1. “Strengthening Faculty-Foundation Relations:
A Case Study”
2014 CASE Conference for Institutionally Related Foundations
Denver, Colorado
Grand Hyatt Denver
April 23-25, 2014
Larry Gould
Fort Hays State University
Final Draft

2. About Fort Hays State University (FHSU)
 Founded in 1902 as a “teaching academy” on 4,000 acres of military
land ceded to the state of Kansas by the federal government
 State college role was expanded in the 1960s in response to the need
for access/affordability for first generation and nontraditional students
and the changing demands being placed on other types of four year
institutions (American Association of State Colleges and Universities
(AASCU))
 Assigned current liberal and applied arts mission in 1992 as one of three
regional, state comprehensive universities in the Kansas Regents
System (36 institutions) responsible for 66 (KS has 105 counties)
western and central counties (52,000 square miles)

3. About FHSU
 Founding member of the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC/NCA)
alternative accreditation track known as the Academic Quality
Improvement Program (AQIP)
 Academic Programming
 60+ undergraduate degree programs
 21 graduate degree programs
 40+ programs completely accessible off-campus
 80+ Certificates and Certifications
 General Structure
 Three divisions: academic, student affairs, administration-finance
 Four academic colleges, graduate school, distance education delivery unit
called the Virtual College

4. About FHSU
Branding Tagline/The Promise to the Learner:
Forward thinking. World ready.
Fort Hays State University provides accessible quality education to Kansas,
the nation, and the world through an innovative community of teacher-
scholars and professionals to develop engaged global citizen-leaders.

5. About FHSU
Fall 2013 Enrollment: 13,441
On-campus headcount: 4,767
Virtual College headcount: 5,380
China program headcount: 3,294
Total number of Kansans served by FHSU:
6,900 for Fall 2013, compared to 6,745 in Fall 2012
Graduates: 3,327 in the 2012-2013 academic year
(summer 2012, fall 2012, spring 2013)

7. The FHSU Faculty-Foundation Relationship
Indifferent BUT Emergent
(a persistent strain of “evolving co-existence”)

8. Organization of the Advancement Function
• Benign Neglect (Elimination of VP for IA institutionalized)
• Some Integration (foundation, alumni, president’s office,
university relations)
• Episodic (e.g. Annual Spring Fundraising Campaign)

9. Faculty Knowledge
Current Faculty
Most do not have development mindset
Many have limited understanding of development
tasks/processes
Some feel neglected, but are willing to participate when asked
Retired Faculty
Some very dedicated
Over time, increasing engagement with Alumni/Foundation
Match of faculty to development tasks is select and limited

10.  Phonathons
 Honorary Campaign Chairs
 Free Food/Gifts
 Limited Loans
 College Goal-Setting Exercises
 Shared/Special Events with Alumni Association
 Trips to Visit Potential Donors
 Increasing Club Activity
Faculty Engagement Strategies that Work

11. Faculty Engagement Strategies that Do Not Seem
to Make a Difference
 Coffees
 Department Visits
 Faculty Mail Appeals
 Ticket Purchases for Faculty
 Small but Limited Equipment Purchases
 Special Appeals to Limited Number of Academic Programs

12. Obstacles/Structural Hurdles
 Strategic Plan Action Planning Process (2 million disbursed)/Tendency is to Turn
To This Source Rather than Foundation
 Revenue Streams Under Control of President/Leadership has been Reluctant to
Cultivate Grass Roots Participation
 Alumni Association/Foundation Connection is Unclear to Faculty
 Integrated Advancement Team is Missing (compare other MIAA peers)
 Continuity of Advancement Planning is Missing
 Opportunity for Enhancing Faculty Knowledge about
Foundation is Missing

13. Fundraising as a Faculty Job
 Not Seen as a Faculty Job
 Fundraising Is Not Evaluated in Merit
 Foundation is Trying to Change This
Perspective

14. Questionable View of Development/Foundation?
 Time Consuming Activity Without Much Payoff
 Just Not the Place to Seek Resources or Assistance
(Action Planning Process/President as Controller, Not Foundation)
 New President/Administration Has An
Opportunity to Improve/Change this Perspective

15. The KEY TAKEAWAY for SCUs
 Embrace the old goals but achieve them in new ways
 Take advantage of the new world of collaboration, innovation,
and value creation----commonly called “wikinomics” and driven
by social technology----and build a development-friendly
“Platform for Participation in Institutional Advancement.” This
allows “communities of partners” across campus and beyond to
co-create, participate and add development value irrespective
of existing policies, structures, management practices or
culture.

16. Thanks!
Questions?
Powerpoint is available at:
<lawrencegould.org>
Under the “presentations/project” tab