Rutgers surpasses $1 billion goal

[retired711]

That's what President Barchi says in an e-mail I just received. There were 130,000 donors. About 70,000 were alums, so we're obviously attracting a lot of non-alum support. A good deal of the money will go to endowing scholarships and faculty chairs. There are details in the Rutgers Today story I am linking.



This post was edited on 1/22 8:56 AM by camdenlawprof

fund-raising goal

 

[srru86]

Star Ledger
Rutgers reaches record $1B fundraising goal

 

[derleider]

Obviously they were going to get to the billion at some point and they weren't going to end the campaign until they did. I wonder how the seven years compares to RUs initial projections, obviously taking into consideration that the campaign started basically right as the global economy collapsed.

 

[TonyLieske]

I am pleasantly surprised with how much went to the endowment. I realize how helpful donations for operational and capital spending can, but IMHO the endowment donations will have the most lasting impact.

 

[RU-ROCS]

Originally posted by derleider:
Obviously they were going to get to the billion at some point and they weren't going to end the campaign until they did. I wonder how the seven years compares to RUs initial projections, obviously taking into consideration that the campaign started basically right as the global economy collapsed.

I'm not totally sure, but I seem to recall the plan was inititally 5 years. It took 7. But, either way, I say good job. Since 2008, unless you have a bevy of multimillionaire donors, fundraising has to have become more difficult, even among corporate donors.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by RU-ROCS:

Originally posted by derleider:
Obviously they were going to get to the billion at some point and they weren't going to end the campaign until they did. I wonder how the seven years compares to RUs initial projections, obviously taking into consideration that the campaign started basically right as the global economy collapsed.

I'm not totally sure, but I seem to recall the plan was inititally 5 years. It took 7. But, either way, I say good job. Since 2008, unless you have a bevy of multimillionaire donors, fundraising has to have become more difficult, even among corporate donors.

Its certainly a good job. Just curious more than anything. If it was originally fivce and it took 7, including basically two of the worst years for the US economy since the 30s (at least in the 80s recession, you could count on the high inflation increasing the value of the existing holdings), then thats pretty good.

Either way - we need all the money we can get however long it takes to get it. Now time to start planning the $2 billion campaign.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
That's what President Barchi says in an e-mail I just received. There were 130,000 donors. About 70,000 were alums, so we're obviously attracting a lot of non-alum support. A good deal of the money will go to endowing scholarships and faculty chairs. There are details in the Rutgers Today story I am linking.

I got it too.

Of the total it looks like $306M (+/- a few M) is earmarked for building "things" on campus. B1G is mentioned in this part under "athletic support" at end of the email.

This jibes with what I heard in the Fall about a substantial amount from the campaign would be used to prime the pump for facility upgrades in Athletics.

 

[RU MAN]

This is great news indeed! What impressed me was not just the amount, but the fact that out of 130,000 donors (I was one of them) at least 60,000 were non-alums. I find that to be very positive going forward and can only help as our B1G athletics grow along with our academics and research.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by RU MAN:
This is great news indeed! What impressed me was not just the amount, but the fact that out of 130,000 donors (I was one of them) at least 60,000 were non-alums. I find that to be very positive going forward and can only help as our B1G athletics grow along with our academics and research.

That to me is the biggest news. I mean obviously we were eventually going to reach the $1 billion. But the fact that so many non-alums gave money. I mean its such a large number, I almost suspect its a typo or some kind of slight of hand - spouses of alums, alums who just didnt identify as alums, etc..

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by RU-ROCS:

Originally posted by derleider:
Obviously they were going to get to the billion at some point and they weren't going to end the campaign until they did. I wonder how the seven years compares to RUs initial projections, obviously taking into consideration that the campaign started basically right as the global economy collapsed.

I'm not totally sure, but I seem to recall the plan was inititally 5 years. It took 7. But, either way, I say good job. Since 2008, unless you have a bevy of multimillionaire donors, fundraising has to have become more difficult, even among corporate donors.

Its certainly a good job. Just curious more than anything. If it was originally fivce and it took 7, including basically two of the worst years for the US economy since the 30s (at least in the 80s recession, you could count on the high inflation increasing the value of the existing holdings), then thats pretty good.

Either way - we need all the money we can get however long it takes to get it. Now time to start planning the $2 billion campaign.

Cynical much?

The campaign started in mid-2007 with a 3 year "quiet period". It was publicly announced in Sept 2010, and at that time it was indicated that it was a 7-year campaign through the end of 2014. I think there is some confusion because the first 3 years were a "quiet period", the public part of the campaign was only about 4 years, and the Star-Ledger thought that 7 minus 3 equals 5 and indicated that the public period would be 5 years. But the original plan was to start in 2007, announce in 2010 and conclude at the end of 2014. (link)

So it appears that the campaign finished on time and exceeded its goal.

 

[retired711]

What was the logic behind having a "quiet period?" Was it that some donors won't give if there is a campaign to get them to donate?

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Quiet periods are standard for campaigns in higher Ed. The quiet phase is the time to go to the closest friends alumni etc and get them to commit. The idea is that you want them to demonstrate to their peers, fellow alumni etc that you are on board and to give real strong momentum going into the public phase. When you announce the campaign publicly you want to be able to announce that you have a substantial percentage already committed. It provides momentum and confidence in the efforts of the institution.

This post was edited on 1/22 5:39 PM by Scarlet Pride

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:
Quiet periods are standard for campaigns in higher Ed. The quiet phase is the time to go to the closest friends alumni etc and get them to commit. The idea is that you want them to demonstrate to their peers, fellow alumni etc that you are on board and to give real strong momentum going into the public phase. When you announce the campaign publicly you want to be able to announce that you have a substantial percentage already committed. It provides momentum and confidence in the efforts of the institution.

This post was edited on 1/22 5:39 PM by Scarlet Pride

Thanks!

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by RU-ROCS:

Originally posted by derleider:
Obviously they were going to get to the billion at some point and they weren't going to end the campaign until they did. I wonder how the seven years compares to RUs initial projections, obviously taking into consideration that the campaign started basically right as the global economy collapsed.

I'm not totally sure, but I seem to recall the plan was inititally 5 years. It took 7. But, either way, I say good job. Since 2008, unless you have a bevy of multimillionaire donors, fundraising has to have become more difficult, even among corporate donors.

Its certainly a good job. Just curious more than anything. If it was originally fivce and it took 7, including basically two of the worst years for the US economy since the 30s (at least in the 80s recession, you could count on the high inflation increasing the value of the existing holdings), then thats pretty good.

Either way - we need all the money we can get however long it takes to get it. Now time to start planning the $2 billion campaign.

Cynical much?

The campaign started in mid-2007 with a 3 year "quiet period". It was publicly announced in Sept 2010, and at that time it was indicated that it was a 7-year campaign through the end of 2014. I think there is some confusion because the first 3 years were a "quiet period", the public part of the campaign was only about 4 years, and the Star-Ledger thought that 7 minus 3 equals 5 and indicated that the public period would be 5 years. But the original plan was to start in 2007, announce in 2010 and conclude at the end of 2014. (link)

So it appears that the campaign finished on time and exceeded its goal.

Then thats even better. I was really just curious. Like I said - eventually the campaign would end - we would get $1 billion at some point and call it a day. The fact that we were able to do so on schedule despite a huge financial crisis to kick the whole thing off is great news.