Events

The session leaders began by explaining that the session format would be as follows: (1) brief introductions from all those attending the session; (2) small-group discussion and reporting out from group members on how they would approach each of the two cases: a specific grant opportunity from an outside agency, and a programmatic priority on the participants’ campus that engages more than one unit and/or outside collaborators; (3) session leaders would then describe how their campus had responded to each case example; and (4) based on their experiences and the small-group discussions, session leaders would compile recommendations on expanding opportunities for funding through new synergies.

Participants at the session were asked to form four small groups, which would discuss the case studies and report their suggestions to the larger group. Each group was given two case studies from which to form questions and make recommendations. Groups were asked to think about and respond to the following prompts:

· What two-three recommendations would you make for how to go about responding to this call for proposals?

Participants were provided an example of a recent invitation to universities from the Ford Foundation (see Figure 1). Small groups were instructed to list their recommended strategies in responding to this challenge/opportunity.

· How institutions respond to calls from external agencies depends on the system in place for disseminating information.

· When calls for proposals require the institution to forward only one proposal, some institutions set up structures that put those interested in competition with one another while other institutions foster collaborative efforts.

· It is possible for a particular campus unit to become a change agent to encourage collaboration and information dissemination.

· University presidents/provosts can create a task force or committee to respond to specific calls for proposals, bring in external consultants to facilitate interdisciplinary responses, and merge faculty development with curricular reform, but these steps assume an institutional interest in obtaining the grant.

· The amount of money offered by the grant and/or the prestige it brings to the campus need to be sufficient to generate interest and justify the effort.

· It is advantageous to use existing a programs or centers on campus in responding to a grant possibilities connected to their missions.

· Targeting a particular group or unit on campus to respond to a grant does not negate the importance of being certain that everyone on campus has access to the information about the grant call.

Strategies used at the University of Texas at Austin in response to “Difficult Dialogues”:

Dr. Gilbert provided additional details on the Ford Foundation process, then described the strategies used by UT Austin in responding to the call (see Figure 2). About 675 universities submitted pre-proposals to Ford, and from this group approximately 136 were asked to submit full proposals. The Ford Foundation then chose twenty-six universities to receive the grant. The session leaders noted that for UT Austin, this call for proposals was seen as an opportunity to obtain a prestigious grant on a topic very important to the campus and that the money really was secondary in its motivation to put in a strong proposal. In the case of UT Austin, a program on campus directed by Dr. Gilbert, Connexus: Connections in Undergraduate Studies, had already been implementing recommendations of the Boyer Commission Report into undergraduate education. Therefore, Connexus had an infrastructure in place to bring faculty together across disciplines to work on a proposal as well as a mechanism, Forum Seminars, to teach the seminars proposed for “Difficult Dialogues.” Forum Seminars give students an interdisciplinary perspective on a current issue or topic. Although other groups on campus expressed an interest in submitting a proposal in response to the Ford grant opportunity, given the very short time line, Connexus and Dr. Gilbert were cleared by the president to prepare the proposal because they already had resources and personnel they could pull together quickly.

The next step in putting forth a proposal for the grant was for Dr. Gilbert to meet with the Coordinator of the Bridging Disciplines Programs within Connexus as well as with key faculty on campus to discuss how they could build on the existing infrastructure of the Forum Seminars. In the end, UT Austin proposed the creation of four courses as well as special TA training that would be developed in collaboration with a lead faculty member, a team of professors, an assessment unit on campus, and an external inter-group dialogue consultant. Overall, the process was successful because of the infrastructure in place and the fact that Dr. Gilbert, then Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at UT Austin, could quickly pull together key players on campus. In addition, Dr. Gilbert had been working with Ms. Giebink for some time and was able to involve her in the discussions and planning right from the beginning and enlist her assistance in identifying additional funding sources once the Ford grant was secured.

Case #1: Summary of process followed at UT Austen

The Ford Foundation issued a call for “Difficult Dialogues” proposals to promote open scholarly inquiry, academic freedom and respect for different cultures and beliefs.

In response to the Ford Foundation’s initial call, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies convened a small group of faculty and administrators to discuss the importance of the Difficult Dialogues initiative for our campus and the possibility of building on the innovative, cross-disciplinary teaching formats developed in Connexus: Connections in Undergraduate Studies. An initiative of the Office of the Executive VP and Provost, Connexus was directed by this vice provost.

Invited to the initial meeting were faculty and professional staff familiar with the Connexus programs as well as faculty who teach in areas central to promoting academic freedom and pluralism on campus. The group included professors from the departments of sociology, anthropology, Middle Eastern Studies, English, and the Law School; the Director of Foundation Relations; and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. The members of this core group represented key units on campus in addition to their home academic departments, including the Office of the Executive VP and Provost, the Dean’s Office in Liberal Arts, the Dean of Student’s Office, the Population Research Center, the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies, the Religious Studies Program, the Bridging Disciplines Program of Connexus, and the Office of the Vice President for Development.

The Ford Foundation opportunity was discussed extensively in meetings of this group. Specific individuals were asked to write sections of the proposal, and a draft document was developed, shared, and refined. The process was coordinated from start to finish by the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies.

Figure 2. Summary of the process used by UT Austin in responding to Case Study #1

Further Discussion and Questions from the group regarding UT Austin’s response to Case Study #1:

A: Lead faculty would receive one month of summer salary in order to participate in preparation and training for the project. Each participating faculty member would get a stipend for a summer workshop, then another stipend when they led the class. The Provost’s office paid for the Teaching Assistants. Dr. Gilbert also negotiated with each of the lead faculty’s department chairs to ensure that these courses would count as part of the faculty member's regular teaching load. Since the grant is for a period of two years, each lead faculty member would teach this course of fifty students twice during the grant period.

A: The University of Texas at Austin received a site visit from the Ford Foundation before Dr. Gilbert’s team began implementing their proposal, and sustainability was mentioned as one of the strengths of the proposal. UT Austin already had the infrastructure in place through Connexus to offer the new courses, and already offered team-type courses similar to those proposed for “Difficult Dialogues.” In addition, all of the “Difficult Dialogues” courses can fulfill an area requirement for the undergraduate curriculum at UT Austin, so continuing to teach these courses does not require additional funding. The current lead faculty already have ideas of how to make offering the courses less time-intensive for faculty who will teach the courses in the future. One proposed change is to use a smaller team of faculty collaborating across disciplines for each course. Currently the lead faculty member works with a team of eight to ten faculty members from across campus.

Q: How important was the money for making it happen on your campus? Was the money an important incentive to securing faculty to teach it?

A: The Ford Foundation opportunity was a catalyst for making the program happen at UT, but the money was not as important as the challenge itself. The process was very competitive, and that is what drove UT Austin to prepare a strong proposal and ultimately to succeed in getting the grant. The faculty knew that this grant was important as well as prestigious for the University. The recognition the faculty and the University would gain as a result of this grant was seen as important.

Case Study #2: Addressing a Priority on your Campus that Engages More than One Unit and/or Outside Collaborators:

Participants were provided an example of a collaborative model for a math/science teacher preparation program (see Figure 3). Small groups were instructed to list their recommended strategies to raise funds for this program:

Your university is developing an innovative math/science teacher preparation program that will be implemented as a partnership between your colleges of Natural Sciences and Education. The program holds great promise to produce highly qualified, certified, and sought-after math and science teachers, addressing a critical shortage of professionals in these fields. In fact, your aspirations for the program are that it will serve as a national model for increasing the quantity and quality of math/science teachers at the secondary level, and that it might be replicated at universities across the state and nation.

Critical elements of the model include early and intensive field experience in local schools, leadership by master and mentor teachers, inquiry-based methods in specially-designed undergraduate research and paid internships that engage university students with local nonprofits in outreach and informal science teaching. Instructional funds from the partner colleges will support faculty salaries, but private funding is needed for such elements as stipends for mentor teachers in the cooperating schools, internships for students, and eventually, costs related to replication of the model at other universities.

This program is a high priority for the deans of both participating colleges and for the president of the university. The intent is not only to create a model teacher preparation program, but also to help address the challenge raised in the recent National Academy of Science report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” which emphasizes that

America

must strengthen its technological competitiveness and improve math and science education at all levels. How can you raise the necessary funding to ensure that this important program is successfully implemented and sustainable/replicable in coming years?

· How do institutions make teacher preparation programs ‘sexy enough to sell’?

· Involve business and industry in the search for funding as well as private foundations that support local schools. Invite corporations to provide funds to support a named teacher award or internship. Solicit endowments from individuals or groups that will sustain the initiative.

· Work with existing agencies like the Department of Education, and existing relationships between the university and the K-12 community to identify funding sources.

· Target university alumni who have teaching connections to contribute to a program such as this.

· Campus politics must be considered in determining who talks to whom and in what order about funding the proposed program.

· When institutions create programs that aim to serve as models for other institutions, they need to consider local issues as well as how to acquire funding from state legislatures.

· Provide opportunities for existing teachers to return to the university to upgrade their skills by providing opportunities for participating teachers to pursue Master’s degrees.

· Since small schools sometimes have trouble recruiting and retaining faculty, consider extending this project by sending PhD students to teach at local small universities or community colleges to see if they really want to teach for a career. This strategy could build a connection with local institutions that might be feeder schools for the large university’s teaching programs.

Ms. Giebink explained the UTeach model developed at the University of Texas through a partnership between the College of Natural Sciences and the College of Education (see Figure 4 for summary). It was started in 1997, when the Dean of the College of Natural Sciences brought in master teachers from local schools to conceptualize how a model math/science teacher preparation program should work. The two colleges also partnered with the Austin Independent School District in the development of UTeach. Private funds were needed for non-instructional elements of the program such as stipends for mentor teachers in AISD, scholarships for UTeach students, and development of an initial course that would expose students to teaching as early as the freshman year.

Ms. Giebink noted that the University of Texas at Austin used many of the fundraising approaches that were suggested in the small group discussions (see Figure 4 for summary of these efforts). The first major request on behalf of UTeach was to the Sid Richardson Foundation in Ft. Worth, Texas, which focused on improving education statewide, was large enough to provide significant support, and was open to partnership opportunities. The Richardson Foundation and other funding sources were especially interested in the collaborative efforts between the College of Natural Sciences, the College of Education and the local school district.

Case #2: Fundraising for UTeach

UTeach is an innovative and highly successful math and science teacher preparation program at The University of Texas at Austin that represents an ongoing partnership between the College of Natural Sciences and the College of Education. UTeach has grown from a modest pilot project with 28 students in 1997 to a robust and growing program with a current enrollment of around 450 students. The program graduates more than 70 highly qualified, certified, and sought-after math and science teachers each year.

UTeach represents collaboration on many levels—not only internally between two UT Austin colleges, but also with local schools (for field placements) and with local nonprofits (for student internships). Further, because of its success and the national spotlight that has been turned on UTeach, universities across the state and nation have expressed interest in collaborating with UT to implement the model.

All these partnerships have made the program attractive to a broad range of funders, including foundations, corporations, government, and individuals. Early in the development of UTeach, we approached a major Texas foundation (not in Austin) that focuses on improving K-12 education statewide, and we received major support over three years. Once the program was firmly established, another large Texas foundation with statewide range provided a significant grant. Austin-area foundations began supporting UTeach’s involvement in local schools as well as internships that benefit community nonprofits through the involvement of UTeach students. More recently, national funders have begun to see the potential broader impact of the program and are supporting the UTeach Institute, which was recently established to provide the leadership and support system to replicate UTeach at other institutions.

In addition to the compelling collaborative elements, high-level commitment to the program has also has been a major factor in ensuring continuing support for UTeach. The program’s biggest champion is the Dean of the College of Natural Sciences, who promotes UTeach at every opportunity (e.g., advisory council meetings, newsletters, public events, etc.) and makes it a priority for fundraising in the College. She has spearheaded an effort to create a UTeach endowment of $12 million, which is halfway to completion, mostly through gifts from individuals. Naming opportunities are offered to endowment-level donors, who see in UTeach a program with a successful track record that is addressing an important and ongoing challenge.

Further Discussion and Questions from the group regarding UT Austen’s response to Case Study #2:

Q: Did The Sid Richardson Foundation put out calls? How did you know to ask them for funding?

A: Ms. Giebink explained that the Sid Richardson Foundation does not put out calls for proposals. However, the foundation was well known to UT Development as a long-time friend of the University, and the executive director of the foundation was also acquainted with several of the deans on campus. In the 1980s, the Richardson Foundation had provided major support for UT Austin’s Community College Leadership Program and other university priorities, and this series of positive experiences had laid the groundwork for discussions about UTeach. After UTeach had been underway for a few years and had established a successful track record, other Texas foundations (for example, the Houston Endowment) as well as corporations (e.g., AT&T, ExxonMobil) and government entities (NSF, TEA) provided additional funding to the program. Eventually, Austin-area foundations began to support UTeach as they witnessed its direct benefits to the local community.

Q: How did your office get involved with this program? Did the proposal go straight to the Development Office?

A: Ms. Giebink explained that, at UT Austin, the Development Office works closely with colleges and schools and that the College of Natural Sciences’ dean and development director engaged the central Development Office in helping to raise funds for UTeach.

Q: In your role at the University, did you point people where to go or did you actually contact outside agencies yourself?

A: It depends on who has the strongest relationship with the outside funding source. In the case of the Sid Richardson Foundation, both Ms. Giebink and the Dean of Natural Sciences knew the foundation’s executive director, and the Dean made the first approach. In the case of the Houston Endowment, Ms. Giebink had a close relationship with the foundation and promoted UTeach to the program officer. Fundraising for UTeach has been very much a collaborative effort built on the strength of the program and the high priority placed on it by university leadership.

A: Yes, they all have some development presence. In the case of the College of Natural Sciences, Ms. Giebink worked closely with the College’s development director by sharing drafts and proposals back and forth, working together to prepare cover letters from the dean or president, etc. At UT Austin, these kinds of collaborations between central Development and the colleges/schools happen in a number of different ways.

Q: Is it typical to get people to really work together at the development state of a project? Who claims the money when it comes in?

A: Ms. Giebink noted that in the cases where she works with people from different colleges and schools, there is a prospect management system in place at UT Austin to show collaboration on projects. With this model, information can be shared electronically through the system.

Q: How do you show it? Who gets credit for different revenues? Is there all this squabbling over percentage of money or does everyone get full credit when they collaborate?

A: Generally speaking, external funding comes into the university through one of two avenues: either through the Development Office (as a gift) or through the Office of Sponsored Projects (as restricted funding with deliverables expected). Credit for funding that is received as a gift accrues to the development officer(s) who is (are) involved in the cultivation and solicitation, and multiple officers can be acknowledged through the electronic gift-tracking system. When funding comes in through the Office of Sponsored Projects, it is true that overhead return and departmental credit sometimes become issues, particularly on interdisciplinary grants.

A: The budget for UTeach is about $1.7 million per year. Much of this is funded through the university’s instructional budget; however, as mentioned, non-instructional aspects of the program such as teacher mentorships and student internships must be supported through private sources. UT Austin is now building an endowment, mostly based on donations from individuals, to ensure sustainability of the program.

A: No, although some foundations had very specific ideas about how they wanted their funds to be directed, and it was important to ensure that funders’ interests were consistent with the mission of the program. In one example, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation gave funds specifically to create the Dell Center for New Teacher Success aimed at mentoring UTeach graduates in the schools. While the gift was important and much appreciated, the foundation placed a greater emphasis than anticipated on data collection and detailed accountability, which added significantly to the work of the project.

1. Know your university. Develop a broad understanding of university programs and resources.

2. Build on established university goals/initiatives. The President/Provost often sets goals that are big enough to be inclusive (e.g., social justice, Latin America). These initiatives often create and support opportunities to collaborate across campus.

3. Develop working relationships. Identify and connect point persons in a few different central offices that have overlapping functions (e.g., Development Office, Provost’s Office, VP for Research, etc.). These individuals must know each other and see each other as resources.

4. Be proactive. Stay in good contact with foundations and with campus priorities.

5. Engage lots of people across campus. The point persons are critical in bringing people together for a current initiative and for laying the foundation for future opportunities.

6. Collaborate internally. Develop a fair and transparent process for vetting funding opportunities that may be of interest to more than one unit. The point persons have an important role in making opportunities widely known and in coordinating pre-proposals as needed.

7. Know how to navigate the bureaucracy at your institution. Examples include getting necessary approvals, obtaining letters from the president, facilitating the process with sponsored projects, etc.

1. Facilitate more conversations regarding funding at future Reinvention Center conferences.

2. Focus on development as a theme for a future conference. This may be structured by having a plenary speaker speak on a grand scale that may be applicable to all participants, then offer breakout sessions that may focus on specific topics such as: writing successful proposals; educating donors on the importance of undergraduate research; providing incentives for collaboration; understanding and managing overhead; fostering economic development in certain states or regions.







Our Goals Who We Are Events Resources Spotlight Reinventions Boyer Report Brochure Networks Studies Home




	Conference Proceedings Index of Speakers and Session Leaders Biographical Statements

Expanding Opportunities for Funding Through New Synergies