Trends in Corporate and Foundation Relations

Marc Gibson, Director of Corporate Relations

Sally Morris, Director of Foundation Relations

CFR

Trends in Foundation Relations

FOUNDATIONRELATIONS

•

Significant Changes within Last 10 Years

Largest Foundations created Rise and Takeover of the

Strategic Foundation (vs. Learned or Family)

Staffing shifts – hiring experts Globalization of Philanthropy

Current Foundation Snapshot

Recession Impact Limited recovery but giving flat

in 2011 Maintained these giving levels in

2012, no significant increases but no significant reductions

2013 Funding Outlook – Modest Growth

Short Term Trends

Specific project based funding, fewer multi-year awards

Shorter, More Powerful Proposals Connections and Content More carefully targeted

proposals International and Consortia College Access and College

Success

Long Term Trends

Giving Pledge – Sunsetting Transparency – The Reporting

Commitment www.glasspockets.org.

Venture Philanthropy/Entrepreneurial Mindsets

What can I do to attract foundation funding?

Foundation work is often faculty-driven

Who’s doing the best, most innovative work? Faculty Connections?

Service on boards, committees, participating in conferences

Applying to RFPs Working with Development -

networking

Trends in Corporate Relations

CORPORATECONNECT and COLLABORATE

Entry Points

Every office on campus that works with corporations

Alumni Boards/Committees Faculty Students

TREND 1

“Gifting vs. Investing”– Gift = company gives $$ with ‘no

strings’ attached. Little to no expectations.

– Investment = “how does this ‘gift’ help my company achieve its goals?”

“Companies no longer consider themselves to be simply ‘donors’ to academia, they consider themselves to be investors and business partners, where knowledge creation and transfer is a significant part of the equation.”

Holistic Model Approach– Research– Recruiting / Future Employees–New Technologies / Tech Transfer– Employee Training / Executive

Education– Joint Govt. Proposals– Public Relations– Company Match

TREND 2

“Now that companies engage research universities on an enterprise, rather than a philanthropic basis, they are focusing their interactions on those universities that provide strategic benefits.”

TREND 3

Shift in Philosophies– Mergers & Acquisitions have constricted

giving– Legislation has increased corporate

accountability– Corporate mentality that unrestricted gifts

provide little accountability, few measurable results, and less productive forms of recognition

– Decrease in funding to UG and Graduate education

– Branding

“In an environment of receding economies, deregulation, global competition, ever-changing tax codes, and increased financial accountability, corporate philanthropy to academia has been in transition from an ad hoc activity to a long-term business strategy. ”

TREND 4

“The HP Relationship Continuum shows a comprehensive academic-industry approach. HP, like most companies, is focused on developing strategic partnerships that add value to the company. As the company builds trust with the university and the relationship deepens, more engagement opportunities arise. ”

“Strategic Partnership”

TREND 5

Shift in University Relations Offices– Decrease number of ‘partner’

institutions– Less is More Concept–Master Agreements– Rankings– Global Relationships

“A true partnership includes shared values, goals and benefits.”

TREND 6

Tell the “Story”–We are ALL university ambassadors–How does your work impact the Top-

25?–What separates you from everyone

else?

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Corporate giving has been redefined over the past 5-10 years.

Corporations are more strategic. Corporations know where the

best work is being done and align themselves with those leaders.

What separates UT from every other institution?