By the early 1990s, it was clear that we were going to need to become more aggressive in seeking private support to augment our diminishing traditional resources. State appropriations and tuition and fees were declining relative to our needs, and our facilities desperately needed major improvements. Our science facilities were designed to support just a small fraction of our science majors. Most academic facilities were antiquated, with decaying infrastructures; one building was virtually unusable.
Commit to Opportunity: The Campaign for Millersville University
In the early 1990s we began planning our first-ever capital campaign. Because of our critical need to improve academic facilities, in 1993 we proposed to the Governor an innovative initiative to fund such facility improvements, which the Governor adopted. Under Operation Jump Start, as the program was initially called, the Commonwealth paid for the design and 75% of the construction or renovation of critically-needed State System academic facilities, with System universities paying the balance with private funds. This was the first time that a public-private partnership was used for public higher education facilities in Pennsylvania.
Two Operation Jump Start projects were approved for Millersville: construction of a new science/technology facility and renovation of a facility for communications and broadcasting programs. The Commonwealth provided $11 million for these two projects with the proviso that we raise $3 million. The capital campaign goal was then defined at $24 million, with $13 million to be raised through private funds and $11 million in Operation Jump Start funds. The campaign's overall private-giving goals were $5 million for facilities, $5 million for endowments, and $3 million for ongoing operations.
"Commit to Opportunity: The Campaign for Millersville University" was publicly launched in 1993 and completed in June 1998. The campaign was far more successful than ever anticipated, raising nearly $27.5 million, $3.5 million above its goal.
We learned many valuable lessons from our first campaign. The campaign's success was driven by a relatively small number of donors; 200 donors accounted for nearly $11 million of the $16.5 million raised in private funds. The concept of matching funds is a sound model, well received by prospective donors. Even though donors may understand the needs we have identified as most pressing, they may prefer to give to an area of their personal interest. Endowments for scholarships resonate with donors, but endowments to sustain technology advances do not. Finally, the role of faculty, deans and vice presidents in the gift process cannot be underestimated. They identify prospects and make the specific case for a need.
Thanks to the capital campaign and a favorable investment market, Millersville has experienced dramatic growth in the value of its endowment (Figure 11-1). Millersville's 1997-1998 endowment per FTE student was $1,526, fourth highest in the State System.
One of the major goals of our capital campaign was to increase scholarship resources, and today over half our endowment is for scholarships. In 1998-1999 we awarded over $1.1 million in scholarships from endowments, our annual fund, and University funds to over 700 students. While this is excellent, even more funds are needed. Our enrollment management consultant (see Chapter 6) has advised us that competition for talented and diverse students is growing steadily stiffer, and our peers are attracting these students with generous financial aid packages. Further increases in scholarship endowments will be one of the goals of our next campaign, discussed below.
From our perspective, unrestricted endowments are even more desirable, because they allow us to direct the income in response to changing needs. Unrestricted funds constitute less than one percent of our endowment. We need to help prospective donors better understand our need for such gifts.
As we have noted, Millersville's two major income sources-state appropriations and tuition-have not kept pace with our needs. We have tried to make up some of the difference through gifts, grants, contracts, and entrepreneurial endeavors, which now account for 12% of total current revenue. These do not completely fill the gap, however. In recent years, therefore, we have increasingly turned to innovative ventures and partnerships to generate new revenue streams, reduce costs, and provide new services and opportunities.
Our entrepreneurial endeavors include
Partnerships to contain costs and increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness are discussed in Chapter 10. We enhance educational opportunities for our students through the partnerships described in Chapter 3; we expand access to electronic resources through the partnerships described in Chapter 7; and we enhance services to our region through the partnerships described in Chapter 9. Many of these partnerships generate new revenue streams.
We also generate revenue through faculty consulting and training to local businesses, agencies, and organizations. Contracting is difficult because of the time requirements of Commonwealth attorneys, which discourages private entities from doing business with us (see Chapter 9). Furthermore, contracts must be developed under state procurement codes, which are designed for contracts to obtain services rather than provide them and therefore include protections that are more hindrance than help.
In order for us to continue to develop revenue-generating ventures, we need to resolve these issues and make faculty aware of how their participation in entrepreneurial opportunities may support their teaching and scholarship. Our next capital campaign, discussed below, may help bring this about. We need to help faculty find time to engage in these ventures and provide financial incentives for them to do so.
Coming Next: A Focused Campaign
The lessons learned from our first campaign influenced planning for our next campaign, which will differ in at least two significant ways. First, because donors resonate more with specific programs than with the University as a whole, the new campaign will be decentralized, focusing on our three schools (Education, Humanities & Social Sciences, and Science & Mathematics) and the Student Affairs division. Each of these four units will be organized in a manner similar to the University-wide structure of the first campaign, with an advancement committee of faculty and staff to help identify and cultivate donors and a campaign cabinet of community volunteers who will work with the advancement committee to achieve the campaign's goals.
The second key difference between the two campaigns is that this campaign will consider a much broader combination of funding streams to achieve priority needs. In addition to the gifts and grants used in the first campaign to achieve its goals, the new campaign will also use government funds, entrepreneurial revenues, and our operating budget to achieve its aims. This strategy enables us to marshal all appropriate resources toward our most critical needs. The campaign's major focused priorities are:
  |