DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDRAISING PRACTICES IN
DIVISIONS OF STUDENT AFFAIRS AT 4-YEAR, PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
Peggy A. Crowe
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2011
Committee:
C. Carney Strange, Advisor
Louisa S. Ha
Graduate Faculty Representative
William E. Knight
Maureen E. Wilson
© 2011
Peggy A. Crowe
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
C. Carney Strange, Advisor
This study surveyed 261 NASPA (National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators) voting delegate SSAOs (senior student affairs officers) at 4-year, public
institutions with enrollment greater than 5,000 students, in regard to the current status of their
division-sponsored development and fundraising practices. A total of 111 respondents (42.5%)
completed a questionnaire soliciting information about each student affairs division’s: a.)
institutional profile; b.) preparation for development and fundraising; c.) divisional priorities,
capital campaign involvement, and fundraising success; d.) development and fundraising
practices applied; e.) relationship to institutional advancement staff; and f.) major challenges and
needs for those involved in such efforts. Complemented by themes evident in open-ended
comments, the data were presented and analyzed through application of descriptive and
nonparametric statistics.
In comparison to previous studies, the data revealed a significant presence in student
affairs of an employed staff member responsible for development and fundraising, a range of
best practices and preparation expectations, and an overall concern for the status of student
affairs in the institution’s fundraising strategy. Further analysis yielded several significant
differences attributed to institutional size and mission, with student affairs divisions within larger
and more research-oriented institutions more developed in their advancement efforts.
Several implications from the data were noted, including the need for: a.) clearer intrainstitutional communication as to the purposes and functions of student affairs divisions; b.)
inclusion of other personnel in development and fundraising efforts; c.) continuing support for
training in development and fundraising; d.) greater coordination of fundraising strategies; and
e.) greater attention to the particular circumstances of small institutions. Likewise, implications
iv
for future research included the need to: a.) further explore the effects of different institutional
types; b.) utilize alternative research methodologies; c.) extend the focus of the research
questions longitudinally; d.) examine the culture of philanthropy on campus; e.) evaluate the
relative effectiveness of various development models; and f.) follow-up with participants
regarding additional training needs. The results of this study are of particular interest to SSAOs,
student affairs department heads, graduate preparation faculty, institutional advancement
professionals, and professional organization leadership.
v
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to those small town kids with a “farmer’s work ethic,” who
don’t believe they could ever obtain a higher education or who don’t believe they are worthy. I
am testament that, with faith, prayer, a Haas/Zieher home-grown work ethic, perseverance, and
dedication, one can do just about anything one puts her mind to!
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Dr. Carney Strange, my dissertation chair and professor: I am unsure where to begin
in acknowledging your patience, ability to teach so masterfully, and commitment to me during
the doctoral program and throughout the entire dissertation process. You remained committed
from the beginning to the end and I am so grateful you agreed to chair my preliminary exams
and my dissertation. “Peggy-O” is so very appreciative of your guidance, support, and
endurance in what seemed like a never-ending process. Thank you SO MUCH Carney! As I
have said so often, “There’s a gold star in heaven for you!”
To Dr. Maureen Wilson, my professor and prelim and dissertation committee member: I
am forever grateful for the multiple lessons taught in your classes, your commitment to and
expectation of scholarship, and support in this very long journey. Thank you for your patience
as I continue to work on my writing, for the encouragement as we crossed paths at national
conferences over the years, and for your editorial help with my dissertation. Thank you! Thank
you! Thank you!
To Dr. Bill Knight, my professor and prelim and dissertation committee member: I am
forever indebted to you for your never-ending commitment and support during the doctoral
program, preliminary exams, and the dissertation process. You were always available via phone
or email to assist with what at times, seemed like “simple” questions, but inevitably took much
more time. Your patience and support of all students, but especially me, is so valued and
appreciated. I am forever grateful for your kindness and encouragement during this very long
process. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
To Dr. Louis Ha, my prelim and dissertation graduate school representative. I am so
grateful to have had you selected to be my graduate school representative for both my
preliminary exams and my dissertation. Your thoughtful questions, engaging spirit, and support
vii
that continued over many years during this process will always be appreciated by me. Thank
you! Thank you! Thank you!
To all of the BGSU faculty who were outstanding professors in the HIED doctoral
program (Drs. Ellen Broido, Carolyn Palmer, Bob DeBard, Mike Coomes, Mike Dannells,
Charles Mertler, Haithe Anderson, Bettina Shuford, Patty Kubow, Ed Whipple): I always said
that if I was to earn a doctorate it was going to be from Bowling Green State University! My
dream has now been realized. Thank you each for your commitment to students and for helping
us to learn, develop, and grow. I am now an alumna of an outstanding program! Thank you!
Thank you! Thank you!
To Kathy Bechstein: I’m not sure where to begin, but THANK YOU for all you did
before and during the doctoral program and for all you did as I worked (for years) to complete
the dissertation. You are the unsung hero of the HIED program and someone I could always
count on to help me with some last-minute request, registration need, or any number of other
questions asked over the years. Thank you Kathy! You are so appreciated by me!!!
To Michael Crowe: my best friend, husband, and colleague. We began this journey of
friendship nearly 16 years ago…and have been blessed in so many ways along the way. We
began our professional careers together, have always remained best friends, moved from WKU
in 2002, were engaged in 2003, married in 2007, moved into a new home in 2009, and were
blessed with the birth of our first son, Michael Patrick Crowe, III that same year. We are
blessed beyond measure and I want to thank you for your unending support while I pursued this
dream of earning a Ph.D. You were patient every step of the way, my cheerleader on the
sidelines when I needed it, the shoulder I needed to cry on when I felt like quitting, and the
“constant” who kept me going to the very end. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I love you
VERY much and look forward to moving on the next phase of our lives/relationship.
viii
To so many friends, colleagues, and mentors who’ve traveled with me along the way…I
would need to write another dissertation to thank each of you for your support, patience, and
love along this long journey, so please allow me to mention you by name and know that each of
you already know how grateful I am to you personally and professionally and for all you did to
help make this dream a reality: Dr. Dave Parrott, Dr. Kelli Peck-Parrott, Dr. Lynne Holland,
Howard Bailey, Dr. Gene Tice, Brian Kuster, Kit Tolbert, Pam Reno West, Steve Briggs, Dr.
Aaron Hughey, Dr. Don Gehring, Dr. Jerry Wilder, Dr. Gary and Julie Ransdell, Dr. Thomas
Wallace, Drs. Tony Lake and Brent Marsh (L&A forever!), Dr. Kathy Collins, Dr. Korine
Steinke Wawrzynski, Dr. Suhua Dong, Dr. Aparajita Maitra, and to all my WKU colleagues and
friends past and present.
To my family who supported me along the way. Mom: thanks for keeping me grounded
as I made this journey to earn a Ph.D. You may not have always understood what I was doing
and what my dissertation was about, but you were always encouraging me to take it “day by
day”! Thanks SO much for all the rosaries you prayed over all these years! They certainly
helped! I love you dearly! Dad & Mary: thanks for your continued support and encouragement
over all these years! Your prayers and support are so appreciated by me. Becky: that’s all I’m
going to say is “page and section breaks”. John: my super-editor. You read this entire
manuscript and offered such insightful comments. Thank you so much for sharing my passion
for learning and education! Mike, Michele, Nick, and Tina: thanks for all your support and
special prayers over all these years. To my “punkins” Jared, Sienna, Faith, Claire, and Jenna: I
love you to the moon and back! Aunt Peggy did it…and if you chose to…you can too! To the
Crowe’s: Janice, Tracey (sister-in-law & Soror), Angela, and Cierra, thank you so much for
your support, love, and prayers over all these years. I am so appreciative to have supportive
“in-laws”!
ix
There’s no way I could include everyone who encouraged me, sustained me, supported
me, and prayed for me during this entire process. Thank you to so many whose patience and
understanding during this entire process helped me to realize it in the end. Thank you! Thank
you! Thank you!
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................
1
The Support of American Higher Education .............................................................
1
The Colonial Era ............................................................................................
1
The Rise of Public Universities .....................................................................
3
The Modern Era .............................................................................................
4
Enter Student Affairs .....................................................................................
6
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................
9
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................
10
Organization of the Study ..........................................................................................
12
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................................................
13
The Language of Institutional Advancement.............................................................
14
Brief Historical Overview of Institutional Advancement ..........................................
16
Student Affairs and Fundraising ....................................................................
18
Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement.............................................
19
Student Affairs Involvement in Fundraising .................................................
21
Coordination of Fundraising Efforts ..........................................................................
24
Student Affairs Understanding of Fundraising ..............................................
25
Student Affairs: An Untapped Resource .......................................................
31
Challenges for Student Affairs Fundraising Efforts ......................................
34
Student Affairs Response to Financial Challenges ........................................
36
A Summary of Literature ...........................................................................................
38
xi
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................
41
Participant Sample .....................................................................................................
41
Major Variables .........................................................................................................
42
Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................
43
Content Validity .........................................................................................................
45
Procedures …… .........................................................................................................
45
Major Research Questions .........................................................................................
46
Analysis of Data.........................................................................................................
47
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ....................................................................................................
50
Respondent Characteristics ........................................................................................
50
Development and Fundraising Practices....................................................................
55
Organizational Models Utilized .................................................................................
59
Preparation for Development and Fundraising ..........................................................
65
Capital Campaign Involvement .................................................................................
69
Intra-Institutional Arrangements and Relationships ..................................................
72
Development and Fundraising Practices and Fundraising Success ...........................
79
Featured Priorities and Overall Fundraising Success ................................................
81
Open-Ended Comments/Responses ...........................................................................
83
Significant/Immediate Challenges in Respondents’ Divisions ......................
83
A needed paradigm shift about fundraising culture ...........................
83
Student affairs: Not viewed as a primary player in efforts ................
84
A lack of resources ............................................................................
85
Determining priorities ........................................................................
86
Identifying donors and prospects .......................................................
86
xii
Greatest Need for Divisions of Student Affairs in General ...........................
86
Presence of a development officer on staff ........................................
87
Culture of philanthropy within the university and student affairs .....
87
Collaboration with institutional advancement staff ...........................
88
Student Affairs Development and Fundraising, Training, and Relationship with
Institutional Advancement Staff ....................................................................
89
Advancement culture foreign to student affairs .................................
89
A lack of resources ............................................................................
90
Students affairs: An untapped resource .............................................
90
Misunderstanding of student affairs ..................................................
91
Summary of Results .......................................................................................
91
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................
94
Discussion of Key Findings ...........................................................................
94
Implications for Practice and Policy .............................................................
99
Implications for Future Research ................................................................... 103
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 108
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..………… 109
APPENDIX A. Participant Survey ....................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX B. Participant Request Letter ........................................................................... 130
APPENDIX C. Survey Cover Letter and Informed Consent ................................................ 132
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Page
NCES, NCES/NASPA, Return Sample, and (Non-Respondent) Institutional
Characteristics ............................................................................................................
51
2
Institutional Characteristics .......................................................................................
52
3
Institutional Mission by Size .....................................................................................
53
4
State Budget Support by Institutional Size and Mission ...........................................
54
5
Practices used for Student Affairs Development and Fundraising ............................
56
6
Student Affairs Development and Fundraising Practices by Institutional Size .........
57
7
Student Affairs Development and Fundraising Practices by Institutional Mission ...
58
8
Development and Fundraising Practices and Organizational Model Used ..............
60
9
Selection, Hiring, and Funding of Staff Member Responsible for Student Affairs
Development and Fundraising Initiatives ..................................................................
10
Selection, Hiring, and Funding of Staff Member Responsible for Student Affairs
Development and Fundraising Initiatives by Institutional Size .................................
11
62
63
Selection, Hiring, and Funding of Staff Member Responsible for Student Affairs
Development and Fundraising Initiatives by Institutional Mission ...........................
64
12
Preparation for Fundraising .......................................................................................
66
13
Preparation for Fundraising by Institutional Size ......................................................
67
14
Preparation for Fundraising by Institutional Mission ...............................................
68
15
Capital Campaign Involvement by Institutional Size ................................................
70
16
Capital Campaign Involvement by Institutional Mission ..........................................
71
17
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff ............
73
18
Relationship between Student Affairs and Inst. Advancement Staff by
xiv
Institutional Size ........................................................................................................
19
75
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff by
Institutional Mission ..................................................................................................
77
20
Development and Fundraising Practices and Fundraising Success (dollars raised) ..
80
21
Featured Priority for Divisional Fundraising Activity from 2002-2007....................
82
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Support of American Higher Education
From its earliest roots in the New World to the current configuration of diverse
institutional sizes, missions, and enterprises, American higher education has long depended on
support from the society and communities that have given it life. Although mostly in the form of
private and denominational sponsors at first, such support has evolved over the last 375 years
into a complex system of multiple interests (e.g., legislators, consumers, organizations),
corporate investors (e.g., businesses, foundations), and private constituents (e.g., donors,
alumni). What began as an elite, private venture has emerged now into an enterprise of
competing models, sustained by multiple resources, and shaped by multiple expectations.
The story of the support of American higher education can best be understood as it has
evolved through three significant eras, each marked by a distinct focus and events that shaped
the direction of the system, as well as the forms of support that sustained it, from the: a.) era of
the first Colonial Colleges; through b.) the rise of public institutions in the 19th century; and to
c.) the establishment of contemporary models of institutional advancement and development.
With each successive era, the relationship of institutions to sponsors has shifted
characteristically, in response to various social changes, movements, and needs, resulting in a
system that now depends on a complex set of inputs and sources.
The Colonial Era
With the establishment of the first Colonial colleges, two influential sources proved to be
most prominent: donations from private citizens and corporate sponsorships of religious
denominational groups. In the early establishment of higher education, Harvard University
benefited greatly from a library and estate given to it by its namesake John Harvard (Rhodes,
2
1997). Similarly, after making a fortune in the telegraph business, Ezra Cornell endowed the
library of a university in 1865, later named in his honor.
Beyond the generosity of individuals was the interest and commitment of numerous
denominational groups that invested their resources in the creation of institutions of higher
learning. For instance, in 1693, the Anglican church of Virginia, under the leadership of James
Blair, founded the College of William and Mary. Likewise, in 1701, the Collegiate School of
Connecticut, which later became Yale, was founded by the Congregationalists. And, in 1746,
Princeton University first emerged with the support of the New-Side Presbyterians (Hofstadter &
Smith, 1961). All in all, the advent of American higher education was essentially a private
genesis, shaped by the resources of private individuals and groups, and for very good reasons.
This was an era when founding communities and organizations sought to create and sustain
institutions that would prepare its citizens for leadership roles as they moved into the uncharted
territories of democracy and wilderness. It was the product of these early institutions, mostly
ordained clergy, who understood the tenets of Western Christian culture, and were considered
best prepared to carry out the vision of westward expansion.
This private model of higher education proved satisfactory for at least the first 150 years,
and fueled the movement west as new communities were built around each new institution.
However, with those benefits came costs, mostly in the form of having to respond to the
expectations of sponsoring bodies that may or may not have understood or supported what was
being established. Further intrusion and undue influence began to spark debate about who
should be supporting these early colleges – individuals and religious organizations or the greater
public. This condition prevailed into the early 19th century until the seminal Dartmouth College
case of 1816 established for the first time a distinction between two different types of institutions
– public and private (Hofstadter & Smith, 1961). The outcome of this Supreme Court ruling
3
foreshadowed the rise of the public higher education movement that would come to fruition in
the American system by the middle of the 19th century.
The Rise of Public Universities
As America moved westward, its need for an educated and skilled citizenry to aid the
expansion of new communities stimulated the first significant influx of public funds to its post
secondary system. As support from generous individuals and denominational groups could no
longer sustain the needs of an expanding population, public money, in the form of land grants
and other legislative endowments, began to make a critical difference. A public commitment to
higher education began as early as 1787, with the passage of the Northwest Ordinance,
empowering governments in admitted states to create institutions of higher learning (Rhodes,
1997). During this era, college towns were considered assets to growing communities and would
often draw new settlers to the area.
Full support of public investment however was not realized until well into the middle of
the 19th century, with the enactment of The Morrill Act of 1862, also known as the Land Grant
Act (Rhodes, 1997). This legislation, originally established in each state, empowered citizens to
pursue agriculture, home economics, and mechanical arts – critical needs as the evolving nation
responded to the Industrial Revolution. Since funding for these needed programs was not
available from all states, individuals, under the leadership of Congressman Justin Smith Morrill
of Vermont, pushed for federal support and the endorsement of then President Abraham Lincoln.
As Brubacher and Rudy (1997) concluded: “The Morrill Acts were unquestionably the most
important actions taken by the federal government in the field of higher education in the whole
of the nineteenth century” (p. 158).
With the momentum of new support during this era, came a growing interest among those
who benefited most from such investments, namely, alumni and businessmen. Their pride for
4
the institutions that nurtured them quickly turned to a desire to support and sustain them.
Although the first attempt to organize alumni began as early as 1792 at Yale, its programmatic
appearance on the American higher education scene was not fully realized until the latter half of
the 19th century. By then contributors included an all-star cast of business tycoons and
philanthropists, the likes of Andrew Carnegie, John Davison Rockefeller, and Henry Ford,
whose foundations infused the system with significant monetary support. Such contributions
were deemed worthy investments and did much to advance the cause of higher education,
although its limits were soon realized within an increasingly competitive environment. As
American higher education stepped into the 20th century, so too did the demands on its resources.
The Modern Era
Although private donations from alumni, businesses, and foundations, coupled with state
and federal public funding, continue to provide a broad financial base for higher education in the
current era, support has waned with economic fluctuations and the increasingly competing
demands of other social and legislative priorities (e.g., natural disasters, national security
concerns, mental health care, primary education, prisons). Consequently, standard revenue
streams for both public and private institutions have proven no longer sufficient for the massive
growth of the enterprise in the 20th century.
The support for higher education today is both unstable and vulnerable; traditional
models of support are at risk. To compensate, many institutions have assumed a proactive
approach toward marketing and lobbying for their own needs, in order to establish greater
institutional autonomy as a means of hedging these uncertain conditions. An integral component
of such initiatives has evolved under the banner of institutional advancement and development –
a specialized and systematic approach to external fundraising. The current move toward
aggressive fundraising has become both a necessity and an opportunity in the latter half of the
5
20th century, in order to secure outside resources for an increasingly complicated and expensive
enterprise. Rhodes (1997) concluded, "public institutions have increasingly turned to private
philanthropy (individuals, corporations, and foundations) as the portion of their budgets provided
from public sources has declined, now often to something close to 20 percent of their general
purpose budgets" (p. xviii). Additionally, such a focus has been instrumental in the leveraging
and independence of institutional decision makers and has helped carry them through lean times
and guard against the negative impacts of a dire financial picture.
Public institutions must now depend on additional sources of funding to an even greater
degree unlike their private counterparts that have long been accustomed to raising their own
money and sustaining support from endowments. In response to the narrowing of the resource
gap between public and private institutions, Carnesale (2006) responded:
Obviously, we must and can be efficient and effective in our operations, sophisticated in
our private fund raising, successful in competing for research dollars, and creative in
generating alternative sources of revenue but that will not be enough. A more
fundamental change is required. We must adopt alternate models of support and reduce
our dependence on our state governments (p. B20).
Public schools now have a new expectation to find these funds, yet have been left vulnerable as
other demands for outside resources are deemed more important than its requests. Just as entire
universities have begun to invest in such initiatives, mainly in academic units and athletics, so
too have a growing number of other organizational units within the academy. What began as a
general phenomenon in public higher education has now moved to specialized centers,
specifically within divisions of student affairs as development and fundraising efforts now top
the agenda for these units at most institutions.
6
Enter Student Affairs
The scope of student affairs has evolved greatly since the publication of the Student
Personnel Point of View (SPPV) (American Council on Education, 1937/1949). Initially,
student affairs staff took on roles formerly filled by faculty, those of disciplinarian and personal
and career counselor. The field has grown from these initial models of vocational guidance into
a very complex profession, with extensive theoretical foundations and recognized professional
standards and programs focusing on students’ holistic development. Over the past 70 years, after
the creation of the SPPV, student affairs has flourished and now includes a variety of
professional foci, each within its own professionally-recognized organizations, including judicial
affairs, student activities, orientation, counseling services, multicultural affairs, Greek life,
housing and residence life, health services, and intramural-recreational sports.
Traditionally, student affairs staff members identify students’ needs and provide
opportunities for them to engage in activities outside the classroom while providing a seamless
learning environment. As student populations have changed (i.e., enrollments have increased
and generations have changed), services have evolved. In response to the growing diversity on
our campuses, new departments have been created (e.g., support services for students of color;
international students; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students; adult learners;
and students with disabilities). Such shifts in requirements have resulted in modifications
specifically to the services divisions of student affairs provide. And yet, primary funding for
such divisions in public institutions continues to come from traditional allocation sources via
state and federal revenues, general funds, student fees, and auxiliary income (e.g., dining,
housing, bookstore), all competing for other services as well. In order to provide such a wide
variety of services for students, resources have been sought in order to sustain current programs
and departments.
7
Although student affairs departments provide significant services to the university
community, they are often the last within the academy to receive their share of resources. This
occurs mainly because administrators often deem what students learn inside the classroom to be
more beneficial and worthy of public confidence and support than becoming involved in student
activities, Greek-letter organizations, residence hall councils, counseling and career services, or
orientation programs.
At a time when college enrollments (between 1997 and 2007, enrollment increased 26%,
from 14.5 million to 18.2 million; The U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education
Sciences; 2010) and tuition (four-year college prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board
rose 23% from 1997-1998 to 2007-2008; The U.S. Department of Education Institute of
Education Sciences; 2010) are increasing, budget allocations and student retention are
decreasing, and external constituents are demanding more, public institutions need a more
proactive response. Especially for divisions of student affairs in the institutions that support
them, traditional resource allocations have proven adequate for a while, but continuing stresses
on institutional budgets have begun to threaten them. Schuh (2003) has warned, “Without an
appropriate resource base, student affairs units will be hard-pressed to fulfill their obligations to
their campuses and students” (p. 4). Student affairs administrators are under considerable
pressure to enhance programs, provide additional scholarships, and improve dated facilities, and
to do so without additional revenues, rendering an already dim resource picture even more
challenging.
Student affairs administrators have typically responded to these challenges in one of three
ways. First, some have bemoaned the fact and have assumed a posture of deprivation, believing
that such involvement (i.e., fundraising) detracts from their primary roles. Second, some have
allowed themselves to be dismantled and have eliminated critical positions altogether. However,
8
some have pursued a third option, initiating aggressive inside approaches to the problem and
looking beyond traditional revenues, thus seeking new external sources through the practices of
development and fundraising. For a select few institutions, this has resulted in their creating
full-time development officer positions within their divisions of student affairs or in
collaboration with an office of institutional advancement. Although the advent of divisionsponsored development initiatives is relatively recent in the field, there have been some noted
examples of such efforts: Miami University (Ohio), Wichita State University, University of
North Texas, Texas A&M University, California State University – Long Beach, Southern
Illinois University, University of North Carolina/Wilmington, Syracuse University, Illinois State
University, Clemson University, University of Louisville, and Florida State University – all
public institutions. However, while some divisions have become involved in development
efforts and initiatives, current attempts for the most part have been sporadic, highly variant, and
driven by local circumstances, rather than from any larger system grounded in a complete
understanding of their potential.
There have been limited attempts to address the topic of fundraising in student affairs,
specifically at a California institution (Eller, 2010), Texas institutions (Hillman, 2002),
community colleges (Stevenson, 2001), and Midwestern, liberal arts institutions (Kroll, 1991).
Some examinations (e.g., Haynes, 2004; Terrell, Gold, & Renick, 1993) have focused on the
involvement of senior student affairs administrators in fundraising, while some have examined
student affairs inclusion in the university capital campaign (Hendrix-Kral, 1995). Furthermore,
some research has examined the relationship between student affairs and development officers
(Fygetakis, 1992; Fygetakis & Dalton, 1993), development and alumni offices at public
universities (Arnold, 2003), or the relationship between development support characteristics and
money raised for student affairs divisions (Rovig, 2008).
9
These isolated probes have offered a very incomplete picture of efforts at public, 4-year
institutions nationally. Additionally, the majority of student affairs practitioners are unfamiliar
with the basic principles of development and fundraising and lack formal training in this area
(Hillman, 2002; Miller, 2010b; Morgan & Policello, 2010). Terrell, Gold, and Renick (1993)
surveyed 345 voting delegates of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA) and concluded: “Student affairs professionals should be provided educational
programs that increase their knowledge of the fundraising process” (p. 195). Equally important
is the lack of knowledge about how to build fundraising into current departmental practices,
mission statements, goals, and strategies (Haynes, 2004; Callahan, 1997; Miller, 2010b; Terrell
et. al, 1993). Although these are important considerations, in all they represent a very limited
investment in this direction and other significant questions remain. It is within this context that
this study was proposed and completed.
Statement of the Problem
This study was conducted to survey practices of student affairs fundraising at 4-year,
public universities. More specifically, information was sought about the practices thought to be
most successful by those who engage in them. Furthermore, six sub-questions extended the
frame for this inquiry, with reference to: the relationship between student affairs fundraising
practitioners and campus development officers; any training these professionals have utilized;
the degree of their fundraising effectiveness; involvement of department heads in fundraising
and development initiatives; how various organizational arrangements inform these efforts; and
the models and approaches that support the best of them. Answers to these questions will
provide those who work in complex divisions of student affairs a more complete understanding
of fundraising practices at public, 4-year institutions.
10
Significance of the Study
As American higher education enters its 4th century, the relationship of institutions to the
community will only increase in importance. Therefore, examining the questions posed in this
study is even more timely and critical for colleges and universities, specifically in divisions of
student affairs. Advocating an approach similar to those taken in academic affairs, Jackson
(2000) acknowledged: “student affairs programs now have the opportunity to help their
institution finance projects that may not have been funded by external sources a decade ago” (p.
610). Having gained the type of knowledge this study did will likely benefit professionals
working in these large and diverse units at four-year, public universities, suggesting ideas about
how to establish comprehensive fundraising systems in place within their student affairs
divisions. The research to date is narrowly focused and this study has filled some of this void.
Second, alumni and development units have begun to mature at public institutions, yet we
do not know how such offices have extended their services, if at all, to other institutional units,
such as student affairs divisions and departments. Student affairs administrators stand to gain
greater direction and self-sufficiency in institutional fiscal decisions with better understanding of
the systematic, coordinated development and fundraising efforts currently underway. The
present study contributed new information about such involvement and the seminal relationship
emerging between campus student affairs units and offices of alumni and development.
Finally, this study is timely as resources continue to shrink in the public forum and a
failure of response places higher education at further risk. With the rising costs of most
commodities, a bleak financial picture continues to threaten the future stability of the
postsecondary enterprise, making this study even more important for illuminating new effective
funding strategies for student affairs beyond the typical staid approaches.
11
In addition to potential gains implicated by this line of inquiry, without a more systematic
understanding of current fundraising practices in student affairs, further losses seem imminent.
First, in the absence of a better understanding of this domain, divisions will likely continue in
their fundraising practices ill-informed and piecemeal, further jeopardizing future efforts. It
stands to reason that initiating such practices without a clear plan or organizational structure in
place would be ill advised, potentially further miring the effort and ultimately placing the whole
of it in jeopardy.
Failure to understand and implement current fundraising practices might also further
disadvantage those student affairs units who would forfeit potential support, while continuing a
customary “hand-in-mouth” budgeting process quite common in the academy. Without an
effective response to the current political dynamic on campus or an understanding of the
language of fundraising and development within their own context, it seems likely that student
affairs will face a precarious future.
In summary, the current limited understanding of development and fundraising efforts in
student affairs leaves untapped a potential wealth of information about experiences and models
that are beginning to pay off for some institutions. To proceed without a more systematic
understanding of this domain could relegate student affairs to a continuing posture of
compromise and overlook the growing sector of universities who are already responding to this
challenge. This dissertation advanced an understanding of what student affairs administrators at
a representative sample of 4-year, public institutions know about current fundraising practices. In
doing so, it has remedied in part this perceived shortcoming in the literature by illuminating
potential best practices that can better serve student affairs development and fundraising goals.
12
Organization of the Study
This study contains five chapters. Following an overview of the problem addressed in
Chapter One, a review of the literature addressing the questions under consideration is presented
in Chapter Two, followed in Chapter Three by the methodology utilized to pursue them. Chapter
Four presents the results of this study organized to address each of the eight research questions
posed. Finally, Chapter Five delivers four sections: first interpreting and discussing the study’s
key findings in light of previous relevant research; second, discussing their significance and
implications for the practice of student affairs fundraising; third, offering recommendations for
future research on the topic; and last, providing a few concluding remarks on the current state of
affairs in this domain.
13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
An understanding of this research problem entails a review of common terms used to
describe this domain, an overview of the purposes and functions of institutional advancement
and fundraising in higher education, a current picture of funding and voluntary support for
colleges and universities, and a survey of any extant research on fundraising in student affairs.
At a time when most public institutions of higher education have moved from considering
themselves “state-supported” to “state-assisted” or even “state-affiliated,” the need for private
support continues to grow. However, today these gifts are solicited, stewarded, recorded, and
maintained in a very organized manner – under the philanthropic umbrella of institutional
advancement and development. Philanthropy has proven to be a tremendous force in the
advancement of American higher education, with 33 institutions currently involved in at least
$1-billion campaigns (López-Rivera, 2010).
Additionally, of the reported 28-billion dollars raised on behalf of American higher
education in the 2005-2006 academic year (Strout, 2007), nearly three-fourths of the total was
attributed to alumni (28%), other individuals (21%), and foundations (25%). Furthermore, the
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) association of the senior executives serving
statewide coordinating and governing boards for postsecondary education reported in a recent
executive summary, titled State Higher Education Finance FY 2005 (Lingenfelter, Wright, &
Yanagiura, 2005), that by 2005 state and local support for higher education had totaled nearly
$72-billion, a 3.5% increase from the previous year. Whether from federal and state allocations,
individuals (e.g., alumni, friends), businesses, or foundations, support for higher education has
become a recognized, functional entity within most universities, resulting in a growing litany of
concepts and terms that warrant examination.
14
The Language of Institutional Advancement
Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) identified several long-term developments in private
support to higher education, dating to the 17th century. These trends persist in shaping the nature
of fundraising today, including its continuing shift away from exclusive religious and individual
support, from a language of charity to the language of philanthropy, toward an extension of
fundraising efforts to serve institutions in the long run rather than just in response to immediate
crises. Furthermore, a growing emphasis on the coordination of fundraising activities among
public institutions has occurred, especially in the last 50 years. For institutions of higher
education, voluntary support continues to be increasingly important for sustenance and survival.
Such assistance also provides discretionary income to support the continuing scholarship of
faculty and students, much needed facility upgrades and renovations, and research endeavors to
compete in an ever-changing world within an increasingly diverse and global society.
There are varying descriptions of the functional entity on most college campuses charged
with maintaining alumni relations, representing the institution in the broadest context, and
generating financial support from within and beyond the institution. The Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) provides perhaps the broadest description for
“advancement,” incorporating the areas of alumni relations, communications and marketing, and
development/fundraising. More specifically, CASE has defined advancement as a “strategic,
integrated method of managing relationships to increase understanding and support among an
educational institution's key constituents, including alumni and friends, government policy
makers, the media, members of the community and philanthropic entities of all types” (CASE,
n.d.).
“Alumni relations,” a subset of advancement, include programs that organize, build, and
strengthen relationships with current and former students, faculty, and friends. Although Yale
15
made the first attempt to organize alumni as early as the late 18th century, this area today focuses
on both alumni development and advancement, evolving into a much more complex,
sophisticated, and technologically-advanced enterprise. Pray (1981) reported that, in a 1936
survey of American colleges, fewer than half of the institutions had an annual alumni fund.
However, over 70 years later, one would be hard pressed not to find such specialized
development units at most colleges and universities.
Although the area of “communications and marketing” may seem self-explanatory,
CASE defines these programs to include “institutional or public relations, periodicals,
publications and government relations, the goal of which is to keep interested audiences
informed about the institution, to influence their opinion, and to build support for the institution”
(CASE, n.d.). As funds from public entities continue to become more challenging to obtain,
government relations has also evolved into an integral component of the advancement portfolio,
generating increasing contact between university officials and federal, state, and local
governments. A common practice has become the appointment of an administrator to fill a
“government relations” position within the institution.
Finally, “development,” as defined by CASE, includes a “sophisticated and
comprehensive program of annual giving, campaigns, major gifts, and planned giving” (CASE,
n.d.). While alumni annual giving remains the cornerstone of the development function, other
sources of funding include: corporations, foundations, trustees, faculty and staff, parents, and
current students. Collectively, these sources constitute what is defined as “fundraising,” that is
the solicitation and stewardship of donations and gifts. With this basic overview of the terms
and concepts that delimit this area, a brief history of the foundational organizations supporting
institutional advancement follows, and concludes with an examination of the increasing role
student affairs has played more recently in the progression of this domain.
16
Brief Historical Overview of Institutional Advancement
Just as student affairs has evolved over the past several decades into a profession
supported by both practitioner-based and academic research addressing a variety of functional
areas, institutional advancement has similarly progressed with the emergence of a number of
organizations held in high regard by fundraising professionals. Three such groups stand out
among those in the fundraising and development arena: CASE; the American Association of
Fund-Raising Counsel (AAFRC); and the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP). With
the support of such bodies, Levy (2004) concluded that, “Fundraising is becoming a recognized
profession, with guided entry, formal standards, ethical codes, and research to better develop and
inform its constituents” (p. 23), complete with specialized libraries to further its understandings
and to guide its practitioners, e.g., the Payton Philanthropic Studies Library, located on the
Indiana University-Purdue University campus in Indianapolis, IN. A brief history of each
organization follows.
The CASE predecessor organization dates back to 1913, when The Association of
Alumni Secretaries was first formed (Pray, 1981). Although numerous public relations and
alumni groups were created thereafter, it was the Greenbrier Conference (titled: Advancing
Understanding and Support of Higher Education) in 1958 that spurred modern-day fundraising
efforts for higher education. This conference, underwritten by the Ford Foundation, involved
two seminal groups – The American Alumni Council (AAC) and The American College Public
Relations Association (ACPRA). Its purpose was to bring together college presidents, trustees,
development staff, members of the business community, and public relations groups to discuss
collective ways they could advance colleges and universities. An important outcome of this
meeting was the establishment of the general domain identified subsequently as “institutional
advancement.” In 1974, ACPRA and ACC merged to create CASE (CASE, n.d.), a name
17
selected from over 400 suggestions. Furthermore, in 1982, a Colloquium on Professionalism in
Institutional Advancement, dubbed “Greenbrier II,” having been held nearly 25 years after the
first one, focused on ethics, research, and standards in advancement (Pray, 1981).
Although prior to the merger of AAC and ACPRA in the establishment of CASE, the
most noteworthy merger of professional fundraising firms culminated in the 1935 founding of
the AAFRC, now called The Giving Institute (Giving Institute, 2010). This group began as a
forum for professional fundraising firms to meet and discuss issues related to their practice as
fundraisers for their respective organizations (e.g., YMCA, American Red Cross, and United
Way). Including 38 member firms to date, The Giving Institute serves to promote the need for
professional and ethical standards of practice, and to influence the creation of laws governing
philanthropy. The organization represents firms that focus on a comprehensive range of
advancement features, including: annual giving, (capital) campaign management and
implementation, case statement and proposal writing, colleges and universities, e-philanthropy,
endowments, environmental organizations, major gift programs, planned giving, prospect donor
research, strategic planning, telemarketing.
Finally, the AFP, another organization dedicated to generating philanthropic support for
non-profit groups, was founded in 1960 and includes nearly 30,000 members in 213 chapters
throughout the world (AFP, 2010). AFP was instrumental in creating and maintaining the Donor
Bill of Rights (AFP, 2010), a document that outlines what donors have the right to expect from
charitable organizations to which they contribute. Additionally, AFP established a certificate
program through Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE), International, whose credentials are
held by more than 3,000 fundraising professionals, verifying both the knowledge of and
experience with fundraising and philanthropy (CFRE, 2010).
18
Student Affairs and Fundraising
Although investment in development initiatives for specific academic units and athletics
are most common in higher education today, initiatives in units beyond these traditional venues
have also emerged in recent decades, such as those in student affairs. To date, a number of
articles and research projects, conference presentations, and new literature addressing
development work in student affairs has begun to appear within the broader focus on institutional
advancement in higher education. Proponents have extolled the need for student affairs to
become involved in such efforts, citing data on perceptions and attitudes about this involvement,
suggesting ways by which administrators can utilize fundraising and development to advance
their units, sharing current understanding and knowledge of fundraising, and presenting
challenges and responses thereto for student affairs administrators. In addition, others have
begun to examine these considerations empirically, illuminating perceptions about the
relationship between student affairs and development staff, student affairs involvement in
fundraising, and the coordination of such efforts.
To address the lack of systematic information about the best practices of fundraising in
student affairs requires an understanding of several components of this phenomenon, including
the relationship between and mutual expectations of student affairs and institutional
advancement units, patterns of current involvement and organizational structures employed by
student affairs in fundraising, practitioners’ knowledge and understanding of fundraising
practices, the fundraising challenges presented to divisions of student affairs, and their
approaches to resolving them. The following sections detail dimensions of this phenomenon,
and pinpoint the knowledge gap within which the questions for this study are situated.
19
Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement
Questions about the relationship between student affairs and institutional advancement
professionals have followed the first involvement of divisions of student affairs in these
endeavors. Oftentimes, such units on campus are not aware of each other, especially in terms of
their respective missions, roles, and functions within the university community. This disconnect
oftentimes presents unique challenges to both units as they attempt to function independently in
fundraising practices. The literature to date has examined components of this relationship,
including perceptions each unit has of the other, various theories and proposed structures that
guide this affiliation, and any mutual expectations for such involvement between them.
Fygetakis (1992) applied a theoretical framework to study the relationship between
student affairs and development offices in fundraising for student extracurricular activities. The
population she surveyed consisted of SSAOs (senior student affairs officers) and development
officers from public institutions with enrollment over 10,000 students. She sought to delineate
the perceptions of fundraising for extracurricular activities in development and student affairs
offices, and whether such units shared common goals for these activities. Using Deutsch’s
(1949a; 1949b) theory of cooperation and competition, she attempted to determine which types
of relationships between the two units produced more successful fundraising efforts –
cooperative (positive), competitive (negative), or separate (independent). SSAOs were found to
perceive the relationship as separate, whereas development officers perceived it to be more of a
cooperative one – a very important distinction in institution-wide fundraising efforts.
Nayman, Gianneschi, and Mandel (1993) have also weighed in on the research regarding
perceptions between SSAOs and development staff. The researchers mailed questionnaires to
both SSAOs and institutional development officers to determine the features of professional
relationships perceived to exist between such units within each institution. Their study focused
20
on: involvement in student affairs programs for alumni efforts, institutional support for
collaboration, scope of activities undertaken collaboratively for current students, attitudes toward
collaborative efforts between these two units, and mutual areas of concern related to extant and
potential collaboration. The majority of all institutional types – 71% from private, 76% from
public, and 73% from community college respondents, with no significant variation between unit
responses, identified few inter-division cooperative efforts.
Ten years after Fygetakis’ (1992) research, Hillman (2002) extended this line of inquiry
and focused on cooperation between development and student affairs offices, as well as the
status of fundraising activities and training within student affairs divisions in Texas colleges (4year public, private institutions, and 2-year public institutions). Additionally, her research
focused on determining whether a correlation existed between a cooperative relationship and the
number of successful fundraising goals, whether training occurred for SSAOs involved in
fundraising, the types of training they received, and the ways individual institutions supported
student affairs fundraising efforts. Respondents included 72 development officers and 95
SSAOs with a total of 167 usable responses (a 60.7% overall response rate). Concerning the
relationship to fundraising between the respective units, Hillman’s (2002) data found that both
units perceived a cooperative, rather than competitive, relationship with the other, a distinct
departure from Fygetakis’ (1992) earlier findings.
The collaborative relationship between SSAOs and development administrators often
varies and is perceived frequently to be disconnected, due to the presumed unique missions and
goals associated with each. However, units under study have also acknowledged the value of a
positive and cooperative relationship, encouraging more involvement in fundraising efforts for
student affairs units by both sides (Fygetakis, 1992; Hillman, 2002). In summarizing the nature
of these inter-unit relationships, Shay (1993) suggested a proactive charge for SSAOs:
21
No matter how institutional advancement activities are organized, the wise Chief Student
Affairs Officer should approach the Chief Institutional Advancement Officer to explore
how student affairs can help achieve the institutional advancement goals of the university
rather than how the institutional advancement staff can raise money for student affairs.
(p. 23)
In addition to the above question, expectations from each unit, as well as from the primary
institutional development officer – the president, have been explored as significant
considerations.
Student Affairs Involvement in Fundraising
“Deans who go into fundraising work, on the campuses where they have served in a
student affairs role, provide invaluable insights about donors” (Kroll, 1991, p. 78). Although
Kroll concluded this from her research, both SSAOs and development staff in her study of the
role of student affairs administrators in fundraising and development at selected Midwestern
liberal arts colleges, varied in their insights about this topic. Role behaviors and expectations of
student affairs officers were also surveyed from the perspective of presidents, development
officers, and SSAOs at small, private colleges. Employing both personal interviews (with
student affairs administrators and development officers) and questionnaires, 32 (nearly 60%) of
the 54 respondents indicated that student affairs units were involved in fundraising and, of those
involved, most did so at the request of their president or as a part of their job expectations.
Additionally, 40.5% of the presidents and development officers surveyed believed that student
affairs staff should be more involved in these efforts on their campuses.
Terrell et al. (1993) also examined student affairs administrator roles in fundraising. In a
study of 543 NASPA voting delegates from a variety of institutions – community colleges, 4year institutions, and other institutional types – most were found to believe that they had a place
22
in university fundraising efforts, although an overwhelming majority (90%) also perceived that
their university president only “somewhat” or “did not” see any particular role for student affairs
administrators in such efforts.
The interviews Kroll (1991) conducted provided additional insight into the feelings and
attitudes of SSAOs regarding their involvement in fundraising, as well as their perceptions of the
impact of such participation on their current and future roles. An interesting observation of the
demographics of the development officers she interviewed was that nine of the twelve came from
student affairs backgrounds and had advanced degrees in student affairs or higher education
administration. The author surmised that this may be a function of the type of institution
examined, that being small liberal arts colleges, where usually long-serving and popular student
affairs administrators are often well-known by a wide range of alumni and constituents.
There were several common themes in the student affairs administrators’ and
development officers’ responses, including perceptions of having a shared, holistic perspective
about the institution and skills thought to be transferable to development work, as well as the
expanding nature of career advancement in student affairs. Support for such themes was evident
in one SSAOs response: “Student affairs staff believed they could represent the institution better
than faculty, for example, because they had a wider exposure to the various aspects of their
college or university” (Kroll, 1991, p. 76). This was corroborated by a development officer’s
response: “Deans of students can see the college as a whole; faculty can’t; development officers
must” (p. 69).
Gold, Golden, and Quatroche (1993) also lend a voice to those who support this holistic
student affairs view of the university: “The student affairs staff can provide considerable
information about potential prospects, their backgrounds or connections to the institution, and
even their capacity and willingness to give. Student affairs staff members are critical as partners
23
in the actual solicitation process” (p. 96). Finally, Hendrix-Kral (1995) provided further support,
suggesting that: “Student affairs divisions have an advantage over other institutional units in that
they interact with students more frequently throughout a student’s tenure on campus” (p. 19). It
seems evident then that the unique characteristics and involvement of student affairs
administrators reported in these studies position them well to play critical roles in overall
university fundraising efforts.
In 1993, Nayman et al., extended Kroll’s (1991) collaboration thesis and conducted a
national study involving a random sample of 545 members of both NASPA and CASE, with a
61% response rate. Institutions represented in the sample were public, 4-year colleges and
universities (47.3%), private 4-year institutions (46.1%), and community colleges (6.6%). These
authors further underscored the significance of collaboration between senior student affairs and
development officers: “. . . it is apparent that student affairs, and other divisions of the
institution, can profit from becoming involved in institutional advancement initiatives, both to
garner additional resources for their own division and for the institution as a whole” (p. 86).
Others have also emphasized the value of student affairs participation in fundraising.
Hendrix-Kral’s (1995) research highlighted additional comments from respective units.
Development staff identified the need for student affairs administrators to work more closely
with development officers and gain support from the president. This connection was also
previously supported by Gordon, Strode, and Brady (1993) who emphasized that, “The CSAO
[Chief Student Affairs Officer] can build a personal relationship of trust and respect with the
chief institutional advancement officer through both formal and informal contact” (p. 9).
Accordingly, a close working relationship between SSAOs and development officers could
continue to bridge the relationship between the two offices and increase their mutual
understanding, hence strengthening overall collaborative development and fundraising efforts.
24
Beyond perceiving and/or expecting student affairs to be involved in fundraising efforts, the
organization of such efforts is also important to consider.
Coordination of Fundraising Efforts
Miser and Mathis (1993) discussed the strategies needed for divisions of student affairs
interested in developing a successful advancement program. Two common structures were
introduced, the first being a centralized model based primarily in the institutional advancement
office, where student affairs administrators report to the development staff. Within such a
structure the researchers observed that, “It is imperative to have a liaison, advocate, or expert on
student affairs on the central institutional advancement staff” (p. 30). This arrangement would
ensure a greater understanding of student affairs, as well as its needs and priorities, which in turn
can be communicated to the entire advancement staff. The second model is a decentralized
structure, where each college, school, or program has an assigned development officer who
coordinates efforts within that area. Unfortunately, Miser and Mathis claimed, there are
drawbacks to this scheme for divisions of student affairs: “In many large and complex
institutions, this model is long-standing and very successful; however, traditionally with this
model, student affairs has not had an officer like those present in academic units” (p. 30).
Applying this two-structure approach to fundraising, Hendrix-Kral (1995) explored
whether institutional support and/or inter-division cooperation was a factor in fundraising
success within divisions of student affairs, as well as which organizational structure was used
most frequently. An interesting subset of the research question was whether institutional support
and inter-unit cooperation were factors in the fundraising efforts of divisions of student affairs.
Specifically, both types of units (73.6%) rated their overall relationship as “good” to “excellent.”
However, the majority of both groups (51%) believed that “little” or “no” cooperation occurred
between the two offices to raise funds for student co-curricular activities. Additionally,
25
combined office responses (40%) indicated that student affairs administrators “seldom” or
“never” encouraged or sought assistance from the development office, although 43.5% thought
that the two offices made attempts (“frequently” and “sometimes”) to coordinate fundraising
efforts for divisions of student affairs.
Callahan (1997) has also added to the research regarding the reporting structure of
fundraisers in student affairs. In a study of NASPA SSAOs (N=72), Callahan (1997) found that,
of the 30% who had a full-time fundraiser for student affairs, over half (55%) reported to student
affairs (in a decentralized structure), about one-third (32%) reported to development (in a
centralized structure), and 13% reported to both offices (in a collaborative structure).
Another facet of organizational structure relates to how the student affairs development staff
member is selected. Hendrix-Kral (1995) reported that, while 63% of the student affairs
respondents indicated the dedicated individual was selected by student affairs administrators,
only 43% of development officers did so. With regard to how the position is funded, nearly half
of the development officer responses (45%) and two-thirds of the SSAO responses (67%)
indicated that the student affairs development position was funded by the division of student
affairs. If nothing else all of this suggests that these respective units on campus are as yet unclear
about their mutual responsibilities and use of respective resources.
Student Affairs Understanding of Fundraising
Over twenty years after Kimmel (1986) first explored fundraising in divisions of student
affairs and argued that the profession needs to be more involved in such activities, the call for
participation continues.
Creative financing is possible through aggressive fundraising, an activity not generally
associated with student affairs. Our contact with student leaders and other influential
26
students affords a unique opportunity to raise monies if we take the initiative, develop a
plan of action, and capitalize on successful fundraising programs in the profession.
(p. 10)
In addition to the challenges of the university community having a limited understanding and
appreciation for the complex roles within divisions of student affairs and their limited role in
external fundraising, their lack of knowledge about fundraising techniques also presents a
challenge for student affairs administrators. As emphasized by Gold et al. (1993):
It is generally accepted in the present financial climate that the CSAO [Chief Student
Affairs Officer] must incorporate educational fundraising as a central component in the
planning and operation of the student affairs unit. What is not so clear to most CSAOs is
how best to achieve education fundraising objectives. (p. 96)
The Terrell et al. (1993) research also emphasized the need for student affairs
administrators’ involvement in fundraising. The authors contended that, “student affairs
professionals constitute an untapped resource for enhancing college or university fundraising
efforts” (p. 191). Just over half of those surveyed (53%) did not believe that fundraising was a
significant part of their jobs, and 60% believed that the aspect of raising money did not increase
in their current position. The authors also shared several key recommendations for
administrators in divisions of student affairs when considering becoming involved in fundraising
at their institutions, including adding fundraising to the job descriptions of student affairs
professionals, gaining knowledge of the fundraising process, collaborating with development
officers, and considering targeting fundraising efforts for student affairs services, programs, and
facilities. A student affairs respondent in Hendrix-Kral’s (1995) research also exemplified this
lack of fundraising understanding by student affairs personnel: “It is contrary to our training to
27
think of the helping, support work we do in terms of a ‘return’ somewhere down the line.
Whether one agrees philosophically or not we probably have to modify our thinking” (p. 54).
Overall, the need for units to communicate with each other about individual missions,
goals, expectations, and objectives has been shown to be critical to student affairs
administrators’ involvement in fundraising efforts. Even though mixed perceptions were found
in regard to the specific role student affairs administrators should assume in these efforts, there
seems to be a link between the in-depth involvement in and understanding of student affairs
within the university community and their efforts to be effective fundraisers.
Hendrix-Kral’s (1995) study also lends credence to those who have called attention to
considerations for student affairs administrators achieving fundraising goals, including
suggestions for how they could more effectively engage in fundraising and what may be viewed
as major obstacles to increasing donations for divisions of student affairs. Interestingly, similar
themes emerged from both the development and student affairs officers’ responses to these
probes. First, development officers shared that student affairs practitioners need to develop a
better case for support. However, student affairs administrators indicated that they believe
student affairs as a whole is not a priority on their campuses. Second, both units believed that
divisions of student affairs lack a well-defined constituency or base of support. Although donors
do not traditionally resonate with supporting student affairs programs and services, Shay (1993)
stated that, “Success requires both imagination to think of an appealing goal and a better set of
records of former students’ interests and activities than most institutions have available” (p. 25).
This requires accurate and up-to-date records of former and current students and employees who
will be future prospects to support student affairs. Finally, both agreed that sufficient staff and
resources are additional concerns, and student affairs respondents stressed the need for a person
to be assigned specifically to their division. “Enterprising CSAOs now seek to take matters into
28
their own hands by raising money to support their own programs” (Shay, 1993, p. 18).
Assigning staff to coordinate fundraising efforts is necessary, they claim, in order to be
successful in these endeavors. This requires not only personnel, but financial support as well.
There are also those who have focused attention on specific considerations for divisions
of student affairs in achieving their fundraising goals. Shay (1993) described fundraising
poignantly: “Obtaining a major gift is a process, not an event” (p. 19). This process takes much
time, commitment, and energy. In addition to the leadership and basic awareness of fundraising
practices needed to create a successful program, another key aspect is an understanding of the
methods and techniques of fundraising. Hendrix-Kral (1995) cited the research of Sherratt
(1975), who studied the methods and techniques of fundraising at public institutions. Although
35 years have ensued since his seminal research, what was shared on behalf of the development
officers studied then seems relevant today. In his view:
[The] student of today is an alumnus of tomorrow and that if a student could be educated
in the needs of the university and if he could be involved in fundraising efforts before he
graduated, he might be more inclined to assist the institution after he received his degree
and departed the campus. (Sherratt, 1975, p. 152)
Such an observation easily translates to student affairs today, where the student affairs
administrator (e.g., department head) with an understanding of fundraising has considerable
potential for assisting his or her university as a fundraiser in the future. In fact, Gordon et al.
(1993) emphasized the importance of this insight as well: “Student affairs administrators need to
know the language precepts of institutional advancement in general and the mission of the office
on their campus in particular in order to provide appropriate information and assistance in raising
funds for student affairs” (p. 9). If student affairs administrators understood the process of
29
fundraising, including methods and techniques, and were involved in such efforts, they too could
enhance university-wide advancement.
Miser and Mathis (1993) also recommended a list of essential skills for establishing a
successful student affairs advancement program. “In the early stages of the institutional
advancement program, the chief student affairs officer must lead, support, and inspire the
educational fundraising effort, because the work is difficult and the early returns are small” (p.
31). Equally important is the need for the SSAO to communicate this initiative, new to divisions
of student affairs, to the entire division’s professional staff. “The department chairs and program
directors and their staffs play a vital role by identifying needs, writing case statements and
expressions, designing programs, and assisting in cultivation and solicitation” (p. 31).
Beyond the SSAO taking a leadership role in divisional advancement efforts, there are
several standard processes that must be in place when creating a viable fundraising program
(Kopita & Royse, 2004; Miser & Mathis, 1993; The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana
University, 2010). A critical first step is to develop a case that states why someone should give
to the division of student affairs and/or department or program. Why should a prospective donor
give time, money, or resources to an initiative? What are the priorities and how might they be
compelling to a donor? This was also supported directly by Miller (2010a) in the claim that,
“Senior student affairs staff members can contribute to capital campaign targets by advocating
for including components in the campaign case statement that are designed to enhance student
life or student learning” (p. 5). A second step is to identify donors and prospects through
community and individual cultivation. This is accomplished by identifying those who have a
relationship with the division and creating opportunities for their support, implementing a
development or advisory board, and involving students, parents, and current/former employees.
Third is to conduct prospect research using Internet searches and utilizing alumni/development
30
databases. When considering prospective donors, there are three indicators that best predict
whether someone will make a gift – linkage, ability, and interest. There needs to be a link to the
organization or program; the prospect must have the ability to offer a gift; and there needs to be
an interest in the proposed project/unit, complemented by the asking for a gift. This last step is
often the most challenging aspect, especially for student affairs administrators, simply because
they traditionally fulfill a service role and are not accustomed to asking for support. Finally,
closure is critical, in following up with the donor, acknowledging their generosity, stewarding
their gift(s), and continuing to cultivate their interests.
Gold et al. (1993) also emphasized the need for SSAOs to articulate the contributions of
student affairs services that directly relate to case statement development: “The process must
begin with awareness of and confidence in the vital role and influence of student services on the
achievement of the institution’s unique missions and goals” (p. 97). Furthermore, Morgan and
Policello (2010) outlined specific tasks required for creating an educational fundraising plan.
Exercising leadership is the first critical task needed for divisions of student affairs to become
more involved in by being more assertive in seeking external funding. This involves a
knowledge base of how to do fundraising, a motivating spirit to enlist support from directors and
department heads within the division, a willingness to collaborate with development staff, and
the ability to share a compelling statement of need for donors to support student affairs efforts,
programs, and initiatives. Other tasks include soliciting support from the president, having a
realistic vision of success, utilizing strategic planning, anticipating strategic issues and
challenges, centralizing the process, creating a planning committee, developing a current
constituency base, targeting and involving donors, stewarding and soliciting prospective donors,
creating advisory boards, and finally, providing staff development opportunities for the entire
division.
31
A component of staff preparation should include training about fundraising and
development. The need for this is evident from the research of Terrell et al. (1993), where 74%
of respondents’ budgets were not being supplemented by external funds, but only 16% reported
having completed some formal training in fundraising. Although the majority of SSAOs had not
received any educational training about fundraising, 72% thought they “should” be involved in
such efforts. Additionally, to learn effective techniques of fundraising, one can review books
(Penney & Rose, 2001; Terrell & Gold, 1993), attend institutes and/or workshops (The Center on
Philanthropy Fundraising School, 2010), and consult with SSAOs currently involved in
successful fundraising efforts (e.g., Miami University, Wichita State University, University of
North Texas, Texas A&M University, California State University – Long Beach, University of
North Carolina/Wilmington, Syracuse University, Illinois State University, University of
Louisville, and Florida State University).
Opening up lines of communication between senior student affairs administrators and
development officers, as well as the university president, is also the key to building successful
relationships between all parties seeking external funds for the university as a whole. Therefore,
considering SSAO involvement in such efforts is important to examine. To follow is a review of
what researchers have discovered about student affairs involvement in fundraising overall,
including selection and funding of development officer positions, as well as the organizational
structure within which they function.
Student Affairs: An Untapped Resource
Generally both offices (that is, student affairs and alumni and development) in Fygetakis’
(1992) study viewed fundraising for student affairs as a shared goal not in competition with one
another’s efforts; however both offices also believed that the other should be more involved in
fundraising for these activities. Although involvement in fundraising efforts was perceived as
32
important, only 12.5% of SSAOs responding employed their own development officer and only
14.2% of the development offices assigned an individual specifically to divisions of student
affairs. Nayman et al. (1993) found that 55% of the development officers responded “yes” to the
idea of having a staff member assigned to student affairs, compared to only 20% of student
affairs officer respondents.
In order to evaluate student affairs involvement in fundraising efforts further, HendrixKral (1995) focused on capital campaigns at public universities and their implications for student
affairs divisions. The population included SSAOs (N=111) and development officers (N=114) at
institutions with enrollment over 10,000 students. The survey instrument was adapted from
Fygetakis’ (1992) questionnaire, with additional items focusing specifically on capital
campaigns, evaluation of the fundraising program, and details of organizational structure. The
two main purposes of Hendrix-Kral’s (1995) research were to first determine the role of the
capital campaign in fundraising success for divisions of student affairs and second, whether these
campaigns (ongoing or completed) determined if such units would have a development officer
assigned to them for future fundraising projects. Findings generally established that institutions
involved in capital campaigns played a limited role in the fundraising success of their divisions
of student affairs, with nearly 30% of both student affairs and development officers indicating
that student affairs initiatives were not campaign goals at all.
After inquiring about the role of the capital campaign, Hendrix-Kral (1995) asked
respondents about the extent of continued involvement of student affairs administrators (if any)
they anticipated following completion of an institutional capital campaign. Total responses from
each unit reflected 39.1% who stated that student affairs staff should have ‘more’ or the ‘same
involvement’ in raising funds for student affairs programs. Equally important is that 37.8% of
respondents from both units indicated that divisions of student affairs were still involved in
33
fundraising after the capital campaign had ended, even though 42.1% of development
respondents and 32.4% of student affairs respondents believed that the success rate of this
involvement was either “fair” or “poor.”
Hillman’s (2002) research also revealed little involvement of student affairs
administrators in fundraising efforts. While 30% of development officers sampled indicated
having a staff member from their unit assigned specifically to the division of student affairs, only
18% of student affairs respondents employed a full-time student affairs development officer. In
summary, respondents indicated that divisions of student affairs should be more involved;
however, their participation in such efforts was less than successful for the capital campaigns
examined.
Two additional studies (Callahan, 1997; Haynes, 2004) further examined the involvement
of student affairs administrators in fundraising. First, Callahan (1997) surveyed NASPA SSAOs
(N=72) and found that over 85% were involved in fundraising or had (72%) staff involved in
fundraising, while 72% were considering or had considered establishing a fundraising function
within their divisions. Only 30% of the respondents already had a full-time fundraiser in student
affairs. Second, Haynes (2004) conducted a session at the annual NASPA conference and
discussed first, the current level of SSAOs’ involvement in development activities; second,
whether differences existed in divisions of student affairs development initiatives, based on
select institutional characteristics; and last, suggestions for best practices in student affairs
development. Voting delegates from the NASPA directory were surveyed, with a 36% response
rate (N=182). Over half (63%) were involved in development activities, on average for almost 3
hours per week. About one-fifth (21%) employed a development officer, of which 75% held
full-time positions. Of the respondents who had development officers assigned full-time, they
were employed for fewer than 5 years, mostly at public, doctoral granting/research extensive
34
institutions, with enrollment over 10,000 students. Still, the need for greater involvement has not
been demonstrated by the appointment or assignment of development officers to student affairs
units.
Challenges for Student Affairs Fundraising Efforts
When venturing into a new area of the university community, like fundraising, certain
challenges arise specific to student affairs administrators. Divisions of student affairs staff and
the services they provide are often misunderstood by other units within the academy, where
academic endeavors might be viewed as a higher priority. Gordon et al. (1993) shared the
significance of this lack of mutual understanding in this case: “It is likely that institutional
advancement officers have only a cursory understanding of student affairs functions and little or
no knowledge of the needs or objectives of that division” (p. 8). Thus, without a better
understanding of each unit’s functional areas, missions, and goals, it is difficult to focus on any
collaborative fundraising efforts.
Hendrix-Kral’s (1995) research uncovered some unique themes that emerged from the
responses of student affairs and development administrators that present a number of challenges
to divisions of student affairs, in particular. One shared by the development officers was that the
university should fund student affairs programs out of their own budgets, rather than private
funds, emphasizing the notion that a state university should be supported by state dollars. One
could assume that if such notions were shared widely within an institution, other greater
challenges to the division of student affairs would be imminent. Additionally, student affairs
respondents expressed the lack of understanding of the student affairs fundraising role on
campus, which often leads to competition with the donor base and the need for more attractive
options beyong academic scholarships, faculty endowments, and athletics. If the university as a
whole does not fully understand the functions student affairs divisions serve, it would more than
35
likely be challenging for a donor to understand their role, especially from development staff who
might be limited in their own understanding.
Continued financial constraints on student affairs programs and services present yet
another significant challenge for these units on campus. To determine the effects of such
restrictions, Rames (2000) surveyed SSAOs from 4-year, state-assisted institutions with
undergraduate enrollment between 5,000 and 11,000 students, and reviewed the effects of
university financial constraints (e.g., reductions in budget, personnel, revenue, services, or
enrollment) on 15 student affairs services during 1992 to 1997. Effects of financial constraints
included: elimination of programs; a shift from institutional support to increased student or user
fees; and unchanged, increased, or decreased services/programs.
Budgets for student affairs functions linked to recruitment (e.g., admissions, financial aid,
and minority student advising) were reported to be the ones most frequently increased.
However, among those decreased were also some tightly coupled with recruitment (e.g.,
counseling, career placement, and student activities). Although the majority of SSAOs reported
no significant change in student services provided, due to a shift to student or user fees, when
they did occur and effected increases in student fees, they were most frequently reported by
student health (19.36%), student activities (17.71%), and counseling services (16.13%). Nearly
ten years after Rames’ (2000) study, the College Board (2010) reported that over the decade
spanning the 2000-2001 to 2010-2011 academic years, published tuition and fees at public fouryear colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 5.6% per year beyond the rate of
general inflation. Over the most recent decade, the largest one-year increases in average
published tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities were 11.0% beyond
inflation in 2003-04 and 9.3% in 2009-10. Although increasing student fees is one option for
36
repairing declining budgets, increasing the expected financial contributions of students cannot be
the only response.
Student Affairs Response to Financial Challenges
In the context of such financial challenges, research on student affairs administrators’
responses has generated many valuable insights, suggestions, and mechanisms to consider in
attending to these concerns. Financial strategies implemented by SSAOs to increase
productivity were identified in Rames’ (2000) study and suggest ways to respond. Based on
Massy’s (1992) model for improving productivity, strategies were divided into four categories:
a.) constraints on available resources; b.) strategic thinking; c.) individual and group
empowerment; and d.) incentives, recognition, and rewards. The five most commonly used
methods were: cooperation among constituents (90.32%), establishment of priorities (90.23%),
development of clear and concise mission statements (80.64%), use of technology (80.64%),
change in service level (69.36%), and reduction of waste (69.36%). The first three methods
easily translate into creating a fundraising and development plan within the division of student
affairs, as has been suggested by several of the aforementioned authors in this review.
Rames’ (2000) research, in particular, has shown that financial constraints on student
services continue to challenge administrators within these units. Overall, this study showed that
functions linked to recruitment or admissions are often increased in light of fiscal challenges.
However, a shift in funding does not have an effect on the quality of the services, as perceived
by respondents (SSAO members of NASPA). Although an increase of student and user fees
continues as one viable and often-used option, Rames recommended that SSAOs consider
alternative funding sources as well, such as seeking external funds through creation of a
division-wide fundraising effort. How to do so is the subject of another article that described
how Ramapo College of New Jersey, a small, public, 4-year institution, preserved and
37
redesigned its student affairs programs and services due to statewide cutbacks (Scott & Bischoff,
2000). Accordingly the authors shared principles they recommended be employed to guide an
institution’s choices and decisions in the midst of this situation, as well as in response to
anticipated challenges of decreasing support. Although the principles and efforts are specific to
this institution, they can also assist any public institution challenged by decreases in financial
support from state and local governments. First, “units providing direct services to students
would maintain an advantage in any cost reduction plan” (p. 125). Second, “functional areas
whose work was most clearly linked to achieving special goals mandated by the state, college, or
both (e.g., the recruitment and retention of qualified minority students) would be preserved.”
Third, duplicated services provided on- and off-campus would be outsourced. Fourth,
“constituency-oriented” and “functionally based” services would be reevaluated (p. 125).
Keeping the Student Learning Imperative (American College Personnel Association, 1994)
tenets in the foreground, student affairs administrators at Ramapo understood the need to look
beyond traditional revenue streams to maintain educationally-purposeful student activities:
Instead, the expansion of services, if it occurred at all, would have to come from
partnerships formed with agencies outside the college or from grant or gift funding. In
any instance, there would be a clear understanding that any new service or program
would have to be self-funded either by outside funding or by generating its own
revenues. (Scott & Bischoff, 2000, p. 127)
Collectively these recommendations provided by Rames (2000) and Scott and Biscoff (2000)
provide sound advice to all student affairs administrators and echo the previously cited
understanding such staff need in order to become more involved in fundraising at their
institutions. “Educational fundraising is no longer a peripheral activity in most institutions of
38
higher education. It is a central institutional activity that functions consistently with the overall
mission” (Gold et al., 1993, p. 97).
Summary of Literature
In summary, research to date has provided a modicum of insight into the relationship
between student affairs and development administrators, the expectations of student affairs
involvement in fundraising efforts, student affairs staff understanding and involvement in these
efforts, the fundraising challenges facing divisions of student affairs, and student affairs
administrators’ responses to these challenges. Interestingly, none of the research to date about
student affairs involvement in fundraising is found in the institutional advancement and
development literature (e.g., Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Currents
magazine, Association of Fundraising Professionals).
Clearly, there is a gap in this area of study in higher education and a more detailed and
comprehensive understanding of current practices within divisions of student affairs at 4-year,
public institutions is warranted. Jacobson (1990) reviewed some 20 years ago the progress and
research to date in institutional advancement and funding trends and found that research needs to
take place in unexplored areas in order to provide a “picture” of what is actually occurring (and
working) at a given point in time. One of these under-explored areas is student affairs.
Furthermore, Kroll (1991) suggested that future research focus on large, public universities
where it would appear there are fewer opportunities for student affairs staff to participate in
fundraising within the institution. This dissertation sought to answer these questions while
gathering information about practices perceived to be most successful by those who engage in
them.
New in its current form and even newer to those who serve as administrators in student
affairs, the institutional advancement profession has evolved within and beyond the borders of
39
colleges and universities. What began with gifts from John Harvard to found a university to bear
his name in 1636, to movements organizing alumni to give back and support their schools, to the
current state of a more organized, comprehensive, and complex unit known today as institutional
advancement, support for American higher education continues to move forward in light of and
sometimes in spite of private and public support.
In the context of institutional advancement and student affairs the current state of the art
seems to be characterized by several key ideas:
•
There are few joint efforts between divisions of student affairs and campus development
offices.
•
The type of relationship between these units and the organization of such efforts are
dependent on which unit is asked. Findings report mixed views between centralized and
decentralized structures, while acknowledging advantages and disadvantages to both
models.
•
There are general beliefs that student affairs should be involved in fundraising;
however, this perception does not correspond to the number of SSAOs actually involved
in these efforts.
•
There are varying views of the roles of student affairs units campus-wide, especially
by institutional advancement professionals.
•
Of the student affairs development positions established, most are funded reportedly
by divisions of student affairs.
•
Fundraising is generally not a part of student affairs administrators’ job descriptions,
and staff members are generally not trained in this development domain.
•
Merely asking both units about the other has been shown to raise awareness of each
to the other and how they might work together to jointly achieve fundraising goals.
40
•
The lack of understanding by development staff about student affairs in turn
correlates to a lack of student affairs involvement in university-wide fundraising plans or
inclusion in campaign goals.
•
Fundraising is viewed and needed as an alternative to increasing student fees.
However, still lacking is a comprehensive understanding of current development and fundraising
practices implemented within divisions of student affairs. This study sought information about
the practices thought to be most successful by those who engage in them. Furthermore, six subquestions extended the frame for this inquiry, with reference to: a.) the relationship between
student affairs fundraising practitioners and campus development officers; b.) training these
professionals have utilized; c.) the degree of their fundraising effectiveness; d.) how various
organizational arrangements, institutional size, and mission influence these efforts; e.) the role
student services department heads play in fundraising and development; and f.) the models and
approaches that support the best of them. Answers to these questions provide divisions of
student affairs and those who work in these complex units a more complete understanding of
fundraising practices at public, 4-year institutions.
41
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Previous research has examined in a limited way the role of student affairs in
development efforts, its relationship with staff in offices of institutional advancement, and the
role of capital campaigns in student affairs fundraising. The findings of this study continued this
line of inquiry and uncovered the current state of student affairs practitioners’ understanding and
utilization of successful, systematic development and fundraising practices, including the role
department heads play in these efforts. To follow is an explanation of the participant sample,
major variables, survey design and procedures employed for soliciting responses, major research
questions, and analyses of data.
Participant Sample
Charles and Mertler (2002) suggested that for descriptive research studies, “a common
recommendation is to sample approximately 10-20 percent of the population” (p. 154). This
study identified a population of NASPA (National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators) voting delegate SSAOs (senior student affairs officers), who provide oversight
for student affairs divisions at 4-year, public universities with enrollment of at least 5,000
students. Members of this organization were selected because of their espoused leadership role
in student affairs administration, policy, and practice.
Based on preliminary research and to include all institutions within the parameters sought
for this study, NASPA directory data were compared with data from the U.S. Department of
Education Institute of Education Sciences – National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
directory using the following identifiers: public, 4-year, 5,000 or more students enrolled,
Bachelor’s or graduate level of degree awarded, and the U.S. state in which the university is
located. Both the NASPA and NCES data sets were used to ensure inclusion of all universities
42
with the institutional characteristics selected for this study. The NCES database included 395
institutions appropriate to the characteristics sought; however, only 261 of those institutions also
maintained voting membership in NASPA. It was this group of SSAOs that constituted the
population for this census. Additionally, since the dataset supplied by NASPA did not include
email addresses for participants (needed to send the survey electronically), addresses were
located for the sample and manually entered into an Excel spreadsheet.
Major Variables
“The overall purpose of descriptive research is to provide a picture of a phenomenon as it
naturally occurs” (Hendrick, Bickman, & Rog, 1993, p. 44). Six major sets of variables
contained in the problem for this study were used to estimate the status of ongoing development
and fundraising efforts within divisions of student affairs of 4-year, public institutions. The first
set of variables delineated the institutional profile and organizational arrangement for each
student affairs division sampled. The second set of variables described preparation (if any) for
development and fundraising efforts within the division. The next set of variables assessed
divisional priorities and monies raised for various programs/activities, as well as an overall view
of success in raising funds for the division. The fourth set of variables identified development
and fundraising practices currently underway or included in future plans. The fifth set of
variables included statements regarding respondents’ relationship with institutional advancement
staff. Finally, the sixth set of variables solicited open-ended comments from respondents
regarding challenges and needs for student affairs involved in development and fundraising.
While some were ordinal in nature, most variables used in this study were nominal in design and
were reported as frequency tabulations and percentages.
43
Survey Instrument
A survey was constructed using an adaptation of previous instruments (Fygetakis, 1992;
Hillman, 2002) to focus on development and fundraising practices within divisions of student
affairs, rather than in comparison to institutional advancement units or within a particular state,
as was done in previous studies. Professional courtesy calls were made to these researchers with
permission to adapt their questionnaires (J. Hillman, personal communication, March 23, 2006;
E. Fygetakis, personal communication, March 14, 2007). Additionally, the survey used for this
study examined the role, if any, department heads assume regarding development and
fundraising efforts within the division. See Appendix A for a copy of the instrument.
The survey for this study was a self-report questionnaire divided into six sections. In
addition to general institutional characteristics (e.g., total enrollment, Carnegie classification),
Section I (Institutional Profile and Organizational Arrangements – Q1-Q17) included questions
that focused on institution and division involvement in a capital campaign (e.g., “Did your
institution embark on a capital campaign within the previous 5 years (2002-2007)?”), and the
organizational structure and positioning of a development and fundraising staff member for the
division of student affairs (e.g., Does your division employ a fundraiser(s) specifically for
student affairs?). Responses to this section of the survey were solicited in nominal or ordinal
forms.
After gaining an understanding of the institutional and divisional profile and mission,
Section II (Preparation for Development and Fundraising – Q18-Q23) inquired about the
preparation for development and fundraising expectations for staff within the division who were
responsible for such efforts (e.g., “Regarding this person’s job description, is having fundraising
experience and/or knowledge a prerequisite for employment?”). Responses in this section were
solicited as nominal data.
44
Next, Section III (Student Affairs Priorities and Monies Raised – Q24-Q27) offered
respondents an opportunity to identify priorities for fundraising activity and estimate external
money raised within the previous five years, as well as their overall perception of both
institutional and divisional fundraising success within the previous academic year (e.g., “Rate
your institution’s overall success in raising external funds for priorities in your division within
the previous five academic years (2002-2007). Data generated in this section included both
nominal and ordinal responses.
After gaining an understanding of institution and division mission, preparation to perform
these functions, and student affairs priorities and external money raised, Section IV
(Development and Fundraising Practices – Q 28a-Q28x) provided respondents an opportunity to
identify current development and fundraising practices, as well as future plans for involvement
in these activities (e.g., attended institutional advancement meetings, created a database of
prospective donors, communicated funding priorities with prospective donors). This section also
identified the role of select department heads in these efforts (e.g., designated a staff member
from housing/residence life to be involved in development and fundraising efforts for their
department). Responses in this section were solicited in the form of nominal data.
To follow, Section V (Relationship with Institutional Advancement Staff – Q29a-Q29q;
Q30) included Likert-type scale responses (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) for
participants to identify their level of agreement or disagreement with statements regarding the
division of student affairs, details of their relationship with the office of institutional
advancement, as well as their overall opinion about this relationship (e.g., Trust exists between
the institutional advancement and student affairs divisions; Institutional advancement staff share
current development and fundraising information with student affairs staff; In your opinion, rate
45
your division’s overall relationship with the institutional advancement division at your
institution). Responses in this section were solicited in the form of descriptive frequencies.
Finally, Section VI (Open-ended Comments/Responses – Q31-Q33) included three openended questions to solicit respondents’ anticipated challenges in development and fundraising
for student affairs initiatives, as well as the greatest need perceived for divisions of student
affairs to be successful in this domain (e.g., “What are the most significant/immediate challenges
in development and fundraising efforts within your division at your institution?). According to
Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, and Steinmetz (1991), “open-ended questioning can unearth
valuable information that tight questions do not allow” (p. 66).
Content Validity
Content validity, according to Charles and Mertler (2002), exists when “the contents of
an instrument appear to be very similar to information contained in a course, program, or another
test” (p. 380). In order to ensure content validity, readability, and clarity of the survey, steps
were taken by consultation with an expert panel of SSAOs who reviewed an earlier iteration of
the survey prior to constructing the final electronic version. Dillman (1978) stated that a pilottest helps to “identify construction defects” (p. 155). Additionally, once the electronic version of
the survey was completed, a piloting of its on-line distribution to the same expert panel (selected
because of their number of years experience in higher education and student affairs) was
completed to check for consistency of presentation, ease of response, and accuracy of data
recording into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). After content validity and
overall readability of the survey were satisfied, it was sent to the sample (N=261).
Procedures
Prior to sending the electronic survey to the sample, letters were mailed to all invitees
explaining the focus of the research, the significance of the study, a request for their
46
participation, and information about the forthcoming email survey (see Appendix B). This step
was an effort to solicit support for the electronic survey respondents received the following
week, as well as to increase response rate. Prior to beginning the electronic survey, respondents
read a cover letter and informed consent document (see Appendix C). The survey was powered
by Snap surveys housed on the Bowling Green State University (BGSU) website, at an Internet
address publicized only to those selected for participation in the study. In order to ensure
customization and subsequent follow-up, each participant received an email message with the
survey link and an URL address code uniquely connected to his/her email address.
Participants were asked to complete the survey within a two-week period. Reminder
emails to nonrespndents occurred at two-week and three-week intervals to achieve a maximum
return rate. Snap surveys feature a filtering mechanism that places respondents who have
already completed the survey into a separate category, avoiding duplicate contacts of those who
had already responded. Since the researcher was not able to access the Snap software and
database from her current institution, Dr. William Knight, Associate Vice Provost for Planning
and Accountability at BGSU, assisted with the online survey and administration process.
After participants completed the survey, their responses were stored in a data file easily
downloaded into SPSS software for analysis. Additionally, the qualitative data from openended questionnaire responses, already in typed form, were downloaded into SPSS. The Snap
survey software obtained responses up to 9,999 characters (in data length) although appearance
of the box length within the survey was 250 characters in a scrolling format.
Major Research Questions
The research questions outlined here address those gaps in the literature reviewed in the
preceding chapter, while examining current development and fundraising practices in divisions
of student affairs, at public, 4-year, NASPA-member institutions in the United States:
47
1.
What practices, models, and approaches are most common to those who engage
in development and fundraising?
2.
Is there a relationship between institutional size/mission and these practices?
3.
Are department heads involved in development and fundraising efforts?
4.
Is there a relationship between current practices and the organizational design of
these efforts (i.e., dedicated, centralized, collaborative)?
5.
What training have student affairs professionals utilized for fundraising
preparedness?
6.
What is the relationship between student affairs practitioners and development
officers?
7.
Is there a relationship between practices and fundraising success as measured by
estimated dollars raised?
8.
What other feedback do SSAOs have about the challenges in development and
fundraising practices and the priority(ies) needed for student affairs to be
successful in development and fundraising?
Analysis of Data
This study employed descriptive quantitative analysis (e.g., frequencies and means) to
generate a profile of current practices, arrangements, priorities, preparedness, and perceived
relationship between the division of student affairs and the office of institutional advancement in
a national sample of public universities. Chi-square tests were also used to estimate the
significance of interdependent variables in the design. Following is a description of the analyses
applied to each of the research questions.
First, with regard to practices, models, and approaches most common to those who
engage in development and fundraising in research question #1, frequencies and percentages on
48
all items contained in section I (Q1-Q17) and section IV (Q28a-Q28x) were tabulated and
reported as descriptive data. Second, to determine significance of the relationship between
development and fundraising practices by institutional size/mission in research question #2,
contingency tables (2X3) were constructed for each of the 24 practices (Q 28a- Q28x; section
IV) across institutional size/mission (Q2 & Q3, respectively). Third, interpretation of cross-tab
analyses, by application of a chi-square test, determined which practices were most often
associated with a particular institutional size/mission. Furthermore, types of current involvement
of department heads in these development and fundraising efforts (research question #3) were
also tabulated as frequencies (Q28u- Q28x).
Fourth, concerning the relationship between current practices and the organizational
design of such efforts (research question #4), contingency tables (2X3) were again constructed
for each of the 24 practices (Q28a- Q28x; section IV) and three organizational designs (Q 16).
In order to determine organizational design, survey Q 16 (“This staff member was hired…”) was
re-coded into three categories: a.) full-time and part-time in student affairs (dedicated model); b.)
full-time and part-time in institutional advancement (centralized model); or c.) full-time and
part-time joint appointment (collaborative model). Interpretation of cross-tab analyses, by
application of a chi-square test, determined which practices were most often associated with
which organizational model.
Fifth, the frequency of preparation and training (and future plans to do so) for
development and fundraising by the staff member responsible for these efforts within the
respondent’s division (research question #5) was tabulated and reported descriptively (Q18Q23). Sixth, in order to report level of agreement (or disagreement) regarding perceptions of the
relationship with institutional advancement staff (section V and Q29a- Q29q), for research
question #6, descriptive frequencies of Likert-type scale responses were tabulated.
49
Seventh, regarding whether any relationship existed between the development and
fundraising practices (Section IV) and the total amount of external funding generated within the
previous five years (Q 25), a chi-square analysis was applied to each practice cross tabulated
with three levels of money raised. The alpha level for all chi-square analyses was set at .05.
Last, additional qualitative feedback, in response to question #8 about development and
fundraising challenges experienced by student affairs practitioners, was reported thematically.
50
Chapter IV
RESULTS
This chapter provides an in-depth presentation of the survey results compiled from a
national population of senior student affairs officers and NASPA voting delegates at 111 fouryear, public universities regarding current practices of development and fundraising within their
respective divisions of student affairs. The survey was designed to identify:
•
the practices, models, and approaches most common to student affairs staff engaged in
development and fundraising initiatives;
•
the relationship between institutional size/mission and development and fundraising
practices;
•
the involvement of department heads in fundraising;
•
the relationship between current practices and the organizational design of such efforts;
•
the training student affairs professionals have utilized to prepare for fundraising;
•
the relationship between student affairs practitioners and campus development officers;
•
the relationship between practices and fundraising success; and
•
the challenges involved in the practice of development and fundraising and priorities
deemed necessary for success in this arena.
Respondent Characteristics
A total of 395 4-year, public universities were included in the NCES database (as
described in the previous chapter); however, only 261 of these institutions also held membership
in NASPA and subsequently made up the total population surveyed for this study. The 134 nonNASPA institutions included small (N=45), medium (N=28), and large (N=61) institution sizes.
A total of 111 out of 261 surveys was returned and entered into a Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS, v. 14) database for an overall usable return rate of 42.5%. Although SSAOs
51
were asked to complete the survey personally, not all did so and instead appropriately sought
consultation from others. Thus, respondents included 102 SSAOs and nine additional
institutional consultants, self-identified as: assistant vice president for housing operations,
assistant vice president for student affairs, associate vice president for student affairs, dean of
students, executive director for planning and advancement for student development, or student
affairs development officer.
The distribution of NCES, NCES/NASPA, return sample, and non-respondent
institutional characteristics are reported in Table 1, followed by return sample characteristics in
Table 2 and 3. The data in Table 2 and 3 were obtained from questions numbered three, four,
five, and six of the survey (see Appendix A).
Table 1
NCES, NCES/NASPA, Return Sample and (Non-Respondent) Institutional Characteristics
NCES
NCES/
NASPA
(N=395)
(N=261)
(N=111)
%
N
%
N
%
N
Return Sample
Institutional Size
Small
172
43.5
127
48.7
23
20.7 (69.3a)
Medium
111
28.1
83
31.8
41
36.9 (28.0)
Large
112
28.4
51
19.5
47
42.3
(2.7)
Note: NCES: National Center for Education Statistics; NASPA: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators. aParenthetical numbers represent the percentage distribution of nonrespondents (N=150).
52
Table 2
Institutional Characteristics
N
%
Small
23
20.7
Medium
41
36.9
Large
47
42.3
Major Research
53
47.7
Other
58
52.3
Region I
7
6.3
Region II
8
7.2
Region III
39
35.1
Region IV-East
22
19.8
Region IV-West
15
13.5
Region V
6
5.4
Region VI
10
9.0
Institutional Size (N=111)
Institutional Mission (N=111)
NASPA Region Representation (N=107)a
Note. Region I (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont);
Region II (New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland); Region
III (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia); Region IV-East ( Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin); Region IV-W (North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska); Region V (Utah, Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington); Region VI (Arizona, Hawaii, California).
Enrollment: small (5,000 – 10,999); medium (11,000 – 19,999); large (> 20,000).
a
Four missing data.
53
As indicated in Table 2, the largest single proportion of respondents was from large
(>20,000 students) institutions (42.3%), followed by medium (11,000 to 19,999 students)
institutions (36.9%), and small (< 11,000) institutions (20.7%). Most espoused institutional
missions (52.3%) were reported to be other than research. The largest group of institutions was
located in NASPA Region III (35.1%), followed by Region IV-East (19.8%), and Region IVWest (13.5%). All NASPA regions and 40 states were represented among the respondents,
including five states in Region I, four in Region II, 11 in Region III, six in Region IV-E, seven in
Region IV-W, four in Region V, and three in Region VI. Total enrollment within each
institution ranged from a minimum of 5,000 to more than 30,000 students.
Table 3
Institutional Mission by Size (N=111)
Maj. Research (N=53)
Other (N=58)
Small
(N=23)
Medium
(N=41)
Large
(N=47)
df
4.3
34.1
80.9
2
95.7
65.9
19.1
2
X2
41.05***
*** p < .001.
As reported in Table 3, the majority of large institutions identified with a commitment to
research (80.9%), while most small institutions identified with a mission focusing on purposes
other than research (95.7%). Application of a chi-square test to these data found such
differences to be highly significant (X2 = 41.05, p < .000).
54
Table 4
State Budget Support by Institutional Size and Mission (N=111)
df
X2
13.0
2
10.94*
63.4
2.4
2
57.4
38.3
4.3
2
Maj. Research (N=53)
62.3
34.0
3.8
1
Other (N=58)
24.1
69.0
6.9
1
Up to 30%
31-60%
Over 60%
(N=47)
(N=58)
(N=6)
26.1
60.9
Medium (N=41)
34.1
Large (N=47)
Institutional size
Small (N=23)
Institutional Mission
16.50***
* p < .05. *** p < .001.
Displayed in Table 4 are self-reported institutional estimations of the percentage of total
budget support provided by state government. Examining the relationship between levels of
state budget support and institutional size and mission, several significant differences were
observed (X2 = 10.94, p < .05), with the majority of large institutions (57.4%) receiving less than
30% of their funding through state sources, and the majority of medium (63.4%) and small
(60.9%) institutions receiving between 31% and 60%.
Furthermore, among the major research institutions, almost two-thirds (62.3%) reported
receiving less than 30% of their funding from state sources, in contrast to institutions committed
to other missions who received between 31% and 60% of their funding from the state (69.0%).
Application of a chi square test to these data found its distribution to be significantly
disproportionate for institutional size (X2 = 10.94, p < .05), but not institutional mission (X2 =
16.50, p < .001).
55
Development and Fundraising Practices
In reference to the 24 development and fundraising practices assessed, respondents
indicated whether each was currently used in their division of student affairs or if there were
plans to do so in the future. Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 detail overall responses to these items,
followed by analyses respectively, by institutional size and mission. According to the overall
data in Table 5, practices reported most frequently were: f.) Collaborated with institutional
advancement staff (79.3%); k.) Applied for external grants (77.5%); m.) Solicited external grants
from corporations (71.2%); s.) Made an “ask” (71.2%); e.) Attended institutional advancement
meetings (70.3%); and l.) Sought private donations (69.4%). Noted most frequently among
practices not engaged in, but purportedly in the division’s future plans, are: u.) Included
housing/residence life staff (55.9%); g.) Created an advisory board (61%); x.) Included health
services staff (59%); d.) Coordinated staff development activities about fundraising (46.8%); w.)
Included student activities staff (40.5%); and v.) Included career services staff (39.6%).
As presented in Table 6, 17 of the 24 practices were found to be a function of
institutional size, with disproportionate numbers at large institutions indicating having: a.)
Articulated divisional fundraising priorities (X2 = 16.41, p < .001); e.) Attended institutional
advancement meetings (X2 = 22.29, p < .001); p.) Involved alumni in fundraising initiatives (X2 =
16.51, p < .001); and w.) Included student activities staff in development and fundraising
activities (X2 = 15.60, p < .001). In Table 7, similar results are apparent among those institutions
committed to a research mission, where a significantly larger proportion reported having a.)
Articulated divisional fundraising priorities (X2 = 12.59, p < .001); e.) Attended institutional
advancement meetings (X2 = 16.45, p < .001); f.) Collaborated with institutional advancement
staff (X2 = 14.01, p < .001); and t.) Coordinated stewardship events (X2 = 12.28, p < .001).
56
Table 5
Practices used for Student Affairs Development and Fundraising (N=111)
Identified Practice
(Survey Question 28)
Yes
Rank
%
No, but plan to
%
a. Articulated division fundraising priorities
62.2
(6)
27.9
b. Created documents about fundraising priorities
56.8
(9)
32.4
c. Attended training developments
61.3
(7)
23.4
d. Coordinated staff development activities
36.9
46.8
about fundraising
e. Attended institutional advancement meetings
70.3
(4)
14.4
f. Collaborated with institutional advancement staff
79.3
(1)
11.7
g. Created an advisory board
23.4
h. Involved in capital campaign
57.7
i. Researched prospective donors
54.1
27.9
j. Created a database of donors
45.9
35.1
k. Applied for external grants for priorities
77.5
(2)
12.6
l. Sought private donations for priorities
69.4
(5)
17.1
m. Solicited grants from corporations for priorities
71.2
(3)
15.3
n. Involved current students
45.9
36.0
o. Educated current students about philanthropy
49.5
30.6
p. Involved alumni in fundraising initiatives
54.1
28.8
q. Involved former employees in fundraising initiatives
37.8
35.1
r. Communicated fundraising priorities with donors
55.9
(10)
27.9
s. Made an “ask”
71.2
(3)
14.4
t. Coordinated stewardship events
49.5
30.6
u. Included housing/residence life staff
15.3
55.9
v. Included career services staff
36.0
39.6
w. Included student activities staff
31.5
40.5
x. Included health services staff
16.2
53.2
55.0
(8)
25.2
57
Table 6
Student Affairs Development and Fundraising Practices by Institutional Size
Identified Practice
Small Medium Large df
(Survey Question 28)
(N=23) (N=41) (N=47)
X2
%
%
%
a. Articulated division fundraising priorities
26.1
68.3
74.5
2
b. Created documents about fundraising priorities
39.1
61.0
61.7
2
3.68
c. Attended training developments
39.1
65.9
68.1
2
6.03*
d. Coordinated staff development activities
13.0
41.5
44.7
2
7.21*
e. Attended institutional advancement meetings
30.4
78.0
83.0
2
22.29***
f. Collaborated with institutional advancement staff
52.2
80.5
91.5
2
14.59**
4.3
24.4
31.9
2
6.58*
h. Involved in capital campaign
34.8
70.7
57.4
2
7.80*
i. Researched prospective donors
21.7
63.4
61.7
2
12.22**
j. Created a database of donors
13.0
53.7
53.2
2
12.00**
k. Applied for external grants for priorities
65.2
82.9
78.7
2
2.72
l. Sought private donations for priorities
39.1
80.5
74.5
2
12.86**
m. Solicited grants from corporations for priorities
39.1
78.0
80.9
2
14.06**
n. Involved current students
21.7
46.3
57.4
2
7.93**
o. Educated current students about philanthropy
47.8
43.9
55.3
2
1.18
p. Involved alumni in fundraising initiatives
17.4
58.5
68.1
2
q. Involved former employees in fundraising initiatives 21.7
34.1
48.9
2
5.23
r. Communicated fundraising priorities with donors
34.8
58.5
63.8
2
5.48
s. Made an “ask”
47.8
73.2
80.9
2
8.34*
t. Coordinated stewardship events
21.7
46.3
63.8
2
11.09*
4.3
19.5
17.0
2
2.80
13.0
39.0
44.7
2
6.96*
w. Included student activities staff
8.7
22.0
51.1
2
15.60***
x. Included health services staff
4.3
14.6
23.4
2
16.41***
about fundraising
g. Created an advisory board
u. Included housing/residence life staff
v. Included career services staff
* p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
16.51***
4.25
58
Table 7
Student Affairs Development and Fundraising Practices by Institutional Mission
Identified Practice
(Survey Question 28)
Major Res. Other
(N=53)
df
X2
(N=58)
%
%
a. Articulated division fundraising priorities
79.2
46.6
1
12.59***
b. Created documents about fundraising priorities
67.9
46.6
1
5.16*
c. Attended training developments
71.7
51.7
1
4.66*
d. Coordinated staff development activities
49.1
25.9
1
6.40*
e. Attended institutional advancement meetings
88.7
53.4
1
16.45***
f. Collaborated with institutional advancement staff
94.3
65.5
1
14.01***
g.
Created an advisory board
34.0
13.8
1
6.28*
h.
Involved in capital campaign
71.7
44.8
1
8.19**
i. Researched prospective donors
66.0
43.1
1
5.87*
j. Created a database of donors
56.6
34.5
1
5.47*
k.
86.8
69.0
1
5.04*
l. Sought private donations for priorities
83.0
56.9
1
8.89**
m. Solicited grants from corporations for priorities
86.8
56.9
1
12.06**
n. Involved current students
56.6
36.2
1
4.64*
o. Educated current students about philanthropy
58.5
41.4
1
3.24
p. Involved alumni in fundraising initiatives
66.0
43.1
1
5.87*
q. Involved former employees in fundraising initiatives
47.2
29.3
1
3.76
r. Communicated fundraising priorities with donors
71.7
41.4
1
10.32**
s. Made an “ask”
84.9
58.6
1
9.33**
t. Coordinated stewardship events
66.0
32.8
1
12.28***
u. Included housing/residence life staff
17.0
13.8
1
0.22
v. Included career services staff
45.3
27.6
1
3.76
w. Included student activities staff
47.2
17.2
1
11.49**
x. Included health services staff
20.8
12.1
1
1.54
about fundraising
Applied for external grants for priorities
* p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
59
Organizational Models Utilized
To extend the examination of development and fundraising practices further, said efforts
were examined by the particular organizational model used. Table 8 outlines such models
categorized into the three groups: a.) student affairs appointment (dedicated model); b.)
institutional advancement appointment (centralized model); or c.) joint appointment
(collaborative model). The data presented are proportions observed within each organizational
model employed. Based on the data examined, little significance was noted for any particular
practice, with the exception of one. A chi-square test was applied to these data and the creation
of an advisory board was found to occur more often when a dedicated model was used: (X2 =
7.13, p < .05).
60
Table 8
Development and Fundraising Practices and Organizational Model Used
Identified Practice
(Survey Question 28)
SA
IA
Joint
(N=32) (N=24) (N=12)
df
X2
%
%
%
a. Articulated division fundraising priorities
84.4
82.6
91.7
2
0.53
b. Created documents about fundraising priorities
71.9
63.6
72.7
2
0.49
c. Attended training developments
87.1
77.3
90.0
2
1.24
d. Coordinated staff development activities
50.0
40.9
80.0
2
4.27
e. Attended institutional advancement meetings
93.1
85.7
100.0
2
2.08
f. Collaborated with institutional advancement staff
93.8
95.7
100.0
2
0.74
g. Created an advisory board
51.7
15.0
30.0
2
7.13*
h. Involved in capital campaign
73.3
84.2
81.8
2
0.91
i. Researched prospective donors
78.1
76.2
80.0
2
0.06
j. Created a database of donors
70.0
71.4
72.7
2
0.03
k. Applied for external grants for priorities
90.6
76.2
100.0
2
4. 31
l. Sought private donations for priorities
93.8
85.0
100.0
2
2.44
m. Solicited grants from corporations for priorities
90.6
90.5
100.0
2
1.13
n. Involved current students
70.0
63.2
70.0
2
0.28
o. Educated current students about philanthropy
62.1
66.7
80.0
2
1.08
p. Involved alumni in fundraising initiatives
77.4
80.0
54.5
2
2.74
q. Involved former employees in fundraising initiatives 71.4
47.1
70.0
2
2.93
r. Communicated fundraising priorities with donors
87.5
68.4
100.0
2
5.51
s. Made an “ask”
96.9
90.0
90.9
2
1.15
t. Coordinated stewardship events
75.0
60.0
81.8
2
2.06
u. Included housing/residence life staff
29.2
15.8
37.5
2
1.72
v. Included career services staff
57.7
52.6
77.8
2
1.65
w. Included student activities staff
60.0
36.8
66.7
2
3.16
x. Included health services staff
38.5
16.7
25.0
2
2.53
about fundraising
* p < .05.
61
For purposes of examining the selection, hiring, and funding of the staff member
responsible for development and fundraising (within respective student affairs divisions),
responses to survey question 10 (“Does your division employ a fundraiser specifically for
student affairs?”) was used as a most conservative estimate since the primary focus of this study
is on efforts within divisions of student affairs. For those who indicated having a fundraiser
employed specifically for student affairs (N=45), the organizational models are categorized in
the three tables to follow by the previously mentioned groups: a.) student affairs appointment
(dedicated model); b.) institutional advancement appointment (centralized model); or c.) joint
appointment (collaborative model). These data are detailed in Table 9, followed by an analysis
by institutional size in Table 10 and institutional mission in Table 11. There was only one small
institution represented in the initial aggregate sample answering affirmatively to survey question
10. Therefore, since this would yield no variance for this category, analyses in Table 10 and
subsequently Table 13 display distributions of only medium and large institutions.
Among respondents whose student affairs divisions included a dedicated fundraiser, a
majority (60.0%) of those making the hiring decision were in student affairs, in contrast to only
13.3% by those in institutional advancement. Selection of staff, or the making of a
recommendation for hiring someone, was reported most frequently (55.6%) by those involved in
a collaborative arrangement. A chi-square test was applied to these data and were found to be
significant for the selection, hiring, and funding by organizational models; specifically, hiring
within a dedicated approach (X2 = 24.63, p < .001), funding within a dedicated approach (X2 =
30.79, p < .001), and selection within a joint approach (X2 = 21.05,
p < .001).
62
Table 9
Selection, Hiring, and Funding of Staff Member Responsible for Student Affairs Development
and Fundraising Initiatives
Organizational Model
By Student Affairs
By Institutional Advancement
Joint
df
X2
Selection
Hiring
Funding
(N=45)
(N=45)
(N=44)
%
%
%
42.2
60.0
47.7
2
24.63***
2.2
13.3
22.7
2
30.79***
55.6
26.7
29.5
2
21.05***
Note. Hiring proportions include both full-time and part-time appointments (by Student Affairs,
Institutional Advancement, or Joint, respectively).
*** p < .001.
The majority of selections for a development and fundraising staff member, regardless of
institutional size, were made jointly between student affairs and institutional advancement
(57.9%, medium institutions; 53.8%, large institutions). At large institutions, however
significance differences were found with respect to full-time hiring appointments in student
affairs (X2 = 10.13, p < .05). Although selection was reported mostly as a joint venture, funding
for this staff member within the student affairs division was made by student affairs (47.4%,
medium institutions; 48.0%, large institutions) the largest proportion of the time.
At the research-oriented institutions, the majority (63.6%) of the selection decisions for
such a staff member also occurred jointly. Also, related hiring decisions involved full- or parttime appointments in student affairs over half of the time (51.5%) at major research institutions,
while the largest single proportion (41.7%) in institutions dedicated to other missions were of
the same dedicated appointment (full-time student affairs).
63
Table 10
Selection, Hiring, and Funding of Staff Member Responsible for Student Affairs Development
and Fundraising Initiatives by Institutional Size
Medium
Large
(N=19)
(N=26)
%
%
36.8
46.2
5.3
0.0
57.9
53.8
Full-time Student Affairs
36.8
57.7
Part-time Student Affairs
21.1
3.8
Full-time Institutional Advancement 21.1
7.7
df
X2
2
1.63
4
10.13*
2
1.97
Selection (N=45)
By Student Affairs
By Institutional Advancement
Joint
Hiring (N=45)
Full-time Joint
10.5
30.8
Part-time Joint
10.5
0.0
By Student Affairs
47.4
48.0
By Institutional Advancement
31.6
16.0
Joint
21.1
36.0
Funding (N=44)
a
Note. No respondents indicated a part-time institutional advancement appointment. Only one
small institution represented in the initial aggregate sample answering affirmatively to survey
question 10.
a
One missing.
* p < .05.
64
Table 11
Selection, Hiring, and Funding of Staff Member Responsible for Student Affairs Development
and Fundraising Initiatives by Institutional Mission
Major Research
Other
(N=33)
(N=12)
%
%
36.4
58.3
0.0
8.3
63.6
33.3
Full-time Student Affairs
51.5
41.7
Part-time Student Affairs
9.1
16.7
Full-time Institutional Advancement
9.1
25.0
Full-time Joint
27.3
8.3
Part-time Joint
3.0
8.3
By Student Affairs
42.4
63.6
By Institutional Advancement
21.2
27.3
Joint
36.4
9.1
df
X2
1
5.21
4
4.28
2
2.99
Selection (N=45)
By Student Affairs
By Institutional Advancement
Joint
Hiring (N=45)
Funding (N=44)
a
Note. No respondents indicated a part-time institutional advancement appointment.
a
One missing.
65
Preparation for Development and Fundraising
To assess training opportunities for student affairs fundraising preparedness, respondents
indicating the appointment of a dedicated staff member responsible for these efforts were asked
to evaluate the overall degree of preparation for activities (or intended training), the type of
training and preparation activities used, and whether such training was extended to division of
student affairs department heads. The reader will recall the earlier explanation as to whom the
analysis is referring in the following three tables – those 45 participants who responded
affirmatively to survey question 10 (“Does your division employ a fundraiser specifically for
student affairs?”). Table 12 details a range of training/preparation opportunities employed by
all respondents, followed by Table 13, examining this same information by institutional size and
in Table 14 by institutional mission.
The majority of respondents required knowledge of fundraising functions (82.2%) for
this role and the overwhelming majority subsequently received training/preparation specific to
development and fundraising functions (95.6%). Conversely, for those respondents who had not
yet received training about development and fundraising efforts, 24.4% planned to do so in the
future. The following training/preparation activities were found to be utilized most: on-the-job
training (97.7%), consultation with other practitioners (90.9%), attending professional
workshops/institutes (90.9%), and gaining insight from institutional advancement staff (88.6%).
Among “other” respondent-generated training/preparation activities were: “20 years in private
sector business development, banking, tax,” “Campus database and on-line resources,” “Donor
wealth analysis, planning giving/wills, investment,” “Graduate work in student affairs/higher
education,” “Spent time with advancement officers on other campuses,” “Multiple CASE
workshops, visits to other successful Student Affairs fundraisers,” “Ph.D.,” “Training for
66
fundraising in a community non-profit,” “Visiting institutions with Student Affairs development
offices,” and “Worked in non-profit fundraising and another higher education institution.”
Table 12
Preparation for Fundraising
Preparation variable
%
Knowledge of fundraising functions (N=45)
82.2
Training/preparation received (N=45)
95.6
Plans to implement training (N=45)
24.4
Training/preparation information shared (N=45)
75.6
Selected type of training/preparation (N=44)a
Professional workshops/institutes
90.9
Credit-bearing fundraising/development courses
15.9
Books, articles, published research
63.6
Consultation with other practitioners
90.9
Professional student affairs conference presentations
61.4
On-the-job training
97.7
From institutional advancement staff
88.6
Other
a
One missing.
2.3
67
Table 13
Preparation for Fundraising by Institutional Size
Preparation variable
Medium Large
X2
df
(N=19) (N=26)
%
%
Knowledge of fundraising functions (N=45)
73.7
88.5
1
1.64
Training/preparation received (N=45)
94.7
96.2
1
0.05
Plans to implement training (N=45)
13.3
11.1
1
0.23
Training/preparation information shared (N=45)
84.2
69.2
1
1.33
94.7
88.0
1
0.59
5.3
24.0
1
2.83
Books, articles, published research
68.4
60.0
1
0.33
Consultation with other practitioners
89.5
92.0
1
0.08
Professional student affairs conference presentations
73.7
52.0
1
2.14
100.0
96.0
1
0.78
84.2
92.0
1
0.65
0.0
4.0
1
0.78
Selected type of training/preparation (N=44)a
Professional workshops/institutes
Credit-bearing fundraising/development courses
On-the-job training
From institutional advancement staff
Other
Note: Only one small institution represented in the initial aggregate sample answering
affirmatively to survey question 10.
a
One missing.
68
Table 14
Preparation for Fundraising by Institutional Mission
Preparation variable
Major Research Other
(N=33)
df
X2
(N=20)
%
%
Knowledge of fundraising functions (N=45)
90.9
58.3
1
6.39*
Training/preparation received (N=45)
97.0
91.7
1
0.58
Plans to implement training (N=45)
17.8
6.7
1
0.42
Training/preparation information shared (N=45)
75.8
75.0
1
0.00
Professional workshops/institutes
90.6
91.7
1
0.01
Credit-bearing fundraising/development courses
18.8
8.3
1
0.71
Books, articles, published research
65.6
58.3
1
0.20
Consultation with other practitioners
90.6
91.7
1
0.01
Professional student affairs conference presentations 59.4
66.7
1
0.20
Selected type of training/preparation (N=44)a
On-the-job training
96.9
100.0
1
0.38
From institutional advancement staff
93.8
75.0
1
3.05
3.1
0.0
1
0.38
Other
a
One missing.
* p < .05.
69
A chi-square test was applied to these data and very few significant differences were
found to be associated with either institutional size or mission. Only one preparation indicator –
knowledge of fundraising functions – was a prerequisite for this staff member, more often found
at major research institutions (X2 = 6.39, p < .05).
Capital Campaign Involvement
Items concerning institutional capital campaign involvement, approximate campaign
goal, and inclusion of student affairs priorities are displayed in Table 15 (by institutional size)
followed by Table 16 (by institutional mission). Nearly three-quarters (72.1%) of all
respondents indicated that their institution had embarked on a capital campaign within the
previous five academic years (2002-2007), while nearly the same proportion (66.7%) of
respondents indicated inclusion of student affairs priorities in overall campaign goals. Capital
campaign goals varied from less than $25 million (13.9%) to $1 billion or more (24.1%), with
nearly half (46.9%) of the respondents specifying campaign goals of at least $200 million. The
majority of large institutions (51.4%) and the greatest single proportion of those with a major
research agenda (43.2%) had campaign goals of $1 billion or more, whereas the majority of
small institutions (58.3%) had campaign goals of less than $25 million. Significant differences
with capital campaign involvement were found among large institutions, as well as those with a
major research agenda. A chi-square test was applied to the data, indicating that large institutions
(X2 = 6.10, p < .05) and those with a major research agenda (X2 = 6.04, p < .01) were more
involved in such campaigns.
70
Table 15
Capital Campaign Involvement by Institutional Size
df
X2
35
2
6.10*
44.3
35
2
62.71***
1
51.4
18
3.1
1
11.4
4
21.9
7
14.3
5
31.2
10
17.1
6
2.9
1
2.9
1
44.0
22
Small
%
N
Medium
%
N
Large
%
N
Campaign Involvement (N=80)
15.0
12
41.3
33
43.8
Approx. Inst. Campaign Goal (N=79)
15.2
12
40.5
32
$1B or more
3.1
$500M - $999M
$200M - $499M
8.3
1
$100M - $199M
$75M - $99M
$50M - $74M
9.4
3
$25M - $49M
33.3
4
18.8
6
Less than $25M
58.3
7
12.5
4
12.0
6
44.0
22
Inclusion of Student Affairs (N=50)
* p < .05. *** p < .001.
2
0.99
Total
%
72.1 (N=111)
66.7 (N=75)
71
Table 16
Capital Campaign Involvement by Institutional Mission
Major Research
%
N
Other
%
N
df
X2
Campaign Involvement (N=80)
55.0
44
45.0
36
1
6.04**
Approx. Inst. Campaign Goal (N=79)
55.7
44
44.3
35
1
52.28***
$1B or more
43.2
19
$500M - $999M
11.4
5
$200M - $499M
25.0
11
5.7
2
$100M - $199M
18.2
8
22.9
8
$75M - $99M
2.9
1
$50M - $74M
11.4
4
25.7
9
31.4
11
40.0
20
$25M - $49M
2.3
1
Less than $25M
Inclusion of Student Affairs (N=50)
**p < .01. *** p < .001.
60.0
30
1
2.68
Total
%
72.1 (N=111)
66.7 (N=75)
72
A picture of any effects related to institutional characteristics has been presented,
including: institutional size and mission, NASPA region representation, and university state
budget support. Continued understanding of university characteristics, specific to development
and fundraising activities, included: development and fundraising practices, organizational
models used, preparation for development and fundraising efforts, and involvement in the
institutional capital campaign. To follow is another indicator of unique university
characteristics, beyond university demographics and development and fundraising activities, as
they relate to the perceived relationship between student affairs staff members and institutional
advancement officers.
Intra-Institutional Arrangements and Relationships
Respondents’ perceived relationship with institutional advancement staff is displayed in
Table 17, with subsequent analyses by institutional size and mission respectively in Table 18 and
Table 19. The reader will note that data reported include all agreement responses: “strongly
agree,” “agree,” and “somewhat agree.” Trust between units was reported to be shared by the
majority of respondents (88.7%). Furthermore, the majority of respondents (85.8%) reported
that development and fundraising for student affairs ought to be shared between units in contrast
to institutional advancement staff (18.1%) or student affairs staff (17.0%) having sole
responsibility for such efforts. Significant findings were reported by respondents at medium
(89.7%) and large (84.4%) institutions with regard to institutional advancement staff assisting
the student affairs staff in development and fundraising efforts for divisional priorities (X2 =
16.69, p < .001) more often than at small institutions. There were also significant differences
found regarding sharing of solicitations between student affairs and institutional advancement at
73
large institutions and those with a major research agenda (X2 = 21.64, p < .001; X2 = 16.60, p <
.001, respectively).
Table 17
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff
Relationship Indicator
(Survey Question 29)
N
Mean
SD
%
a. IA staff assists SA staff in development
and fundraising efforts for SA priorities
107
1.22
0.41
78.5
b. SA staff assists IA staff in raising funds for
SA priorities
106
1.18
0.39
82.1
c. Trust exists between the IA and SA divisions
106
1.11
0.32
88.7
d. The IA staff encourages SA staff
involvement in development and fundraising
105
1.20
0.40
80.0
e. Tension exists between the IA office and
SA division
104
1.15
0.44
18.3
f. The president of my institution is supportive
of development and fundraising efforts by staff
in the SA division
104
1.15
0.36
84.6
g. IA staff members share current development
and fundraising information with SA staff members
104
1.26
0.44
74.0
h. Prospect data (e.g., donor databases) are shared
between SA and IA
107
1.36
0.48
64.5
i. Solicitations are shared between SA and IA
106
1.40
0.49
59.4
j. IA staff members understand the roles of SA staff
and how they might assist in development and
fundraising efforts
105
1.29
0.45
71.4
74
Table 17 (Continued)
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff
Relationship Indicator
(Survey Question 29)
N
Mean
SD
%
k. SA staff members understand the roles of IA staff
in university development and fundraising efforts
105
1.17
0.38
82.9
l. Communication between SA and IA occurs formally
104
1.22
0.42
77.9
m. Communication between SA and IA occurs informally 106
1.14
0.35
85.8
n. Communication between SA and IA does not
occur at all
105
1.94
0.23
5.7
o. The IA division should have sole responsibility
for SA development and fundraising priorities
105
1.82
0.39
18.1
p. Fundraising and development responsibilities
for SA should be shared between the IA
office and the SA division
106
1.14
0.35
85.8
q. The SA division should have sole responsibility
for SA development and fundraising priorities
106
1.83
0.38
17.0
Note. Data reported include “strongly agree”, “agree”, and “somewhat agree” responses.
IA=institutional advancement; SA=student affairs.
75
Table 18
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff by Institutional Size
Relationship Indicator
Small
(Survey Question 29)
(N=23)
Medium
(N=41)
Large
df
X2
(N=47)
%
%
%
a. IA staff assists SA staff in development
and fundraising efforts for SA priorities
47.8
89.7
84.4
2
16.69***
b. SA staff assists IA staff in raising funds for
SA priorities
60.9
84.6
90.9
2
9.36**
c. Trust exists between the IA and SA divisions
78.3
92.3
90.9
2
3.22
d. The IA staff encourages SA staff
involvement in development and fundraising
60.9
86.8
84.1
2
6.83*
e. Tension exists between the IA office and
SA division
17.4
18.9
18.2
2
0.02
f. The president of my institution is supportive
of development and fundraising efforts by staff
in the SA division
77.3
89.5
84.1
2
1.61
g. IA staff members share current development and
fundraising information with SA staff members
56.5
76.3
81.4
2
4.99
h. Prospect data (e.g., donor databases) are
shared between SA and IA
21.7
82.5
70.5
2
24.70***
i. Solicitations are shared between SA and IA
17.4
69.2
72.7
2
21.64***
76
Table 18 (Continued)
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff by Institutional Size
Relationship Indicator
Small
(Survey Question 29)
(N=23)
Medium
(N=41)
Large
df
X2
(N=47)
%
%
%
j. IA staff members understand the roles of SA
staff and how they might assist in development
and fundraising efforts
43.5
81.6
77.3
2
11.46**
k. SA staff members understand the roles of IA
staff in university development and fundraising efforts
68.2
84.6
88.6
2
4.46
l. Communication between SA and IA occurs formally
43.5
86.8
88.4
2
m. Communication between SA and IA occurs informally
78.3
87.2
88.6
2
1.43
8.7
2.6
6.8
2
1.15
27.3
17.9
13.6
2
1.84
p. Fundraising and development responsibilities for SA
87.0
should be shared between the IA office and the SA division
87.2
84.1
2
0.19
q. The SA division should have sole responsibility
for SA development and fundraising priorities
17.5
20.9
2
1.60
n. Communication between SA and IA does not occur at all
o. The IA division should have sole responsibility
for SA development and fundraising priorities
8.7
Note. Data reported include “strongly agree”, “agree”, and “somewhat agree” responses.
IA=institutional advancement; SA=student affairs.
* p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
20.32***
77
Table 19
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff by Institutional Mission
Relationship Indicator
(Survey Question 29)
Major Res. Other
(N=53)
(N=58)
%
%
df
X2
a. IA staff assists SA staff in development
and fundraising efforts for SA priorities
86.3
71.4
1
3.49
b. SA staff assists IA staff in raising funds for
SA priorities
94.1
70.9
1
9.69**
c. Trust exists between the IA and SA divisions
92.0
85.7
1
1.04
d. The IA staff encourages SA staff
involvement in development and fundraising
86.0
74.5
1
2.15
e. Tension exists between the IA office and
SA division
16.7
19.6
1
0.15
f. The president of my institution is supportive
of development and fundraising efforts by staff in the
SA division
87.8
81.8
1
0.70
g. IA staff members share current development and
fundraising information with SA staff members
87.8
61.8
1
9.07**
h. Prospect data (e.g., donor databases) are shared
between SA and IA
76.0
54.4
1
5.43*
i. Solicitations are shared between SA and IA
80.0
41.1
1
16.60***
78
Table 19 (Continued)
Relationship between Student Affairs and Institutional Advancement Staff by Institutional Mission
Relationship Indicator
(Survey Question 29)
Major Res. Other
(N=53)
(N=58)
%
%
df
X2
j. IA staff members understand the roles of SA staff
and how they might assist in development
and fundraising efforts
76.0
67.3
1
0.98
k. SA staff members understand the roles of IA staff
in university development and fundraising efforts
88.0
78.2
1
1.78
l. Communication between SA and IA occurs formally
94.0
63.0
1
m. Communication between SA and IA occurs informally
92.0
80.4
1
2.95
4.0
7.3
1
0.52
o. The IA division should have sole responsibility
for SA development and fundraising priorities
14.0
21.8
1
1.08
p. Fundraising and development responsibilities
for SA should be shared between
the IA office and the SA division
86.0
85.7
1
0.00
q. The SA division should have sole responsibility
for SA development and fundraising priorities
18.4
15.8
1
0.12
n. Communication between SA and IA does not occur at all
Note. Data reported include “strongly agree”, “agree”, and “somewhat agree” responses.
IA=institutional advancement; SA=student affairs.
* p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
14.52***
79
Development and Fundraising Practices and Fundraising Success
Results of analysis to examine whether particular development and fundraising practices
yielded greater fundraising success, as indicated by dollars raised, are included in Table 20.
Responses to survey question 25 indicating the estimated total amount of external funding
generated (from 2002-2007) for divisional priorities yielded a range of responses. These dollar
amounts were re-coded into three categories: a.) less than $500K; b.) greater than $500K to
equal to or less than $2.5M; and c.) over $2.5M. Statistical significance was established for
some development and fundraising practices associated with reports of greater dollars raised.
Application of a chi-square test to these data found that greater total funds raised were
associated with: research conducted about prospective donors (X2 = 15.21, p < .001),
coordination of stewardship events for donors (X2 = 16.42, p < .001), creation of an advisory
board (X2 = 13.18, p < .01), creation of a database of prospective donors (X2 = 11.01, p < .01),
and inclusion of health services staff (X2 = 10.63, p < .01).
80
Table 20
Development and Fundraising Practices and Fundraising Success (dollars raised)
Identified Practice
(Survey Question 28)
1
2
3
df
(N=35) (N=21) (N=20)
%
%
%
X2
a. Articulated division fundraising priorities
68.6
71.4
85.0
2
3.55
b. Created documents about fundraising priorities
60.0
61.9
80.0
2
2.99
c. Attended training developments
62.9
61.9
90.0
2
4.34
d. Coordinated staff development activities
25.7
33.3
70.0
2
9.12*
e. Attended institutional advancement meetings
65.7
81.0
85.0
2
11.01**
f. Collaborated with institutional advancement staff
85.7
90.5 100.0
2
5.98
g. Created an advisory board
20.0
9.5
55.0
2
13.18**
h. Involved in capital campaign
45.7
71.4
85.0
2
11.94**
i.
Researched prospective donors
42.9
66.7
90.0
2
15.21***
j.
Created a database of donors
42.9
38.1
85.0
2
11.01**
k. Applied for external grants for priorities
85.7
85.7
80.0
2
.04
l.
65.7
71.4
90.0
2
7.07*
m. Solicited grants from corporations for priorities
71.4
71.4
90.0
2
5.10
n. Involved current students
37.1
52.4
70.0
2
10.98**
o. Educated current students about philanthropy
48.6
47.6
75.0
2
8.75*
p. Involved alumni in fundraising initiatives
45.7
66.7
75.0
2
8.62
q. Involved former employees in fundraising initiatives 31.4
33.3
65.0
2
8.69*
r. Communicated fundraising priorities with donors
48.6
66.7
85.0
2
11.85**
s. Made an “ask”
65.7
85.7
90.0
2
12.76**
t.
Coordinated stewardship events
28.6
57.1
85.0
2
16.42***
u. Included housing/residence life staff
17.1
19.0
15.0
2
.46
v. Included career services staff
37.1
42.9
45.0
2
2.18
w. Included student activities staff
28.6
28.6
45.0
2
2.68
8.6
14.3
45.0
2
10.63**
about fundraising
Sought private donations for priorities
x. Included health services staff
Note: 1=<$500K; 2=>$500K-<$2.5M; 3=>$2.5M.
* p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.
81
Featured Priorities and Overall Fundraising Success
In reference to the 27 development and fundraising priorities assessed, respondents
indicated whether each was featured in their divisional fundraising efforts from 2002-2007.
Table 21 details overall responses to these items, including the top ranked programs. According
to the overall data in Table 21, priorities reported most frequently were: scholarships (60.4%),
leadership programs (57.7%), diversity programs (45.0%), alcohol/substance education (36.9%),
and building/renovation of a student union (36.9%). Among those receiving least priority
included: Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender student services (15.3%), international student
programs (15.3%), orientation (13.5%), student government (13.5%), childcare for faculty, staff,
or students (12.6%), homecoming events (9.9%), and graduate assistantships (7.2%). Also
assessed were respondents’ overall perceptions of their division and university’s efforts towards
fundraising for student affairs. One third indicated that their divisional efforts were “excellent”
and “good,” compared to 47.7% with the university’s overall efforts in this regard.
82
Table 21
Featured Priority for Divisional Fundraising Activity from 2002-2007 (N=111)
Featured Priority
N
Rank
%
a. Alcohol/substance education
41
(4)
36.9
b. Athletic (intercollegiate) programs
29
c. Building construction/renovation of a student union
41
(5)
36.9
d. Building construction/renovation of a student recreation center
39
(7)
35.1
e. Building construction/renovation of residence halls
29
26.1
f. Building construction/renovation of a health center
20
18.0
g. Campus safety/rape education
29
26.1
h. Career planning and placement
40
i.
Childcare for faculty, staff, or students
14
12.6
j.
Community service/volunteerism
33
29.7
k. Disabled student programs/services
25
22.5
l.
50
(Survey Question 24)
Diversity programs
26.1
(6)
(3)
36.0
45.0
m. Emergency student loan funds
29
26.1
n. Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender student services
17
15.3
o. Graduate assistantships
8
7.2
p. Healthcare/wellness/personal counseling
20
18.0
q. Homecoming events
11
9.9
r. International student programs
17
15.3
s. Intramural/Recreation programs/equipment
25
22.5
t.
64
(2)
57.7
u. Programs/services for students of color
34
(10)
30.6
v. Orientation
15
w. Parents/Family weekend events
36
x. Residential life programs
23
y. Scholarships
67
(1)
60.4
z. Student activities
35
(9)
31.5
aa. Student government
15
Leadership programs
13.5
(8)
32.4
20.7
13.5
83
Open-Ended Comments/Responses
To paint a more complete picture of the development and fundraising landscape
for divisions of student affairs at public universities and those involved in such efforts,
responses were solicited pertaining to anticipated challenges to and the greatest needs
arising in order for the profession to be successful in the fundraising arena. To follow
are thematic summaries of these open-ended comments and incorporate additional
feedback about their perceived challenges in student affairs development and fundraising
practices.
Significant/Immediate Challenges in Respondents’ Divisions
Survey question 31 was used to determine the most significant/immediate challenges in
development and fundraising efforts in respondents’ divisions. Comments from 83 respondents
stressed five main themes: a.) a needed paradigm shift about institutional fundraising culture;
b.) a view that student affairs professionals are not viewed as primary players in development
and fundraising; c.) a lack of resources; d.) a need to determine priorities; and e.) a necessity to
identify donors and prospects.
A needed paradigm shift about fundraising culture. There were several comments
from respondents that support the different and sometimes foreign culture of institutional
fundraising efforts as it relates to divisions of student affairs. From a university perspective,
some respondents shared that, “Fundraising is not well developed at my college, so fundraising
for particular areas is not a strong priority.” Another comment also supported this statement
directly: “Priorities competing for time and lack of institutional history/culture for asking alums
for money.” Also implicated was a sense of competition with academic affairs: “Academic
84
Affairs believe alumni should give to collegiate units not student affairs units. This is our
toughest challenge to date.”
Several responses exemplified the challenges within student affairs units as well and their
need to become involved in this area within the university community: “Branding the division.
Students are part of student affairs without realizing it. We need to improve the ‘culture of
philanthropy’ with students and staff;” “1. Competing with those divisions who have the time
and personnel to make their case to Institutional Advancement. 2. The diversion of time from
the Student Affairs development officer to other priorities;” “Teaching a good ol’ boy operation
of the importance of SA [student affairs] involvement in the upcoming campaign.”
Department heads within student affairs units were also viewed as a challenge to
fundraising culture. “Student Affairs Directors do not make fundraising a priority or spend
appropriate time on development. Relationships with ‘donors’ are very minimal.” Additionally
another respondent shared the need for, “Getting some directors of departments within the
division to understand the role they must play in development efforts.” Finally, some indicated
that their institutions are not engaged in development efforts at all: “We just don’t do it. The
Institutional Advancement Division does it all on their own with the President.”; “The University
as a whole does not have major fundraising programs.” One university respondent shared a
specific cultural challenge, “[People in our state] are not accustomed to giving. The
development office is trying to raise awareness within [the state] about the benefits of
philanthropy and improve the image of [our university] with its alumni.”
Student affairs: Not viewed as a primary player in efforts. Coupled with a paradigm
shift about institutional fundraising culture, student affairs divisional staff members are not
always viewed as legitimate participants in the development and fundraising arena. This claim
85
was supported by several comments from respondents, specifically as it relates to two significant
fundraising units on many college campuses – athletics and academic affairs. As one said:
“Athletics is in our division and they are the major fundraisers in the division. Getting others in
student life to realize the need for development is a challenge.”; “The institution is focused on
fundraising for academic needs only.”; and “Identifying prospects who are loyal to student
affairs versus athletics or academics.”
Overall, the need for educating institutional advancement officers about the viability of
student affairs administrators was evident in some comments: “educating development staff of
importance/possibilities for fundraising for student affairs - not just nickels and dimes for student
events;” “Ability to hire a full-time development officer for Student Affairs. Getting SA
priorities into a campaign.” One respondent, new in this area, shared that: “We are a new
program, so ‘getting a seat at the University's development table’ has been the most important
priority. Establishing a development 'program' versus just raising funds and specifically,
developing a prospect pool, are the more significant challenges.”
A lack of resources. There were two main challenges with regard to resources, time and
money. One respondent shared two concerns. First, educating current staff as to their value and
“freeing up enough time for staff to participate,” while another shared, “Assigning responsibility
to a staff that already has so much to do.” In divisions where staff members are stretched thin
due to budget cuts oftentimes leading to increased responsibilities by fewer personnel, finding
resources to fulfill development duties can be challenging, as was shared by one respondent:
“We are so under resourced across-the-board that spending resources on a development person is
hard to justify.” Furthermore, one respondent shared: “I don't have a full-time person. The
person in charge has many other responsibilities. I don't have the funds to hire a fundraiser.”
86
Determining priorities. Another significant challenge suggested by respondents in
development and fundraising efforts within divisions of student affairs is determining priorities
when many are important. This was supported by several whose comments underscored the
difficulties of “coming to agreement on priorities given the needs and number of interests” and
“working to identify new programs for solicitation.” One respondent shared that development
and fundraising overall was not a priority: “Our priorities lie in maintaining current programs
and services. We don't have the human resources to support fundraising.”
Identifying donors and prospects. Creating a concrete database of prospective donors
to be aligned with specific projects was identified as another challenge within respondents’
divisions: “Building a donor base, building 'shared donors' with other advancement officers,
getting a solid base of projects to share with potential donors.” Additionally, finding donors who
have not been approached by other units (e.g., academics, athletics) was found to be yet another
challenge by several: “Establishing a prospect list - finding qualified donors who have not been
identified by an academic college as a prospect.”; “Our challenge is identifying donors who are
not already claimed by an academic department.” Overall, because student affairs does not easily
link to an academic unit or athletic program, finding donors can also be a struggle, as was shared
by one respondent: “a lack of natural constituency that is easily identified and tracked,” which in
turn may lead to a challenge identified by one other respondent in, “getting Alumni to buy into
our needs.”
Greatest Need for Divisions of Student Affairs in General
Survey question 32 was used to determine the greatest need in order for student affairs in
general (not necessarily at the respondent’s institution) to be successful in the fundraising arena.
Comments from 82 respondents stressed three main themes: a.) Presence of a development
87
officer on staff, b.) Collaboration with institutional advancement staff/unit, and c.) Culture of
philanthropy within the university and student affairs.
Presence of a development officer on staff. Several respondents shared the need for
student affairs units to have a staff position devoted specifically to development and fundraising
initiatives. Responses included the importance of demonstrating need for such a position and
gaining support from upper level administrators for a position, as well as funding and training for
a position. The following quotes from respondents support such claims: “We need to make sure
that the senior leadership (i.e., president, chancellor, board of regents/trustees) understand that
student affairs is as important as academic affairs when it comes to fundraising. Senior student
affairs officers have got to learn to be more aggressive when it comes to getting the division's
financial needs met.” Regarding training, one respondent shared how this can be to the
advantage of student affairs: “Training - it is a different animal although we have a great story to
tell and our human relations skills work to our advantage.” One additional respondent shared a
specific hiring need for the person charged with such work, indicating: “We need to be hiring
fundraising professionals not student development professionals to do this job.”
Culture of philanthropy within the university and student affairs. The challenge of
nurturing a culture of philanthropy overall and specifically within student affairs was apparent
among some respondents, who noted the difficulty in educating students (“To get students to
understand the giving culture and their role in it.”), graduates (“We need to tap into the vast
number of graduates for whom co-curricular activities and support services made significant
differences in the attainment of the degree and quality of educational experiences.”), and staff
(“articulate needs, get the vision out and get staff involved in fundraising. Think out of the
box.”) about philanthropic culture and their prospective role. Overall, the challenge involves
88
“consciousness raising” and “A recognition inside and outside of institutions of the importance
of out-of-class experiences to student learning.” This was also articulated by another respondent
as a long-term project, beginning with our constituency – current students: “…to have figured
this out earlier so we weren't just starting on the cultivation process for student leaders as "our"
constituency - so now to take this seriously as a long-term project.” Others comments
concerning this need for a shift in philanthropic culture was evident among those who indicated
that student affairs division leaders should be more involved in such efforts: “Making
fundraising a priority at the Department/Director level.”, “Personnel within the division being
dedicated to the task.”, and “Student Affairs Directors need development to be part of their job
description and thematic bundling of areas need their own development officer.”
Finally, student affairs staff members’ ability to share their story was significant for
several respondents who noted the importance of: “(the) ability to translate what we do into
language/ideas that donors can relate to,” “Delivering a strong message for support that
coincides with the donor’s wishes,” and “Finding the right person(s) to share our story regarding
our contributions to the overall educational mission of the institution. Ability to share [a] story
in a way that develops friends who want to provide financial support.”
Collaboration with institutional advancement staff. Beyond the presence of a
development officer to engage in development and fundraising work, and a paradigm shift about
philanthropy, there were several responses that echoed the need for collaboration between
institutional advancement and student affairs staff. Among the ideas identified as important
were: “A shared vision with the administrative team,” “To successfully articulate Divisional
needs to Institutional Advancement,” being at the development table, (“We have 2 full-time
development officers. They attend Development staff meetings and also have a specific liaison
89
in Development for communication purposes.”), sharing donors, and “making cooperative ‘asks’
with University Advancement.”
Educating institutional advancement staff about student affairs staff’s viability as
fundraisers was also shared, specifically: “Learning that student affairs has a role in institutional
advancement and an opportunity to be part of a significant campaign,” “More experience on the
university development leadership team. Seeing Student Affairs as a viable area for fund
raising,” “(a) more clearly defined role at the institution as a member of the fundraising team-especially as it relates to "friend-making," and “The willingness of others to accept outsiders in
the fund raising arena. This is still somewhat of a ‘closed shop’.”
Student Affairs Development and Fundraising, Training, and Relationship with
Institutional Advancement Staff
Survey question 33 was used for respondents to add any comments they had regarding
student affairs development and fundraising, training, relationship with institutional
advancement staff, or to clarify and expound on any comments offered in response to previous
items. Comments from 31 respondents stressed four main themes: a.) Advancement culture is
foreign to student affairs, b.) A lack of resources, c.) Student affairs is an untapped aspect of
higher education fundraising, and d.) Misunderstanding of student affairs – what we do and
whom we serve.
Advancement culture foreign to student affairs. As supported in previous responses
to questions 31 and 32, advancement work is perceived to be somewhat foreign to divisions of
student affairs. One respondent shared that: “Advancement culture tends to be competitive and
bottom line oriented. This is somewhat foreign to Student Affairs culture. Blending the cultures
90
is a real challenge and requires the VP to take a firm stand with Advancement about the way we
will work and what we want to do.”
A lack of resources. The lack of available human resources was also found to be a
challenge. One respondent shared the need for joint efforts within this area: “Within student
affairs, unit directors need to play a leading role in assisting the student affairs fundraising
officer in any way possible. Student affairs fundraising officers should not be asked to do all the
fundraising on their own.” Also underscoring this challenge was another respondent’s
acknowledgement of the SSAOs involvement: “The CSAO [Chief Student Affairs Officer] must
have a passion for this effort and take the time needed to support development officers who are
working on their projects.” In addition, time is a challenge to do this work successfully as one
other respondent indicated: “While we would love to spend more time in this arena, resource
limitations truly make this activity difficult to undertake, even though the results may ameliorate
those very resource difficulties.” Finally, beyond mere student affairs involvement, the need for
an institutional cultural shift about fundraising for student affairs priorities was emphasized by
one respondent: “Student Affairs leadership does not think about development on a daily basis
and more development officers are needed to meet the scope and scale of the needs in Student
Affairs.”
Student affairs: An untapped resource. “Particularly for campuses with a strong
campus culture, it’s the most untapped aspect of higher education fundraising,” shared one
respondent. Student affairs indeed can be involved in the development and fundraising area – if
invited to have a seat at the development table. Additionally, a strong relationship with
institutional advancement staff was noted to be significant by other respondents: “It is important
to establish trust, and see that there will be reciprocal benefits for cooperating with Institutional
91
Advancement. That there is 'give' as well as 'take'.” At times this trust is not always established,
as was shared by another respondent: “Personal relationships with Advancement staff are fine.
However, repeatedly [being] told that student affairs is not a part of the overall campaign, [and]
cannot raise money for buildings, etc.” Moving beyond merely not being included seemed to
resonate from a number of respondents.
Misunderstanding of student affairs. Student affairs professionals have a “story” to
share, as was articulated by one respondent: “We have to be able to create the story for our
endowment association. They don't understand a lot of what we do . . . so we can help by
providing information for campaigns.” Another, while at his last two institutions, indicated
receiving varying responses to the idea of student affairs being involved in development work:
“The last two institutions where I have worked the development staff have stated that the kinds
of things student affairs wants to raise money for are not what interest donors. Yet other
institutions are raising money from donors for those same projects.” The need for others to
understand what the student affairs profession is, who is involved in such areas, and how we
connect to students, prospective donors, and the university community as a whole was a familiar
theme from many respondents.
Summary of Results
Analysis of demographic data yielded a portrait of respondents as either from small
(20.7%), medium (36.9%), or large (42.3%) public institutions, espousing major research
(47.7%) or other (52.3%) missions, and representative of all seven NASPA regions, with the
largest single portion from Region III (35.1%). All institutions identified in this study received
significant state government funding, ranging from one to two-thirds of their total support as a
function of their size and mission.
92
Although a clear majority of all respondent campuses were involved in some universitywide capital campaign, large institutions and those with a major research agenda were more
likely to do so. However, no significant differences were attributed to institutional size or
mission when it came to including student affairs in such efforts. Overall institutional capital
campaign goals varied from less than $25 million to over $1 billion, and were apparently related
to institutional size and mission, with large universities and those with major research agendas
represented among those reporting campaign goals over $1 billion.
In regard to student affairs division development and fundraising practices, large
institutions and those espousing a major research agenda identified articulating divisional
fundraising priorities and being present at institutional advancement meetings in the greatest
proportion. Also evident in the data was the finding that those serving in student activities at
large and major research institutions were more involved in said practices. Examination of three
fundraising organizational models also indicated that medium, large, and major research
institutions favored a joint selection (with institutional advancement) of the staff member
responsible for student affairs development and fundraising. However, examination of whether
specific development and fundraising practices were used more within one organizational model
or another yielded limited differences.
No specific preparation variable for those conducting development and fundraising work
within student affairs was found to be more prevalent for any particular institutional size or
mission. However, having knowledge of fundraising functions was found more often as a
requisite at institutions with a major research agenda. Additionally, most respondents doing this
work within their division had knowledge of fundraising and received subsequent training to
fulfill these duties; many also utilized a wide range of selected training and preparation,
93
including: attending professional workshops and institutes, on-the-job training, and consulting
with other practitioners.
When the relationship between student affairs and institutional advancement units was
examined, significant differences were discovered. More specifically, development and
fundraising staff at large institutions and those with a major research agenda were more likely to
report that prospect solicitations were shared between units. Moreover, respondents regardless
of institution type, reported that development and fundraising responsibilities should be shared
between units.
Finally, within the context of development and fundraising efforts by those working in
divisions of student affairs at 4-year, public universities, a number of significant challenges were
reported, including: lack of fundraising and development culture across the university and within
the student affairs division; lack of understanding of student affairs as a unit or student affairs
staff member’s role within the institution’s development and fundraising arena; and difficulties
of collaboration with institutional advancement staff. In the following chapter, the significance,
implications, recommendations, and concluding thoughts are discussed and offer a final picture
of development and fundraising work within 4-year, public universities as discerned from these
data.
94
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter provides potential explanations of select key findings in these data, followed
by an exploration of possible implications for practice for those who engage in development and
fundraising efforts within divisions of student affairs. Finally, this chapter considers
implications for future research on this topic, with recommendations for extending this line of
inquiry.
Discussion of Key Findings
To the extent that these data are representative of 4-year public postsecondary settings,
and specifically administrators serving in divisions of student affairs, findings from this study
can offer a window into the current status of development and fundraising practices at such
institutions. Overall, these data point to some apparent concerns SSAOs express about their role
in their institution’s development and fundraising initiatives, the best practices to adopt in
pursuing such work, and the kind of preparation thought required in order to be successful at it.
First, the data presented here reveal that more than four out of ten respondents indicated
they had an individual employed in their division of student affairs, assigned the responsibility of
development and fundraising. This represents a significant increase in this phenomenon from
when first considered in previous published work on the topic (e.g., Fygetakis, 1992; Haynes,
2004; Hillman, 2002; Nayman et al., 2003; Rovig, 2008), perhaps signaling a growing interest on
the part of student affairs administrators in assuming a greater role in such efforts on campus.
The reason for this though is not immediately apparent from these data, but given the many
external funding challenges faced in recent years, especially by public sector institutions, it
95
makes sense that greater efforts would be evident from within. However, such initiatives have
not been without their own challenges.
In spite of the noted gains, respondents in this study also made reference to a perceived
lack of understanding on their campuses of the role and potential student affairs administrators
have in the success of an institution’s overall development and fundraising efforts. This finding
reflects a continuation perhaps of what others claimed some two decades ago (e.g., Terrell et al.,
1993), when noting the lack of institutional recognition for student affairs and its potential as an
untapped fundraising resource. It is also consistent with previous observations warning of the
consequences of such exclusion: “Once you participate in the fundraising process, you are
sending a message to the rest of the academic community that you are an integral part of the
development process. If not, you will harbor some resentment that you are not included”
(Grund, 2006, p. 11).
Even among those who have achieved a more positive outcome in these matters, they
have done so, as some of the administrators in the present study noted, only in competition with
other unit administrators in academic affairs and athletics, for example, who have historically
constituted the greatest beneficiaries of such efforts. Nevertheless, increases in the construction
of new student unions, residence halls (Lewis, 2003), and fitness/recreation and health centers on
campus (e.g., Bowling Green State University, Miami University, The Ohio State University,
Western Kentucky University) stand as examples of recent development successes in the student
affairs domain. Such investments for improving student life demonstrate an understanding that
attending to student satisfaction and opportunities for engagement in the overall collegiate
experience will in turn result in more satisfied alumni who may be more likely to return the gift
in increasing donor commitments. Another example of success is seen in the growing
96
phenomenon of tax-exempt student affairs development accounts, created to fund and renovate
university student housing. For example, as is the case at Western Kentucky University, where
The Western Kentucky University Student Life Foundation was established as a nonprofit, nonaffiliated, tax-exempt Kentucky corporation. Although anecdotal, these examples illustrate the
growing interest and potential of student affairs divisions for generating additional sources of
support. However, the overall picture implicated in the present data suggests that institutional
leaders have yet to prioritize development goals to systematically incorporate internal
constituents, such as student affairs, who continue to struggle to find their place in the overall
advancement plan of the university.
Second, the data presented in this study underscore practices found to be utilized most
commonly by those who engage in this work, as well as any differences in their adoption
attributed to institutional size or mission. The development and fundraising strategies
highlighted here are typical of best practices in the field and reflect a traditional sequence of
implementation, from extensive planning first, action steps next, and subsequent donor follow-up
last (Seiler, 2010). Many of the practices subscribed to by these respondents seem to suggest
that student affairs administrators are involved primarily in the preparation and active
solicitation phases. Although apparent strides are evident in the practices used most frequently,
others were less obvious, especially in the inclusion of staff, students, employees, and alumni in
the process. It seems that little has been done to dig deeper to identify those departments within
student affairs divisions that have the most direct contact with students who, in turn, have the
potential to become the most loyal of alumni. Student leaders in housing and residence life,
student activities, and student organizations in particular are an untapped potential resource for
future fundraising success, a point supported in other research on the topic (Callahan, 2007;
97
Fygetakis, 1992; Hendrix-Kral, 1995; Hillman, 2002; Kroll, 1991; Rames, 2000; Shay, 1993;
Sherratt, 1975; Terrell et al., 1993). Overall, the present data suggest that while student affairs at
public universities seem to be on track with best practices in development and fundraising, albeit
at a beginning stage, further emphasis on the planning and coordination of development
activities, and the inclusion of current students, department heads, and alumni in the process
would only bolster efforts.
Furthermore, the data in this study also offer a consistent picture of particular practices
being employed more often at large and major research universities, namely the articulation of
divisional fundraising priorities and attendance at institutional advancement meetings. These
findings are consistent with the greater participation in university capital campaigns observed at
such schools where clear articulation of funding priorities would be a necessity. It could be that
student affairs administrators at large and major research universities have been more involved
in such efforts because they have the resources (both human and financial) already in place to
capitalize on such opportunities. Perhaps smaller institutions, that might lack the level of
resources required (e.g., time, money, staff, and collaboration with institutional advancement
staff) and who are unaccustomed to pursuing these types of advancement practices, are at
particular risk for failure in this area. After all, student affairs staff members at smaller
institutions already wear multiple hats, and have little time to prioritize additional efforts toward
these ends. Ironically, the solution to this conundrum lies in the problem; that is, devoting more
time and resources to such endeavors is exactly what would most likely result in greater
fundraising success and greater self-sufficiency in response to their current fiscal challenges.
Third, the specification in this study of particular knowledge about development and
fundraising practices as a requirement for assuming any position in this area is a marked increase
98
from earlier research (Fygetakis, 1992; Gold et al., 1993; Hendrix-Kral, 1995; Kroll, 1991;
Terrell et al., 1993). Beyond this basic level though, other respondents indicated the necessity of
sufficient preparation to provide leadership in this area. Who are the “right” people to
coordinate and facilitate development and fundraising within a division of student affairs?
Should it be a student affairs administrator trained to do development work or a development
officer trained to do student affairs work? Although the answer is unclear from the present data,
various approaches are evident in the models examined here and imply that perhaps student
affairs personnel have a unique edge in this type of work. Accordingly, Penney and Rose (2001)
outlined specific skills and characteristics that both student affairs staff and fundraisers share,
but that advantage student affairs administrators:
Student affairs staff members have an advantage when making the fundraising case
because of their close contact with and understanding of students. Who better to
communicate about the impact that construction of a new residence hall or campus center
will have on students than the director of the campus center, director of housing, or vice
president for student affairs? (p. 3).
Such a claim concurs with previous studies that have also extolled the development and
fundraising potential of student affairs administrators (Hendrix-Kral, 1995; Kimmel, 1986;
Kopita & Royse, 2004; Kroll, 1991; Miser & Mathis, 1993; Shay, 1993). Perhaps the apparent
increased knowledge of development and fundraising expected among administrators in the
present study point to the positive direction divisions of student affairs at public universities are
heading in this regard. Nevertheless the data do point out that most of such efforts remain
outside of the student affairs purview.
99
All in all, these data suggest an increase in student affairs administrators’ involvement in
development and fundraising efforts on campus since some of the first examinations of the
methods and techniques used in fundraising at public universities or student affairs involvement
in such were published (Kimmel, 1986; Sherratt, 1975). Additionally, the status of development
and fundraising practices portrayed in the present findings seems to indicate that student affairs
is increasingly involved in the planning and execution of such efforts at the broad administrative
level, but has only begun to encourage the engagement of its internal constituents (e.g., students,
employees, alumni). Regardless, it also seems that the process, practice, and productivity of
these efforts, to some extent, are a function of institutional size and mission.
Implications for Practice and Policy
There are a number of potential implications for development and fundraising practices
in this study that warrant additional attention by SSAOs, student affairs department heads,
graduate preparation faculty, and professional organization leadership. These data suggest a
variety of strategies for the improvement of future efforts, including, but not limited to: a.)
clearer intra-institutional communication about the purposes and functions of student affairs
divisions; b.) inclusion of other administrators and personnel in development and fundraising
efforts; c.) support of continued training and educational preparation for this work; d.) the need
for greater coordination of fundraising strategies; and e.) greater attention to the needs of small
institutions.
First, respondents in this study shared the need for more pointed communication with
others about the role (and potential role) student affairs administrators can have in the
institutional advancement area; however, it is unclear as to what extent such efforts are actually
underway. One would assume that if university constituents involved in the overall
100
advancement plan of the university were already fully aware of the potential for increased
involvement from student affairs units, further understanding would not be needed. Merely
having tacit knowledge of our potential role, without actively communicating the particulars, is
not enough. We have a responsibility as administrators to help institutional advancement staff
members understand that investments in other areas can ensure a long-term, deeper commitment
on behalf of other donors at the university. Suggestions for how to do this might include sharing
prospective donor names with institutional advancement staff, including these contributors’
connection to and affinity for certain campus projects, programs, initiatives (e.g., living learning
communities, student scholarships, leadership programs).
Greater attention should also be given to being present when discussions of institutional
priorities are taking place (e.g., capital campaign goal planning, case statement development)
and being prepared with talking points about student affairs priorities, functions, and purposes.
This can be communicated via divisional/departmental newsletters, publications, and websites
that highlight various goals and initiatives. While this certainly could improve communication
with internal constituents, it could serve additionally as a mechanism to communicate priorities
to external constituents as well. Increasing awareness on behalf of student affairs might entail
staff engaging their respective student affairs units in assuming a more active role in the
development and fundraising process. Whatever is done in that respect could certainly bolster
efforts for the division overall.
Second, data reported here emphasized, not only SSAOs’ involvement in both raising
awareness and funding for their overall divisions, but further participation of staff who work
within the subsidiary departments as well. Specifically, the expressed intent among some
respondents to include additional department staff as one of their next-steps (e.g., housing and
101
residence life, student activities, career services, and health services) seems to suggest that
efforts may soon be underway, within some student affairs divisions, to expand the overall
planning of divisional advancement strategies. Who other than those most directly involved in
such units can better understand all the nuances of particular departmental priorities? Expansion
of such an internal network of proponents makes very good sense as a timely advancement
initiative.
Third, the apparent expectation for an explicit knowledge base for those assigned
responsibilities in student affairs development and fundraising functions suggests the need for
additional opportunities to promote specific training and education along these lines.
Furthermore, by more intentionally capitalizing on graduates and new professionals who have
already achieved some training in this area (e.g., internships, collateral assignments), beyond
minimal budget management, student affairs divisions will gain valuable team members, as
recommended by Hillman (2002), who in turn can be of great assistance in jump-starting their
development and fundraising efforts. Consistent with such a direction is a recent initiative
instituted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), at the
2008 conference, approving the creation of a knowledge community dedicated to student affairs
fundraising, titled “Student Affairs Development and External Relations” (NASPA, 2010b).
Accordingly, this knowledge community provides an opportunity for members to “access
information and resources in a specific subject matter [in this case, development and fundraising]
that pertains to the student affairs profession and come together through common interests in
ways that support the NASPA mission, vision, and goals.” Knowledge communities provide an
entry point to the association for graduate students and new professionals, and offer a structured
organization for new and continuing members to confirm their commitment to and passion for
102
the profession through their common interests (NASPA, 2010a). The mission of this particular
subgroup promises: a.) To provide development professionals working in (or connected with)
student affairs a "home" within NASPA and b.) To provide senior student affairs officers a place
to connect for the latest fundraising strategies and information (NASPA, 2010b). Such a
structure represents a significant step in supporting the sharing of knowledge around student
affairs development and fundraising activities and signals the importance ascribed to this domain
by one of its leading professional organizations.
Fourth, while it appears that student affairs and institutional advancement units at a
number of these participating institutions are communicating with each other, formally and
informally, not at all clear are the particulars of this communication. For example are
institutional advancement staff members fully aware of prospective donors SSAOs are interested
in pursuing? Are cooperative “asks” are being initiated with appropriate staff members? Does
the “right hand know what the left hand is doing” in such cases? Regardless, without greater
coordination of efforts, certain risks are inevitable that might jeopardize a division’s overall
development plan, including: a.) losing a prospective donor’s gift all together; b.) receiving a
lesser gift than what the donor had ability to offer; or c.) shortchanging overall fundraising goals.
Finally, the picture of development and fundraising efforts in smaller public institutions
evident in these data suggest that a lesser degree of such activity, when compared to larger
universities, might be related to the chronic under-staffing of these institutions, where an already
stretched workforce cannot manage the additional time consuming process of coordinating an
overall advancement plan for its division of student affairs. In light of this though, perhaps
SSAOs at these smaller campuses would benefit from a more centralized approach to these
efforts, collaborating closely with an institutional advancement office to support their programs,
103
goals, and initiatives. Furthermore, with a smaller student body, perhaps SSAOs can use this to
their advantage in creating a database of prospective donors from which to draw, something that
is more challenging to accomplish at larger institutions where the degree of connection between
administrators and students might be more distant and anonymous. Finally, limitations of this
kind might also be mitigated by forming a development and fundraising consortium or network
of institutions, where the sharing of strategies and training resources could benefit all.
Implications for Future Research
This exploration into the involvement of SSAOs in development and fundraising
produced new insight into these efforts. It also created potential future research to explore,
including: a.) comparing different institutional types; b.) utilizing different research
methodology; c.) extending the research longitudinally; d.) examining the culture of
philanthropy found on campus, e.) examining further the effectiveness of various development
organizational models; and f.) conducting follow-up research with participants in this study
regarding training and preparation.
First, this study explored public SSAOs’ reported involvement in their university’s
capital campaign, their preparation for development work, practices they engage in currently,
and the relationship they have with the institutional advancement staff on their campus.
Examining 4-year, private institutions of similar sizes and missions could provide comparative
analysis that would undoubtedly enrich this line of inquiry. Since private institutions have been
involved in such efforts for a greater length of time, gaining comparative insight into each
respective student affairs division’s efforts (utilizing the same survey instrument) might be
valuable for both institutional types. Perhaps public institution student affairs administrators
could learn successful practice strategies from their counterparts at private schools, or private
104
university administrators could, in turn, learn from such an analysis how to better collaborate
with institutional advancement colleagues on their respective campuses. Gaining wisdom from
each would most likely assist both in becoming more skilled in such efforts overall.
Second, this dissertation utilized primarily quantitative data to generate a statistical
portrait of development and fundraising practices in divisions of student affairs. Absent in this
study was any significant qualitative analysis that could be helpful in exploring in greater depth
some of the issues implicated here. The experiences of SSAOs as they engage in this work, as
well as how their involvement has evolved over time remains largely unknown. Utilizing a
qualitative methodology, including case studies and interviews, could be conducted to generate a
more in-depth understanding of the unique experiences SSAOs engage in, relevant to their work
in development and fundraising. Furthermore, such an experiential focus would capture more of
the nuances of their involvement with institutional advancement officers on their respective
campuses. Case studies could certainly add to this line of inquiry in their focus on SSAOs who
lead well-established and “successful” divisions of student affairs in that regard. Indeed, their
stories would serve to unveil the particulars of specific efforts, unique challenges, and successes
encountered in this arena. Finally, such qualitative approaches might also produce another
benefit: enriching an understanding of the dimensions of development and fundraising work
while contributing to the design of a subsequent and better-constructed survey instrument.
Third, this study delivered a cross-sectional portrait of current involvement of student
affairs divisions within a specific time frame (2002-2007), and given trends in society and higher
education in general, it would be to the benefit of all to consider monitoring such efforts with
similar research questions, but across time. This longitudinal approach would help to probe the
patterns of change and lend itself to the identification of various trends that affect the overall
105
success of such efforts. If questions such as those featured here were examined in another five
or ten years, would more student affairs divisions be involved in these kind of efforts, as was the
case in the present study in comparison to earlier probes? One can assume that the answer
would be “yes,” in that the trend towards aggressive development and fundraising initiatives in
student affairs seems to be gaining new strength and priority overall.
Fourth, this study examined division donor identification and cultivation efforts on behalf
of students who have already graduated and have joined the ranks of institution alumni. Another
equally important focus on this topic might be to examine practices designed to engage students
prior to graduation, potentially generating a culture of philanthropy before they leave the
institution. With donor participation declining across the system, it is increasingly important for
those involved in fundraising and development work to nurture future alumni by first engaging
them while they are on campus as students. While many institutions have created some
components of student philanthropy, most lack a cohesive, strategic program that extends from
first-year convocation to commencement. There are numerous additional questions to consider
in advancing the current line of inquiry. How is a culture of philanthropy created on campus?
How can student affairs administrators, who already facilitate campus engagement and
leadership opportunities, contribute to a giving culture while students pursue their programs, so
that they are more inclined to become donors once they graduate? What is known about such
activities as they relate to current student philanthropic culture and future giving? What current
activities should be included in an inventory of those that attend to students prior to their
achieving alumni status? What kinds of strategies successfully shape attitudes of giving among
both students and employees? As some respondents in this study shared, their institution does
not seem to have an established culture of campus philanthropy, rendering the identification of
106
prospective donors a real challenge. More certainly needs to be known about this side of the
problem.
One could argue that anything related to strengthening attachment of students to their
university, changing their attitude toward philanthropy, and providing opportunities for them to
give back to the institution (e.g., class legacy gifts, dance marathons for charitable organizations,
naming opportunities) might promote their giving overall. With an increased emphasis on
service-learning and volunteer opportunities among students, it makes sense for institutions to
consider ways in which such transformative experiences might lead to an increase in students’
awareness, their interdependence with others, and their need for giving back to the place that
provided these opportunities for learning, growth, and development.
Fifth, this study examined whether particular fundraising practices were used more often
with a particular organizational model in place. However, these data did not seem to support any
distinction of one model over the other. Although Schoenecke (2005) focused on large research
institutions that had a development officer employed within the student affairs division (a
dedicated model), by examining institutions that utilize a full range of models (i.e., dedicated,
centralized, or collaborative arrangements) could illuminate practices beneficial to most any
institution involved in such efforts. Additionally, a sub-set of organizational design question
probes could include examining who is best qualified to conduct development and fundraising
work, regardless of where they are housed. Are these efforts best supported by a student affairs
professional who learns the art of fundraising? Or is a better approach to have a development
staff member who learns the art of student affairs?
Finally, one can assume that the trend towards pursuing alternative funding mechanisms
for student affairs units will increase further as traditional resources continue to shrink.
107
Following up with select SSAOs in this study who indicated being actively involved in
fundraising, or those responsible for such efforts within the unit, would certainly provide greater
insight for those leading student affairs divisions or departments. Specifically, evaluating the
training and preparation such staff have received about development and fundraising, or whether
their graduate preparation programs included such topics, would help to identify skill sets
favored for those who wish to pursue this leadership function in their future administrative roles.
Specific questions might be asked of these staff members, including: Is coordinating fundraising
activities for the student affairs division a part of your current job description? Where,
specifically, did you learn “how” to do fundraising? What techniques have you learned in order
to engage with institutional advancement colleagues on your campus? Is your division
recognized and included in the overall institutional advancement plan for your university? If so,
how have you accomplished this task? This line of inquiry can benefit future generations of
SSAOs, whose job responsibilities will more than likely include directing their division in such
efforts.
Furthermore, answers to these questions would certainly benefit national student affairs
organizational leaders as they continue to develop additional training opportunities around the
topic of fundraising, as well as include conference program selections focusing on development
work. College student personnel and higher education graduate preparation program faculty
could also benefit from further suggestions for adding courses, internship experiences, or
collateral assignments related to development and fundraising. And last, institutional
advancement staff members on college campuses and leaders within national advancement
professional organizations (i.e., Council for Advancement and Support of Education) could
108
benefit from such probes as they stimulate their recognition and inclusion of student affairs
administrators in their own efforts.
Conclusion
The experiences of the SSAOs in this study have given credence and voice to the
development and fundraising work presently underway at a sample of 4-year, public universities
in the American higher education system. To the extent that these data are representative of the
larger population of similar institutions, the findings here suggest strongly that, although these
efforts have become a significant feature of the modern era public college campus, there are still
strides to be made in this regard within internal university units – namely, divisions of student
affairs. As Gold et al. (1993) pointedly stated: “Educational fundraising is no longer a peripheral
activity in most institutions of higher education. It is a central institutional activity that functions
consistently with the overall mission” (p. 97). This “central” activity will only continue to reach
greater priority on the agenda for divisions of student affairs going forward into the next era of
American higher education. Student affairs administrators are in a good position to utilize their
unique skills and abilities to capitalize on this opportunity, which in turn can only but help them
to become more self-sufficient in the face of the inevitable fiscal hurdles that challenge all.
109
REFERENCES
American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications
for student affairs. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (1937). The student
personnel point of view. Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (1949). The student
personnel point of view. (Rev. ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (1987). A perspective
on student affairs: A statement issued on the 50th anniversary of the student personnel
point of view. Washington, DC: Author.
Arnold, G. L. (2003). Friend raisers and fund raisers: Alumni relations and development in
large, public universities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3079404)
Association of Fund-Raising Professionals. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.afpnet.org/index.cfm
Brittingham, B. E. & Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fund raising in higher
education. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American
colleges and universities (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Callahan, C. M. (1997, March). Survey of NASPA SSAOs. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Chicago, IL.
Carnesale, A. (2006, January 6). The private-public gap in higher education. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. B20.
110
Certified Fund Raising Executive (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cfre.org/cfre-history.html
Charles, C. M., & Mertler, C. A. (2002). Introduction to Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
College Board. Trends in higher education series. (2010). Tuition and Fee and Room and Board
Charges over Time. New York, NY: Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college_pricing/
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (n.d.). About advancement. Retrieved from
http://www.case.org/About_CASE/About_Advancement.html
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (n.d.). CASE history. Retrieved from
http://www.case.org/About_CASE/CASE_History.html#pred
Deutsch, M. (April, 1949a). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
Deutsch, M. (July, 1949b). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition
upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199-231.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, NY:
Wiley Interscience.
Eller, D. H. (2010). College vice presidents’ role in fundraising activities in the 2000s and
beyond: A case in California. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3406629)
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing qualitative
research: Circles within circles. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Fygetakis, E. C. (1992). A study of the relationship between student affairs offices and university
development offices in fund-raising for student extracurricular activities. (Doctoral
111
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
AAT 9306056)
Fygetakis, E. C., & Dalton, J. C. (1993). The Relationship between Student Affairs and
Institutional Advancement Offices in Educational Fundraising. In M. C. Terrell & J. A.
Gold (Eds.), New roles for educational fundraising and institutional advancement (New
Directions for Student Services No. 63, pp. 51-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gaines, J. (2008, March 28). Fiscal court gives initial approval to changes to agency. The Daily
News. Retrieved from http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2008/03/28/news/news3.txt
Giving Institute (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.aafrc.org/about_gi/index.cfm?pg=history.cfm
Gold, J. A., Golden, D. C., & Quatroche, T. J. (1993). The challenge of chief student affairs
officers: Planning for the future. In M. C. Terrell & J. A. Gold (Eds.), New roles for
educational fundraising and institutional advancement (New Directions for Student
Services No. 63, pp. 95-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, S. E., Strode, C. B., & Brady, R. M. (1993). Student affairs and educational fundraising.
The first critical steps. In M. C. Terrell & J. A. Gold (Eds.), New roles for educational
fundraising and institutional advancement (New Directions for Student Services No. 63,
pp. 5-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grund, N. (2006, Summer). Making the ask: Perspectives on fundraising from the front line.
Leadership Exchange, 4(2), 8-13.
Haynes, B. (2004, March). In Search of Dollars: Fundraising in Student Affairs. Paper presented at
the meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Denver, CO.
112
Hendrix-Kral, C. L. (1995). Capital campaigns: Implications for fund raising for student affairs
divisions in public universities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 9622395)
Hendrix, T., Bickman, L, & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hillman, J. (2002). An investigation of the current status of fundraising activities and training
within student affairs divisions in Texas colleges and universities. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3118748)
Hofstadter, R., & Smith, W. (Eds.). (1961). American higher education: A documentary history.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jackson, M. L. (2000). Fund-raising and development. In M. J. Barr, & M. K. Desler (Eds.), The
handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 597-610). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jacobson, H. K. (1990). Research on institutional advancement: A review of progress and a
guide to the literature. Review of Higher Education, 13, 433-438.
Kimmel, R. B. (1986). Fund raising in student affairs: Thrust for the future? College Student
Affairs Journal. 6, 5-10.
Kopita, R. R., & Royse, D. L. (2004, Summer). Fundraising and development in student affairs.
Leadership Exchange, 2(2), 10-13.
Kroll, D. M. (1991). Role expansion in student affairs: student affairs officers and fundraising in
selected Midwestern liberal arts colleges. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 9130503)
113
Levy, J. D. (2004). The growth of fundraising: Framing the impact of research and literature on
education and training. (New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising No. 43). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, M. J. (2003, July 11). Forget classrooms. How big is the atrium in the new student
center? The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B7.
Lingenfelter, P. E., Wright, D. L., & Yanagiura, T. (2005). State Higher Education Finance FY
2005. Retrieved from State Higher Education Executive Officers: http://www.sheeo.org/
López-Rivera, M. (2010, January 7). Updates on billion-dollar campaigns at 33 universities.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Updates-onBillion-Dollar/1444/
Massy, W. F. (1992). Improvement strategies for administration and support services. In R. E.
Anderson & J. W. Meyerson (Eds.). Productivity & higher education: Improving the
effectiveness of faculty, facilities, and financial resources (pp. 49–83). Princeton, NJ:
Peterson’s Guides.
Miller, T. E. (2010a). The context for development work in student affairs. In T. E. Miller (Ed).
Advancement work in student affairs: The challenges and strategies (New Directions for
Student Services No. 130, pp. 3-8). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, T. E. (2010b). Summary and suggestions for the path ahead. In T. E. Miller (Ed).
Advancement work in student affairs: The challenges and strategies (New Directions for
Student Services No. 130, pp. 71-75). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miser, K. M., & Mathis, T. D. (1993). Creating a student affairs institutional advancement
program: Strategies for success. In M. C. Terrell & J. A. Gold (Eds.), New roles for
114
educational fundraising and institutional advancement (New Directions for Student
Services No. 63, pp. 29-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, M. F., & Policello, S. M. (2010). Getting started in student affairs development. In T. E.
Miller (Ed). Advancement work in student affairs: The challenges and strategies (New
Directions for Student Services No. 130, pp. 9-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2010a). Knowledge communities.
Retrieved from http://www.naspa.org/kc/default.cfm
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2010b). Student Affairs
Development and External Relations Knowledge Community. Retrieved from
http://www.naspa.org/kc/sader/default.cfm
Nayman, R. L., Gianneschi, H. R., & Mandel, J. M. (1993). Turning students into alumni donors.
In M. C. Terrell & J. A. Gold (Eds.), New roles for educational fundraising and
institutional advancement (New Directions for Student Services No. 63, pp. 85-94). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Penney, S. W., & Rose, B. B. (2001). Dollars for dreams: Student affairs staff as fundraisers.
Washington, D.C.: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Pray, F. C. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook for educational fundraising: A guide to successful principles
and practices for colleges, universities, and school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rames, M. P. (2000). Effect of financial constraints on student affairs services. NASPA Journal,
38, 70-81.
Rhodes, F. H. T. (Ed.) (1997). Successful fund raising for higher education: The advancement of
learning. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
115
Rovig, N. G. (2008). An examination of the relationship between development support
characteristics and the amount of funds raised for student affairs divisions. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
AAT 3351867)
Scott, R. A., & Bishoff, P. M. (2000). Preserving student affairs in times of fiscal constraint: A
case history. NASPA Journal, 38, 122-133.
Schoenecke, M. (2005). A description of successful fundraising programs in student affairs
divisions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. AAT 3174535)
Schuh, J. H. (2003). The financial environment of student affairs. In J.H. Schuh (Ed.),
Contemporary financial issues in student affairs (New Directions for Student Services
No. 103, pp. 3-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seiler, T. L. (2010). Roadmap to Fundraising Success. Retrieved from
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/TheFundRaisingSchool/PrecourseReadings/roadmap_
to_fundraising_success.aspx
Shay, J. E. (1993). The president’s perspective on student affairs and educational fundraising. In
M. C. Terrell & J. A. Gold (Eds.), New roles for educational fundraising and institutional
advancement (New Directions for Student Services No. 63, pp. 17-28). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sherratt, G. R. (1975). A study of the methods and techniques used in fund-raising at selected
public universities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 7527330)
116
Stevenson, T. J. (2001). Fundraising practices at selected Midwestern two-year colleges:
Community, junior, and technical college foundations in the twenty-first century.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. AAT 3038443)
Strout, E. (2007, March 8). Giving to colleges and universities grew by 6% last year, study finds.
Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com/article/Giving-toColleges-and/54762/
Terrell, M. C., & Gold. J. A. (Eds.). (1993). New roles for educational fundraising and
institutional advancement (New Directions for Student Services No. 63). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Terrell, M. C., Gold, J. A., & Renick, J. C. (1993). Student affairs professionals as fundraisers:
An untapped resource. NASPA Journal, 30, 190-195.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (2010). About the center on philanthropy.
Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/
The Center on Philanthropy Fundraising School (2010). The fundraising school. Retrieved from
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/TheFundRaisingSchool/
U. S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). What are the trends in
the cost of college education? Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
117
APPENDIX A. Participant Survey
A SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDRAISING PRACTICES
AT 4-YEAR, PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
It is important that this survey be completed by you, the Senior Student Affairs Officer
(SSAO) of your institution, although consultation from others in your division who may
assist with fundraising efforts would be appropriate. The purpose of this research is to
identify current development and fundraising practices within divisions of student affairs
at 4-year, public universities. Data reported will provide practitioners with useful
information about student affairs development and fundraising efforts nationwide. Your
honest reflections and evaluation are essential and appreciated.
As you consider the following questions, please begin with an understanding of the
following terms: the term “fundraising” is intended to refer to the solicitation and
stewardship of donations and gifts; “institutional advancement” is intended to refer to an
office or, where applicable, professional(s) outside of the division of student affairs who
conducts development and fundraising efforts for the institution; and finally, “student
affairs development and fundraising” is intended to refer to external resources generated
by fundraising efforts within your division or in conjunction with institutional
advancement.
Please know that your participation in this study is voluntary and your responses will be
confidential. No individual information will be shared; only aggregate results will be
reported. I would be grateful if you would take 10 to 20 minutes to respond to this
survey. By completing the survey, you are giving your consent to participate.
If you would like to complete a text-only version of the survey without the background
color, please click in the top left corner on "text only." If at any time you would like to
save your responses and return to them later, press the Save button.
Please contact me at (270) 745-2597 or [email protected] or my dissertation advisor,
Dr. C. Carney Strange, at (419) 372-7388 or [email protected] if you have any questions
or concerns related to this study. If you have questions about your rights as a research
participant, you can contact the Chair of BGSU’s Human Subjects Review Board at (419)
372-7716 or the person tasked with that responsibility at your university.
SECTION I: INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE & ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Are you the Senior Student Affairs Officer (SSAO) at your institution?
Yes
No
118
What is your title?
What is your institution's total enrollment?
5,000 to 7,999
8,000 to 10,999
11,000 to 14,999
15,000 to 19,999
20,000 to 29,999
Over 30,000
Is your institution a major research university?
Yes
No
In your best estimate, what percentage of your institution's budget comes from
state support?
Less Than 20%
21%-30%
31%-40%
41%-50%
51%-60%
Over 60%
In what state is your institution located?
Capital Campaign Involvement
Did your institution embark on a capital campaign within the previous 5 years
(2002-2007)?
Yes
No
Were student affairs divisional priorities included in the campaign goals?
Yes
No
119
What was the approximate goal of the institution’s overall campaign?
$1 billion or more
$500 million - $999 million
$200 million - $499 million
$100 million - $199 million
$75 million - $99 million
$50 million - $74 million
$25 million - $49 million
Less than $25 million
The following questions are to identify the presence (or absence) of the person(s)
responsible for development and fundraising efforts for the division of student affairs.
Does your division employ a fundraiser(s) specifically for student affairs?
Yes
No
Does your division plan to employ a fundraiser specifically for student affairs
within the next five years?
Yes
No
Does your university institutional advancement office assign a development
staff member to assist the student affairs division with development and
fundraising activities?
Yes
No
Whom do you consider to be the primary fundraiser for your division?
Senior Student Affairs Officer (SSAO)
Associate or Assistant SSAO
Dean of Students
Department Head or Director
Institutional Advancement Officer
Student Affairs specific Development Officer/Fundraiser
Other
What other person is the primary fundraiser for your division?
120
The following questions are in reference to the staff member responsible for student
affairs development and fundraising initiatives. Please complete this section if your
division employs a fundraiser specifically for student affairs or if your university
institutional advancement office assigns a development staff member to assist the student
affairs division with development and fundraising activities. If neither of these is the
case, please skip this and the next page and proceed to Section III.
This staff member was selected . . .
by student affairs staff
by institutional advancement staff
by a joint selection between student affairs and institutional
advancement
This staff member was hired . . .
full-time in student affairs
full-time in institutional advancement
part-time in student affairs
part-time in institutional advancement
joint full-time appointment between student affairs and institutional
advancement
joint part-time appointment between student affairs and institutional
advancement
This staff member’s position is funded by . . .
student affairs
institutional advancement
both student affairs and institutional advancement
SECTION II: PREPARATION FOR DEVELOPMENT & FUNDRAISING
The following questions are in reference to the staff member within your division
responsible for student affairs development and fundraising efforts.
Regarding this person's job description, is having fundraising experience and/or
knowledge a prerequisite for employment?
Yes
No
Has this person received training/preparation specific to development and
fundraising functions?
Yes
No
121
If so, what type of training/preparation activities have been employed? (please
check all that apply)
Credit-bearing fundraising/development courses
Professional workshops/institutes about development and fundraising
Books, articles, published research
Consultation with other practitioners doing this work
Professional student affairs conference presentations
On-the-job training
From institutional advancement staff on campus
Other
What other type of training/preparation has this person received?
If not, does your division plan to implement training/preparation opportunities
specific to development and fundraising in your division within the next five
years?
Yes
No
Is training/preparation information shared with department heads within the
student affairs division?
Yes
No
SECTION III: STUDENT AFFAIRS PRIORITIES AND MONIES RAISED
Please indicate if any of the following programs/activities have been identified
as a featured priority for fundraising activity within your division during the
previous five years (2002 - 2007) (please check all that apply).
Alcohol/substance education
Athletic (intercollegiate) programs
Building construction/renovation of a student union
Building construction/renovation of a student recreation center
Building construction/renovation of residence halls
Building construction/renovation of a health center
Campus safety/rape education
122
Career planning and placement
Childcare for faculty, staff, or students
Community service/volunteerism
Disabled student programs/services
Diversity programs
Emergency student loan funds
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender student services
Graduate assistantships
Healthcare/wellness/personal counseling
Homecoming events
International student programs
Intramural/Recreation programs/equipment
Leadership programs
Programs/services for students of color
Orientation
Parents/Family weekend events
Residential life programs
Scholarships
Student activities
Student government
Considering collectively, the divisional priorities you selected above, estimate
the total amount of external funding that was generated for them within the
previous five years (2002-2007). Please include whole numbers only with no
commas and no dollar sign.
Please rate your division’s overall success in raising external funds for priorities
in your division within the previous five academic years (2002- 2007).
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No money has been raised for our division
123
Please rate your institution’s overall success in raising external funds for
priorities in your division within the previous five academic years (2002- 2007).
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No money has been raised for our division
SECTION IV: DEVELOPMENT & FUNDRAISING PRACTICES
Considering each of the following development and fundraising practices, identify
whether each reflects, to date, involvement of your division (or, where applicable, the
student affairs development and fundraising staff member) in such practices (“Yes”) or
your future plans to be involved in such practices (“No, but plan to in the future”). The
following statements are asked to solicit one of two responses - current practices or future
plans to be involved in such practices. If neither response applies, please leave blank.
Our division has . . .
Yes
identified and articulated
division fundraising
priorities.
created documents detailing
the need for support of
divisional fundraising
priorities.
attended training and
professional development
activities to learn about
development and
fundraising practices.
coordinated staff
development activities about
fundraising for staff within
the division.
attended institutional
advancement meetings.
No, but plan to in the
future
124
collaborated with
institutional advancement
staff in fundraising efforts
for student affairs.
created an advisory board
for the division to assist in
fundraising efforts.
been involved in an
institutional capital
campaign.
conducted research to
identify prospective donors.
created a database of
prospective donors.
sought external funding
sources for student affairs
priorities via: external
grants-federal, state or local
government.
sought external funding
sources for student affairs
priorities via: donations
(private individuals,
alumni/alumnae).
sought external funding
sources for student affairs
priorities via: grants from
corporations, private donors,
individuals.
involved current students in
development and
fundraising efforts for
student affairs (e.g.,
stewardship events,
fundraising efforts, donor
visits).
educated current students
125
about philanthropy and the
importance of giving back
to their institution after
graduation.
involved alumni in
development and
fundraising efforts for
student affairs.
involved former employees
in fundraising efforts for
student affairs.
communicated funding
priorities with prospective
donors.
asked a donor for funding
support (made an “ask”).
coordinated stewardship
events for donors.
designated a staff member
from housing/residence life
to be involved in
development and
fundraising efforts for their
department.
designated a staff member
from career services to be
involved in development
and fundraising efforts for
their department.
designated a staff member
from student activities/
engagement to be involved
in development and
fundraising efforts for their
department.
designated a staff member
from health services to be
126
involved in development
and fundraising efforts for
their department.
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP WITH INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT STAFF
Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
regarding your division’s relationship with the institutional advancement staff at
your institution.
Strongly
Strongly
Somewhat Somewhat Disagre Disagre
e
e
Agree Agree Agree Disagree
Institutional advancement
staff assists student affairs
staff in development and
fundraising efforts for
student affairs priorities.
Student affairs staff
assists institutional
advancement staff in
raising funds for student
affairs priorities.
Trust exists between the
institutional advancement
and student affairs
divisions.
The institutional
advancement staff
encourages student affairs
staff involvement in
development and
fundraising.
Tension exists between
the institutional
advancement office and
student affairs division.
The president of my
127
institution is supportive of
development and
fundraising efforts by
staff in the student affairs
division.
Institutional advancement
staff members share
current development and
fundraising information
with student affairs staff
members.
Prospect data (e.g., donor
databases) are shared
between student affairs
and institutional
advancement.
Solicitations are shared
between student affairs
and institutional
advancement.
Institutional advancement
staff members understand
the roles of student affairs
staff and how they might
assist in development and
fundraising efforts.
Student affairs staff
members understand the
roles of institutional
advancement staff in
university development
and fundraising efforts.
Communication between
student affairs and
institutional advancement
occurs formally (e.g.,
meetings).
Communication between
student affairs and
128
institutional advancement
occurs informally (e.g.,
phone, email, internal
communication).
Communication between
student affairs and
institutional advancement
does not occur at all.
The institutional
advancement division
should have sole
responsibility for student
affairs development and
fundraising priorities.
Fundraising and
development
responsibilities for student
affairs should be shared
between the institutional
advancement office and
the student affairs
division.
The student affairs
division should have sole
responsibility for student
affairs development and
fundraising priorities.
Please rate your division’s overall relationship with the institutional
advancement division at your institution.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Non-Existent
SECTION VI: OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS/RESPONSES
129
What are the most significant/immediate challenges in development and
fundraising efforts within your division at your institution?
What is the greatest need in order for student affairs in general (not necessarily
at your institution) to be successful in the fundraising arena?
Please add any comments you have regarding student affairs development and
fundraising, training, relationship with institutional advancement staff, or to
clarify or expound on any responses made to previous items.
If you would like to receive a copy of the results of this study, please provide
your email address in the space below. Email addresses will be separated from
survey responses to maintain confidentiality.
Thank you. Please click the Submit button when you are finished.
130
APPENDIX B. Participant Request Letter
Dear Participant,
September 4, 2007
As a Senior Student Affairs professional at University of South Alabama, you are keenly aware
of the tremendous impact decreased federal and state funding has had on higher education and
specifically on student affairs. You may also recall last summer’s NASPA Leadership Exchange
fundraising issue, when Executive Director Gwen Dungy emphasized the need for our profession
to become more engaged in seeking external funding for programs and services. In light of this
charge, you are being invited to participate in a research study as part of my doctoral
dissertation, administered to those serving as Senior Student Affairs Officers and NASPA voting
delegates, at public, 4-year universities across the nation, so that we may gain a better
understanding of those currently engaged in fundraising and development efforts.
Prior to my current role as Assistant Director for Residence Life in the Department of Housing
and Residence Life at Western Kentucky University, where my responsibilities focus on the
creation of living-learning communities as well as our department’s representative for the
university’s capital campaign, I worked as an Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs
and Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Development in coordinating fundraising
efforts within the student affairs division. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in the Higher Education
Administration program at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. I am interested in
examining fundraising and development practices within divisions of student affairs across the
country and am respectfully requesting your support and assistance in my research. Having
presented on this topic at local, state, and national conferences over the past 3 years, I have
found this topic to be of great interest to our colleagues, who are currently engaged in these
efforts and those interested in learning more about it.
I have designed a survey that I will be sending to you via email next week. I would be grateful if
you would take 10 to 20 minutes to complete the survey once received. By completing it, you are
giving your consent to participate in my dissertation research study. Please know that your
participation in this study is voluntary and your responses will be held in confidence. No
individual information will be shared; only aggregate results will be reported. Additionally, if
you are interested in receiving the results of my research, you will have an opportunity to submit
your email address at the completion of the survey and I will send results to you. Finally, I plan
to send follow-up email messages, in one week intervals, to those who have not responded to the
survey. Our survey software assigns temporary identification numbers to participants to allow us
to only contact non-responders with reminder messages. The identification numbers will not
appear in any survey responses, however.
Your contributions will greatly help contribute to the body of knowledge within our profession
about the current practices of fundraising and development at public institutions in the United
States. It is very important that you, the Senior Student Affairs Officer at your institution,
complete this survey from your perspective. Although consultation with others in your division
who may assist with fundraising efforts is encouraged, it is important that your perspectives are
primary when responding.
131
If you would like to contact me regarding my research and/or the survey you receive, please call
me at (270)745-2597 or email me at [email protected]. In addition, my dissertation advisor,
Dr. C. Carney Strange, can be contacted at (419) 372-7388 or through email at
[email protected].
Thank you in advance for your help in completing this survey for my dissertation and
contributing to our profession with regard to fundraising and development practices across the
nation. I will be pleased to share with you my results once they are compiled.
Sincerely,
Peggy Haas
Doctoral Candidate – Higher Education Administration, Bowling Green State University
Assistant Director – Housing & Residence Life, Western Kentucky University
132
APPENDIX C: Survey Cover Letter and Informed Consent
A SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDRAISING PRACTICES
AT 4-YEAR, PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
It is important that this survey be completed by you, the Senior Student Affairs Officer (SSAO)
of your institution, although consultation from others in your division who may assist with
fundraising efforts would be appropriate. The purpose of this research is to identify current
development and fundraising practices within divisions of student affairs at 4-year, public
universities. Data reported will provide practitioners with useful information about student
affairs development and fundraising efforts nationwide. Your honest reflections and evaluation
are essential and appreciated.
As you consider the following questions, please begin with an understanding of the following
terms: the term “fundraising” is intended to refer to the solicitation and stewardship of donations
and gifts; “institutional advancement” is intended to refer to an office or, where applicable,
professional(s) outside of the division of student affairs who conducts development and
fundraising efforts for the institution; and finally, “student affairs development and fundraising”
is intended to refer to external resources generated by fundraising efforts within your division or
in conjunction with institutional advancement.
Please know that your participation in this study is voluntary and your responses will be
confidential. No individual information will be shared; only aggregate results will be reported. I
would be grateful if you would take 10 to 20 minutes to respond to this survey. By completing
the survey, you are giving your consent to participate.
If you would like to complete a text-only version of the survey without the background color,
please click in the top left corner on "text only." If at any time you would like to save your
responses and return to them later, press the Save button.
Please contact me at (270) 745-2597 or [email protected] or my dissertation advisor, Dr. C.
Carney Strange, at (419) 372-7388 or [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns
related to this study. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you can
contact the Chair of BGSU’s Human Subjects Review Board at (419) 372-7716 or the person
tasked with that responsibility at your university.