online fundraising at arl libraries

Online Fundraising at ARL Librariesby Brenda L. Hazard

This study assesses the practiceof online fundraising on ARLlibrary Web sites. Sites were

examined for the appearanceof seven specific fundraising

and development-relatedelements. The results indicate

that the placement of links andthe descriptors used may be

more important than anextensive, feature-laden site.

Brenda L. Hazard is Head, Media,Microforms, Periodicals, Reserves,

University Library, University at Albany,SUNY, Albany, New York 12222

�[email protected]�.

In 1992, the Association of ResearchLibraries (ARL) convened its 120th

membership meeting with a programtheme entitled “The Leadership Role inLibrary Fund Raising.” ARL President-Elect Susan Nutter opened the session bystating, “Fund raising can no longer be anafterthought or a tangential activity la-beled as a non-library function. Raisingfunds will be imperative to the growthand maintenance of first-rate libraries. Inthe coming decades fund raising will lit-erally make the difference between medi-ocrity and excellence for many of ourlibraries.”1 A decade later, the WorldWide Web has transformed how librariesprovide access to information.2 Libraries’Web sites are the virtual front doors tocollections and services. At a growingnumber of institutions, Web-based accessand fundraising are on convergent paths:their intersection is online fundraising.Adam Corson-Finnerty, online fundrais-ing pioneer at the University of Pennsyl-vania Library, predicts, “As more andmore people use the Internet to make pur-chases and gather information, so willthey also use the net to make donations.”3

The literature on academic libraryfundraising from the past decade docu-ments growth in the adoption and practiceof a full range of strategies, from annualgiving and endowments to capital cam-paigns and major challenge grants.4 Sev-eral recent studies examine the extent oftraditional fundraising practice. In 1991,Mary Jo Lynch reported over half of thedoctorate-granting institutions surveyedwere involved in some kind of fundrais-ing.5 In a 1992 survey on management ofscarce resources, 77 ARL university li-braries in the United States reported seek-ing outside funds, gifts, and grants, while29 of 77 (38%) indicated they “devel-op[ed] a foundation affiliated with thelibrary/university” for fundraising pur-poses.6 In 1994, Terry Stephen Latourfound that 66% of academic libraries sur-

veyed engage in fundraising activities,with Carnegie research libraries morelikely to participate.7

In 1992, ARL conducted a surveyaimed at determining the extent of devel-opment and fundraising activities amongits members. Eighty-seven members re-sponded, but published results are unclearregarding the number who engaged in andreported the actual practice.8 The sameyear, ARL partnered with DORAL (De-velopment Officers of Research Aca-demic Libraries) to offer professionalfundraising seminars through its Office ofManagement Study.9–10 In 1998, ARLmembers responded to separate surveyson Web page development and on publicrelations and marketing. In the survey onWeb page development, 29 libraries (43%of responding institutions) reported theinclusion of unspecified “information re-lated to library fund raising” on theirhomepage.11 This is the first known quan-titative documentation of online libraryfundraising practice. The stated goal ofthe second survey was “to delineate thegrowing relationship between marketingand public relations and library fund-ing.”12 Forty-two libraries (78% of re-sponding institutions) indicated that mar-keting and public relations activities were“very important” or “important.” EvelynOrtiz Smykla concluded “what one li-brary calls marketing, another calls publicrelations, and both call development. . .[A]ll three . . . serve common goals:fundraising and heightening awarenessof library services.”13 Although the sur-veys’ responding samples were notidentical, if considered as general trendsamong ARL members, there was a dis-crepancy between libraries’ inclusion offundraising information on their Websites (43% reported by Yaping PeterLiu) and the reported value of funding-related activity to the library (78% re-ported by Smykla).

8 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 29, Number 1, pages 8–15

“[the prior literature shows]there was a discrepancy

between libraries’ inclusion offundraising information on

their Web sites (43% reportedby Yaping Peter Liu) and thereported value of funding-

related activity to the library(78% reported by Smykla).”

Since 1998 when the two ARL surveyswere gathered, the literature documentsthe beginnings of online library fundrais-ing activity.14–15 Recent forays by ARLmembers as well as other libraries includedonor acknowledgment, virtual tours re-lated to active capital campaigns, and on-line donations.16–18 Informal discussionof fledgling activities appears in the ar-chives of LIBDEV,19 the electronic dis-cussion list of ALADN (Academic Li-brary Advancement and DevelopmentNetwork).20–21 The purpose of this studywas to determine the state of online fund-raising practice on ARL library sites, theplacement of fundraising activity withinthe sites’ hierarchy, and the presence ofspecific fundraising elements related toconstituency development, solicitation,direct online giving, and donor acknowl-edgment. The results reflect the matura-tion of fundraising as a comprehensivepractice at ARL libraries.

PROCEDURES

The population consisted of the Web sitesof 99 U.S. university ARL members.Only the U.S. university library memberswere included, because of their docu-mented participation in fundraising withinthis sample and similarities in higher ed-ucation financial environments.22–23

The author created a checklist (see Ap-pendix) to collect data from each libraryWeb site, capturing placement of fund-raising links and activities found.24 Dur-ing June 2001, she examined each siteusing the URL indexed on the ARL list ofmembers at www.arl.org/members/. Websites of specific libraries within a univer-sity library system (e.g., Cornell’s MannLibrary) were not examined individuallyunless the primary URL provided on theARL member list had no fundraisinglinks.

The checklist depended upon the fol-lowing definitions:

● Inclusion: Appearance of specificfundraising elements (see below) deter-mined inclusion of fundraising activityon a given site. Sites that linked only toa general university-wide developmentsite did not qualify as having libraryfundraising activity.

● Placement: The topmost appearance ofthe first fundraising link within the sitestructure hierarchy determined theplacement value.25 A site with a fund-raising-related link located on the mainpage ranked level 0; sites with fundrais-ing links one link away from the mainpage ranked level 1, and so on. Effortsto identify fundraising links extendedthrough level 3.

● Pathway: The succession of links fromthe main page to the first fundraisinglink determined the pathway.

● Extent: Each site was assigned an or-dinal number with a minimum value of1 and maximum value of 7, dependingon the number of the seven predictedfundraising elements (see below) iden-tified on the site.

● Friends page: Specific information re-lated to a group of individuals whosemission included fundraising for the ac-ademic library identified a friends page.Friends, associates, or other synonymsidentified this element. Friends pagesthat focused solely on social activitiesor attaining borrowing privileges didnot qualify for inclusion.

● Development page: Instructions formaking donations that appeared outsidethe context of a friends group comprised adevelopment page. The title generally in-cluded development or giving or a syn-onym. Additional predicted content in-cluded naming opportunities, lists ofcurrent endowments, and giving levels.The page appeared separate from (al-though possibly linked to) a friends site.Public relations pages did not qualify.

● E-mail contact: An e-mail address or�mailto:� link to an individual (namedor identified by generic title) responsi-ble for friends or development activityrated as e-mail contact. Pages with onlytraditional contact information (address,phone) did not qualify.

● Donor recognition: Information iden-tifying a donor and providing detaileddescription of the gift and its purposecomprised donor recognition. A simplelist of donors or endowments did notmeet the criteria for donor recognition.

● Interactive forms: A format allowingthe user to fill in required and optionalfields online and to automatically sub-

mit electronically to a predefined recip-ient comprised interactive forms. Formsfor joining friends group, contacting de-velopment personnel, or subscribing toa public relations newsletter/update ser-vice qualified. Forms with the purposeof allowing a user to receive updatesabout new resources such as databasesor books were not included becausetheir purpose was not development re-lated.

● Secure donation forms: A library Webpage specifically designed for the userto provide a credit card number to makean online contribution to the library orto the university counted as a securedonation form.

● Web events: Inducements to a site thathad some direct connection to fundrais-ing activity counted as Web events. Ex-amples include library stores, auctions,online games or contests, scheduledchats on topics related to development(such capital campaigns or develop-ment of digital library resources withinherent funding needs), or virtual toursof planned facilities.

FINDINGS

“Of the 99 Web sites, 67 hadsites for fundraising and 32 did

not.”

Of the 99 Web sites, 67 had sites forfundraising and 32 did not. Forty-five ofthe 67 libraries are from public institu-tions and the remaining 22 are private. Afull list of library fundraising sites identi-fied is available.26

Determining Placement and Pathway

Placement, or appearance of the top-most link within the site structure, varied.64.1% of the sites (n � 43) had placementvalues at level 0 (on the main page), while26.9% had placement at level 1. Thus,91.0% of the targeted sites placed fund-raising activity in the top two levels oftheir Web site. The remaining 9.0% (n �6) of the sites placed fundraising activitylower in the site structure, in an arrange-ment more typical of a library’s organiza-tional chart.

Friends was the keyword in the linkwith the highest placement for 36 of the67 sites. Give or Giving was second in

January 2003 9

frequency, appearing on 15 sites. Otherterms included development, associates,support, advancement, and donor.

Placement beyond level 0 requires thatthe user deliberately seek or serendipi-tously discover fundraising information.Figure 1) illustrates the pathway, or suc-cession of links, for the 24 libraries thatincluded development activity on level 1or lower. Nine libraries included fundrais-ing activity at level 1 from a page titledLibrary Information or About the Library.Otherwise, there is no consistency in the

pathway leading users to fundraising in-formation.

Identifying Fundraising Elements

An examination of the frequency ofeach of the seven identified fundraisingelements follows:

● E-mail contact for friends or develop-ment personnel appeared on 88% of thesites. In addition to the e-mail link,most sites included name, title, and ad-dress of staff.

“Friends pages occurred on69% of the sites.”

● Friends pages occurred on 69% of thesites. Generally the friends page was themost highly placed page for libraryfundraising information (40 sites wereidentified with initial link names in-cluding friends or associates. A friendspage generally consisted of one to 10links to common elements includingmission statement, events calendar,

Figure 1Pathway for Links with Placement > Level 0

10 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

newsletters, benefits, board members,membership levels, and printable mem-bership forms. Both esthetic quality andtimeliness of friends information variedwidely across the sample; this was un-expected given that libraries are un-likely to mail unattractive or dated printmaterial to potential donors.

● Development pages appeared on 31(46%) sites. Page titles generally in-cluded keywords such as give, giving,and development. Twenty-five of allsites with fundraising activity gave theirdevelopment page the highest place-ment. Ten of the sites with developmentpages also included a separate friendspage; the remaining 21 sites did notinclude a friends page. Only nine librar-ies examined included university devel-opment or alumni links within the li-brary development page. Reciprocallinks between institutional and librarydevelopment pages are mutually bene-ficial and were less frequent than ex-pected.27

● Eighteen sites (27%) included donorrecognition in the form of specificpages dedicated to a particular donorand a gift. Donor recognition sites weregenerally above average in design andartistic quality.

● Secure donation forms appeared on 18(27%) sites. Five of these pages ac-cepted library donations exclusively;five pages linked to university onlinegiving pages with specific instructionson selecting library-designated funds;the remaining eight sites led to a uni-versity online giving page with no spe-cific instructions on library giving.

● Interactive forms were less commonthan expected, appearing on only 19%of sites with Web activity. Some formsallowed users to join the friends group,others to indicate interest in follow-upe-mail and/or newsletters, and otherforms were to indicate interest in mak-ing a contribution. Forms varied incomplexity, from brief formats withtwo required fields (name and e-mailaddress) to complex forms with a vari-ety of free-text comment fields. Thediscrepancy between the number ofsites that include an e-mail link (88%)and those that include an interactiveform (19%) is surprising, especially be-cause forms facilitate proper addressingof e-mail and solicit desired input.

● Eight sites, or 12% included a Webevent. Five of the events were onlinestores; two were online auctions, andone was a game related to a particular

fundraising event. Sites with Webevents had high placement (7 of 8 atlevel 0; 1 at level 1).

LESSONS TO CONSIDER

In addition to traditional text-based links,a variety of other methods placed fund-raising information on the library’s mainpage. Both University of MassachusettsLibraries28 and Brown University Li-brary29 used javascript-based techniquesto display fundraising links when the userscrolls over a portion of the screen (thesesites were given placements of level 0because no click was required to find theinformation). University of Georgia Li-braries30 included fundraising informa-tion on the frequently asked questionsdrop-down menu normally reserved formundane circulation questions (e.g., Howdo I make a donation?). Several institu-tions used “What’s New” banner space tohighlight friends activities and to createadditional pathways to friends pages;University of Nebraska-Lincoln Librar-ies31 and Texas Tech University Librar-ies32 used this feature effectively. EmoryUniversity Libraries33 had the most un-usual approach: a link to a printablealumni survey that stressed the library’srole in lifelong learning and providedcheck-off areas for giving. Posting thelogo for the friends group was anothermethod of including development-relatedinformation on the prime real estate of themain page; University of Arizona Li-brary34 and Oklahoma State UniversityLibrary35 used this approach.

Four libraries (Brown University,36 Uni-versity of California—Berkeley,37 Univer-sity of Colorado,38 and University of Mary-land39 included two links at topmostplacement, one to a friends page and theother to a development page. Until userbehavior studies determine which of thesetwo links leads to more effective fundrais-ing results, other libraries may want toadopt the model of offering various path-ways to their fundraising Web pages.

Pathways

“The pathway to a libraryfundraising site is critical:

‘[T]he best charitable pathwayis always the shortest.’ ”

The pathway to a library fundraisingsite is critical: “[T]he best charitable path-

way is always the shortest.”40 Helping theuser intuitively and successfully navigatea multilinked path is a challenge. Asshown in Figure 1, the sample librariesused no consistent pathway, making itdifficult for the user to intuit a logicalpath.

Aliases or shortened Web addressesallow libraries to provide simple URLssuch as lib.university.edu/friends or lib.academic.edu/give.41 Few libraries pro-vided a mnemonic short address that canbe easily remembered or posted on printmaterials to direct users to fundraisingWeb pages. Only Colorado State Univer-sity Libraries42 suggested bookmarkingits site.

Placement and Extent

Extent was determined by the total ofthe seven predicted fundraising elementsthat appeared on the site. University ofPennsylvania Library43 was the only sitewith all seven elements identified andUniversity of Texas-Austin General Li-braries,44 with extent of six, lacked only aWeb event. University of California-Ber-keley Library,45 University of HoustonLibraries,46 and North Carolina State Uni-versity Libraries47 had extent of 5; each ofthese three sites lacked a Web event andeither secure donation forms or a friendspage. Four of these five sites had place-ment of 0; California-Berkeley had place-ment of 1. Fifty-six sites had an extent of4, 3, or 2. Six sites with extent of oneincluded either a friends page or a devel-opment page with none of the other ele-ments examined in this study. All six hadplacement of either level 0 or 1.

Sites with greater extent tended to havehigher placement. 83%, or 15 of the 18sites with extent between 4 and 7 wereplaced at level 0; this compares with 64%of sites overall at level 0. Of the 27 siteswith extent of 1 or 2, only 14, or 52%were placed at level 0. Placement is not areliable indicator of extent. Sites withlevel 0 placement averaged an extent of3.1. For sites at level 1, the average extentwas 2.3. Sites placed at level 2 or belowaveraged an extent of 3.0.

Placement and extent cannot alone in-dicate the quality of a site. A surprisingnumber of highly placed and extensivesites suffered from poor formatting (tinytype, dark background, rudimentarystyle); dated materials (newsletters withmost recent dates of 1997; “upcoming”events held in 1999); or unfinished prod-ucts (links labeled “under construction”last updated in 2000). Adoption of online

January 2003 11

fundraising requires a constant commit-ment to attractive presentation and sitemaintenance, enhancing the library’s off-line development efforts. “[Your] custom-ers’ online experiences with you shouldbe as convenient and professional as theyare offline.”48 Other sites with interestingdesign, currency, and wide extent suf-fered from poor placement.

Common Fundraising Elements

“E-mail is ‘an outstanding toolfor building a new kind ofrelationship with a broader

base of participants in the lifeof your organization. . .’”

E-mail is “an outstanding tool forbuilding a new kind of relationship with abroader base of participants in the life ofyour organization. . . Building such rela-tionships can only benefit your institu-tion’s short- and long-term fundraisingprospects.”49 In addition to e-mail con-tact, Colorado State, New Mexico, andSouth Carolina included a photograph ofor biographical information about devel-opment staff.

Friends pages generally focused on do-nor cultivation and stewardship. Commonelements included mission statement, cal-endar of events, newsletters, giving op-tions, printable membership forms, bene-fits, and board members. There was widevariation in the presentation of this infor-mation: for many sites, it was included ina long, scrollable page; for others, eachpiece of information was presented sepa-rately. The most navigable pages of thelatter example used unifying elementssuch as navigation bars to maintain orien-tation in a complex site. Stanford Univer-sity Libraries50 and North Carolina StateUniversity Libraries51 were especiallyclear in navigation.

Development pages by definition em-phasized solicitation. Giving options, de-siderata, and highlights of prior acquisi-tions or funded projects often appeared ondevelopment pages. Messages from thedean or director frequently appeared inthis context. Links to secure giving formswere more likely to appear in a develop-ment section.

The 18 sites with donor recognitionwarrant further inspection because theyappear successful at the practice of aca-demic library fundraising. The format of

online recognition varies, from feature ar-ticles in online newsletters to personalpages on which individual bookplatesfrom a named endowment are used asillustrations. Acknowledged donors in-cluded individual alumnae, faculty, par-ents, friends, classes, and corporations.There were no occurrences of links be-tween a corporate donor and the corpora-tion’s Web site. One site included an at-tractive invitation to an event recognizinga major donor. This group of libraries waslikely to have a development page (13 of18, or 72.2%) and a secure giving option(9 of 18, or 50%), both of which embel-lish the existing culture of giving.

Interactive forms can be used to gatherinformation about the library’s potentialdonor constituency. Forms allow the li-brary to control the information submittedby a user for a specific purpose. Addingsimple, brief non-committing forms dra-matically expands the opportunity to learnwho is visiting the site. A simple two-field (name and e-mail address) visibleform with a friendly opener like “Stay inTouch!” is all that is needed for follow-upcontact and to add a visitor to a constitu-ent list. Given exhaustive document de-livery-related forms ubiquitous on libraryWeb sites, it is unclear why this functionis underutilized for development activity.

“Web events were the leastfrequent[ly present] of any of

the elements examined.”

Web events were the least frequent ofany of the elements examined. The authorhad expected to find greater use of virtualtours, Webcasts, or scheduled onlinechats as mechanisms to attract visitors tothe fundraising sites. There were no suchincidences found based on the methodol-ogy used. Equally surprising, no use ofmultimedia formats was identified. Use ofaudio or video formats to embellishprinted public relations materials may bea mechanism to attract visitors to a fund-raising site in the future. Thus, fundrais-ing sites of ARL university libraries cangenerally be described as conventionalWeb pages; they are unlikely to serve asmagnets for young alumni who are demo-graphically most accustomed to onlinecommerce.

Nearly every academic library Website includes pages with recommended

sites for students and faculty, but onlyNorthwestern University Library52 andUniversity of Pennsylvania Library53 re-packaged the lists as “free services” tovisitors of fundraising pages. More librar-ies should consider including typical ser-vices within the context of fundraisingpages. This simple repackaging offers thepotential donor the very services they arebeing asked to support.

University of Pennsylvania Library’ssite is exemplary in several aspects. Notonly does it have the greatest extent, but itis the only site that serves as a portal forits visitors. An external search engine,compilation of free Web-based resources,engaging interface, and interactive pageswelcoming user input such as book re-views, all place this site in a unique po-sition among library fundraising Websites. For libraries with more modestgoals, several other sites provide out-standing models for emulation. North-western University Library, University ofNorth Carolina-Chapel Hill Libraries,52

and Stanford University Library are dis-tinctive. Northwestern’s design has astrong sense of place, with attractive pho-tographs embedded in the opening page.UNC’s site is simple and attractive withprominent links to online giving informa-tion. Stanford’s design integrates endow-ment-related bookplates as clickablegraphics and has a consistent navigationtool throughout its vast site. Each haselegance and style that emanate profes-sionalism and purpose to potential donors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the survey results, the followingpractices are recommended:

1. Place the fundraising link on the li-brary’s main page, either through atext-based link or using a graphic as-sociated with the library’s friendsgroup or with development activity.This placement provides a direct, vis-ible pathway for visitors.

2. Adopt a mnemonic address that visi-tors easily remember and that can beplaced prominently on print materials.

3. Maintain currency of site informationand attractive appearance with thesame commitment given to traditionalfundraising information.

4. Experiment with both friends pagesand development pages, and providelinks between them. Link to universityadvancement or alumni pages.

5. Integrate other library Web servicessuch as collections of free Internet re-


sources on the fundraising pages. Giveusers a reason to visit.

6. Post e-mail links to development offic-ers and add online forms to easily col-lect visitor information for future on-line or paper-based communication.

7. Use the Web site for events and activ-ities that cannot be done through tra-ditional fundraising methods.

8. Visit other library fundraising sites.

CONCLUSION

“Inclusion of fundraisingactivity on ARL library Web

sites has increased from 43%as reported by Liu in 1998 to69% identified in this study.”

Inclusion of fundraising activity on ARLlibrary Web sites has increased from 43%as reported by Liu in 1998 to 69% iden-tified in this study. This number is ex-pected to increase over time as the Webdominates as the primary point of entryfor many library services. The effective-ness of online fundraising in attractingnew donors may be determined by theplacement of fundraising links and theirkeywords as well as its integration withtraditional fundraising. There is widevariation in keywords and placement cur-rently in use. Well-placed, simple, andcompelling fundraising Web sites offerpromise to broaden traditional donor con-stituencies and to raise awareness of li-braries’ needs and services.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Leadership Role in Library Fund Raising:Minutes of the 120th Meeting, May 13-15,1992 (Washington, D.C.: Association ofResearch Libraries, 1993), pp. 3-4.

2. Martha Kyrillidou & Mark Young, edi-tors, ARL statistics 1999-2000 (Washing-ton, D.C.: Association of Research Librar-ies, 2001), p. 18.

3. Adam Corson-Finnerty, “Dinosaur Devel-opment” (1999).Availableat�http://www.fund-online.com/musings/dinosaur.html�(accessed June 28, 2002).

4. Brenda Hazard, “Academic Library Fund-raising Literature from 1990 to Present:An Annotated Bibliography,” SuccessfulFundraising: Case Studies of AcademicLibraries, edited by Meredith Butler(Washington, D.C.: Association of Re-search Libraries, 2001), pp. 125–147.

5. Mary Jo Lynch, Alternative Sources ofRevenue in Academic Libraries (Chicago:American Library Association, 1991).

6. Annette Melville, Resource Strategies inthe 90s: Trends in ARL University Librar-ies (Washington, D.C.: Association of Re-search Libraries, 1994), p. 33.

7. Terry Stephen Latour, “Study of LibraryFund Raising Activities at Colleges andUniversities in the United States” (PhDDissertation, Florida State University,1995).

8. Lynda Corey Claassen, editor, LibraryDevelopment and Fundraising, SPEC Kit193 (Washington, D.C.: Association ofResearch Libraries, 1993).

9. Joan M Hood, “Past, Present, and Futureof Library Development (Fund-raising),”Advances in Librarianship 22 (1998):123–139.

10. Irene M Hoffman & Amy Sherman Smith,“Library Fundraising Tips and Resourc-es,” College & Research Library News 5(May 1995): 328–329.

11. Yaping Peter Liu, Web Page Developmentand Management, SPEC Kit 246 (Wash-ington, D.C.: Association of Research Li-braries, 1999), p. 6.

12. Evelyn Ortiz Smykla, Marketing and Pub-lic Relations Activities in ARL Libraries,SPEC Kit 240 (Washington, D.C.: Asso-ciation of Research Libraries, 1999), p. i.

13. Ibid, p. ii.14. Barbara Kemmis, “Changing Trends in

Library Fund Raising,” Library Adminis-tration & Management 12 (Fall 1998):195–199.

15. Adam Corson-Finnerty & Laura Blan-chard, Fundraising and Friend-raising onthe Web (Chicago: American Library As-sociation, 1998).

16. Adam Corson-Finnerty, “Cybergifts,” Li-brary Trends 48 (Winter 2000): 619–633.

17. Beverly Goldberg, “Will Virtual PitchesYield Real Dollars for Cornell?,” Ameri-can Libraries 30 (June/July 1999): 49.

18. David King, “Soliciting Virtual Money,”Library Journal (Fall 2000 Net ConnectSupplement): pp. 39-41.

19. LIBDEV: an electronic discussion forumfor library development and fundraising.Available at �http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/aladn/� (accessed June 28, 2002),See LIBDEV archives from July 2000 #36for Gwen Leighty’s summary of re-sponses to her earlier query regarding li-brary URLs with online giving options.The list includes 25 special, public, and ac-ademic libraries. William Black announceda Web site created from the list on Septem-ber 26, 2001, available online at �http://www.mtsu.edu/�wblack/onlinelnx.html�(accessed June 28, 2002).

20. Amy Sherman Smith, “ALADN: A NewNetwork for Fundraising,” College & Re-search Library News 5 (May 1995): 329.

21. Irene M Hoffman, “ALADN 1996: Savor-ing Stone Soup,” College & Research Li-brary News 5 (May 1996): 301–302.

22. Jennifer Ford Paustenbaugh, “ARL Aca-demic Library Participation in Capital/

Comprehensive Fund-Raising Cam-paigns: An Analysis of Effectiveness andCapacity,” (PhD Dissertation, IndianaUniversity, 1999).

23. Hannelore B Rader, “Fundraising in Aca-demic Libraries: The United States Expe-rience,” The Bottom Line 13(2) (2000):93–99.

24. David L King, “Library Home Page De-sign: A Comparison of Page Layout forFront-Ends to ARL Library Web Sites,”College & Research Libraries 59 (Sep-tember 1998): 458–465.

25. Laura B. Cohen & Julie M. Still, “A Com-parison of Research University and Two-Year College Library Web Sites: Content,Functionality, and Form.” College & Re-search Libraries 60 (May 1999): 275–289. Cohen and Still marked placement ofcontent; this study marked placement oflinks.

26. The list of identified sites is located at�http://www.albany.edu/�bh181/arl/inclusion.html� (accessed June 28, 2002).

27. Michael W Johnston,” The Fund Raiser’sGuide to the Internet (New York: JohnWiley & Sons, 1999), pp. 208–209.

28. Available at �http://www.library.umass.edu� (accessed June 28, 2002).

29. Available at �http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/� (accessedJune 28, 2002).

30. Available at �http://www.libs.uga.edu/�(accessed June 28, 2002).

31. Available at �http://iris.unl.edu� (ac-cessed June 28, 2002).

32. Available at �http://www.lib.ttu.edu�(accessed June 28, 2002).

33. Available at �http://www.emory.edu/LIBRARIES/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

34. Available at �http://dizzy.library.ari-zona.edu/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

35. Available at �http://www.library.okstate.edu/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

36. Available at �http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/depts/acq/gifts.html� and �http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/friends/�(accessed June 28, 2002).

37. Available at �http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/VisitorsGuide.html#assoc� and �http://www.lib.berke-ley.edu/LDO/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

38. Available at �http://www-libraries.colorado.edu/do/friends/frontpage.htm�and �http://www-libraries.colorado.edu/do/development/frontpage.htm� (access-ed June 28, 2002).

39. Available at �http://www.lib.umd.edu/FOL/� and �http://www.lib.umd.edu/FOL/STORE� (accessed June 28, 2002).

40. Adam Corson-Finnerty, “Cybergifts,Part 7: Charitable Pathways” (2000).Available at �http://www.fund-online.com/musings/cybergift7.html� (access-ed June 28, 2002).

41. Kim Guenther, “Publicity through Better

January 2003 13

Web Site Design,” Computers in Librar-ies 19 (September 1999): 62–64.

42. Available at �http://manta.library.colostate.edu/develop/� (accessed June28, 2002).

43. Available at �http://www.library.upenn.edu/portal/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

44. Available at �http://www.lib.utexas.edu/development/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

45. Available at �http://infolib.berkeley.edu/�(accessed June 28, 2002).

46. Available at �http://info.lib.uh.edu/devel-opment/libdev.htm� (accessed June 28,2002).

47. Available at �http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/administration/fol/� (accessed June 28,2002).

48. Jay Conrad Levinson & Charles Rubin,”Guerrilla Marketing Online: The Entre-preneur’s Guide to Earning Profits on theInternet2nd ed (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1997), p. 287.

49. Gary B. Grant, Gary M. Grobman, &Steve Roller,” The Wilder Nonprofit FieldGuide to Fundraising on the Internet(Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. WilderFoundation, 1999), p.14–15.

50. Available at �http://www-sul.stanford.

edu/depts/asul/� (accessed June 28,2002).

51. Available at �http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/administration/fol/� (accessed June 28,2002).

52. Available at �http://www.library.northwestern.edu/cgi-bin/erbuild.cgi?template�giving/freeforall.html&st�ecol&arg�121� (accessed June 28,2002).

53. Available at �http://www.library.upenn.edu/portal/� (accessed June 28, 2002).

54. Available at �http://www.lib.unc.edu/fol/� (accessed June 28, 2002).


January 2003 15

online fundraising at arl libraries

Documents