College and Research Libraries


Library Development 
Structures in CIC Institutions: 
The Search for Constituents 
G. David Gearhart and Gloriana St. Clair 

This study determines how twelve libraries in the Council for Interinstitutional 
Cooperation (CIC) approached the challenge of identifying a constituency for 
development. Additional strategies for identifying constituents are discussed. 
Strategies most commonly and successfully used included a checkoff on the 
annual fund appeal for all alumni, the development of a Friends group, and the 
establishment of partnerships for appeals with colleges. 

·• rganizational shucture for 
, ·· -~ development activities differs 

. from university to university. 
· No matter what the structure, 

however, libraries entering the fund-
raising arena are faced with the problem 
of identifying a constituency. Unlike a 
college or school, libraries do not have 
an identifiable alumni base from which 
to draw gift support. Libraries have 
claim to either none of the institution's 
alumni or all of them. 

The purpose of this study is to deter-
mine how the twelve libraries in the 
Council for Interinstitutional Coopera-
tion (CIC) have approached the challenge 
of identifying a constituency for develop-
ment. The CIC brings together presi-
dents, librarians, development officers, 
and others to discuss common academic 
concerns. The investigators developed a 
short questionnaire and arranged for 
telephone interviews with CIC library 
development officers. The survey re-
vealed a variety of responses to the need 
for a constituency. Three popular ap-
proaches were 1) a checkoff on an an-
nual giving form, 2) the formation of 

Friends groups, and 3) forming partner-
ships with colleges and schools. The paper 
discusses the background for library entry 
into university development; the existing 
development and library literature; the sur-
vey methodology; the results; and some 
conclusions. 

BACKGROUND 
The financial condition of a university 

library is even more strained than the 
financial condition of the rest of the uni-
versity. In addition to the general higher 
education index growth, the average 
cost of library materials, especially jour-
nals, has climbed 40 percent in the last 
five years. Library responses to runaway 
costs and to the generally bleak pro-
spects for increased funding from finan-
cially stressed institutions have varied 
greatly. Many now buy fewer books than 
they did previously; others have can-
celed journal subscriptions, often over 
the legitimate complaints of teaching 
faculty; still others have cut back per-
sonnel, endured freezes, suspended 
travel, and generally ceased discretion-
ary spending. Almost all have begun a 

G. David Gearhart is Senior Vice President for Development and University Relations and Gloriana 
St. Clair is Associate Dean and Head of Information Access Services at the Pennsylvania State University, 
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. 

57 



58 College & Research Libraries 

development operation to provide ad-
ditional support for collections . and 
services. 

While libraries have certainly been the 
beneficiaries of capital campaigns, col-
leges and schools often have been less 
than enthusiastic about the library's 
desire to participate in the broader scope 
of development activities. Rightly or 
wrongly, colleges and schools fear that 
monies that might have been available for 
chairs, scholarships, laboratories, and sim-
ilar needs might be diverted to the library. 
While the library's case will probably over-
lap in more significant areas with those of 
"competing" academic units, the central-
ity of library needs makes it worthy of 
university development efforts. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Three basic organizational structures 
are in use at large academic institutions. 
In a decentralized model, development 
activities are handled independently by 
the schools. In a centralized model, the uni-
versity administration oversees develop-
ment for the whole institution. In a 
shared model, the responsibilities are 
divided between the schools and the uni-
versity administration. 

Unlike a college or school, libraries 
do not have an identifiable alumni 
base from which to draw gift support. 

James M. Shea's "Organizational Is-
sues in Designing Advancement Pro-
grams" speaks to two basic organizational 
models: centralized and noncentralized.1 
Richard L. Desmond and John S. Ryan 
argue in "Serving People Needs" that a 
blended system strikes a proper balance 
between ·centralized and decentralized 
fund-raising. They believe that the 
blended system can use highly special-
ized central development officers as 
generalists in touch with special units, 
and can eliminate the need for central 
personnel to solicit the same prospects 
as the colleges.2 J. Robert Sandberg 
balances the advantages and disadvan-
tages of centralized and decentralized 

January 1994 

fund-raising and recommends main-
taining flexibility within the organiza-
tion. 3 Margaret Rooney Hall's dissertation, 
"A Comparison of Decentralized and Cen-
tralized Patterns of Managing the Institu-
tional Advancement Activities at Research 
Universities," notes that the current trend 
is to the decentralized model. According 
to a review, "First-rate Findings" by 
Robin Goldman Netherton, Hall ex-
plores this trend to decentralization and 
discusses what sort of universities are 

· making the switch.4 
Library literature offered no articles 

on this topic. Two solutions derived 
from the survey-the checkoff and the 
partnership-also received no treat-
ment. However, the idea of a library 
Friends organization was the subject of 
the 1979 Allerton Park Institute, Organiz-
ing the Library's Support: Donors, Volun-
teers, Friends. While the institute papers 
offer much good advice on the creation 
and nurture of Friends groups, only one 
author comments on the role of Friends 
as a substitute for an alumni constitu-
ency. In "Friends Groups and Academic 
Libraries," Paul H. Mosher says: 

an academic library's Friends group 
must be the library's alumni organiza-
tion-the equal of that of any college 
or school-even though the library 
has, technically speaking, no alumni. 
The Friends group has the additional 
advantage of being a neutral alumni 
group because the academic library is 
essentially a nonpolitical agency in an 
institution fraught with political an-
tagonisms or disillusionments involv-
ing alumni and students or campus 
administrators. Study of the literature 
on library Friends groups revealed no 
emphasis on the Friends as a library's 
alumni, but I believe this analogy is 
significant and usefuJ.S 

Mosher recently emphasized again the 
importance of a Friends group for an 
alumniless academic library.6 

In "Getting Started with Annual 
Funds in Academic Libraries," Charlene 
K. Clark also stresses the importance of 
an active Friends group for a university 
library.7 In a more recent article, "Donor 
and Donor Relations," Clark notes the 



Library Development Structur~s 59 

TABLEt 
CIC LIBRARY COLLECTIONS AND BUDGETS 

Rank Institution 

6 Illinois 
7 Michigan 

13 Wisconsin 
14 Minnesota 
15 Indiana 
16 Chicago 
18 Penn State 
21 Ohio State 
31 Northwestern 
40 Michigan State 
43 Iowa 
68 Purdue 

Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, May 6, 1992. 

importance of various constituencies-
alumni, spouses, women, parents, board 
members, groups and organizations, re-
union classes, book collectors, faculty 
and staff, sororities and fraternities, 
friends of the library, and maverick 
donors. Clark concludes that donors are 
attracted by neglected worthy causes-
such as libraries.8 

In an article entitled "Funding Special 
Collections," Karen Nelson Hoyle empha-
sizes the importance of Friends group 
participation in public relations and 
fundraising. 9 In "Library Friends," Joan 
Hood addresses the problem of identifica-
tion of constituents. Hood says: 

the identification of donors for librar-
ies, especially academic libraries, pre-
sents a unique problem. No one has 
graduated from the library system. On 
the other hand, one hopes that all 
alumni availed themselves of there-
sources provided by the library. Li-
braries must strongly defend the 
right of access to all al~mni of t~e 
institution. It is essential that this 
policy be determined at the highest 
campus level. Otherwise, the library 
will find that it has no development 
market .... It is imperative that a li-
brary have access to the entire alumni 
body for fundraising. 10 

Identifying a group of people who can 
take the place of the school's alumni bas~ 
is an important issue for successful li-
brary development. 

Collection Size Total Budget"($) 

7,918,951 19,482,431 

6,579,152 25,759,418 
5,133,457 23,020,227 
4,761,630 24,386,140 

5,099,250 19,931,037 
5,328,849 16,083,176 
3,191,245 18,505,042 

4,517,095 17,020,796 
3,550,250 14,262,619 
2,811,363 12,931,442 

3,174,269 12,653,125 
1 968 656 10165 748 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

Why the CIC? It is the most pres-
tigious collection of large public research 
institutions. Its members include The Uni-
versity of Chicago, University of Illinois, 
University of Indiana, University of Iowa, 
University of Michigan, Michigan State, 
University of Minnesota, Northwestern, 
Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, and the 
University of Wisconsin. For many 
years, ten of these schools have com-
peted athletically under the rubric the 
Big Ten. In 1990 Penn State joined the Big 
Ten and concurrently the CIC. The alli-
ance among university presidents ex-
tends to meetings among development 
officers, university press managers, stu-
dent government leaders, librarians, and 
others. Cooperative grants and projects 
are common. The CIC universities are 
public institution leaders that differ 
from other universities primarily in size 
and research funding. The small number 
of institutions made the project feasible. 
While the data gathered from such a 
group cannot be generalized to the 
broader population, it should indicate 
some trends among large progressive in-
stitutions. Table 1 lists the CIC libraries 
ranked nationally according to collec-
tion size and their total budgets. 

The DORAL Survey 

Ten of the twelve libraries belong to 
Development Officers of Research and 



60 College & Research Libraries 

Academic Libraries, a group of thirty 
library development officers who began 
meeting together in 1987. In 1989, the 
DORAL group decided to survey its 
members to gather information about 
development programs and distributed 
a seventy-six-question written survey. 
Results were gathered and tallied but 
not widely distributed to OORAL mem-

The CIC universities are public 
institution leaders that differ from 
other universities primarily in size 
and research funding. 

bers or prepared for publication. Our 
attempts to locate the compiled OORAL 
data failed. Some development officers 
thought the information would be dated, 
but those who had responded to the sur-
vey were interested in knowing its re-
sults. Comparison of data results from 
that survey with results from this survey 
would begin a longitudinal picture of 
library development efforts. 

Survey Construction 
and Administration 

Our own survey contained ten ques-
tions. The first question sought to identify 
the university's development organiza-
tional structure. Questions two and three 
determined the name, title, and re-
porting line of a library development of-
ficer. Questions four and five asked about 
staff support for development. Questions 
six and seven determined what constitu-
ents the library might approach. Question 
eight invited respondents to list their 
successes in the last few years. Questions 
nine and ten attempted to determine what 
the development goal was for last year 
and what percentage of total budget 
might be expected to come from 
development activities. 

An appointment was arranged for 
each development officer to talk with an 
investigator. A copy of the questions was 
faxed to each participant. This prepara-
tion allowed for quick, successful tele-
phone interviews. All interviews were 

January 1994 

conducted during November 1990. The 
response rate was 100 percent for contact 
with institutions. The University of 
Minnesota was planning to hire a 

. development officer; the associate uni-
versity librarian for public services re-
sponded for their proposed program. 

RESULTS 

University Organization 
for Development 

Most development officers reported a 
shared organization structure (see table 
2). The central development office was 
available to help out with design and other 
planning work. Coordination was partic-
ularly strong in the area of major gifts. 

TABLE2 
INSTITUTIONS BY TYPE 

Shared 

Chicago 
Iowa 
Michigan 
Michigan State 
Purdue 
Minnesota 
Wisconsin 

Decentralized Centralized 

Northwestern Ohio State 
Illinois Penn State 
Indiana 

No matter which structure was iden-
tified, development officers indicated 
the need for cooperation throughout the 
university. Answers frequently took the 
form of "decentralized but shared" or 
"shared but centralized." 

Title and Reporting Line 

The following titles are in use among 
CIC institutions: 
• Head, Library Development and Ex-

ternal Relations 
• External Relations Coordinator 
• Development Officer (2, one at .75 

FfE) 
• Director, Administrative and Access 

Services 
• Director of Development (3) 
• Head, Library Development and Ex-

ternal Relations 
• Library Development Officer 
• Development Officer II and Director 

of Friends 



Institution 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Chicago 

Michigan State 
Northwestern 

Indiana 

Ohio State 
Illinois 

Penn State 

Purdue 

Library Development Structures 61 

TABLE3 
STAFFING FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 

Positions 

Reporting to development officer: 
Full-time development officer for major gifts, 

corporate and foundation contacts 
Half-time public relations assistant 
Full-time secretary 

Reporting to the development officer: 
Two-thirds time grants officer 
Two-thirds time secretary 
5% contributions from associate director for 

collections and preservation and from special 
collections coordinator, who has administrative 
responsibility for Friends group 

Some secretarial support from the director's office 
staff (proposed) 

.25 FfE administrative projects librarian 

.25 FfE head, reserve librarian 
1 FfE development associate: manages Friends 

group, does acknowledgments, runs newsletter 
10 hours/week work-study help 
1 FfE secretary 
1 FfE administrative assistant 
.5 FfE student help 
.5 FfE public relations assistant 
1 FfE secretary 
1 FfE secretary 
1 FfE development officer: responsible for annual 

fund 
.66 FfE development officer: repsonsible for major 

gifts 
1 FfE administrative assistant 
1 FfE secretary 
1 FfE position frozen 

FfE 
2.5 

1.42 

? 

0.5 

1.25 

1.0 
1.5 

1.5 

1.0 
1.66 

2.0 

[1] 

• Director of Development and Public 
Affairs 

Constituency for Appeals 

In decentralized and shared organiza-
tions, the officer reported to the dean or 
director of libraries; one reported to a 
deputy director. In the centralized situa-
tion, the development director reported 
to the assistant vice president for univer-
sity development or to the executive 
director of development with a dotted 
line report to the head of the library. 

Support Staff 

Data on additional library staff work-
ing on development activities are con-
tained in table 3. 

Appeals are annual written or tele-
phone communications requesting a 
contribution. Although the University of 
Michigan has a library school, the school 
has its own development needs and pro-
gram. The University of Michigan Li-
braries were given a database of 1,800 
prospects, including 600 active Friends 
members and another 700 inactive 
Friends. The rest of the people in the 
database had given in the past in other 
campaigns when the libraries were an 
option. The libraries no longer appear 
as an option in the annual appeal. The 



62 College & Research Libraries 

libraries have tried different strategies to 
increase their constituencies; Friends 
members often suggest others who 
might be added to the list. The head of 
library development and external rela-
tions believes that joint appeals with 
other colleges will work well and will be 
less threatening to the colleges. The li-
braries will be a part of an anticipated 
capital campaign. 

At the University of Wisconsin, the 
libraries have been allowed to make ap-
peals on an ad hoc basis, but they have 
no permanent assigned constituencies. 
They have been allowed to appeal to 
those who responded to certain ques-
tions on an alumni questionnaire. Cur-
rently they are working with Letters and 
Science faculty to provide an endow-
ment for books. The libraries take any-
thing they can get as a constituency and 
have found piggybacking with other de-
partments to be particularly useful. 

At Michigan State, the development 
officer works part-time for the College of 
Arts and Letters. The libraries are trying 
to gain access to degree holders by ap-
proaching the college deans for joint ap-
peals. They have already approached 
three deans and plan to talk with the 
other ten over the next three years. 

Northwestern University has an ac-
tive Friends group called the Library 
Council. The Library Council has about 
600 members with a governing board of 
about forty. They are sometimes allowed 
to approach a target group, such as a 
reunion class. 

The University of Chicago reports that 
access to other donors is approved on a 
case-by-case basis. Their Friends group is 
called the Library Society. Some of their 
more reliable donors are not alums and 
come to them through an interest in books. 
The colleges claim all alumni on their cam-
pus. The library development officer 
believes that cultivating internal constitu-
ents, particularly the major gifts officer, 
is one of her most important duties. 

Purdue reports, as did others, that all 
appeals must be cleared with a central 
office. Library development staff have ne-
gotiated the libraries as a checkoff on a 
universitywide appeal card. They have 

January 1994 

additional access to the 6,000-10,000 
alumni whohavenoschoolin their records. 
They have also sent letters to alumni who 
are identified as having worked in the li-
braries as student workers. They are also 
considering an appeal to alumni who re-
ceived graduate degrees only from 
Purdue. They have been meeting with col-
leges to collaborate on other appeals; their 
intention is that every school should have 
a library component among its appeals. 
As they move into a $250 million capital 
campaign, the libraries will be one of 
four specific cases made. The libraries' 
appeal will focus on information 
access-infrastructure needs, materials 
for the libraries, and connections be-
tween buildings. 

The University of Iowa gave its librar-
ies access to all alums for one fund drive, 
but generally the libraries rely on past 
donors for their appeals. 

In Penn State's centralized system, the 
University has made the libraries a 
che~koff on general appeals. Proposals 
have been made for class gifts and for 
reunion classes. The central office some-
times assigns prospects to the Libraries 
for capital campaigns. 

Achievements 

Michigan was particularly proud of 
the good public relations that had been 
generated through its development ef-
forts. The libraries had sponsored a very 
successful lecture series with prominent 
speakers, but considered that activity to 
be more successful as friend-raising than 
as fund-raising. They had also received a 
challenge grant of $500,000 for the preser-
vation of library materials. In their attempt 
to meet that challenge, they used a direct-
mail campaign to 13,000 people on a non-
donor database from the College of Arts 
and Sciences. To this, they added 1,300 
names of their own. The response rate was 
2 percent. Even with this "terrible list," 
they were able to gain some help to meet 
the challenge grant. 

The University of Wisconsin Libraries 
reported that most of their successes had 
been serendipitous in the form of gifts 
through wills and trusts. Michigan State 
Libraries reported increased awareness of 



Michigan 
Wisconsin 

Chicago 
Michigan State 
Northwestern 

Minnesota 
Iowa 

Penn State 

Indiana 

lllinois 

Ohio State 

$330,000 
$458,000 

$650,000 
$90,000 
$4,750,000 

$4,000,000 

Library Development Structures 63 

TABLE4 
SUCCESSFUL ACTIVffiES 

included grants 
$28,000 $gifts 
$80,000 In-kind 

$350,000 Grant 
about3% 

Endowment since 1986 
$1 million to endow a chair for university librarian, 

$25 million for collections, $1.25 million for preservation; 
in 1986 they finished a capital project for $2.3 million to 
install environmental control for preservation. 

Program just being developed. 
They have used an exhibition speaker series to get 

people into the libraries and to raise awareness. 
They are planning a Friends membership drive. 

Paterno Libraries Endowment-Renewal appeal had 
a 12% response rate with an average gift of $82. 

Bobby Knight Roast-a fiftieth birthday party raised 
$100,000 and added to list of accessible potential 
donors. 

Knight also participated in an Alumni Club event with 
proceeds to the libraries. 

In two increments 
$2 million for the C. Walter and Gerda B. Mortenson 

Center for International library Programs, which has 
librarianship fellows from around the country, and 
two million for the professorships, etc. 

$4 million for a National Endowment Challege to aid 
the humanities through acquisitions, preservation, 
and bibliographic access. 

National Endowment will give one million if they raise 
$3 million. This project is currently under way. 

Book sales twice a year with money to the libraries, 
not the Friends who sponsor the event. (Last one 
raised $22,000. They've used a phone-a-thon to 
lapsed donors and are pleased to have 536 renewals. 
They have numerous programs and events, but have 
not had success with annual fund mail outs.) 

the library through open houses and 
American Library Association Library 
Week Great American Read-Alouds with 
celebrities. This latter event had provided a 
good platform for seeking corporate fund-
ing. Iowa reported good results with exhi-
bitions and speaker series. The University 
of Chicago's Library Society has five pro-
grams a year, usually focusing on profes-
sors and their research or on personalities 
from the city. Chicago has an extensive 
display gallery and a full-time exhibitions 
coordinator whose work creates excellent 
public relations pieces both for the librar-
ies and for the university. The library 

development officer has a good working 
relationship with the head of special col-
lections. 

During the Campaign for Penn State, 
football coach Joe Paterno lent his name 
and active support to a library materials 
endowment. Almost $3 million was raised 
during the campaign and the fund con-
tinues to grow through annual giving-
total gifts to the libraries during the 
campaign amounted to over $9 million. 
Coach Paterno currently heads up a 
newly announced campaign to raise $10 
million for an addition to Penn State's 
main library (see table 4). 



64 College & Research Libraries 

Goals and Monies Raised: 

Goals 
Minnesota 
Indiana 
Iowa 
Ohio State 
Purdue 
Michigan 
Michigan 
State 

Chicago 
Penn State 
Wisconsin 
Illinois 
Northwestern 

Emerging program 
No specific goal 
No specific goal 
No specific goal 
No specific goal 
Activity goal 

$100,000 
$650,000 
$1.5 million 
More than last year 
More than last year 
5-6% of annual budget 

Additional Cultivation Strategies 

Other ways to identify and cultivate 
constituencies for libraries are being 
used by CIC institutions and by colleges 
and universities nationwide as these in-
stitutions become more aggressive in the 
fund-raising arena. Even though librar-
ies don't have alumni constituents, they 
have been able to raise funds. In fact, 
some of the successes noted in the pre-
vious section are founded on one or 
more of the following strategies: 

1. Strong Prospect Management Sys-
tem. Most, if not all, CIC institutions 
have prospect management systems de-
signed to track the cultivation and identi-
fication of major gift prospects for the 
entire institution. A prospect management 
system is usually managed university-
wide, but can be managed on a collegiate 
basis. Libraries development officers and 
heads should insist on a strong profile with 
an institution's prospect management sys-
tem. Identifying major gift prospects for 
the libraries, through a prospect man-
agement system, will be critical to 
attracting a high level of support. 

2. Aggressive Library Head. The dean 
of libraries, director of libraries, or head 
librarian should be intimately involved 
in gift prospecting and identification. A 
head who is disinterested and who does 
not understand the importance of pri-
vate philanthropy will hinder the 
growth of a development program. 
Several excellent conferences and train-
ing seminars are available nationally, 

January 1994 

and library heads should avail them-
selves of these opportunities. Library 
heads should be visible, active, willing 
to travel, and aggressive in the philan-
thropic endeavors of their libraries. 

3. Presidential Leadership. There can 
be ~o substitute for the leadership of the 
chief executive officer in helping to es-
tablish a solid base of support for the 
libraries. The president of an institution 
should "adopt" the libraries as a focal 
point of support and should encourage 
various constituencies, internal and ex-
ternal to the university, to support the 
libraries with their gifts, time, and talent. 

4. Focus Campaign. Many colleges 
and schools will launch special "focus 
campaigns" designed to address a par-
ticular urgent need. These may take the 
form of special campaigns for endow-
ments for buildings. Currently, at Penn 
State, two focus campaigns enjoy a high 
degree of visibility. The Academic/ Ath-
letic Convocation and Events Center and 
the Campaign for the Hershey Medical 
Center Biomedical Research Building 
have received wide attention and sup-
port from numerous sectors of the insti-
tution. A $10 million campaign for the 
libraries now succeeds these two successful 
projects. Likewise, consideration should 
be given to a "focus campaign" that gives 
particular attention to a defined project 
within the libraries. Naturally, the most 
visible focus campaign is for bricks and 
mortar, but endowment efforts can be 
equally as successful. This gives a rally-
ing point to all university constituents to 
support the one unit (the libraries) that 
impacts on the total quality of the insti-
tution. Focus campaigns tend to verify 
the importance of a particular unit and 
draw attention to it from many quarters. 
It can help to build a long-term constitu-
ency of donors and volunteers. 

5. Internal Faculty/Staff Support. All 
CIC institutions, and many colleges and 
universities throughout the nation, con-
duct internal faculty I staff campaigns on 
an annual basis. An institution should con-
sider devoting the faculty I staff campaign, 
in any given year, to the libraries. Faculty 
and staff understand the importance of a 
library and might be more likely to sup-



port a campaign to enhance the libraries 
over other constituents, including alumni 
constituents. Caution should be main-
tained in undermining support of other 
academic units that have traditionally 
benefited from internal constituencies. 

6. Special Events. The libraries should 
consider conducting special cultivation 
functions for major donors. At these 
events, which could be held in selected 
cities, a particular unit of the libraries 
could be profiled, such as the special col-
lections area. Current library benefactors, 
friends, or development board members 
could host these functions designed to pro-
file the libraries to potential benefactors. 

7. Corporate and Foundation Pro-
posals. The corporate and foundations 
relations office of a university should be 
charged with the responsibility of profil-
ing the libraries, whenever possible, in 
major corporate proposals. 

8. Endowment Fund Guidelines. 
Guidelines for endowed chairs, profes-
sorships, fellowships, and scholarships 
in colleges and universities could in-
clude a component for the libraries. 
Many times, guidelines that establish 
these endowment funds give flexibility 
to the use of the funds for particular 
purposes supporting the endowed pro-
gram. A component in the guidelines 
that supports the libraries would be en-
tirely in order as professorships and 
chairs tend to add a degree of increased 
library costs to the university. 

9. Nonalumni Parents as a Constitu-
ency. Parents who are not alumni but 
whose children attend the institution can 
often be viewed as an excellent constitu-
ency for the libraries. This is a defined 
group that definitely should be solicited 
for annual giving, and many times non-
alumni parents do not have a defined 
area of interest to support. The libraries 
would provide an academic unit as a 
focus for their involvement. 

DISCUSSION 

The problem of not having a ready-
made constituency for fund-raising ap-
peals is a serious one for libraries. 
Colleges with alumni have, at least, a 
place to start. While librarians claim 

Library Development Structures 65 

with some justification that all alumni 
should be approachable because almost 
all used the libraries during their univer-
sity life, many universities have not 
agreed with that approach. In decentral-
ized models, the power of the colleges 
over their lists is all but absolute. Even 
in centralized situations, the central of-
fice may be reluctant to annoy powerful 
college and school deans. Although the 
university librarian may be a dean, the 
position does not 1,1sually have power 
equivalent to that of the heads of the 
larger colleges. 

However, the need for additional 
funding for the libraries is acute, and 
librarians have developed strategies to 
compensate for their lack of a defined 
constituency. Three strategies identified 
through this survey are (1) checkoff on 
the annual fund appeal for all alumni, (2) 
the development of a Friends group, and 
(3) the establishment of partnerships for 
appeals with the colleges. Table 5 indi-
cates which CIC institutions are employ-
ing which strategy. 

TABLES 
STRATEGIES USED 

Check-
School off Friends Partnership 

Chicago No Yes No 
Illinois Yes Yes Yes 

Indiana Some Yes Yes 

Iowa Some Yes No 

Michigan No Yes Yes 

Michigan State No Yes Yes 
Minnesota No · Yes No 

Northwestern No Yes No 
Ohio State No Yes No 
Penn State Yes No Yes 
Purdue Yes No Yes 
Wisconsin Some Yes Yes 

Checkoff 

Having the libraries as a checkoff on 
the annual appeal is clearly a big advan-
tage. In the long process of cultivating 
major gift donors, this box can give an 
early indication that the prospect might 



66 College & Research Libraries 

be more interested in the libraries than 
in the college. Because development ex-
perience indicates that donors' prefer-
ences are not always predictable, giving 
them an opportunity to move away from 
the most obvious choice is an important 
technique for maximizing return. Be-
cause libraries have always been recog-
nized as the heart of an institution,they 
have been relatively free of opponents. 
Thus, they provide a safe alternative for 
an alumnus who may be particularly in-
terested in books, computers, and infor-
mation, or who may have had a 
particularly good experience in the li-
braries or, in one alternative, a poor ex-
perience in a college. Students use 
libraries heavily; thus, the alumnus who 
wants to help the students may find this 
an appropriate gift. Survey results re-
flected that some campuses have the li-
braries as a checkoff for the whole 
database while others allow each college 
to create its own appeal card. Some col-
leges add the libraries. 

Friends 

Friends groups are the single most 
popular support mechanism for libraries 
development. The only two CIC institu-
tions without at least one active Friends 
group are Purdue and Penn State (which 
has a Development Board.) In an Oc-
tober 1992 conversation, Paul Mosher re-
confirmed his opinions about the 
importance of Friends groups. He still 
believes, as he stated in his 1980 article, 
that an active Friends group is the best 
remedy for the lack of an established 
constituency. 11 

The late Hugh Atkinson, a library 
leader of enormous influence, began the 
Friends group at Illinois in 1972. He saw 
that state support would not be ade-
quate to meet library needs in the de-
cades to come and in 1977 moved into a 
more active development program. Joan 
Hood, the director of development and 
public affairs, believes that Atkinson's 
vision and early entry into the libraries 
development field are the cornerstones 
of their program's success. She and Ohio 
State development officer Linda Bowers 
are the founders of the DORAL group. 

January 1994 

Friends groups have often identified 
themselves as persons interested in books 
and sometimes particularly in rare and 
beautiful books. Many libraries are becom-
ing more focused on the delivery of elec-
tronic information. Thus, while the book is 
clearly here to stay, innovations and new 
services will probably be electronic. Help-
ing Friends to appreciate the new infor-
mation technologies will be a major 
public relations endeavor. 

Like alumni groups, Friends groups 
are relatively inexpensive to join, usually 
have a newsletter as a primary public rela-
tions piece, and often raise money through 
special events, such as book sales, lectures, 
and exhibitions. Sometimes a Friends 
board will function as a development 
council, but more frequently the Friends 
board will be composed of active Friends 
members rather than potential major 
donors. Running a Friends group takes 
a great deal of staff time. 

Partnerships 

Partnerships with the colleges for fund-
raising endeavors are most worthwhile. At 
large universities, the libraries will often 
have a branch which may be the focus for 
a partnership effort. Books, equipment 
and furnishings, and even buildings them-
selves can provide appropriate focuses for 
joint college-library efforts. 

Partnerships with head coaches have 
also been helpful. The Paterno Libraries 
Endowment, which involved head foot-
ball coach Joe Paterno and his wife, Sue, 
was a successful part of the Campaign 
for Penn State. Through it, alumni and 
university friends were invited to give to 
an endowment whose earnings are used 
to pay for library materials. The 
Paterno endowment continues to at-
tract regular attention as a part of the 
annual giving appeal. Mrs. Paterno 
serves on the libraries' development 
board. Indiana University Libraries has 
benefited from an association with 
Bobby Knight, whose fiftieth birthday 
became a roast with proceeds to the li-
braries. The University of Chicago's li-
brary development officer admitted to 
an active envy for these relationships 
with star athletics coaches. 



Libraries do have difficulties in iden-
tifying and cultivating a constituency. 
However, the libraries can compensate 
for the disadvantages of not having 
an established alumni base through a 
checkoff box on an annual appeal 
card, the establishment of a Friends 

Library Development Structures 67 

group, and the cultivation of partner-
ships with colleges. The university's 
administration is ultimately respon-
sible for the fiscal well-being of the 
libraries and should make policies that 
will encourage an active development 
program. 

REFERENCES AND NOTES 
1. James M. Shea, "Organizational Issues in Designing Advancement Programs" in 

Handbook of Institutional Advancement, 2d ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), 34. 
2. Richard L. Desmond and JohnS. Ryan, "Serving People Needs," Currents (Mar. 1985): 

44. 
3. J. Robert Sandberg, "Organizing Your Operation," Currents (Mar. 1985): 49. 
4. Robert Goldman Netherton, "First Rate Findings," CASE Currents (Nov./Dec. 1990): 

5~ . 
5. Paul H. Mosher, "Friends Groups and Academic Libraries" in Organizing the Library's 

Support: Donors, Volunteers, Friends, ed. D.W. Krummel (Urbana-Champaign, lll.: Uni-
versity of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, 1980), 72-73. 

6. Paul H. Mosher, in conversation with Gloriana St. Clair, 1991. 
7. Charlene K. Clark, "Getting Started with Annual Funds in Academic Libraries" in 

Library Development: A Future Imperative, ed. Dwight F. Burlingame (New York: Ha-
worth, 1991). 

8. Charlene K. Clark, "Donor and Donor Relations" in Raising Monet} for Academic Librar-
ies, ed. Barbara I. Dewey, (New York: Neal-Schumann, 1991), 27-45. 

9. Karen Nelson Hoyle, "Funding Special Collections" manuscript proposed for, but did 
not appear in, Raising Money for Academic Libraries, ed. Barbara I. Dewey, (New York: 
Neal-Schumann, 1991). 

10. Joan M. Hood, "Library Friends" in Raising Money for Academic Libraries, 21. 
11. Mosher, "Friends Groups and Academic Libraries," 72-73. 

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION 
College & Research Libraries, Publication No. 00100870, is published bimonthly by the Association of College and 
Research Libraries, American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611-2795. The editor is Gloriana 
St. Clair, E506 Pattee Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. Annual subscription price, 
$25.00. Printed in U.S.A. with second-class postage paid at Chicago, Illinois. As a nonprofit organization 
authorized to mail at special rates (DMM Section 424.12 only), the purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this 
organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes have not changed during the preceding twelve 
months. 

EXTENT AND NATURE OF ORCULATION 
(Average figures denote the average number of copies printed each issue during the preceding twelve months; 
actual figures denote actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: September 1993 
issue.) Total number of copies printed: 13,059; actual12,930. Sales through dealers, carriers, street vendors and counter 
sales: none. Mail subscription: average 12,305; actual 12,239. Free distribution: average 120; actual 102. Total 
distribution: average 12,425; actual12,341. Office use,leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: average 634; actual 
589. Total: average 13,059; actual12,930. 

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation (PS 
Form 3526, Jan. 1991) for 1993 filed with the United States 
Post Office Postmaster in Chicago, September 30, 1993. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------- ·---- · ----



ANNOUNCING 
The Human Development Race 
explains why some developing countries 
have readily succeeded at improving the 
health, education, and income of their 
citizens while others seem mired in 
failure. After examining economic and · 
social factors in the performance of ninety 
countries, Lindenberg focuses on the 
experiences of six Central American 
countries, furnishing wide-ranging, and 
sometimes surprising, conclusions. 

Marc M. Lindenberg is currently senior vice 
president of programs for CARE, on leave of 
absence from his position as a public policy 
lecturer at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School 
of Government. 

1993, 233 pages, Cloth ISBN 1·55815-277-6, $29.95 
Paper ISBN 155815-278-4, $14.95 

PUBLISHED BY ~ PRESS 

liThe Human Development Race combines human resource issues and 
quality of life issues in a creative fusion that allows a richer analysis 
than the usual economic approach. Lindenberg successfully tackles 
the thorny problems of measuring improvements in a practical and 
theoretically compelling way." 

- William Ascher 
Professor, Sanford Institute of Public Policy 

Duke University