12 · SPEC Kit 297
fundraising priorities, a phonathon on behalf of the
library’s fundraising priorities, a friends of the li-
brary organization, or a history of private support
in excess of $500,000 per year. Eighty respondents
met this criterion.
Respondents were asked to indicate when the
library development program began based on the
hiring date of the first library development officer
(LDO) whether full- or part-time. The 74 responses
ranged across 30 years. The earliest was in 1975
(which coincidentally is the year after SPEC Kit 6:
Friends of the Library Organizations was published)
and 11 were created between then and 1984. There
was a surge in the number of new programs be-
tween 1985 and 1999 with spikes in 1990 and 1995
(seven new programs in each of those years). A few
new programs have begun each year since then, in-
cluding one in 2006.
One of the ever-present critical questions within
library development is which possible donor pros-
pect pools can be approached on behalf of the li-
brary. The majority of survey respondents have un-
limited access to current and lapsed library donors,
current and retired library employees, and unaffili-
ated prospects most have at least limited access to
12 other categories of potential donors that range
from donors to other parts of the institution, to cur-
rent students, faculty, and staff, to alumni, to non-
donors. What is surprising is that 15 of 79 respon-
dents (19%) have only limited access to current or
lapsed fiscal year library donors and one reports
never having access to these two groups. Only 11 li-
braries have unlimited access to both undergradu-
ate and graduate alumni six never have access to
either group. Respondents have the least access to
current students, their parents/grandparents, par-
ents/grandparents of alumni, and university trust-
ees. Access appears to be more freely given to in-
stitution non-donors—68 of 77 respondents (88%)
have at least limited access.
Only eight respondents (10%) report that there
is a limit to the number of managed prospects as-
signed to the library. That number ranges from 100
to 300. One respondent commented, “I don’t know
if there’s a limit, honestly. I’d love to have the op-
portunity to bump up against it and find out.”
Library Development Program Staffing
The survey responses indicate that a majority of
the programs are one-person professional shops.
When asked how many professional staff raise
money for the library, 42 respondents (53%) indi-
cated that there is only one person—not including
the library director—who is charged with this task.
Twenty-two programs (28%) are staffed by two
professional fundraisers, but only 16 have three or
more professional staff, including one outlier with
43 full-time professionals. The reported FTE counts
indicate that library fundraising is a full-time re-
sponsibility for 60% of professionals in one-person
operations, but the percentage drops in the two- to
six-person operations. Overall, only 49% of the re-
ported professionals are full-time library fundrais-
ers, excluding the outlier institution.
Library fundraising professionals carry a vari-
ety of job titles more than twenty were reported.
Regardless of their title, the individuals who were
identified as the Chief Library Development Officer
(LDO) most often report to the library director (34
responses or 43%), particularly in programs with
two or more professional staff. Thirty-six percent
report jointly to the library director and someone
in the university development office, particularly
in the one-person programs. Twenty-one percent
report only to someone outside of the library. In
most of the programs that have more than one pro-
fessional position, the other positions report to the
chief LDO.
Reported salaries range widely, from $12,500 for
a development assistant who devotes 25% of his/
her time to fundraising to $125,000 for a full-time
chief LDO. While chief LDO salaries range from
a minimum of $14,732 (.20 FTE) to the maximum
of $125,000 (1 FTE), 61% cluster between $50,000
and $80,000. In all but a few cases, salaries are un-
der $65,000 for the second position, under $56,000
for the third position, and $45,000 or under for the
fourth.
fundraising priorities, a phonathon on behalf of the
library’s fundraising priorities, a friends of the li-
brary organization, or a history of private support
in excess of $500,000 per year. Eighty respondents
met this criterion.
Respondents were asked to indicate when the
library development program began based on the
hiring date of the first library development officer
(LDO) whether full- or part-time. The 74 responses
ranged across 30 years. The earliest was in 1975
(which coincidentally is the year after SPEC Kit 6:
Friends of the Library Organizations was published)
and 11 were created between then and 1984. There
was a surge in the number of new programs be-
tween 1985 and 1999 with spikes in 1990 and 1995
(seven new programs in each of those years). A few
new programs have begun each year since then, in-
cluding one in 2006.
One of the ever-present critical questions within
library development is which possible donor pros-
pect pools can be approached on behalf of the li-
brary. The majority of survey respondents have un-
limited access to current and lapsed library donors,
current and retired library employees, and unaffili-
ated prospects most have at least limited access to
12 other categories of potential donors that range
from donors to other parts of the institution, to cur-
rent students, faculty, and staff, to alumni, to non-
donors. What is surprising is that 15 of 79 respon-
dents (19%) have only limited access to current or
lapsed fiscal year library donors and one reports
never having access to these two groups. Only 11 li-
braries have unlimited access to both undergradu-
ate and graduate alumni six never have access to
either group. Respondents have the least access to
current students, their parents/grandparents, par-
ents/grandparents of alumni, and university trust-
ees. Access appears to be more freely given to in-
stitution non-donors—68 of 77 respondents (88%)
have at least limited access.
Only eight respondents (10%) report that there
is a limit to the number of managed prospects as-
signed to the library. That number ranges from 100
to 300. One respondent commented, “I don’t know
if there’s a limit, honestly. I’d love to have the op-
portunity to bump up against it and find out.”
Library Development Program Staffing
The survey responses indicate that a majority of
the programs are one-person professional shops.
When asked how many professional staff raise
money for the library, 42 respondents (53%) indi-
cated that there is only one person—not including
the library director—who is charged with this task.
Twenty-two programs (28%) are staffed by two
professional fundraisers, but only 16 have three or
more professional staff, including one outlier with
43 full-time professionals. The reported FTE counts
indicate that library fundraising is a full-time re-
sponsibility for 60% of professionals in one-person
operations, but the percentage drops in the two- to
six-person operations. Overall, only 49% of the re-
ported professionals are full-time library fundrais-
ers, excluding the outlier institution.
Library fundraising professionals carry a vari-
ety of job titles more than twenty were reported.
Regardless of their title, the individuals who were
identified as the Chief Library Development Officer
(LDO) most often report to the library director (34
responses or 43%), particularly in programs with
two or more professional staff. Thirty-six percent
report jointly to the library director and someone
in the university development office, particularly
in the one-person programs. Twenty-one percent
report only to someone outside of the library. In
most of the programs that have more than one pro-
fessional position, the other positions report to the
chief LDO.
Reported salaries range widely, from $12,500 for
a development assistant who devotes 25% of his/
her time to fundraising to $125,000 for a full-time
chief LDO. While chief LDO salaries range from
a minimum of $14,732 (.20 FTE) to the maximum
of $125,000 (1 FTE), 61% cluster between $50,000
and $80,000. In all but a few cases, salaries are un-
der $65,000 for the second position, under $56,000
for the third position, and $45,000 or under for the
fourth.
