14 · SPEC Kit 297
Library Director’s Role in Development
The survey asked several questions about the li-
brary director’s role in fundraising activities. From
the responses it is apparent that all directors are
involved to a certain extent. Only 23 respondents
(29%) report that the director is required to spend
time on fundraising. At these institutions the direc-
tor’s involvement ranges from a minimum of 5%
of their time to a maximum of 100% for three direc-
tors. The mean amount of time is 41% and the me-
dian is 25%. Of the 55 who reported that there is no
specific time requirement, the range is 5% to 85%,
with a mean of 26.5% and a median of 22.5%.
The survey asked whether there was a dollar
threshold that had to be reached before the direc-
tor became involved. The vast majority of directors
participate in prospect meetings, calls to prospects,
strategy sessions, proposal presentations, and
closing gifts without a specific minimum dollar
amount expected. Additionally, in three-quarters
of the reporting institutions the director will—al-
though mostly on an occasional basis—even par-
ticipate in fundraising calls without the chief LDO
being present.
Where there is a threshold, $5,000 is the mini-
mum and $25,000 the median amount expected be-
fore the director becomes involved in phone calls,
strategy sessions, prospect meetings, or closing a
gift the median is $50,000 for presenting a propos-
al. Directors will sign letters of correspondence for
almost any expected return.
Library Development Staff Evaluation
As can be expected, development staff are evalu-
ated on a wide variety of criteria. The criteria used
most frequently for chief LDOs are number of
visits, dollars raised, number of asks/proposals,
and overall dollar goal. These criteria are bunched
fairly closely together with several others, such as
visits per month, pipeline reports, number of gift
closures, and number of moves, following closely
behind. The pattern is similar for other develop-
ment professionals. The situation is somewhat dif-
ferent for library directors their two top criteria are
dollars raised and overall dollar goal. These two
are used far more often than all the other criteria.
When asked to rank the importance of the eval-
uation measures, the respondents chose dollars
raised as the most important measure for the chief
LDO (49%), library director (54%), and other staff
(38%). All other criteria trailed far behind for all
three staff categories.
At the top of the second tier of important mea-
sure for LDOs are the number of visits and the
number of asks/proposals. The number of asks/
proposals ties with the number of gift closures as
the top of the third tier. For directors, the overall
dollar goal is clearly the second most important
evaluation measure, followed by number of gift
closures as third. Measures for other staff are more
evenly distributed across the choices.
At about half of the responding institutions, the
evaluation of the chief LDO is conducted by a com-
bination of the library director and the institution’s
development department director. At a little more
than a quarter, the library director is the sole evalu-
ator. Other library development staff most often
are evaluated by the LDO (33 responses or 65%).
Library Coordination with the Institution’s
Development Office
As academic enterprises continue to seek private
funds with more frequency for more restricted
purposes and/or specific units of institutions, co-
ordination among competing priorities has become
paramount. Subsequently, identifying the library’s
placement within this coordinated structure was a
key component of this survey.
Above, it was reported that libraries have lim-
ited access to certain types of prospective donors
(who may be “claimed.”) Perhaps as a result, bare-
ly half of the survey respondents (41 or 53%) an-
swered “Yes” to the question, “Is the library con-
sidered equal to other units/schools within the
institution in terms of fundraising opportunities?”
Respondents’ comments reflect the on-going asser-
tion of many library development programs that
the libraries have no alumni and often struggle to
Library Director’s Role in Development
The survey asked several questions about the li-
brary director’s role in fundraising activities. From
the responses it is apparent that all directors are
involved to a certain extent. Only 23 respondents
(29%) report that the director is required to spend
time on fundraising. At these institutions the direc-
tor’s involvement ranges from a minimum of 5%
of their time to a maximum of 100% for three direc-
tors. The mean amount of time is 41% and the me-
dian is 25%. Of the 55 who reported that there is no
specific time requirement, the range is 5% to 85%,
with a mean of 26.5% and a median of 22.5%.
The survey asked whether there was a dollar
threshold that had to be reached before the direc-
tor became involved. The vast majority of directors
participate in prospect meetings, calls to prospects,
strategy sessions, proposal presentations, and
closing gifts without a specific minimum dollar
amount expected. Additionally, in three-quarters
of the reporting institutions the director will—al-
though mostly on an occasional basis—even par-
ticipate in fundraising calls without the chief LDO
being present.
Where there is a threshold, $5,000 is the mini-
mum and $25,000 the median amount expected be-
fore the director becomes involved in phone calls,
strategy sessions, prospect meetings, or closing a
gift the median is $50,000 for presenting a propos-
al. Directors will sign letters of correspondence for
almost any expected return.
Library Development Staff Evaluation
As can be expected, development staff are evalu-
ated on a wide variety of criteria. The criteria used
most frequently for chief LDOs are number of
visits, dollars raised, number of asks/proposals,
and overall dollar goal. These criteria are bunched
fairly closely together with several others, such as
visits per month, pipeline reports, number of gift
closures, and number of moves, following closely
behind. The pattern is similar for other develop-
ment professionals. The situation is somewhat dif-
ferent for library directors their two top criteria are
dollars raised and overall dollar goal. These two
are used far more often than all the other criteria.
When asked to rank the importance of the eval-
uation measures, the respondents chose dollars
raised as the most important measure for the chief
LDO (49%), library director (54%), and other staff
(38%). All other criteria trailed far behind for all
three staff categories.
At the top of the second tier of important mea-
sure for LDOs are the number of visits and the
number of asks/proposals. The number of asks/
proposals ties with the number of gift closures as
the top of the third tier. For directors, the overall
dollar goal is clearly the second most important
evaluation measure, followed by number of gift
closures as third. Measures for other staff are more
evenly distributed across the choices.
At about half of the responding institutions, the
evaluation of the chief LDO is conducted by a com-
bination of the library director and the institution’s
development department director. At a little more
than a quarter, the library director is the sole evalu-
ator. Other library development staff most often
are evaluated by the LDO (33 responses or 65%).
Library Coordination with the Institution’s
Development Office
As academic enterprises continue to seek private
funds with more frequency for more restricted
purposes and/or specific units of institutions, co-
ordination among competing priorities has become
paramount. Subsequently, identifying the library’s
placement within this coordinated structure was a
key component of this survey.
Above, it was reported that libraries have lim-
ited access to certain types of prospective donors
(who may be “claimed.”) Perhaps as a result, bare-
ly half of the survey respondents (41 or 53%) an-
swered “Yes” to the question, “Is the library con-
sidered equal to other units/schools within the
institution in terms of fundraising opportunities?”
Respondents’ comments reflect the on-going asser-
tion of many library development programs that
the libraries have no alumni and often struggle to
