THE UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
B/107/11
Report of a meeting of the Disbursement Advisory Group held on 7 November 2011
Present
Mr S Maycock (Chair via telephone), Professor J Crampton, Dr J Crown, Professor A Lloyd,
Mr T Preston and Professor D Taylor
Mrs S Davies, Mr S Lewis, Mrs S McHugh, Mr C Monk and Mr A Scanlan were in attendance. Professor A Bone, Miss C Davies and Mr D Wolff were in attendance for the first part of the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from Ms F Brown, Mrs C Burns, Mr P Hall and
Miss K Price
Summary
This report highlights items discussed at the meeting of the Disbursement Advisory
Group on 7 November 2011.
Decisions required
None
Financial implications and risk
None
1.
Further information
Is available from the Chair of the Disbursement Advisory Group
Membership of the Group
Professor Crampton stated that as a result of the University of Brighton Foundation trustees meeting held immediately prior to the DAG meeting, Mr M Aldrich and Mr K Edwards had resigned from the DAG due to the conflict of interest inherent in being a member of both groups.
Dr J Crown declared her interest stating that she wished to remain a member of DAG as well as a Trustee to the University of Brighton Foundation.
2. Chair’s business
The Chair welcomed Professor Adrian Bone, Miss Ceri Davies and Mr David Wolff to the meeting and thanked them for their attendance to update the group on their respective activities funded through the DAG.
3. Minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2011
The Group was asked if any comments were forthcoming on the minutes from the last meeting. It was agreed that the minutes provided a fair record of the last meeting.

2
4. Matters arising
4.1 Update on philanthropic reconciliation
Mrs Sam Davies reported that the reconciliation of the financial information held on the university’s finance system, EFin, and the DAO database, ThankQ, had been completed enabling accurate reporting on the true philanthropic financial position and analysis based upon the same information on both sides. She confirmed that procedures and schedules have now been created to ensure that the reconciliation continues on a monthly basis and will not become an issue again in the future. Mrs Davies also mentioned that a new post in the DAO of Donation and Stewardship Officer has been created specifically to manage the financial reporting. This post will also service the DAG in the future.
4.2 CASE awards publicity
Mrs Sam Davies confirmed that details of the u niversity’s award from HEFCE/CASE for their fundraising progress in year two of the matched funding scheme and Stephen Maycock’s outstanding volunteer award had been publicised both internally and in externally during the summer, including a piece in the Brighton Argus.
4.3 Interest on philanthropic funds
Mrs Sam Davies confirmed that interest generated by philanthropic donations invested with university funds would be allocated to the DAG accounts, in line with existing fund structure.
4.4 Ambassadors’ regular updates
Mrs Sam Davies reported that, as requested by DAG, regular updates are now sent to the
Ambassadors group on a bi-monthly basis. This currently takes the form of a simple text based email, but there are plans to send a designed HTML update in the future.
5. Listing of all philanthropic funds held within the university
Mrs Sam Davies introduced the paper that outlines details of each of the philanthropic funds held within the DAG accounts. New funds are detailed at the end of the report.
A request had been made outside of the meeting whether it would be possible to provide more detail about the donors to each of the funds, where feasible. Sam Davies reported that the only exception to this would be in the case of supporters who had requested that their donation remained anonymous.
The group was advised that there are tick boxes on all donations forms and that anonymity is discussed with all high-level donors and prospects on a one-to-one basis. Furthermore, it was mentioned that some donors name their gift on behalf of other people in memory or in honour. The DAG agreed with the proposal to disclose more information about donors on this report.
Professor Crampton questioned whether the default should be an opt-in or opt-out position.
June Crown also warned that there was a difference between naming an award, disclosing a donor’s name to the DAG and using it for PR purposes. Sam Davies responded to say that any promotional use of donor’s details is discussed with individuals in advance.

3
6. Philanthropic accounts
Andrew Scanlan introduced the philanthropic accounts stating that the group could be confident of the figures presented and specifically highlighting two figures – the level of philanthropic funds available to disburse and also the university’s overall fundraising progress.
The total value of funds available to disburse currently stands at £1,278,285. This is spread across all of the philanthropic funds and includes any associated Gift Aid and matched funding. It excludes existing disbursement commitments where these are known.
The fundraising progress figure for financial year 2010-11 was just over £1.1m. This includes all cash donations received during the 2010/11 financial year, as well as the lifetime value of all pledges received during this same reporting period. The Chair asked whether we could be confident that the value of these pledges would be realised. Andrew Scanlan responded that these values represent written pledges (many of which had started with payments already received) and that it was anticipated that the vast majority of this money would come into the DAG accounts over time.
The Chair asked for a prediction of the value of donations to be received at the end of the current financial year. Sam Davies stated that as a result of the reconciliation at the end of the first quarter of the current financial year (due at the end of November), it should be possible for us to provide an estimated projection based upon existing pledges.
7. Matched funding scheme – overview of results
Sam Davies reported on the results of the matched funding scheme. The university will receive just over 50% of the funds available to it in matching (£1,355,577 of a possible
£2,700,000) and was able to demonstrate a ten-fold increase in levels of philanthropic income since the start of the scheme (2008/09 - £69,138; 2010/11 - £724,289). The university’s performance during the scheme has been impressive, especially given the low base of activity in 2008 and it was obvious that the decision to select tier two was the correct one (should the university have selected the bottom tier, it would only have been possible to receive a maximum of £200,000 in matched funding).
Mrs Davies reported that the scheme had raised the profile of the DAO and of the process of fundraising both internally and externally; that the DAO had used the scheme as a ‘hook’ to promote participation from alumni and friends and that as a result, we were able to ‘fasttrack’ some relationships to the point of donation sooner than may have been possible otherwise.
She also stated that it had been important to build the correct infrastructure such as the
DAG, financial processes, procedures and regulations and that through the scheme, a network of internal philanthropy champions had been established.
The group were also informed that guidance had been sought from HEFCE with regards to the eligibility of some donations received by the university. HEFCE confirmed that they were happy with the university’s claims. The group was also informed that CASE had asked the university to contact HEFCE to ask what was planned with any remaining, unallocated funds from the scheme.
Sam Davies told the DAG that there would likely be a dip in philanthropic income over the next few years, but that a target had been agreed that levels should return to £1m per year by the 2013/14 academic year. The Chair responded by saying that the scheme had resulted in significant momentum and that there needed to be identifiable upward movement in

4 income during the 2011/12 and 2012/13 academic years. It was agreed that the Chair would meet with Sam Davies and Colin Monk to discuss interim targets and report back to the group.
Professor Andrew Lloyd asked whether it would be possible to see information about the university’s competitor institutions. The Chair agreed that benchmarking information was necessary and should be reported to the group. Sam Davies and Andrew Scanlan confirmed that the university takes part in the annual Ross / CASE survey of philanthropic activity in the
HE sector. The results are usually available in January and therefore an executive summary of the results (disaggregated where possible) will be provided to the DAG as part of the
February meeting.
The Chair noted that, despite not having existed long, the DAG and its principles, policies and processes at the University of Brighton are, in his opinion and based upon his recent experience in meeting with representatives from other universities, leading the way.
Professor Crampton noted that HEFCE will at some point publish the results of the matched funding scheme and that (although these results are likely to be reported on an anonymised basis), this will allow us to see the shape of the scheme. He also questioned whether CASE have a particular position regarding unspent funds remaining after the scheme and whether they had put this position to HEFCE. He suggested that the University of Brighton ought to put forward a proposition if it is determined that contact be made directly with HEFCE about this issue.
8. Disbursement requests
Sam Davies introduced the paper outlining requests for the disbursement of funds across the university. She stated that there would be a round of disbursements following the official close of each financial quarter and that applications for disbursement of funds would not normally be accepted outside this schedule. She acknowledged that flexibility may be required around the end of the financial year when student prize donations may need to be disbursed quickly. Sam reported that Peter Hall had questioned whether future DAG meetings should be scheduled to coincide with disbursement requests or stick with the current process of obtaining approval via a remote process.
The Chair asked the group to consider approving disbursements at the full DAG meetings, although he was mindful of not taking up the whole committee for long periods of time.
Professor Crampton suggested a sub-committee could meet following the regular DAG meetings. June Crown agreed, suggesting that the membership of the sub-committee could rotate. As there are only three meetings of the DAG each year, one disbursement round would have to happen outside of a meeting.
Sam Davies reported that the next meeting was scheduled for 17 th February which is earlier than the second quarter reconciliation and disbursement process is scheduled to occur.
Andrew Scanlan and Simon Lewis were asked to comment on this outside the meeting.
Professor Lloyd had questioned who should sign off the requests as this was not clear and different projects in the Faculty of Science and Engineering were being signed off by different staff. It was agreed that each request would be signed off by the project lead, countersigned by the Head of School / Department. It was also suggested that Deans would be copied into correspondence regarding disbursements for information.

5
9. Disbursement reports
Professor Adrian Bone provided a brief presentation about the work of the Diabetes
Research Group (DRG). Professor Bone expressed how incredibly valuable philanthropic support has been to the DRG since essentially it had allowed him to keep the group together. The nature of their work means the team must move from grant to grant which can prove challenging, but by being able to maintain the core personnel, they have been able to continue to develop and achieve great results. He provided a number of examples of the work within the DRG to demonstrate the diversity of projects and the backgrounds of his colleagues, who have become core to the success of the DRG.
Mr David Wolff and Miss Ceri Davies provided a brief presentation about the ‘On Our
Doorsteps’ project, facilitated by Cupp (the Community-University Partnership Project). Mr
Wolff passed round some literature about the project in particular and more generally about
Cupp. On behalf of the Cupp team, he expressed gratitude for the funds that had been allocated to the ‘On Our Doorsteps’ project which seeks to develop mutually beneficial activities between the university and local communities, all with a view to promote the concept of neighbourliness. Furthermore, he acknowledged the role of the project in encouraging staff and students to become involved in community engagement activities – whether directly through their own participation in a specific activity or by giving financially to the overall project. Mr Wolff explained that the funds disbursed had been used to set up a seed fund which allowed the ‘On Our Doorsteps’ project to allocate initial grants to a number of activities at the early stages of development to enable them to progress and become sustainable.
Miss Davies told the group about one of the projects which had been allocated a grant in an earlier seed funding round and for which definite impacts could now been seen. The Darley
Road Food Initiative had brought together students and staff from the Eastbourne campus with local residents to develop and maintain a campus green space. The initial £5,000 grant allocated to this project, coupled with 6 months of development means it has become a great success and there are plans to replicate the project on other sites. Miss Davies reported that they are currently in the process of identifying 6 new projects to be allocated seed funds and in time a pipeline of development will be created, with examples of projects at all stages.
The Chair thanked Professor Bone, Mr Wolff and Miss Davies for attending the DAG meeting and for sharing their experiences. He felt it was extremely useful to hear directly from funding recipients in this way and suggested that at each DAG meeting, one or two recipients should be invited to address the group. This was supported by the other members as an excellent suggestion.
10. The University of Brighton Amba ssadors’ disbursements
Sam Davies intr oduced the paper and confirmed that £70,000 was available to disburse on behalf of the Ambassadors from the collective value of unrestricted donations given during financial year 2010-11. Four areas of institutional priority were outlined for consideration by the DAG with a view to allocating the funds available. These areas were public engagement and widening participation; student support, retention and motivation; encouraging and advancing research; and laying foundations for future alumni engagement and sustained philanthropic support by encouraging student/young alumni giving. The Vice Chancellor confirmed that these four areas were significant for the university going forwards.
The members of DAG were asked for their views regarding the allocation of funds. June
Crown questioned whether the Bigger Bang!
Science show series was considered a priority.
She acknowledged that the activities delivered by Professor Hal Sosabowski have achieved great impact, but felt that perhaps these activities were more public promotion than public

6 engagement. Dr Crown asked whether other ideas in this area ought to be encouraged to come forward.
Professor Sosabowski’s request stated that he was seeking £6,000 per annum for 3 years and therefore it was suggested that he been allocated one year of support via the
Ambassadors funding. This would enable other widening participation projects to be supported.
June Crown stated that she did not wish to increase the level of bureaucracy, but felt it was important that the DAG would see details of how activities funded developed over time. The
Vice-Chancellor echoed these comments and requested that information on impact must be provided in time.
Mr Colin Monk commented on the appeal of the matched funding element indicated within the fourth of the areas proposed and enquired whether this concept ought be considered for the future in terms of other allocations. It was felt that recipients of funds should be encouraged to generate support (of all kinds, not solely financial) for their activities in addition to the support provided via DAG.
Professor David Taylor asked how proposals had been invited for these allocations and Sam
Davies confirmed that proposals had not been invited and th erefore Professor Sosabowski’s proposal had been submitted on a speculative basis. There was some discussion as to whether this met the DAG’s obligation regarding transparency.
The Chair commented that the level of £70,000 available for allocation meant that opening up a process for application might cause challenges for the DAG and the Vice Chancellor agreed, wishing to avoid this in the future. It was agreed that all projects funded through the
Ambassadors’ donations ought to be widely publicised so as to demonstrate the impact achieved.
The group agreed allocations as follows:

Public engagement and widening participation - £6,000 to be allocated to Professor
Sosabowski’s Bigger Bang! Series with the remaining £11,500 to be offered for other
 widening participation projects in consultation with the Deans and subject to a proposal being provided and approved by DAG
Student support, retention and motivation - £17,500 available to support this
 institutional priority. Sam Davies to liaise with the appropriate colleagues in Registry about the application of these funds and subject to a proposal being provided and approved by DAG
Encouraging and advancing research - £17,500 available to support this institutional priority. Sam Davies to seek guidance from Professor Bruce Brown (Pro-Vice-
Chancellor, Research) as to the most effective application of these funds

Laying foundations for future alumni engagement and sustained philanthropic support by encouraging student/young alumni giving - £17,500 available to support this institutional priority. Sam Davies to request a detailed proposal from the appropriate members of her team for consideration by and approval from the DAG
Professor Andrew Lloyd requested that it be stipulated as part of the £6,000 allocation for
Professor Sosabowski that it be used to target hard to reach schools in the region.
Sam Davies confirmed that, in all cases, annual reports would be required from all funding recipients and these would be presented at the October/November meeting in 2012.

7
11. Update on the Springboard Grants Programme
Sam Davies introduced this paper and provided an update to the group on the programme.
She stated that a sub-committee would be meeting directly after the DAG meeting to consider the applications received during the recent call (55 in total) and to make final grant allocations.
The Chair commented that he considered the applications this time round to be of a much better quality and felt this was a direct result of raising the profile of the activity.
He reported that discussions would be taking place in due course about simplifying the scoring system (to be more effective, both for applicants and the panel) and also with regards rotating the responsibility for reviewing applications amongst the full membership of
DAG.
June Crown stated that she welcomed these discussions about the overall programme and also felt that attention needed to be given to how best to distinguish between applications made by groups and those made by individuals.
Sam Davies asked the group if a celebration event for the programme was felt necessary.
The Chair felt that an event wasn’t necessary given the level of interest in the programme and would also involve the outlay of budget. Terry Preston was asked if he agreed with this position and he stated he did.
12. Report on fundraising activities and plans
Andrew Scanlan asked the group if they had any questions about the paper and highlighted the forthcoming telephone fundraising campaigns, to which members of the DAG were cordially invited to attend so as to meet the student callers and to find out how the campaigns operated.
The Chair asked Andrew to circulate dates and times to the group and encouraged all members to consider attending one of the shifts since it was a useful experience in his view.
He also reminded the group of a question raised at one of the first meetings of the DAG regarding the cost effectiveness of the telephone campaigns as a form of fundraising. At the time, it had been suggested that the cost:benefit ratio would improve over time. Andrew
Scanlan promised to circulate figures to the group following the campaigns, but estimated that the cost:benefit ratio currently stood at a level of £3 raised for every £1 spent.
13. Report on alumni and friends engagement activities and plans
As Faye Brown was unable to attend the meeting, the Chair asked if there were any questions about this paper. The group did not raise any questions.
S MAYCOCK
Chair
SD
15.11.11