“Strengthening Faculty-Foundation Relations: A Case Study”

2014 CASE Conference for Institutionally Related Foundations

Denver, Colorado

Grand Hyatt Denver

April 23-25, 2014

Larry Gould

Fort Hays State UniversityFinal Draft

About Fort Hays State University (FHSU) Founded in 1902 as a “teaching academy” on 4,000 acres of military

land ceded to the state of Kansas by the federal government

State college role was expanded in the 1960s in response to the need for access/affordability for first generation and nontraditional students and the changing demands being placed on other types of four year institutions (American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU))

Assigned current liberal and applied arts mission in 1992 as one of three regional, state comprehensive universities in the Kansas Regents System (36 institutions) responsible for 66 (KS has 105 counties) western and central counties (52,000 square miles)

About FHSU

Founding member of the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC/NCA) alternative accreditation track known as the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)

Academic Programming 60+ undergraduate degree programs 21 graduate degree programs 40+ programs completely accessible off-campus 80+ Certificates and Certifications

General Structure Three divisions: academic, student affairs, administration-finance Four academic colleges, graduate school, distance education delivery unit

called the Virtual College

About FHSU

Branding Tagline/The Promise to the Learner:

Forward thinking. World ready.

Fort Hays State University provides accessible quality education to Kansas, the nation, and the world through an innovative community of teacher-scholars and professionals to develop engaged global citizen-leaders.

About FHSU

Fall 2013 Enrollment: 13,441On-campus headcount: 4,767

Virtual College headcount: 5,380China program headcount: 3,294

Total number of Kansans served by FHSU: 6,900 for Fall 2013, compared to 6,745 in Fall 2012

Graduates: 3,327 in the 2012-2013 academic year (summer 2012, fall 2012, spring 2013)

The FHSU Faculty-Foundation Relationship

Indifferent BUT Emergent

(a persistent strain of “evolving co-existence”)

Organization of the Advancement Function

• Benign Neglect (Elimination of VP for IA institutionalized)

• Some Integration (foundation, alumni, president’s office, university relations)

• Episodic (e.g. Annual Spring Fundraising Campaign)

Faculty KnowledgeCurrent FacultyMost do not have development mindset Many have limited understanding of development tasks/processesSome feel neglected, but are willing to participate when asked

Retired FacultySome very dedicatedOver time, increasing engagement with Alumni/FoundationMatch of faculty to development tasks is select and limited

Phonathons Honorary Campaign Chairs Free Food/Gifts Limited Loans College Goal-Setting Exercises Shared/Special Events with Alumni Association Trips to Visit Potential Donors Increasing Club Activity

Faculty Engagement Strategies that Work

Faculty Engagement Strategies that Do Not Seem to Make a Difference

Coffees Department Visits Faculty Mail Appeals Ticket Purchases for Faculty Small but Limited Equipment Purchases Special Appeals to Limited Number of Academic Programs

Obstacles/Structural Hurdles Strategic Plan Action Planning Process (2 million disbursed)/Tendency is to Turn

To This Source Rather than Foundation

Revenue Streams Under Control of President/Leadership has been Reluctant to Cultivate Grass Roots Participation

Alumni Association/Foundation Connection is Unclear to Faculty

Integrated Advancement Team is Missing (compare other MIAA peers)

Continuity of Advancement Planning is Missing

Opportunity for Enhancing Faculty Knowledge about Foundation is Missing

Limited Opportunity for Mid-level/Senior Administrators to Participate in Institutional Advancement in a Significant Way

Fundraising as a Faculty Job

Not Seen as a Faculty Job Fundraising Is Not Evaluated in Merit Foundation is Trying to Change This

Perspective

Questionable View of Development/Foundation?

Time Consuming Activity Without Much Payoff

Just Not the Place to Seek Resources or Assistance (Action Planning Process/President as Controller, Not Foundation)

New President/Administration Has An

Opportunity to Improve/Change this Perspective

The KEY TAKEAWAY for SCUs

Embrace the old goals but achieve them in new ways

Take advantage of the new world of collaboration, innovation, and value creation----commonly called “wikinomics” and driven by social technology----and build a development-friendly “Platform for Participation in Institutional Advancement.” This allows “communities of partners” across campus and beyond to co-create, participate and add development value irrespective of existing policies, structures, management practices or culture.

Thanks!

Questions?

Powerpoint is available at:

<lawrencegould.org>

Under the “presentations/project” tab