Small Schools’ Boards Fall Short

Many college presidents at small and mid-size schools are dissatisfied with their board members’ participation in fundraising efforts, according to a survey released last week.

The study, conducted by the Council of Independent Colleges and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, revealed that just 1 percent of college leaders polled feel their board members are sufficiently well-versed in the basics of fundraising. A previous survey from 1997-1998 concluded that 13 percent of trustees were considered to have the necessary knowledge.

The survey respondents included 274 small or medium-sized independent schools—mostly liberal arts colleges, according to survey editor Wesley K. Willmer, who is also vice president of advancement at Biola University in California.

The survey tracked advancement trends among colleges with enrollments under 5,000. It found that administrations were often frustrated by the shortcomings of their trustees.

Willmer said that about 36 percent of college presidents were dissatisfied with their boards in terms of their giving, and about 60 percent were dissatisfied in terms of soliciting donations from other people. These percentages are in line with past surveys. But this year, administrators cited the trustees’ lack of knowledge as a major concern, he said.

While all schools depend heavily on their Boards of Trustees for their fundraising efforts, colleges with larger endowments are more independent of immediate financial concerns.

Harvard has consistently raised a substantial amount of money through fundraising efforts, averaging about $600 million per year for the past several years, more than any of its Ivy League counterparts.

The University plans to announce a capital campaign in coming years, Harvard’s Vice President for Alumni Affairs and Development Tamara E. Rogers said last month.

She declined to comment any further.

Columbia has raised $2.7 billion of a $4 billion campaign that was launched publicly in September 2006, according to the university’s communications director for development Jerry Kisslinger.

“Many of the trustees of the university are playing lead roles in the campaign both as volunteers and as donors,” he said. “The campaign has launched with really amazing momentum” and has met success “both in terms of the levels of giving and increasing the breadth of giving.”

But not all smaller schools are victims of the dearth of experience cited in the survey.

Vice President for Development at Dickinson College Donald A. Hasseltine reported that their campaign has gone “very well,” noting that past and current trustees gave about $45 million of the $125 million raised to date.

Advancement officers at Williams— one of the survey respondents—reported similar satisfaction with the involvement of their trustees in the campaign process.

James G. Kolesar of Williams’ public affairs office said trustees were involved in the planning and organization of fundraisers.

Williams’ experience is “just the opposite” of the dissatisfaction reported in the survey and the College’s board is “very engaged and very able at fundraising activities,” Koslar said.

Willmer, who edited the survey, said that dissatisfied institutions face a conundrum in trying to address trustees’ lack of information.

“It’s a two-way street,” Willmer said. “The board wants the president to raise more money and the president wants the board to raise more money.”

—Staff writer Alexandra Perloff-Giles can be reached at aperloff@fas.harvard.edu.