Fund Raising Activities at Colleges and Universities in the United States

Terry S. Latour, Delta State University

ABSTRACT

Library directors were surveyed at 600 randomly selected colleges and universities, proportionally stratified by Carnegie Foundation type, and classified as being baccalaureate granting colleges or above. Usable responses were received from 517 institutions, or 86.1% of the libraries in the sample.

This paper summarizes information detailing which types of fund raising activities are most successful, how fund raising income is utilized by academic libraries, how fund raising efforts are organized and staffed, what role friends of the library groups play in fund raising initiatives, how fund raising is related to levels of support from the parent institution, and why some libraries choose not to engage in fund raising.

In recent years, financial support for academic libraries has been inadequate to meet the many demands that these types of institutions face. The library literature has increasingly recommended that libraries become involved in fund raising activities in order to supplement the support they receive from their parent institution. However, little is known regarding what type of fund raising program is best suited for a particular type of institution. This paper provides summarized data obtained in a study designed to investigate how pervasive fund raising activities are at academic libraries in the United States, to ascertain what character they take, how they differ between sizes and types of institutions, how success may be related to these and other variables, and to determine what impact these efforts are having on library programs and operations.

The population for this study consisted of academic libraries which are units of colleges and universities in the United States that offer at least a four-year baccalaureate degree. There are 1402 institutions in the country that have these characteristics. These institutions are subdivided into research universities, 125; doctoral granting universities, 111; master's universities and colleges, 529; and baccalaureate colleges, 637.

The sample was selected with the idea of achieving a sampling error of less than 5% and a 95% or higher confidence level so that the information would be generalizable to the larger population. Based upon a projected response rate of 65%, it was necessary to select a sample of approximately 600 institutions in order to obtain the 384 sets of data necessary for analysis.

The sample of 600 institutions was stratified in direct proportion to the population of 1402 institutions. Approximately 42.7% of the colleges and universities in each strata were selected as the sample to receive the survey questionnaire. The sample was drawn randomly by using a random number table. The name of the library director, mailing address, telephone number, and date of founding for each academic library was obtained from the American Library Directory.

A printed survey instrument was designed using Don A. Dillman's "Total Design Method." Thirty-two questions, primarily of a close-ended nature, with both ordered and unordered answer choices and space for the respondent to supply his or her own responses, were organized into a twelve page booklet. A cover letter introducing the study, the questionnaire, and a stamped, pre-printed envelop were sent to the library directors of each of the 600 institutions in the sample. A postcard thanking each institution for participating in the survey was sent to all libraries, and a sequence of two follow-up letters and replacement questionnaires were sent to institutions that had not returned the survey instrument. Usable responses were received from 517 institutions, or 86.1% of the libraries in the sample. Table 1 reports the number of usable questionnaires returned and the response rate for each of the Carnegie Classification categories.

Table 1: Response Rates and Numbers
TYPE OF INSTITUTION NUMBER RATE
Research Universities - Public 32 88.8%
Research Universities - Private 14 82.3%
TOTAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 46 86.8%
Doctoral Universities - Public 23 82.1%
Doctoral Universities - Private 15 78.9%
TOTAL DOCTORAL UNIVERSITIES 38 80.8%
Masters Colleges & Univ. - Public 98 83.1%
Masters Colleges & Univ. - Private 100 91.7%
TOTAL MASTERS COLLEGES & UNIV. 198 87.2%
Baccalaureate Colleges - Public 30 81.1%
Baccalaureate Colleges - Private 205 86.8%
TOTAL BACCALAUREATE COLLEGES 235 86.1%
TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES 517 86.1%

What Types of Libraries Engage in Fund Raising

Based upon the responses to the questionnaire, Table 2 shows the number and percentage of institutions in each category that have engaged in library fund raising activities at any time during the three fiscal years of 1991-1994. For the purposes of this survey, fund raising was defined broadly to include most sources of outside income, such as grants, book sales, solicitation of donations, support by friends organizations, as well as income from past fund raising efforts in the form of endowments. Gifts in kind, such as donations of research materials or library collections, were not considered to be fund raising for the purposes of this survey.

Table 2: Libraries Engaging in Fund Raising, 1991-1994
TYPE OF INSTITUTION NUMBER PERCENT
Research Universities - Public 31 96.9%
Research Universities - Private 13 92.9%
TOTAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 44 95.7%
Doctoral Universities - Public 19 82.6%
Doctoral Universities - Private 12 80.0%
TOTAL DOCTORAL UNIVERSITIES 31 81.6%
Masters Colleges & Univ. - Public 62 63.3%
Masters Colleges & Univ. - Private 54 54.0%
TOTAL MASTERS COLLEGES & UNIV. 116 58.6%
Baccalaureate Colleges - Public 16 53.3%
Baccalaureate Colleges - Private 134 65.4%
TOTAL BACCALAUREATE COLLEGES 150 63.8%
TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES 341 66.0%
For 4 main strata chi-square = 27.46; df = 3; p = .0001
For all 8 strata chi-square = 31.14; df = 7; p = .0001

Approximately 66% of all academic libraries engage in fund raising activities. Libraries at research universities are more likely to engage in some type of fund raising activity (95.7%) than any other class of academic library. Masters level institutions are least likely to be involved in library fund raising activities (58.6%). Publicly supported institutions are marginally more inclined to sponsor fund raising activities (69.9%) than privately supported institutions (63.8%), except at the bachelors level where the trend is reversed (53.3% public versus 65.4% private).

Why Libraries Engage in Fund Raising

There are four major reasons why libraries engage in fund raising activities (Table 3). The rising cost of technology is cited by 63.4% of the libraries, followed by encouragement to do so by the parent institution (51.8%), limited support from the parent institution (51.2%), and the increasing cost of materials (51.2%). Special projects are cited by 41.7% of the libraries. Research and doctoral institutions receive more encouragement from their parent institutions to become involved in fund raising. They also report being more concerned with the increased costs of new technologies and materials. Public institutions as a group are also more concerned with increased costs and the lack of support from their parent institutions than are private institutions.

Table 3: Reasons Academic Libraries Engage in Fund Raising (N=336)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
COST OF TECHNOLOGY 31

70.5%

21

70.0%

69

61.1%

92

61.7%

213

63.4%

ENCOURAGED BY INST. 33

75.0%

21

70.0%

57

50.4%

63

42.3%

174

51.8%

LIMITED SUPPORT 22

50.0%

17

56.7%

60

53.1%

73

49.0%

172

51.2%

COST OF MATERIALS 32

72.7%

20

66.7%

56

49.6%

64

43.0%

172

51.2%

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 26

59.1%

13

43.3%

45

39.8%

56

37.6%

140

41.7%

TRADITION

12

27.3%

12

40.0%

24

21.2%

46

30.9%

94

28.0%

OTHER 9

20.5%

5

16.7%

13

11.5%

17

11.4%

44

13.1%

OTHERS DOING IT 1

2.3%

1

3.3%

4

3.5%

7

4.7%

13

3.9%

How Successful Are Fund Raising Efforts

Academic libraries as a group report that their fund raising efforts are successful 69.6% of the time (Table 4). Break even status is achieved in approximately 9.4% of the cases and fund raising efforts are unsuccessful 21.0% of the time. Privately funded institutions claim a fund raising success rate approximately 8% higher than that of public institutions. The major differences between public and private institutions occur at the research and bachelors levels where private research institutions report an 84.6% success rate, while public research institutions report a 61.3% success rate. The reverse is true with public bachelors institutions reporting an 81.3% success rate as compared with 69.9% for private bachelors institutions.

Table 4: Fund Raising Success Rates (N=339)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL

HIGHLY UNSUCCESSFUL

1

2.3%

1

3.3%

7

6.0%

13

8.7%

27

6.5%

MODERATELY

UNSUCCESSFUL

10

22.7%

8

26.7%

13

11.2%

18

12.1%

49

14.5%

SUBTOTAL OF

UNSUCCESSFUL RATINGS

11

25.0%

9

30.0%

20

17.2%

31

20.8%

76

21.0%

BREAK EVEN STATUS

3

6.8%

2

6.7%

15

12.9%

12

8.1%

32

9.4%

SUBTOTAL OF LESS THAN SUCCESSFUL 14

31.8%

11

36.7%

35

30.1%

43

28.9%

108

30.4%

MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL 20

45.5%

16

53.3%

72

62.1%

86

57.7%

194

57.2%

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL

10

22.7%

3

10.0%

9

7.8%

20

13.4%

42

12.4%

SUBTOTAL OF

SUCCESSFUL RATINGS

30

68.2%

19

63.3%

81

69.9%

106

71.1%

236

69.6%

For 4 main strata chi-square = 19.52; df = 12; p = .0768

Which Types of Fund Raising Activities Are Most Successful

Academic libraries engage in a wide variety of fund raising activities (Table 5). Not one of the many fund raising techniques, however, is employed by academic libraries in an overwhelming manner. Instead, most types of libraries appear to utilize several different activities and the activities vary from institution to institution. The most popular fund raising techniques are seeking private foundation grants, having a library component within an institution-wide fund raising campaign, seeking government grants, sponsoring a friends group, and holding a used book sale.

Table 5: The Most Successful Fund Raising Activities (N=335)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
FOUNDATION GRANTS 6

13.6%

3

10.0%

20

17.5%

29

19.7%

58

17.3%

COMPONENT IN INSTITUTION-WIDE CAMPAIGN 6

13.6%

5

16.7%

19

16.7%

19

12.9%

49

14.6%

GOVERNMENT GRANTS 3

6.8%

2

6.7%

15

13.2%

27

18.4%

47

14.0%

FRIENDS GROUP 6

18.2%

5

16.7%

14

12.3%

18

12.2%

45

13.4%

USED BOOK SALE 1

2.3%

1

3.3%

19

16.7%

21

14.3%

42

12.5%

CAPITAL CAMPAIGN 4

9.1%

3

10.0%

4

3.5%

12

8.2%

23

6.9%

MAJOR GIFTS PROGRAM 8

18.2%

4

13.3%

3

2.6%

7

4.8%

22

6.6%

DIRECT MAIL

SOLICITATION

7

15.9%

1

3.3%

6

5.3%

3

2.0%

17

5.1%

OTHER 1

2.3%

2

6.7%

3

2.6%

5

3.4%

11

3.3%

SALES OF SERVICES 0

0.0%

3

10.0%

5

4.4%

1

0.7%

9

2.7%

CORPORATE SUPPORT 0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

2.7%

4

1.2%

PLANNED GIVING 0

0.0%

1

3.3%

2

1.8%

0

0.0%

3

0.9%

TELEMARKETING

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

1.8%

0

0.0%

2

0.6%

SPECIAL EVENTS 0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.9%

1

0.7%

2

0.6%

MERCHANDISING 0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.9%

0

0.0%

1

0.3%

PUBLICATIONS PROGRAM 0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Chi-square test not valid, 63.3% of cells with E.F. < 5

An important measure of fund raising success is the income realized from the individual fund raising activities. The number one ranked source of income, for all types of libraries, is private foundation grants, closely followed by government grants. Holding used book sales is the third most popular top ranked source of income, followed by friends groups (Table 6). Major gifts and capital campaigns are also usually successful when they are engaged in.

Private institutions are inclined to favor and have more success with private foundation grants, while public institutions are inclined toward government grants. Research institutions (and to a lessor extent, doctoral institutions) favor major gifts programs, while most other institutions (and also including research and doctoral institutions) indicate success with government and foundation grants, as well as having a library fund raising component within an institutional fund raising effort. Used book sales and friends groups are perennial favorites, but the income realized from these efforts is seldom as great as can be realized with the other methods. Nevertheless, they are regular activities that produce more or less steady sources of income in many situations.

It is also important to note that the most popular and successful fund raising techniques in one setting may be the most unpopular and unsuccessful techniques in another setting. Although there are some links to the type of institution and funding source, this study reveals that there is a great deal of variation in popularity and success that must be attributed to local personalities and conditions.

Table 6: Top Ranked Sources of Fund Raising Income
SOURCE #1 #2 #3
FOUNDATIONS 56

16.6%

50

17.1%

22

9.9%

GOVERNMENT

GRANTS

53

15.7%

35

12.0%

11

5.0%

USED BOOK

SALES

38

11.3%

39

13.4%

40

18.O%

FRIENDS GROUP 37

11.0%

35

12.0%

23

10.4%

ENDOWMENTS 33

9.8%

16

5.5%

21

9.5%

MAJOR GIFTS 30

8.9%

12

4.1%

9

4.0%

CAPITAL CAMPAIGN 27

8.0%

19

6.5%

8

3.6%

DIRECT MAIL 16

4.7%

21

7.2%

16

7.2%

OTHER 11

3.2%

4

1.4%

5

2.2%

UNSOLICITED GIFTS 10

3.0%

16

5.5%

24

10.8%

SALES

OF SERVICES

8

2.4%

4

1.4%

6

2.7%

CORPORATE

SUPPORT

7

2.1%

15

5.1%

11

5.0%

PLANNED

GIVING

5

1.5%

7

2.4%

12

5.4%

TELEMARKETING 3

0.9%

8

2.7%

7

3.1%

SPECIAL

EVENTS

2

0.6%

8

2.7%

2

0.9%

MERCHANDISING 1

0.3%

2

0.7%

3

1.4%

PUBLICATIONS 0

0.0%

1

0.3%

2

0.9%

Operating Budget Derived From Fund Raising

For all libraries that engage in fund raising activities, approximately 6.33% of their operating budget is derived from fund raising activities and endowments (Table 7). The percentages vary from a mean high of 11.57% for private research institutions to a mean low of 3.01% for public doctoral institutions. There is significant variation between privately funded institutions and publicly funded institutions. Private institutions derive more than twice the level of income from fund raising (8.05%), than do public institutions (3.51%).

Table 7: Operating Budget Derived From Fund Raising (N=304)
TYPE OF INSTITUTION MEAN SD MIN. - MAX.
Research - Public 2.66% 3.10 1.00% - 15.00%
Research - Private 11.57% 11.94 0.00% - 35.00%
TOTAL RESEARCH 5.54% 8.22 0.00% - 35.00%
Doctoral - Public 3.01% 3.32 3.00% - 11.00%
Doctoral - Private 5.81% 8.59 1.00% - 25.00%
TOTAL DOCTORAL 4.04% 5.85 1.00% - 25.00%
Masters - Public 3.54% 5.16 0.00% - 25.00%
Masters - Private 4.69% 10.91 0.00% - 73.30%
TOTAL MASTERS 4.05% 8.23 0.00% - 73.30%
Bachelors - Public 5.17% 7.78 0.00% - 25.00%
Bachelors - Private 9.26% 15.26 0.00% - 80.00%
TOTAL BACHELORS 8.78% 14.62 0.00% - 80.00%
TOTAL PUBLIC 3.51% 5.05 0.00% - 25.00%
TOTAL PRIVATE 8.05% 13.90 0.00% - 80.00%
TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 6.33% 11.59 0.00% - 80.00%

Allocation of Fund Raising Income

Obviously, academic libraries engage in fund raising efforts for different reasons. The fact was established from another point of view that most libraries take part in fund raising activities because of the increased costs of materials and new technologies. This finding is supported by the data on how fund raising income is distributed (Table 8). Purchases of monographs is the top priority of most libraries, closely followed by purchases of equipment. Acquisitions of electronic materials is the third ranked priority

Table 8: Top Ranked Uses of Fund Raising Income (N=350)
EXPENDITURE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 ALL
MONOGRAPHIC

PURCHASES

100

28.6%

77

26.8%

40

20.5%

12

11.1%

3

6.7%

232

23.5%

EQUIPMENT

PURCHASES

89

25.4%

57

19.9%

40

20.5%

13

12.0%

7

15.6%

206

20.9%

ELECTRONIC

MATERIALS

29

8.3%

53

18.5%

27

13.9%

18

16.7%

5

11.1%

132

13.4%

SERIALS

SUBSCRIPTIONS

15

4.3%

23 8.0% 24

12.3%

15

13.9%

2

4.4%

79

8.0%

ENDOWMENT FUND 32

9.1%

17

5.9%

14

7.2%

10

9.3%

4

8.9%

77

7.8%

SPECIAL

PROJECTS

35

10.0%

22

7.7%

11

5.7%

5

4.6%

1

2.2%

74

7.5%

PRESERVATION 10

2.9%

5

1.8%

10

5.1%

13

12.0%

6

13.3%

44

4.5%

CAPITAL

BUILDING FUND

25

7.1%

3

1.0%

3

1.5%

2

1.8%

4

8.9%

37

3.8%

PUBLIC EVENTS

& OUTREACH

3

0.9%

13

4.5%

10

5.1%

6

5.6%

4

8.9%

36

3.7%

STAFFING

4

1.1%

11

3.8%

7

3.6%

7

6.5%

6

13.3%

35

3.6%

OTHER 8

2.3%

6

2.1%

9

4.6%

7

6.5%

3

6.7%

33

3.3%

at approximately two-thirds of the ranking priority of the other two. There is little difference in the expenditure priorities of publicly and privately funded libraries as a group. Research Libraries, and to a lessor extent, doctoral libraries, also consider the building of endowment funds to be a priority (ranked third), while bachelors and masters libraries focus upon purchases of books and equipment.

Other Effects of Fund Raising

As noted, the underlying reason for engaging in fund raising activities for most libraries is to supplement the book and equipment budgets. Prior to embarking on such an endeavor, however, a prudent manager will question whether fund raising activities might have unintended effects on library operations, such as decreased support from the parent institution or decreased staffing levels for traditional library services. This does not seem to be the case. Academic libraries report in high percentages that fund raising efforts increased acquisitions and equipment purchases, and at a much lower level, the size of endowments (Table 9). Negative and undesirable influences were not reported in significant numbers. One unanticipated benefit reported by more than three-quarters of the libraries, however, was an increase in visibility and credibility for the library on their campus.

Table 9: Influence of Fund Raising Activities on Library Operations (N=335)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
INCREASED

ACQUISITIONS

31

70.5%

24

77.4%

81

71.1%

101

69.2%

237

70.7%

INCREASED

EQUIPMENT

22

50.0%

22

71.0%

76

66.7%

99

67.8%

219

65.4%

INCREASED

ENDOWMENT

28

63.6%

17

54.8%

27

23.7%

26

17.8%

98

29.3%

INCREASED

OUTREACH

16

36.4%

11

35.5%

24

21.1%

19

13.0%

70

20.9%

INCREASED INSTI-

TUTIONAL SUPPORT

10

22.7%

4

12.9%

18

15.8%

18

12.3%

50

14.9%

OTHER 9

20.5%

2

6.5%

16

14.0%

21

14.4%

48

14.3%

INCREASED

STAFFING

9

20.5%

5

16.1%

11

9.6%

20

13.7%

45

13.4%

ACCUMULATED

BUILDING FUND

10

22.7%

2

6.5%

7

6.1%

12

8.2%

31

9.3%

DECREASED INSTI-

TUTIONAL SUPPORT

1

2.3%

0

0.0%

5

4.4%

8

5.5%

14

4.2%

DECREASED

STAFFING

1

2.3%

0

0.0%

2

1.8%

3

2.1%

6

1.8%

DECREASED

EQUIPMENT

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.9%

1

0.7%

2

0.6%

DECREASED

ACQUISITIONS

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

DECREASED

OUTREACH

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Leadership and Staffing

Library directors overwhelmingly take responsibility for the fund raising efforts of their libraries (Table 10). At research libraries, however, there is more often a library development officer that has primary responsibility for fund raising activities. Nevertheless, approximately two-thirds of all directors report that they are either moderately or aggressively active in library development activities.

Table 10: Level of Involvement of Library Director (N=341)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
MODERATELY ACTIVE 27

61.4%

14

45.2%

57

49.1%

62

41.3%

160

46.9%

MARGINALLY ACTIVE 4

9.1%

5

16.1%

36

31.0%

51

34.0%

96

28.2%

AGGRESSIVELY ACTIVE 10

22.7%

9

29.0%

19

16.4%

25

16.7%

63

18.5%

PASSIVE 3

6.8%

3

9.7%

4

3.4%

12

8.0%

22

6.5%

NON-SUPPORTIVE 0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

For 4 main strata chi-square = 18.06; df = 9; p = .0345

Most libraries dedicate a portion of a librarian's time, usually less than quarter-time equivalency, to fund raising efforts (Table 11). At research libraries, and to a lessor extent at doctoral level libraries, however, more of a librarian's time is devoted to fund raising. Public research libraries commit the highest level of librarian support to fund raising, with more than a third of them assigning in excess of half-time equivalency to these duties.

About half of the libraries also allocate a quarter or less of a non-librarian's time to fund raising efforts. At research libraries, however, the level of commitment is much higher with about half of the institutions allotting more than half-time equivalency to fund raising and more than a sixth of the research libraries designating more than two full non-librarian positions to library development work. Very few libraries use the services of an off-campus fund raising consultant.

Table 11: Level of Librarian Support Devoted to Fund Raising (N=326)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
0.01-0.25 FTE LIBRARIAN 22

53.7%

23

82.1%

89

80.2%

117

80.1%

251

77.0%

0.26-0.50 FTE

LIBRARIAN

4

9.8%

1

3.6%

12

10.8%

10

6.8%

27

8.3%

0.00 FTE

LIBRARIAN

2

4.9%

1

3.6%

10

9.0%

13

8.9%

26

8.0%

0.51-0.75 FTE

LIBRARIAN

4

9.8%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

2.7%

8

2.5%

0.76-1.00 FTE

LIBRARIAN

4

9.8%

1

3.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

5

1.5%

1.01-1.25 FTE

LIBRARIAN

1

2.4%

1

3.6%

0

0.0%

1

0.7%

3

0.9%

1.26-1.50 FTE

LIBRARIAN

1

2.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.7%

2

0.6%

1.51-1.75 FTE

LIBRARIAN

2

4.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

0.6%

1.76-2.00 FTE

LIBRARIAN

1

2.4%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.3%

2.00+ FTE

LIBRARIAN

0

0.0%

1

3.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.3%

Chi-square test not valid, 80.0% of cells with E.F. < 5

Organization of Fund Raising

About half of all academic libraries share responsibility for fund raising activities with another office on their campus (Table 12). At a third of the institutions fund raising efforts are centralized and controlled by an institutional development office, while at the remaining institutions libraries have a substantial amount of latitude to conduct their own fund raising programs. This varies, of course, with the different types of institutions. Research level libraries have a much higher percentage of shared programs and a smaller percentage of centralized programs. Bachelors institutions on the other hand, have a higher incidence of centralized programs and a lower, but still majority proportion, of shared fund raising programs.

Table 12: Relationship of Library Fund Raising Program to that of Parent Institution (N=339)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
SHARED 33

75.0%

19

61.3%

58

50.0%

64

43.2%

174

51.3%

CENTRALIZED 7

15.9%

7

22.6%

38

32.8%

59

39.9%

111

32.7%

DECENTRALIZED 4

9.1%

5

16.1%

20

17.2%

25

16.9%

54

15.9%

For 4 main strata chi-square = 15.91; df = 6; p = .0142

Friends of the Library

Surprisingly, only 43.7% of the academic libraries have a friends group. At those institutions that do have a friends group (Table 13), approximately half are of a mixed social and fund raising nature. About a quarter of the friends groups are primarily for fund raising purposes and the remaining organizations are either social or focus upon a particular segment of the library. Most friends groups are strongly or moderately controlled by the library.

Approximately half of the friends groups are characterized as being moderately successful in terms of fund raising benefits, with another 16.7% being very successful (Table 14). About a fifth of the friends groups only achieve break-even status. This means that nearly a third of friends groups are not successful in terms of fund raising benefits.

Table 13: Character of Friends Organizations (Non-Group Data Extracted) (N=148)
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
MIXED SOCIAL AND

FUND RAISING

17

43.6%

10

50.0%

21

45.7%

23

53.5%

71

48.0%

PRIMARILY

FUND RAISING

11

28.2%

5

25.0%

12

26.1%

11

25.6%

39

26.4%

PRIMARILY SOCIAL 8

20.5%

3

15.0%

7

15.2%

7

16.3%

25

16.9%

SPECIFIC COMPONENT 2

5.1%

2

10.0%

4

8.7%

2

4.7%

10

6.8%

OTHER 1

2.6%

0

0.0%

2

4.3%

0

0.0%

3

2.0%


Chi-square test not valid, 50.0% of cells with E.F. < 5

Table 14: Fund Raising Benefits of Friends Organizations (Non-Group Data Extracted) (N=144).
RESPONSE RES. DOC. MAS. BAC. ALL
MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL 16

43.2%

11

57.9%

30

65.2%

17

40.5%

74

51.4%

BREAK-EVEN STATUS 10

27.0%

3

15.8%

9

19.6%

6

14.3%

28

19.4%

VERY SUCCESSFUL 7

18.9%

3

15.8%

3

6.5%

11

26.2%

24

16.7%

MODERATELY

UNSUCCESSFUL

2

5.4%

2

10.5%

3

6.5%

7

16.7%

14

9.7%

VERY UNSUCCESSFUL 2

5.4%

0

0.0%

1

2.2%

1

2.4%

4

2.8%

Chi-square test not valid, 55.0% of cells with E.F. < 5

Fund Raising and the E. & G. Budget

This study reveals that at most types of institutions, those libraries that engage in fund raising receive notably less of the Educational and General Budget than do libraries that do not engage in fund raising (Table 15). The differences are significant between the various types of institutions, particularly at the research and doctoral levels. Bachelors level institutions oppose the trend, in that fund raising libraries receive more of the E. & G. Budget than do non-fund raising libraries.

Table 15: Library Portion of the Educational and General Budget (Fund Raising/Non-Fund Raising) (N=434)
TYPE OF INSTITUTION MEAN SD MIN. - MAX.
Research: Fund Raising 3.04% 1.18 1.00% - 7.00%
Research: Non-Fund Raising 4.20% 1.13 3.40% - 5.00%
TOTAL RESEARCH 3.11% 1.19 1.00% - 7.00%
Doctoral: Fund Raising 3.58% 1.68 1.50% - 10.00%
Doctoral: Non-Fund Raising 4.80% 3.72 1.90% - 9.00%
TOTAL DOCTORAL 3.71% 1.92 1.50% - 10.00%
Masters: Fund Raising 3.58% 1.36 0.00% - 10.00%
Masters: Non-Fund Raising 3.89% 1.45 0.30% - 8.00%
TOTAL MASTERS 3.71% 1.40 0.00% - 10.00%
Bachelors: Fund Raising 3.91% 1.54 1.00% - 12.00%
Bachelors: Non-Fund Raising 3.62% 1.37 0.80% - 9.00%
TOTAL BACHELORS 3.81% 1.49 0.80% - 12.00%
TOTAL FUNDRAISING 3.67% 1.47 0.00% - 12.00%
TOTAL NON-FUNDRAISING 3.79% 1.47 0.30% - 9.00%
TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 3.71% 1.47 0.00% - 12.00%

At private research institutions and public doctoral institutions there is two percentage points or more of a difference between the level of support fund raising libraries (lower) and non-fund raising libraries (higher) receive as a percentage of the institutional E. & G. Budget.

These facts raise additional questions regarding the role and impact of fund raising programs, and the support received from the parent institution. Since a negligible number of institutions reported negative effects from fund raising activities, it appears as if the reason for there being such a disparity between percentages of the E. & G. Budget predates the decision to engage in fund raising. Lower support levels may have prompted the fund raising activities, but this study could not determine that as fact.

Why Some Libraries Do Not Fund Raise

Approximately 60% of the libraries that do not engage in fund raising report that they do not do so because another office on campus manages fund raising activities. This is followed by about 30% of the libraries that assert they do not have the staffing levels to engage in fund raising efforts. About 5% of the libraries declare that they receive adequate funding from their parent institution.

Conclusions

Fund raising is engaged in by approximately two-thirds of all academic libraries. They do so primarily because of a desire to supplement their budgets in order to deal with the increased costs of materials and equipment. Fund raising requires a significant commitment of staff time and resources. In about 70% of the cases the efforts are successful, but that also leaves approximately 30% of the cases that are not successful. Libraries pursue fund raising because of a shortage of resources, yet they must make a substantial commitment of resources to fund raising efforts in order to be successful.

There are no magic formulas for fund raising success. Local conditions are a major determinant of what may or may not be the most appropriate fund raising techniques and methods to employ. The data collected in this research makes it abundantly clear that research level institutions are significantly different in their fund raising efforts (and many of their other operations) than most other types of academic libraries. Yet, the fund raising literature pertaining to academic libraries often describes the experiences of major research libraries. There is a dearth of literature that pertains to fund raising activities at other types of academic libraries. The data contained in the comprehensive report of this research is of particular value to these other types of libraries.

REFERENCES

1. Terry S. Latour, "Study of Library Fund Raising Activities At Colleges and Universities in the United States" (Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 1995).

2. A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 ed. (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1994)

3. American Library Directory, 1994-1995 (New Providence, NJ: R.R Bowker, 1994).

4. Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys; the Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978).