USNWR: Average Alumni Giving Rate - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 1, 2004

USNWR: Average Alumni Giving Rate

Date: Sep 3, 2004

You need to find the old Provost and ask him. He was in charge of all the compilations for US News. He also left off the info on the section for new freshman in “top 10% of HS class.”

<<<<USNWR: Average Alumni Giving Rate

In the recent issue of US News and World Report rankings of USM the percentage for "Average Alumni Giving Rate" was listed as "Not Available." USM was ranked in Tier 4. I noticed that all the Tier 1 and Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools answered this part of the survey.

Although this section was worth only 5% of the total score, I am wondering why this info was not provided? I am also wondering why the editors used the old statistics of 4 schools for this part of the survey but it did not do so for USM?>>>>

Date: Sep 3, 2004

Thank you very much Not Thames But Mader or But Ryan.

Date: Sep 3, 2004

Average alumni giving is very low for USM alumni, and it has really fallen off in the last two years. Numerous donors have writen the Foundation and have said that their support will cease until this administration is removed. That story will never hit the 6 o'clock news. The main reason (historically - pre SFT) alumni support is low is because NO ONE at the university has ever said that supporting the university after you graduate is important. (Faculty: It's not MY job! Actually it is. You do not make the ask, but faculty plant the seeds. It works at the universities you would like to be associated with, and it is necessary here. The administration also needs to plant this seed. I am not picking on faculty, but I want faculty to realize they are the critical beginning in the cultivation of future donors to the university.) Is is important to start planting the message while the students are on campus. If you wait 20 years, you have missed the opportunity for true financial support. The university started a development office 20 years ago, but never supported it properly. And since Shelby took over, he has destroyed the small amount of donor cultivation that had begun. Plus, he deliberately hired a person with no experience to run the foundation. If anyone cared to support the university, the lack of help from the Foundation (it is not the employees, they are working in the Gulag!) kills the desire to help. It is a mess in the Foundation, and it will not improve until there is a person that is either a leader or a manager as the President of the University. 'The Bully as Boss' currently holds for both the university and the foundation.

I hope that when the dust settles on this fiasco, the new president of the university brings in a proven leader in university development. The potential for USM is much greater than for the other universities in the state, although it has never been recognized or harnessed. BUT...it will require the administration, faculty, staff, alumni, friends, community leaders and development office personnel all pulling together with a true vision of what we (as a university) can become and a common focus for our efforts.

Date: Sep 3, 2004

You are absolutely right, inside looking out. Outside looking in, I have sensed this for years. Faculty are the best thing USM has to offer. Also, faculty don't take on the job of educating students about how the academy is supposed to work--faculty governance, academic freedom, etc.--so alums don't understand it when they get out into the non-academic world. They buy into the story that faculty only work 9 hours a week.

Date: Sep 3, 2004

Even if low, the alumni giving figure should have been reported. Not having it was far worse than having a low score. The figure for last year was 18% but there are several tier 2 schools that have a 20% alumni giving rate. This stat is also just 5% of the total score, so it would not have hurt too much.

USM should not be the one to have it unreported, when every tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 school has this figure reported.

Inside looking out...: "Average alumni giving is very low for USM alumni, and it has really fallen off in the last two years."

Date: Sep 3, 2004

I had already sent an email to his new email address. I had already contacted the three heads of the Alumni Association. Neither has answered. I realize I am giving away my identity now, but I don't really see any harm in having these questions answered. Hopefully I am right about this.

Not Thames: "You need to find the old Provost and ask him."

Date: Sep 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: FatManWalking
"Even if low, the alumni giving figure should have been reported. Not having it was far worse than having a low score. The figure for last year was 18% but there are several tier 2 schools that have a 20% alumni giving rate. This stat is also just 5% of the total score, so it would not have hurt too much. USM should not be the one to have it unreported, when every tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 school has this figure reported. Inside looking out...: "Average alumni giving is very low for USM alumni, and it has really fallen off in the last two years.""

I wonder if the number of alums joining the Alumni Association has fallen off, too. I suspect the USMAA relies on membership dues for a good bit of its funding.

Date: Sep 5, 2004

Inside looking out,

State universities never used to work very hard to encourage alumni giving. They assumed that the Legislature would provide.

But the more forward-looking state university administrators realized 20 years ago (if not earlier) that times were changing and they would have to cultivate potential donors.

Not having the most forward-looking administrators, Clemson didn't get the message till the early 1990s, but no one here questions the importance of alumni giving any more.

Apparently, USM was way behind the curve on this issue to begin with... and then Thames put a stop to the modest progress that had been made.

It's Thames' complete lack of interest in donor relations that marks him as utterly incompetent to run a state university--let alone one that seeks to rise in the rankings. I've always considered it one of the best pieces of evidence in support of the theory that Roy Klumb designated Thames to tear USM down.

And while it's true that faculty members can encourage students to become donors in the future, the primary fundraising work is done by administrators, and it's a legitimate area of administrative specialization (unlike so many that administrators have gotten into over the past couple of generations).

Robert Campbell

Date: Sep 5, 2004

USM has always had problems with the Foundation. Even before the Thames era, the record keeping was in shambles. Donors would get angry; potential donors would back off because they sensed their funds would not be managed correctly, or because no one followed through on their interest. But it has gotten much worse since Thames took office. And some of the best fund raisers, ones that loved the University and were good with people, have left in frustration.

Date: Sep 5, 2004

And while it's true that faculty members can encourage students to become donors in the future, the primary fundraising work is done by administrators, and it's a legitimate area of administrative specialization (unlike so many that administrators have gotten into over the past couple of generations).

Robert Campbell

USM has always had problems with the Foundation. Even before the Thames era, the record keeping was in shambles. Donors would get angry; potential donors would back off because they sensed their funds would not be managed correctly, or because no one followed through on their interest. But it has gotten much worse since Thames took office. And some of the best fund raisers, ones that loved the University and were good with people, have left in frustration.

Going, going, gone

.......................................................................................

Robert:

The point I was making about the faculty is that they need to plant the seeds while the students are on campus. It is the faculty who have direct contact with the students. And the students usually have several faculty whom they consider their favorites while in college. If those faculty have asked the students to consider supporting their university and their department after they graduate, then the seed is planted for others to continue the cultivation process. Normally, it is not the faculty who will be making the ask for large gifts to the university. But a lot of times the 'ask' is successful because many decades prior, a good faculty member made the person aware that their ****inued support was important to the long-term health of their university and their department.

I think we are on the same page, I just wanted to make sure you understood that I was not saying it was up to the faculty to directly raise money.

Ggg:

You are correct that some of the university's best fund raisers left because of frustration. However, several left because Shelby had them fired. Realize that if the development office has successful people, then it will continue to bring in money for the betterment of the university as a whole. By gutting the development office, leaving the positions open for over a year, then bringing in young people who have not had any training, the Foundation is permanently injured. While training and experience would help mend this rupture, the current director is doing nothing that will correct these glaring problems. And his bullying style only makes the problem worse.

Until there is a person incharge of the university who has a clue about how a university is supposed to function, I am afraid that development will also be a worsening sore.

Date: Sep 5, 2004

A few years ago at graduation I thought they were going to pass the offering plate around right there at the colliseum! The graduates has barely received their diplomas before the golden hand was out to touch them as their parents watched in amazement.

Date: Sep 5, 2004

Quite a while ago I encountered a situation which would make me, personally, rather cautious about contributing a substantial sum to the university. I provide this totally fabricated scenario to illustrate my point:

Scenario: Your daughter, a loyal graduate of USM, has been killed in an accident. You wish to establish a scholarship in her honor and in her name. You have $100,000 to contribute to the fund. You expect the funds to be invested at 3% which, at that interest rate, would provide an income of $3,000/year for the schoarship. You expect the scholarship to be awarded indefinitely. You expect that the university not invest the funds in a low-interest bank savings account, but will "pool" your $100,000 with the contributions of others in order to safely draw the highest interest possible. You consult the university authorities and you are told that your $100,000 will fund a $3,000/year scholarship for only 33.3 years ($3,000 X 33.3 = $100,000). You ask questions and learn that the $3,000/year for the scholarship is drawn from the "principal." It is not funded by the "interest." You ask yourself the question "What happens to the "interest"on my $100,000 for those 33.3 years." Visions of sugarplums begin to dance in your head. Visions of administrators taking trips are there too. Visions of administrators entertaining visitors to the university galls you. You say, "But I don't want to fund trips to exotic places, or elsewhere for that matter. I don't want to support wine and cheese hours for trips to high priced restaurants for visitors to the university. I want my $100,000 to go exclusively to fund a scholarship for a worthy student."

I must admit that I don't know a great deal about any tax consequences or state or federal guidelines which might apply. All I am saying is that I, personally, would ask penetrating questions and get satisfactory answers before contributing large sums. Nuff said.

Date: Sep 6, 2004

I must admit that I don't know a great deal about any tax consequences or state or federal guidelines which might apply. All I am saying is that I, personally, would ask penetrating questions and get satisfactory answers before contributing large sums. Nuff said.

-Where's the bacon

________________________________________________________________

WTB:

The Foundation endowment's are properly established. Once an endowment is established, it is the interest that is used for the scholarship. An endowment is a perpetual source of scholarships.

The problems at the USM Foundation are not in the endowments, but in other places...

ILO

Date: Sep 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Inside looking out (ILO)...
________________________________________________________________ . . . it is the interest that is used for the scholarship. An endowment is a perpetual source of scholarships.

ILO, I stand behind my posting. I was not referring to student scholarships. I used that only for purposes of the scenario. Substitute another "purpose" in lieu of "scholarship" and see if your response to my posting would be the same. I'll admit that I may have been given inaccurate information, but the information I received was directly from the source. Just another reason I, personally, would ask penetrating questions and get satisfactory answers before investing there.

Date: Sep 7, 2004

ILO, I stand behind my posting. I was not referring to student scholarships. I used that only for purposes of the scenario. Substitute another "purpose" in lieu of "scholarship" and see if your response to my posting would be the same. I'll admit that I may have been given inaccurate information, but the information I received was directly from the source. Just another reason I, personally, would ask penetrating questions and get satisfactory answers before investing there.

- WTB

ANY endowment established with the USM Foundation follows the same rules. By definition, only interest from an endowment is used for what ever purpose the donor establishes, not just scholarships. Now, if it is not an endowment, then it is still used as the donor has established in writing.

That said, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER give an undesignated gift. Shelby and the Foundation will use that money as Shelby wants it spent.

Date: Sep 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ILO
"ANY endowment established with the USM Foundation follows the same rules. By definition, only interest from an endowment is used for what ever purpose the donor establishes, not just scholarships. Now, if it is not an endowment, then it is still used as the donor has established in writing. "

In WTB's original scenario, the word "endowed" was never used. A $100K donation to the scholarship fund would probably be drawn down $3K for 33 years, just as described. Had WTB used the word endowed then the description would be incorrect. But without that one word, WTB's description is exactly what would be done.

Put yourself in a fund-raiser's shoes. Would you rather get a $100K donation that could be spent immediately or a $100K endowment from which only the interest could be spent?

Question for the pros: Can endowment principal be used to leverage other financial maneuvers?

Date: Sep 7, 2004

Question for the pros: Can endowment principal be used to leverage other financial maneuvers?
- Invictus

Not legally. To pledge endowment principal against another project puts that money at risk. This is one of the reasons that the athletic department was allowed to split from the USM Foundation. Mr. G. wanted the foundation to guarantee athletic building loans by pledging the endowment funds. This is a major violation.

Now that the atlhetic department has its own foundation, I guess they can mess it up as they see fit. I would question giving money to that foundation...I am not sure it would be around that long.

Date: Sep 7, 2004

Is there an annual fee for the university managing an endowment account that is paid out of the interest?

Date: Sep 7, 2004

The USM Foundation charges approximately 2% of each fund's value every year for administrative expense. Interest rates being what they are, that takes a bite; but how else would the expenses of supplies, salaries, etc. be paid? I think 2% is pretty much in line with similar foundations, but I might be mistaken.

How much does the Foundation have under managment? If it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million that would give them a $500,000 annual budget to work with, right? What happens in years like 2002, 2003 when security values (at least stock values) decline sharply? How would the Foundation budget for shortfalls? The bills still have to be paid. The students still need scholarships. Are there any endowed chairs? If so, those professors would have to be paid.

How do the USM procedures compare with those of UM and MSU? Or Vandy? Or Texas-Austin? Is all this hush-hush, or is there a website of which I am unaware that explains everything? I would think that potential donors would be asking these questions every day.

Date: Sep 7, 2004

the chronicle of higher education just came out with its yearly almanac on higher education. my wife happened to be reading through the endowment amounts--Ole Miss has $300+ million, MSU about $150 + million (I think its higher but below $200 million). I don't think USM appeared on the list, but I'll check later.

Date: Sep 7, 2004

Underwater Endowments

Date: Sep 7, 2004

RE: USNWR: Average Alumni Giving Rate