Skip to Content

Meeting Information

Friday, November 7, 1997
10:15 - 11:00 a.m.
East Oval Room, The Rotunda

Committee Members:

Henry L. Valentine, II, Chair
John P. Ackerly, III
Charles M. Caravati, Jr.
T. Keister Greer
Elsie Goodwyn Holland
Terence P. Ross
Albert H. Small
Elizabeth A. Twohy
Hovey S. Dabney, Ex Officio


University Foundations Representatives

Campaign Gift Crediting and Valuation Policy (Mr. Sweeney to introduce Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Charles B. Fitzgerald to report)

A. Vice President's Remarks
  1. FY-97 Fund Raising Performance/FY-98 Goals
  2. UVA Fund Raising Benchmarking Study
  3. University Development Reorganization Regional Programs Initiatives
B. Philanthropic Cash Flow
C. Campaign Progress
  1. Analysis of Gifts to Date
  2. School/Unit Progress
  3. Athletic Campaign
(Mr. Sweeney to introduce Mr. Holland and Mr. Smith; Mr. Terry Holland and Mr. Wayne Smith to report)

I. University Foundations Representatives

ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the External Affairs Committee and the Board of Visitors


The President will propose the adoption of the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the following persons be approved as representatives of the Board of Visitors to the governing boards of the following University-related foundations:

University of Virginia Alumni Association C. Wilson McNeely, III
Alumni Board of Trustees of the University of Virginia Endowment Fund Robert V. Hatcher, Jr.
University of Virginia Host Properties, Inc. Robert G. Butcher, Jr.
Clinch Valley College Foundation J. Thomas Hulvey
Curry School of Education Foundation Elizabeth D. Morie
Darden School Foundation Lemuel E. Lewis
Friends of the University of Virginia's Blandy Experimental Farm David C. Benjamin
Healthcare Partners, Inc. Charles M. Caravati, Jr.
University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Paul H. Wood
Historic Renovation Corporation David W. Carr
University of Virginia Law School Foundation Mortimer M. Caplin
McIntire School of Commerce Foundation Elizabeth A. Twohy
University of Virginia Medical School Alumni Association N. Thomas Connally
University of Virginia Medical School Foundation N. Thomas Connally
Miller Center Foundation Hovey S. Dabney
University of Virginia Patents Foundation Haydn N. G. Wadley
University of Virginia Foundation Hovey S. Dabney
University Real Estate Foundation Hovey S. Dabney
Virginia Ambulatory Surgery, Inc. R. Scott Jones
Virginia Engineering Foundation C. Wilson McNeely, III
Virginia Kidney Stone Foundation William D. Steers
Virginia Student Aid Foundation M. Terry Holland
Virginia Tax Foundation, Inc. Joseph E. Gibson

II. Campaign Gift Crediting and Valuation Policy (See ATTACHMENT A In Docket)

BACKGROUND: The Gift Crediting and Valuation Policy was created in June 1992 to spell out the principles for counting and crediting gifts to the Campaign for the University of Virginia. Several items became outdated when a separate goal for Future Support was established. Revisions are made to bring the policy in line with current practice.

DISCUSSION: The Gift Crediting and Valuation Policy is revised to bring it in line with the Future Support component of the Campaign. Eliminated references to age in certain types of gifts. Added a specific Future Support section. Strengthened the reference to Gifts-in-Kind. Added the director of gift accounting to the Gift Policy Committee.

ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the External Affairs Committee and the Board of Visitors


The President will propose the adoption of the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the revised Campaign Gift Crediting and Valuation Policy be approved (see Attachment A in Docket).

III.A.1. FY-97 Fund Raising Performance/ FY-98 Goals

BACKGROUND: It has been six years since the University Development Office was reorganized to maximize private philanthropic support for the University of Virginia. This report will highlight the progress made in organization and in increasing annual philanthropic cash flow, and will include an update on the success to date of the Universitys capital campaign. This report will also show the progress made in coordinating the external affairs activities of the various units on-Grounds as well as those of the Alumni Association and the Office of University Relations.

DISCUSSION: There will be review of the University Development Office's success in meeting the qualitative and quantitative objectives set forth for FY-97 and a summary of the goals for FY-98. Of major importance is the fact that the University exceeded the $550 million mark in gifts and pledges to the capital campaign and has recorded over $100 million in cash flow for the second time in its history.


III.A.2. UVA Fund Raising Benchmarking Study

BACKGROUND: The long-term goal of the Development Community is to be seen as the best in the country. One of the ways to measure quality is to benchmark achievement against one's peers. The University has measured itself against all comprehensive public universities for the most recent year of giving (FY-96). The report was compiled using national data from the Council for Aid to Education.

DISCUSSION: The results were encouraging and meaningful. When adjusted for number of faculty, students and alumni, the University ranked in the top five in almost every area of giving including alumni, parents, non-alumni individuals and total giving. It ranked first in nine different measurements of effectiveness. The complete benchmarking study is contained in an accompanying document.

The goal of being the best fundraising operation in public higher education is difficult to quantify, and thus is very subjective. Because public universities come in all shapes and sizes, it was determined that the data would be viewed in three different ways for the basic categories of philanthropy: alumni, non-alumni parents, non-alumni individuals, and corporations and foundations.

Analysis was made using the following criteria:

Straight comparison of dollars raised within each category as well as total giving to the institution-this self-explanatory approach ranks performance by dollar totals only. Comparison by on a per alumnus, per student, per faculty member basis-Because of the great variance in the size of these populations, it is more helpful to know how an institution performed in meeting the needs of its key constituencies, its students and its faculty. Obviously, the number of alumni and the number of faculty have a major impact on the prospect population available to make gifts and the amount of faculty research dollars that can be secured by the institution.

Measuring performance of comparable sized institutions provides comparison by peer-sized institutions-A further refinement in the analysis. For this analysis, the University was measured against those large public universities with alumni populations of 100,000 or more and with student bodies of at least 10,000 graduate and undergraduate populations.


III.A.3. University Development Organization

BACKGROUND: The mid-point of the campaign provided University Development the opportunity to revisit its strategic plan, assess the current environment, and evaluate progress with respect to the goals of its planned giving and regional programs and the penetration of the prospect base.

DISCUSSION: The University Development Offices strategic analysis showed that there were significant environmental changes including new campaign leadership, the completion of major regional kickoffs (with the exception of Washington, D.C.), and several changes in Development Office personnel. It became clear that the University Development Office needed to become more focused, more solicitation oriented, better educated on a wide range of gift methods and better integrated as a division with respect to efforts to cultivate, solicit and steward individual gifts. It has been decided that more structure is needed in our regional efforts in order to increase the accountability for both performance and results.

Given that officers in planned giving, regional development and the arts are all engaged in major gift fund raising with individuals, it was decided to integrate these units under one manager to stimulate a cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches. This report will outline the advantages of this restructuring and how personnel will be allocated to achieve enhanced performance.


III.B. Philanthropic Cash Flow

BACKGROUND: This report will be a statistical review of fund-raising cash gifts received for the period of July 1, 1997-September 30, 1997. Emphasis will be placed on measuring performance compared to the FY-97 and the previous three fiscal years.

DISCUSSION: The most recent audited report on cash flow status is through August 31, 1997. The September report will be completed prior to the Board of Visitors meeting and will be used as the basis for the public presentation by the Vice President for Development.

The August report shows extraordinary progress when compared to any previous year in University history. $28.5 million has been received to date, compared to $8 million for a corresponding period in FY-97. A significant realized bequest of $9 million accounts for some of this growth. Also factored into this early success is the payment/acceleration of campaign pledge payments because of the impressive growth in the markets. The goal for FY-98 is to again exceed $100 million in cash flow, hopefully realizing another record in University of Virginia giving by increasing gifts over last years $109.3 million totals.

In the first quarter of this fiscal year, Athletics, Architecture, Darden, Law, Clinch Valley College and Rector and Visitors (undesignated/unrestricted gifts) all showed triple digit increases over last year. Although this growth is not expected to extend throughout the entire fiscal year, it bodes well for a very successful year for these units.


III.C.1-2. Campaign Progress

BACKGROUND: The capital campaign is the on-going focus of University of Virginia fundraising activities. Through August 31, 1997, the campaign has achieved 72% of its stated goals, with 60% of the campaign period elapsed.

DISCUSSION: Although there was some concern that the campaign may experience a post-kickoff letdown in terms of enthusiasm and commitments, FY-97 produced the largest growth in campaign commitments of any year other than that of the public launching. Over $123.4 million was raised during the fiscal year, an average of $10.2 million in new commitments per month. This far exceeded the $80 million base goal set for FY-97 to achieve the campaigns target of $750 million plus $50 million for Scott Stadium expansion by the year 2000. Through June 30, 1997, the campaign reported $555 million in commitments. Recent audited figures through August 31, 1997, show campaign progress at $573 million. FY-97 experienced 120 gifts of $100,000 or more and the most recent figures show that 709 commitments of $100,000 or more have been received to date. This includes exactly 100 gifts of $1 million or more.


III.C.3. Athletic Campaign

BACKGROUND: It is rare in the life of a University when institutional vision, programmatic need and donor interest converge to create a transformational opportunity. Just such a situation exists at the University of Virginia. The President's goal of creating a top ten athletic program, the obvious need to expand its football facility to remain competitive, and the thoughtful financial and estate planning of Carl Smith, one of the University's most loyal volunteers and benefactors, have come together to result in a proposed challenge grant that will provide, over time, a gift of $25 million. This commitment will provide the lead gifts to support approximately 50% of the cost of the football project.

DISCUSSION: Athletic Director Terry Holland and Athletic Capital Campaign Director Wayne Smith will review with the Board of Visitors the progress to date on the implementation of a comprehensive program to generate leadership giving and widespread support for a program to match Carl Smiths gift and to increase athletic endowment Significantly. The components of this program include:

Creating an athletic fund-raising team to address the needs of the Athletic Department including the renovation of Scott Stadium and the increase in endowment of athletic scholarships.

Enlisting and utilizing key volunteer leadership.

Identifying and cultivating a select group of athletic prospects.

Devising a plan for the marketing of premium seats either through philanthropy or seat sales/licensing.

Working in concert with the Virginia Student Aid Foundation on the endowment portion of this effort and supporting VSAFs efforts to enhance its on-going annual giving program.

Utilizing the President and the Campaign Executive Committee on a series of critical lead-gift solicitations that will define the success of this fundraising project.




Maintained by
Last Modified: Thursday, 02-Jul-2009 08:16:59 EDT
© 2000 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia