This document summarizes a presentation given by representatives from Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University on successful collaboration between their Corporate & Foundation Relations and Sponsored Projects Offices. They discuss how initially their offices worked independently but learned that collaboration leads to greater fundraising potential, more gifts and grants secured, and helping leaders understand the importance of communication between the offices. They provide examples of how their roles have different cultures and reporting structures but also share a common purpose of supporting their universities.

1. Keys to Successful Collaboration:
Corporate & Foundation Relations
and
Sponsored Projects
1

2. Santa Clara University
Margaret McCarthy
Director of Corporate & Foundation Relations
2

3. Santa Clara University
Founded in 1851, SCU is a comprehensive Jesuit, Catholic university offering its more
than 8,600 students rigorous undergraduate curricula in arts and sciences, business,
theology and engineering, plus master’s and law degrees, engineering Ph.D.s, and
graduate studies through its Jesuit School of Theology. Distinguished nationally by one
of the highest graduation rates among all U.S. master’s universities, California’s oldest
operating higher-education institution demonstrates faith-inspired values of ethics and
social justice.
3

4. Loyola Marymount University
Noelle A. Gervais
Executive Director of Development, Corporate & Foundation Relations
4

5. Loyola Marymount University
Founded in 1911, LMU is a premier Catholic university rooted in the Jesuit and Marymount
traditions. With more than 5,500 undergraduates and 3,300 graduate and law students, LMU
is the eighth-largest of the nation’s 28 Jesuit colleges and universities. LMU understands and
declares it mission to be the encouragement of learning, the education of the whole person,
the service of faith and the promotion of justice.
5

6. Why we’re collaborating
• Tales of collaboration and
cooperation between the
Development and
Sponsored Projects Offices
• Lessons learned: Some
painful, but always instructive
• Discover benefits of
collaboration over competition
6

7. Why we’re collaborating
• Maximize fundraising
potential through
collaboration
• Secure more gifts
and grants
• Help JAA leaders
understand the
importance of
communication and
collaboration
• Raise the profile and
distinctive brand of
U.S. Jesuit institutions
7

8. Sharing our experiences
• Ways we’ve
“bumped into” our
SPO colleagues
• Becoming colleagues
with a shared vision
• Show me the MONEY!
8

9. Sharing our experiences
• Let’s learn from each
other: What works
and what doesn’t?
• How has collaboration
been fostered or
thwarted on your
campus?
9

10. Our common ground
Why are Jesuit campuses worthy of support?
• Talented faculty
• Faculty/student ratio
• Ethical research
• Dedication to social justice
• Advanced facilities and
state-of-the-art labs
• Productive community
volunteer force
• Talent pool for
local employers
10

11. Our common ground
Working together, SPO and Development will…
• Secure resources
• Advance Jesuit
higher education
• Maintain outstanding
scholarship in
competitive higher
education markets
11

12. Common purpose, distinct missions
What makes us different and what unites us?
12

13. Collaboration trumps conflict because…
• Collaboration helps end turf wars
• It’s important to know who gets credit
(honoring both units’ contributions)
Collaboration = Productivity
Why? Because collaboration…
• Breaks down bottlenecks
• Limits time delays that can trap projects
• Increases solicitations and grant applications
• Shares information and empowers fundraisers
13

14. Common purpose, distinct missions
Collaboration grows when…
• Communications are
regular and honest
• We recognize the strengths
of each office
• We realize that both
offices serve distinct
campus constituents
• We understand different
reporting structures for
each office
14

15. Understanding the difference
Each office has a distinctive culture…
Development Culture
• Establish and sustain relationships
• Metrics: Fundraising, revenue goals,
performance expectations
• The business unit in academia: Goals similar to
industry or corporate cultures
15

16. Understanding the difference
SPO Culture
• Serves and supports faculty: Research, training,
public service
• Metrics: Grants awarded, funds distributed
• Customer service orientation: Faculty members’
best friend within the academic culture
16

17. Reporting structures: Development
• Division within the Development Office;
reports to VP for Advancement
• Metrics: Proposals and solicitations, proposals
submitted, number of proposals funded, number
of new donors
• Timeline: Fiscal year rather than academic year
17

18. Reporting structures: SPO
• Provost’s Office, the academic arm of campus
• Metrics: Grant and government applications, grants
funded, grant funds under management/grant funds
disbursed
• Timeline: Academic year and/or multiyear grant cycle
18

19. Primary relationships
Who and what do you know?
19

20. Development knows…
Who:
• University alumni, corporate alumni and
corporate executives
• Private, family and community foundations
• Government relations: congressional appropriations
and elected local, county, state and national
representatives
What:
• History of the University, campus facts, industry
and philanthropy trends, endowment returns
20

21. SPO knows…
Who:
• Government agencies: National Science Foundation,
National Endowment for the Humanities
• Government departments: Energy, Defense,
Homeland Security
What:
• Faculty research
• Intellectual property issues
• Human subjects
• Compliance
21

22. SCU Sponsored Projects
A view through the Sponsored Projects lens
22

23. SCU Sponsored Projects
You say “tomato” and I say…
• “CFR” = “Code of Federal Regulations”
• “Stewardship” translates into “award administration”
• “Gifts and grants” translate into “grants, cooperative
agreements and contracts”
• “Institutional commitment” translates into “cost-share”
23

24. SCU Sponsored Projects
• Combined pre- and post-award
office: Cradle-to-grave responsibilities
• Specialty: Projects with lots of
administrative “red tape”
• SPO reports to the Associate Provost
for Research Initiatives
24

25. SCU Sponsored Projects
Process
• Faculty prepare narratives
• SPO prepares budgets,
required documents; submits
Award
• SPO negotiates award, sets up
accounts, monitors expenses,
prepares financial reports
• Announces notable awards
on campus
• Contacts Development,
Marketing & Communications
25

26. SCU Sponsored Projects
SPO = Budget Guru
• What does the project really cost?
• Post-award implications
• What is the institutional
commitment?
– Covers total costs?
– Sufficient to complete the project?
• Campus resource for complex
CFR proposals
26

27. SCU Sponsored Projects
SPO Roles
• Support Faculty research
• Ensure compliance
– Honor sponsor’s terms
and conditions
– Accurate award
administration
27

28. SCU Sponsored Projects
The evolution of collaboration
• Initially, few interactions
between the offices
• Foundation requirements:
Primary contact
• Campaign directive: Establish a
relationship with Development
• Shared projects, regular
communication, effective
collaboration
28

29. SCU Sponsored Projects
• SPO doesn’t want to administer
awards unnecessarily
• If an award doesn’t meet the SPO
criteria, they’re delighted to send it
to CFR!
• SPO provides regular updates to
CFR on awards it administers that
were solicited through Development
29

30. Examples of collaboration
• Sharing a common goal
• Setting defined roles
• Communicating
time-sensitive
information
• Appreciating roles
of each unit
• Reconciling grant/gift
reports
30

31. LMU CFR and ORSP focus areas
CFR ORSP
University-wide focus Defined scope of work
• Presidential priorities • Project-specific
• Dean’s priorities • Faculty-specific
• Unrestricted in nature • Contractual in nature
31

32. Grant Award vs. Gift
Grant Award Gift
• Govt. contracts/grants and • Unrestricted purpose
selected foundation grants • Minimal requirements
– Specific deliverables • Minimal reporting
– Return of unexpected funds • Irrevocable
– Intellectual property rights
• Examples:
– Restricts publication
– Endowments
– Restricted reporting/fiscal
budgeting – Capital
– Requires sponsor approval – Scholarships
to modify budget – Professorships
– Indirect cost rate
32

33. LMU CFR and ORSP focus areas
The Gray Zone
• Interdisciplinary project
• Request For Proposal
• Management of relationship vs. project
33

34. Case Study Examples
LMU
• Life Sciences Building
• Howard Hughes Medical Institute
• W. M. Keck Foundation
SCU
• Lilly
• Luce Foundation
• Government Relations
34

35. Share your stories…
35

36. Let’s continue the collaboration
SCU
Margaret McCarthy, Director, Corporate & Foundation Relations
MMcCarthy@scu.edu • 408-554-4005
LMU
Noelle A. Gervais, Executive Director of Development
Corporate & Foundation Relations
Noelle.Gervais@lmu.edu • 310-338-7880
36