Library Development · 15
identify prospects even though they are an inte-
gral component of academic culture. The comment
of one respondent about prospect pools sums up
this issue quite succinctly, “Each college ‘owns’ its
graduates and no other unit is allowed to solicit
them. Hence, the library has little access to most of
our 250,000 alums. We have to find people who like
libraries, who may not have any relationship to the
institution, who will give to the libraries.”
Eighty-eight percent of the respondents report
that the chief LDO is assigned as staff manager/re-
lationship coordinator for individuals who have an
interest in the library and almost all (96%) that the
chief LDO is invited to participate in interdivision-
al strategy meetings about major prospects at least
occasionally. Almost three-quarters (56 or 74%)
report that the library director also participates
occasionally or always in interdivisional strategy
meetings about key prospects. By participating in
such meetings, it is possible (and probable) that the
library development officer and/or library director
can advocate for library projects and inclusion in
comprehensive proposals for major donors.
In annual giving activities such as direct mail,
phonathons, and online solicitations, the library
is presented as a giving option from the compre-
hensive institution perspective a majority of the
time. Fifty-three percent of respondents report that
the library is included as a possible gift designa-
tion at least occasionally in general institution di-
rect mail appeals. Unfortunately, this means that
libraries at 47% of the responding institutions are
never included in the general direct mail appeals.
The picture is much rosier on the online front. The
library is included on the general institution giving
Web site as a possible gift designee at 90% of the
responding institutions. (Surprisingly, four institu-
tions do not provide online giving opportunities.)
Likewise, at all but six institutions the library is a
possible gift designee during phonathon solicita-
tions, if not always, then at least once in a while.
Several institutions commented that the library is
the recipient of second asks or as an alternative for
other priorities.
Library development programs rely heavily on
central development operations for staff resources
for most fundraising activities. For example, on av-
erage, central development contributes 90% of the
staff for phonathons, 78% for deferred/planned
giving, 77% for records processing, 72% for gift
processing, and 71 %for prospect research. Library
development programs also rely on central devel-
opment staff—although in a more reduced fash-
ion—for corporate and foundation relations (63%),
annual giving (60%), and information technology
(56%). Library development programs contribute
more of their own staff resources, on average, for
development communications (66%) and special
events (78%). The distribution of budgeted ex-
penses for fundraising activities follows a similar
pattern, though libraries contribute slightly more
to the costs of direct mail and phonathons.
Conclusion
This survey grew out of numerous requests for in-
formation about benchmarking and the establish-
ment of new library development programs that
had been posed by, and to, members of ALADN
(Academic Library Advancement and Development
Network) and DORAL (Development Officers of
Research and Academic Libraries) and was de-
signed to establish an illustration of a “typical”
library development program at an ARL member
library. While it is apparent from the survey results
that there is no cookie cutter model for such a pro-
gram, some generalizations can be drawn which
provide a baseline for further review of such pro-
grams.
An ARL library most likely has at least one li-
brary development professional charged with rais-
ing money exclusively for the library. This person
has at least part-time staff support. This profes-
sional is likely the third development officer for the
library in a program that has existed for 12 or more
years and has been in their current position for ap-
proximately four years and makes about $72,000.
These library development officers have at least
limited access to institutional donors and are cre-
identify prospects even though they are an inte-
gral component of academic culture. The comment
of one respondent about prospect pools sums up
this issue quite succinctly, “Each college ‘owns’ its
graduates and no other unit is allowed to solicit
them. Hence, the library has little access to most of
our 250,000 alums. We have to find people who like
libraries, who may not have any relationship to the
institution, who will give to the libraries.”
Eighty-eight percent of the respondents report
that the chief LDO is assigned as staff manager/re-
lationship coordinator for individuals who have an
interest in the library and almost all (96%) that the
chief LDO is invited to participate in interdivision-
al strategy meetings about major prospects at least
occasionally. Almost three-quarters (56 or 74%)
report that the library director also participates
occasionally or always in interdivisional strategy
meetings about key prospects. By participating in
such meetings, it is possible (and probable) that the
library development officer and/or library director
can advocate for library projects and inclusion in
comprehensive proposals for major donors.
In annual giving activities such as direct mail,
phonathons, and online solicitations, the library
is presented as a giving option from the compre-
hensive institution perspective a majority of the
time. Fifty-three percent of respondents report that
the library is included as a possible gift designa-
tion at least occasionally in general institution di-
rect mail appeals. Unfortunately, this means that
libraries at 47% of the responding institutions are
never included in the general direct mail appeals.
The picture is much rosier on the online front. The
library is included on the general institution giving
Web site as a possible gift designee at 90% of the
responding institutions. (Surprisingly, four institu-
tions do not provide online giving opportunities.)
Likewise, at all but six institutions the library is a
possible gift designee during phonathon solicita-
tions, if not always, then at least once in a while.
Several institutions commented that the library is
the recipient of second asks or as an alternative for
other priorities.
Library development programs rely heavily on
central development operations for staff resources
for most fundraising activities. For example, on av-
erage, central development contributes 90% of the
staff for phonathons, 78% for deferred/planned
giving, 77% for records processing, 72% for gift
processing, and 71 %for prospect research. Library
development programs also rely on central devel-
opment staff—although in a more reduced fash-
ion—for corporate and foundation relations (63%),
annual giving (60%), and information technology
(56%). Library development programs contribute
more of their own staff resources, on average, for
development communications (66%) and special
events (78%). The distribution of budgeted ex-
penses for fundraising activities follows a similar
pattern, though libraries contribute slightly more
to the costs of direct mail and phonathons.
Conclusion
This survey grew out of numerous requests for in-
formation about benchmarking and the establish-
ment of new library development programs that
had been posed by, and to, members of ALADN
(Academic Library Advancement and Development
Network) and DORAL (Development Officers of
Research and Academic Libraries) and was de-
signed to establish an illustration of a “typical”
library development program at an ARL member
library. While it is apparent from the survey results
that there is no cookie cutter model for such a pro-
gram, some generalizations can be drawn which
provide a baseline for further review of such pro-
grams.
An ARL library most likely has at least one li-
brary development professional charged with rais-
ing money exclusively for the library. This person
has at least part-time staff support. This profes-
sional is likely the third development officer for the
library in a program that has existed for 12 or more
years and has been in their current position for ap-
proximately four years and makes about $72,000.
These library development officers have at least
limited access to institutional donors and are cre-
