The UC Davis of 2012 will be a very different place from the UC Davis of 2004.

As the university gets ready to launch its first-ever major comprehensive fund-raising campaign, the possibilities it engenders are transforming.

The campaign will help support undergraduate student scholarships, graduate student fellowships, endowed chairs and professorships, research and infrastructure. The effects may reverberate throughout the campus in the decades ahead.

"This campaign will change our campus measurably in providing a quality education to our students and research opportunities for our faculty and their programs," said Celeste Rose, vice chancellor for University Relations, which has leadership responsibility for the campaign.

The campus community is getting a "sneak peek" of sorts at how the campaign may support the university's academic mission. While everything is still tentative at this point--especially the preliminary campaign goal of $900 million--the groundwork has begun.

And there's a lot of terrain to cover.

Gathering feedback

The campaign tentatively launches in a "planning phase" in 2005 and wraps up seven to 10 years later. During the past two years, the administration has taken the pulse of campus leaders and friends and will continue to do so in the upcoming months. One key element is a "feasibility assessment" or survey that the campus will conduct this winter. This will help identify realistic campaign goals and provide valuable information about potential donors and the ways they can support the university.

Other communications are giving shape to the outline of the campaign that is just now emerging.

On June 30, Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw sent a letter to deans and vice chancellors asking for additional feedback on draft funding priorities.

According to that letter, funds raised during the campaign would be distributed based on this breakdown:

• 23 percent for student support,
• 25 percent for faculty support,
• 31 percent for program support,
• 22 percent for facilities.

This approach would allocate $236 million for student support, $261 million for faculty support, $316 for program support and $223 million for facilities. These totals amount to a campaign target at least 15 percent higher than the working $900 million figure.

It's all under discussion -- in fact, the campus has been exploring the campaign since 2002 -- and figures will certainly change.

The draft priorities noted above were submitted by deans, schools and colleges in the summer of 2003. This spring these ideas were refined in a an academic-based committee of deans and faculty leadership that was chaired by John Meyer, vice chancellor for resource management and planning, and Pat Turner, vice provost for Undergraduate Studies. The committee met extensively in April and May and forwarded its proposed funding priorities to Vanderhoef and Hinshaw.

"These priorities have been embraced by and large, and we are seeking to fine-tune them as we continue our planning," Meyer said. "With the decline of state funding for the UC system, it's obvious we have great needs on campus and are especially underfunded in some areas, such as capital projects for academic activities."

Focus on academics

The academic mission, as articulated in the strategic vision statement, said Turner, is the driving force behind the campaign.

"We are poised to enter an exciting and unprecedented new phase in the way we enrich our education objectives for students, support outstanding faculty, launch inventive new programs, and improve lives through our research and outreach," she said.

Turner said the committee was able to examine and explore funding requests from the deans, vice chancellors, and vice provosts and recommend priorities based on those submissions. While the finalized priorities may not be determined for several months, she estimates, the recent letter from Vanderhoef and Hinshaw describes several steps in the process:

• Deans, vice chancellors and provosts will review the proposed priorities in Vanderhoef and Hinshaw's letter and share the information with faculty and staff for their feedback.
• University Relations will meet with deans, faculty members and advancement officers and draft the preliminary campaign case statement, or prospectus.
• Grenzebach, Glier and Associates, a campaign-consulting firm, will interview prospective donors and conduct the "feasibility assessment" in the next year.
• A campus review committee will re-evaluate the recommended projects in fall 2004.
• Faculty and administrators will continue to submit "big ideas," or $50 million-plus project requests, for funding.

Cheryl Brown Lohse, associate vice chancellor of development, explains that the upcoming feasibility assessment will test specific funding priorities with donors and development experts. Thus, the working $900 million goal is subject to revision based on what the campus learns in the future.

Lohse said that the feasibility of the dollar goal is closely tied to the campus commitment to making the investment in professional development. She describes the process as one of "consultation and collaboration" with much work to be done before setting a specific monetary goal.

Imagination counts

What are "big idea" projects?

Rose described those requests as interdisciplinary projects that may involve several programs on campus and reflect an innovative academic approach. The upcoming Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science is one example of what an individual donor can do with some vision and $50 million.

"The desire is to present some exciting options -- or 'big ideas' -- in emerging areas of study and research that resonate with the particular donor," said Rose, adding that the environment or foods for health are just a couple of the topics discussed in the committee.

Rose said the funding priorities were determined based on the university's academic mission and a broad range of discussion. Those talks began in 2002, and based on those communications and collaborations, deans submitted their priorities last year, she added.

To gather additional input, the Chancellor this past spring convened an Advancement Council -- a standing body that still exists -- to provide strategic direction for the campaign. At the same time, the academic-based committee led by Meyer and Turner reviewed the preliminary priorities and finished its work recently.

The latter committee found that more capital spending was requested than the consultant originally suggested would be appropriate for a $900 million campaign. Capital proposals totaled $224 million, about $44 million greater than Grenzebach's recommendation of $180 million.

"It's not unusual in a comprehensive campaign to begin with a wish list of funding requests and then winnow that down as the launch approaches," said Meyer.

For example, the committee found there was significant duplication of requests for graduate and undergraduate support. Committee members Turner and Jeff Gibeling, dean of Graduate Studies, agreed with the recommended deletions of duplicated funding requests.

The current proposal for funding requests calls for a campaign of more than $1 billion. Guidance for the proposed funding levels was in keeping with campus priorities as expressed in the UC Davis strategic plan, the Capstone Report, which is an academic plan, and the Educational Objectives for Students as set forth in the 2001 Chancellor's Fall Conference.

"Recommendations were also governed by recognition that a capital campaign for a construction project must be fully successful because you cannot build half a building," said Meyer, adding that all capital requests were discussed with each affected dean or vice chancellor.

As Turner put it, "A successful campaign will enable us to invest in our most precious human resources -- undergraduate and graduate students, faculty and staff. We will be able to provide them with the resources they will require to advance the frontiers of knowledge."

More information about the campaign is on-line at http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/campaign.