. The data in the table below offer an estimate of the success of these various efforts over a five-year period. As these data demonstrate, direct telephone solicitation was the most effective means of raising money from alumni. All of the gifts in FY85 (which ended on 30 June 1985) and a substantial proportion of those in FY86 stemmed directly from the March 1985 phonathon. The subsequent letter to alumni donors and announcements in the de- partment Newsletter coupled with the donor base estab- lished during the phonathon resulted in the department receiving gifts totaling over $1,000 in each of the next four years. Since the department rarely received alumni contributions prior to 1985, the phonathon created a core of alumni who would regularly donate to support our program. A cursory check this fall of the giving patterns of alumni con- firmed the need for the department to contact alumni regularly. Consistent with our expectations, a large proportion of our alum- ni made a one-time contribution in response to the 1985 phonathon. A second group continued to contribute to WIU through the general phonathon without specifying the history department. That this group increased in size over time suggests that if a phonathon is a one-time occurrence, an annual letter from the chair to previous donors reminding them of the upcoming universi- ty phonathon and requesting that they both contribute and desig- nate their gift to the department is essential. In the last three years, I estimate the department lost between $500 and $1,000 annually by failing to do this. Alumni Contributions to the Western Illinois University Department of History
After serving a three-year term in the Provost's office, I re- turned as chair of the department this fall. In consultation with my colleagues, we established a goal of increasing the en- dowment in our two scholarships from $36,000 to $50,000 by 1992. In addition, we developed a five-year equipment plan calling for substantial expansion of our computer support for faculty and students. The cost of this plan far exceeded our equipment bud- get. Thus,increasing the endowment in our scholarship fund and implementing our equipment plan would require support from out- side the department and the university. Based on our experience five years ago, it was clear that most faculty would not participate in another phonathon. Therefore, we turned to our student organization for assistance. To encour- age their participation, we offered to give their organization ten percent of all that was raised. Eleven students subsequently participated in the phonathon. Only three faculty members (in- cluding myself) volunteered to take part; two others agreed to call for an hour. Unfortunately, two other colleagues who were especially effective five years ago had other obligations the day of the phonathon. Prior preparation again was essential for success. We sent all previous donors a letter announcing both the new fund-raising drive and the forthcoming phonathon and requesting a direct con- tribution. Included in the letter was a form so alumni could designate their contribution to either the scholarship account or the history's general fund. The latter fund would be used for equipment, the history student organization, and scholarships. This resulted in twelve responses totaling $350 and also facili- tated pledges the day of the phonathon. In retrospect, this procedure could have been improved by enclosing a postage-paid return envelope; these were available from the Development Of- fice. Next year, we will implement this change. Other preparations included modifying a generic script prepared by the Development Office for student callers to fit the needs and goals of the history department phonathon. Those participat- ing in the phonathon found this to be very helpful. We again culled our list of alumni for previous donors and the names of former students known to those faculty who would be calling. These efforts made it possible for each student to begin by call- ing a minimum of eight donors. This, with the prepared script, boosted their confidence. Each faculty member had at least twen- ty students they knew to call (many of these were also previous donors). On Sunday afternoon 4 February 1990, the Department received pledges totaling $4,020. Coupled with the $350 in gifts made in response to the earlier letter, the total was raised to almost $4,400. Of the 390 alumni contacted, 35 percent made pledges and 19 percent indicated ``maybe.'' Of this latter group, only about 10 percent will ultimately make a gift. The eleven students did a superb job raising over $2,200. However, they were not as effective as the three participating faculty who raised almost $1,800 and received pledges from all of the previous donors they contacted. One unfortunate aspect of the phonathon was that a large number of alumni (including 44 previous donors) were not at home. Subsequently, the Development Office informed us that Sunday afternoons are not a good time to call because so many people are out. In addition,temperatures reached an unseasonably high sixty degrees in Illinois that day. On 14 February, the two colleagues who were unavailable for the phonathon and I attempted to call the forty-four previous donors not reached on 4 February as well as some other alumni. On Valentine's Day telephone circuits are extremely busy. An ice storm which led to phone service being disconnected in the Chica- go area where a number of our alumni live further complicated matters. Nevertheless, in spite of a seemingly unending series of busy signals, the three of us raised another $700 in less than two hours. Next week, we are going to contact the remaining previous donors and expect to raise another $1,000. This will bring the total amount contributed or pledged to approximately $6,000. Of the money pledged or contributed thus far, over two-thirds has been designated for discretionary use by the department suggesting that departments can seek gifts for things other than scholarships if they make their needs known to alumni. Given the success of our two phonathons and the decline in con- tributions in the intervening years, the department will hold annual phonathons. In so doing, we will make the following modi- fications:
Telephone Solicitation: A Worthwhile but Delicate Business Ken Wolf Raising money through telephone solicitation of alumni can be effective and worthwhile, we have found, but only if you approach it with modest goals and an awareness of the problems it can create. It is also best if such an effort is preceded by a sys- tematic cultivation of alumni. During the 1988-1989 academic year, our department raised $2,500 through direct phone calls to alumni; in the 1989-1990 ``phonathon,'' we raised over $4,000. This last amount is equal to one-third of the annual non-salary budget for our department (excluding library funds). Most of this money has so far been used for direct aid to students in the form of scholarships or to underwrite student travel to profes- sional meetings. The effort to raise funds through phone solicitation began two years ago at the urging of our university foundation, which orga- nized these efforts by colleges. Our College of Humanistic Stud- ies, which contains the Departments of English, History, Philoso- phy, and Religious Studies, Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Psychology, and Foreign Languages, has raised a total of $12,000 each of the past two years through these efforts. In both years, phone solicitation was preceded by a letter from the college dean indicating that the alumnus/alumnae would be called. This year, the phone calls were preceded as well by a college newsletter which highlighted the activities, faculty, and alumni in each department. The history department has done better than other departments, not because our alumni are wealthier or more generous, but because we have more alumni than most of the other departments. We also believe that our success in fund-raising is due in part to the fact that we have tried, over a ten-year peri- od, to systematically maintain contact with our alumni. Our attempts to cultivate alumni began in the early 1980s when we distributed a survey to as many as we could reach. We sent out twelve hundred surveys and received three hundred responses. In addition to questions seeking personal, vocational, and demo- graphic information, we asked our alumni to tell us why they had chosen a history major, how they rated their instruction from the history department, how they felt about the academic and career advising they had received, and how their major helped or hin- dered them in seeking employment. We found, perhaps not surpris- ingly, that many alumni reported that skills of organization, writing, and critical thinking transferred easily from the disci- pline to careers in business, industry, and government. We also learned that many of them wished we had done more to improve their skills in oral presentation while they were students. This is something we have worked to improve during the past six years. Our next step in keeping in touch with alumni was to begin in 1983 an annual department newsletter, entitled REpast. In this eight-page, professionally-printed publication, we reported the results of our alumni survey, included biographical infor- mation on alumni, with special emphasis on those in fields other than teaching, and (in each issue) highlighted the work of our faculty. Each issue also featured a story about one of our particularly successful graduates. The alumni reaction to REpast was positive enough that in the spring, 1987 issue, our chairman was emboldened to include a story, complete with a clip-and-return form, asking alumni to contribute to our department's scholarship funds. While the response to this request was meager, we believe that the alumni survey and the newsletter helped graduates see that we are indeed interested in them and in the value of their degree, and are willing to improve our program in response to their crit- icism. This prior contact, while not absolutely necessary for successful telephone fund-raising, certainly doesn't hurt. Departments considering such phone solicitation should be aware of at least four problems you might encounter. For us, faculty attitudes toward such "begging,'' especially at a state-supported school, was one problem. Another was the difficulty finding students willing to make such phone calls and able to do so effectively. The third issue is how to spend the money most wisely. Finally, we are aware of the danger that the university administration might be tempted to use money raised through the phonathons to replace regular departmental or college operating funds. Many, if not most, of us in the academic profession resent tele- phone solicitation as an invasion of privacy and as one of the worst features of contemporary capitalism. Imagine the response, then, when faculty members were asked to ``help'' with the 1988 phonathon. Most flatly refused to make phone calls; one of my colleagues even claimed that the phonathon was an effort by the central administration to deliberately demean faculty by insist- ing that they beg for money. All felt that ``we shouldn't have to do this.'' However, once faculty members realized that they would not have to make calls but could contribute by simply being present in the phonathon room, working with tally sheets, and being available to talk with particular alumni if requested, they were more willing to help. Some did want to be assured that everyone would have to take a turn at such tasks, and one of my colleagues did express some ethical concerns about faculty asking for money which would be of direct benefit to us; during the first year, most members of our department were most comfortable with using phonathon funds for scholarship aid primarily. I should add that several faculty members, accustomed to phone solicitation from their work in various political campaigns, were quite willing to make calls to alumni; others, like myself, used the phonathon as an opportunity to renew contacts with some favorite students from the past. Some of these contacts were personally very rewarding. It is gratifying to be told by an established attorney that "you helped me with my writing more than any other teacher I've had throughout my years in school.'' I should add that none of us regard fund-raising as the best use of our time. By our second year, however, we are better able to appreciate benefits we have received from the phone solicitations. The majority of our phone callers were student "volunteers'' from among history majors, our department student workers, aug- mented by our graduate assistants, and some fraternity and soror- ity students recruited by the university foundation. It was not easy finding students willing to do this; many of them (like the faculty) view phone solicitation as personally unpleasant. The first year a brief training tape was shown to volunteers, and during both years they were given explicit printed instructions on what to do and not do, say and not say. Despite this, phone solicitation requires a special ability (to remain upbeat and deal graciously with repeated disappointment, among other things) which not all of us have. Some of our student callers both years have clearly lacked skill to do this job, despite their sense of loyalty to the department. I have recommended to our dean that in the future, we rely on students but pay them out of the phonathon proceeds, if necessary, so we can interview and hire the students most suited to this work, whether majors or not, and give them more extensive training. One of the colleges at Murray State, the College of Industry and Technology, paid their callers this year and increased their pledges from $16,000 to $48,000. Free pizza and loyalty to alma mater are not enough to guarantee skilled callers. The third issue to deal with in organizing fund-raising by phone is how best to spend the money raised. As noted earlier, most faculty members in our department were comfortable with using the money for direct scholarship aid to our students. University foundation officials (and common sense) suggest that in a depart- ment such as ours with a severely restricted operating budget (no increases for ten years), at least some of the funds raised be used for equipment or other needs such as student and faculty travel. In a survey of department faculty I conducted last spring, sug- gestions ranged from using the money to buy bulletin boards to using it for graduate student travel. As you might expect, half the faculty didn't respond at all and there was no consensus among the other half, beyond suggesting that some of the money be directed to student scholarships. At the beginning of our phonathon efforts, several faculty were particularly concerned that the money be used in a way that was beyond reproach and acceptable to all faculty; this was one reason for my survey. This year, perhaps because our awareness of department needs is greater or because we raised more money, there seems to be less concern about how we allocate the money. Nevertheless, I do think it important that funds raised in this fashion be used for items which we could publicly announce in a future college or department newsletter. We will probably continue to put one-third of our funds into scholarships, and use the rest for much needed equipment as well as for faculty and student travel. Phi Alpha Theta will also receive a share. Our final question would the central administration on the col- lege deans see phonathon funds as a regular part of our operating budget has so far been answered in the negative. Neither our dean nor the central administration has suggested that we should pay even our modest printing bills out of our phonathon proceeds. Putting a sizeable portion of our funds into scholarships is one way to avoid such suggestions (scholarships being a sacred cow of sorts for most academics); another device which has been used on our campus, though not yet in our department or college, is to simply draw up guidelines for the use of such foundation funds which would preclude them being used for regular operating ex- penses. No one denies, of course, that having extra money to purchase special computer equipment, for example, eases the pres- sure on the dean or academic vice-president when the time comes for capital outlay requests each year. In my judgement, faculty would be outraged if telephone solicitation were linked to annual operating expenses. More to the point perhaps, responsible budget managers and accountants would likely throw a fit. In sum, fund-raising by phone has been neither as bad as some of us feared nor, to date at least, as lucrative as some might have hoped. Our university foundation officials report that annual gift-giving to the university has increased by ten percent as a result of phonathons. Most of this would not have been given otherwise. Such solicitation has become the primary source of unrestricted funds for use by departments and it has increased our university's ``donor base.'' In a time of scarce resources, telephone solicitation of alumni is a worthwhile activity. This will continue to be the case until that time in American history when the public becomes so vexed by telephone salesmen and solicitors that their response make such efforts counter-productive. |
||||||||||||||||