64 Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 57. Please enter any additional information regarding development activities at your library that may assist the authors in accurately analyzing the results of this survey. N=13 A professional Libraries development program has been in existence for only 15 years leaving the Libraries without an established group/history of principal and major gifts directed to the Libraries. Significant improvement in consideration and support by the chancellor and principal gifts is fostering growing success for the future of Libraries advancement. At our institution, we have a strong central development department. While the Libraries partner with them and do everything we can to support their efforts, our role in development activity is much more limited than the type of things described in the survey. We have answered the questions as best we could to provide the perspective of an organization with this structure. Canadian institutions are more limited than US counterparts in parent fundraising due to privacy legislation. GiK federal guidelines are different in Canada than in the US. During our current capital campaign, 45% of major gifts have been planned gifts, 39% of major gifts have been gifts-in-kind, and 17% have been outright gifts. Library director of development & alumni affairs position is currently vacant. Historically, the position was responsible for major gifts. We are currently moving to a model where the senior director of development & alumni affairs who reports to the central development office will be responsible for major gifts. The LDO is responsible for fund/friend-raising and is located at the libraries. Many of our endowment-level donors were giving back in the 90s, and are no longer active in their philanthropy or are deceased. We also had a couple of very big university donors give in the 90s or early 2000s, who were not properly acknowledged and/or stewarded by the former dean. So, they’ve moved on to other units at the university. We’re actively trying to repair those ties. We’re completely rebuilding our major giving program. Most of our 60–70 annual donors are giving at under $1000. Our strategy this year is to build a relationship with those annual donors and ask them at the end of the year to increase to the annual leadership level of above $1000. We would like to see them give at the leadership level a handful of times before we propose a major gift to the Libraries. Statistically, donors make 10–15 gifts on the non-major giving level before they are “ready” to make a major gift. It’s a time-consuming process. We do have a very active Friends of the Libraries group, but they historically do not see themselves as donors. They are more of a volunteer group (this is of course problematic). We are working to shift that culture a bit. Most of that group are retirees, so we are also working to grow the Friends community and invite more young professionals in. Sorry for any holes in this survey. Next year, there will likely be a clearer picture at the Libraries in terms of development. Thanks for all you do! Not all campaigns are capital (i.e., buildings). The two campaigns I’ve been involved at have been comprehensive campaigns (i.e., people, places, and programs). Also, I wish you had asked the same questions about Friends groups as you did about development boards, I think you may have missed a lot of valuable information there. Our Friends group has some responsibilities that overlap with development (but we don’t have a separate development board). And finally, I believe in libraries, and in an academic setting, the role of the library is essential. Despite our vital role in fostering academic excellence for students and innovative research among faculty, we are not a perennial priority— strategically, philanthropically, or physically. Libraries should be the easiest fundraising job on campus, but instead it’s the hardest. I am aghast that university administration—people with PhDs who demonstrably benefited from academic libraries—doesn’t see our inherent value in undergirding the entire institution. I understand that there are many competing priorities at all universities, but it’s a fact that great universities have great libraries. As a development officer, it is part of my job to make the case for the library. I would like to see ARL develop some persuasive and compelling materials that would