By Earl W. Edwards

Earl W. Edwards is Director of Athletics at the University of California-San Diego, former President of the National Association of Athletic Development Directors, and a recipient of the 2007 Athletic Director of the Year award for the NCAA Division II West Region from NACDA. He also operates Athletic Consulting by Earl Edwards (ACEE) and can be reached at: ewedwards@ucsd.edu.

At most colleges and universities today, there is pressure to raise more dollars through donations than ever before. In most athletic departments, the same is true. To build new facilities, endow scholarships, or just cover costs, we are increasingly turning to alumni and fans.

This scenario, of course, has a built-in conflict. The institution and the athletic department are looking for donors from pretty much the same pool. What is the solution?

A small survey I conducted of 24 institutions in NCAA Divisions I, II, and III and the NAIA indicates that this is a challenge without a simple answer. Some athletic departments work hand-in-hand with their central administration in fundraising, while others function as a separate entity. Either way, the key appears to be foreseeing potential problems and recognizing how the university and athletics can help one another.

REPORTING LINES
Institutions use a variety of different reporting lines to get the most out of their fundraising efforts. My survey revealed five different models:

1. The head of athletics fundraising reports directly to athletics, having no official relationship with central development.

2. The head of athletics fundraising reports to both athletics and central development.

3. The head of athletics fundraising reports to central development with no official reporting to athletics.

4. The head of athletics fundraising reports directly to central development with a dotted line to athletics.

5. The head of athletics fundraising reports to athletics with a dotted line to central development.

The first model is the most common, due to the control it gives athletics over its fundraising activities. However, this approach allows fewer opportunities for collaboration with central fundraising, which can hinder an athletic department in the long run.

The few schools that work under the second model, with reporting to both athletics and central development, indicated that the structure has not been ideal and they are switching to reporting to athletics only. This dual-supervision model caused too many conflicts and created a slow, bureaucratic process that hindered the fundraising ability of athletics.

For those who use the third and fourth models, where central administration oversees athletics fundraising, several problems have arisen. The lack of understanding of athletics fundraising by central fundraisers can be frustrating. Working with central development can also involve a degree of bureaucracy, which can slow the process of getting prospect information or donations back to athletics.

In addition, central development staff may not see athletics fundraising as a priority, making it more difficult for athletics to get university support. Some central development programs may want to micromanage athletics' solicitation of prospects. The "stealing" of prospects, as one respondent described it, is probably the biggest potential challenge of working with central development.

On the other hand, here at UCSD, we use the fourth model with great success. We have found that when all parties communicate well, the structure can work. I was involved in helping central development create the position of athletics fundraiser and hire the right person, and I continually educate central development on our needs. I talk with our Associate Director of Athletics Development almost every day, and meet formally with her and a central development administrator weekly.

With a clear understanding of athletics' needs, central development incorporates our fundraising into the university efforts. As a result, we get more university support and collaboration.

The fifth model is also a good solution that creates an official connection with the university offices, but affords athletics the most control. The dotted line to central development results in more communication and coordination than if the athletics fundraiser is a separate entity.

To figure out which model will work best for you, sit down with central development and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each for your particular institution. Some questions to answer include the following:

• Who should have control of athletics fundraising?
• Does the athletic department have funding for the position, or does it need help from central administration?
• What relationship should athletics fundraising have with central development?
• How does central development operate, and will that be a good match for an athletics fundraiser?

COLLABORATION
Although an autonomous athletics fundraising program seems to be the trend, it is still important for collaboration to occur between central and athletics fundraisers. Central development has a host of resources that an athletic department would be foolish not to tap into. Responses to the survey gave some examples of how central development can help:

• Supplying in-depth prospect research
• Providing donor contact reports, which help establish minimum asks
• Identifying major donors for capital campaigns and endowments
• Giving advice on written and presentation skills for solicitations
• Offering expertise in everything from how to emphasize multi-year commitments to strategizing on a "big ask"
• Sharing materials and support staff.

Along with providing help, the two-way collaboration can make both entities function more successfully. Many schools indicated they work with central development in a variety of different areas, including sponsorship, planned giving, database/mailings, prospect research, special events (pre-game receptions, golf tournaments), alumni events, solicitation scheduling, contact reports, gift agreement approvals, phone-a-thons, stewardship, and capital campaigns.

Large university campaigns that incorporate athletic department projects are also proving to be extremely beneficial to athletics. This university-wide approach allows athletics to reach a broader audience. One school said it was very successful collaborating on a scholarship proposal that ended up raising $1 million.

Working with central development can also help athletics with funding their development programs. In terms of salaries, survey respondents discussed three different scenarios where central development provided money for athletics development positions. Some schools have central development pay 100 percent of the salary. Others pay on a 50/50 basis, and one school splits the salary 60/40. At another school, the salary and benefits of the director of athletics development is paid by the athletic department while the operating budget is paid by central development. In all cases, the rationale is that athletics fundraising dollars are ultimately dollars raised for the university, so central development should provide some funding support.

Many schools receive additional funding from central development to help with special events such as football and basketball pre-game receptions, golf tournaments, and spring coaches tours. They may also pay for printed materials and mailings.

Athletic departments should also offer any support they can to central fundraising. For one school, sharing the ticket database uncovered some new donors for central development. Here at UCSD, we found that one of our athletics donors also had an interest in donating to diabetes research, and we were able to give central development this lead.

The key to all these collaborations is excellent communication. Some athletic programs said they improve communication by attending central development meetings, which keeps them informed of university projects and prospects and in the mainstream. Another idea is to set up one-on-one meetings with different areas of central development on a regular basis.

WHOSE DONOR?
Working together with central development will also help ease tensions over the major conflict: Whose donor is whose? There is nothing worse than having multiple university programs asking for donations from the same individual, with neither party aware of the other's "ask."

But if both parties are working together, educating each other, and sharing information, compromise comes much easier. When a prospect is shared, there is then a clear understanding of who serves as the lead contact.

My experience working in fundraising over the years, as well as the input from the survey respondents, has convinced me that central development has to play a major role in athletics fundraising to maximize success. It may take a little more time and effort, but it will lead to great rewards in the long run.