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

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

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

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?)

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

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?

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

It’s not about the rankings… reframing Emory as an engaged campus

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

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

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

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?

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.?

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?)

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

“The publicly engaged institution is fully committed to direct, Two-Way interaction 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) Public Engagement and Higher Education

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

Community-University Engagement and Models of Knowledge Flow (Weerts, 2007) Linear, unidirectional model (one-way expert approach) Integrative model (engagement: two-way approach) Epistemology Positivist: knowledge is value neutral, detached and “exists on its own.” Constructivist: knowledge is developmental, internally constructed, and socially and culturally mediated by partners Role of higher education institution and community partners University produces knowledge through traditional research methodology (labs, controlled experiments, etc). Roles and functions of labor, evaluation, dissemination separated from researcher and community. Learning takes place within context in which knowledge is applied (community). Knowledge process is local, complex, and dynamic. Knowledge is embedded in a group of learners (community and institution). Boundary spanning roles Field agents deliver and interpret knowledge to be used by community members. Field agents interact with community partners at all stages: design, analysis, implementation

Linear, unidirectional model (one-way approach) Integrative model (engagement: two-way approach) Dissemination philosophy and strategies (Hutchinson & Huberman, 1993) Dissemination paradigm Spread: One-way broadcast of new knowledge from university to community Choice: University produces alternatives for users to choose Systemic change paradigm Exchange: Institutions and community partners exchange perspectives, materials, resources to address societal needs Implementation: Interactive process of institutionalizing ideas MetaphorsCommunity partners as “empty vessel” to be filled. Knowledge is a commodity to be transferred to community partners. Community and university equal partners in a “community of learners.” Universities become a learning organization.

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

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.

Traditional model Philosophy of advancement (adapted from Huchinson & Huberman, 1993) Dissemination paradigm Spread: One-way broadcast of institutional work (knowledge) and programs to “sell” to external stakeholders Choice: External relations officers seek to match institution’s work with external partners interests.

Traditional model Structured participation strategies Alumni and donors: Advisory boards comprised of alumni and donors, dissemination paradigm– “prioritize, show, tell, solicit” (advisory, advocacy, communications link) State relations: legislative campus visits, capitol visits, “prioritize, show, tell, solicit.” Lobbyist approach Corporate and community relations: corporate visits, campus visits, match mutual interests.

Traditional model Role of faculty, staff, student, advancement officers Faculty and staff: Passive unless program is a college priority, featured speaker, “show and tell” to legislative staff, alumni, donors. May have separate corporate or community relationships. Students: Passive beneficiaries of support. Serve as marketing tools. Advancement staff: Promote interests of dean, institution, select faculty

Traditional model Development cycle (alumni philanthropy) Prospect identification: By college, department affiliation, degree of alumnus. Cultivation: Development officer visit, dean, faculty contact, College Board of Visitors, campus visits Solicitation: Development officer, dean match to department or college needs Stewardship: Recognition, letters of thanks (students, faculty) and ongoing contact with project/program.

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.

Engagement model Philosophy of advancement (adapted from Huchinson & Huberman, 1993) Systemic change paradigm Exchange: Institutions and external partners exchange perspectives, knowledge, materials, resources to address societal needs Implementation: Interactive process of solving problems and bringing about systemic change (community and society)

Engagement model Structured participation strategies Discovery teams: Interdisciplinary teams consisting of internal/external partners to promote education, dialogue, advocacy, and financial support for public agenda (e.g., Childhood diseases) Interdisciplinary councils: Federation of discovery teams to promote education, dialogue, advocacy, and financial support for public agenda (e.g., Council on Health Promotion, Environmental Stewardship, Cultural Enrichment) UNH faculty: Where do you fit?

Engagement model Role of faculty, staff, student, advancement staff Faculty and staff: Facilitator of discovery teams and interdisciplinary councils in collaboration with external partners Students: Active learning participant on discovery team and councils. Fully engaged with external partners. Advancement staff: Facilitate external participation in discovery teams, councils. Cultivate major gifts and political advocacy to support teams and councils.

Engagement model Development cycle (philanthropy) Prospect identification: “Open slate.” Identify by prospect interests. Direct to appropriate discovery team. Cultivation: Participation on discovery team, learning community, development officer visit, dean, faculty contact Solicitation: Development officer, discovery team leader match gift to advance team progress. Stewardship: Recognition, continued work on discovery team.

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?

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.

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?

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

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