Toward an integrated system of income acquisition and management

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Toward an integrated system of income acquisition and management four community college responses
Physical Description:
vi, 226 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Birmingham, Kathryn M
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations thesis, Ph.D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2002.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 213-224).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kathryn M. Birmingham.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028774627
oclc - 50512348
System ID:
AA00017703:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text












TOWARD AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF
INCOME ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT:
FOUR COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESPONSES













By

KATHRYN M. BIRMINGHAM


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Gerald T. Horton. He is my greatest

supporter, critic, and coach. The full measure of my appreciation goes to Jerry for his

commitment to me as a full-time doctoral student over the past 2 1/2 years. As an astute

strategic planner, he lives the ancient Chinese proverb, "If we do not change our

direction, we are likely to end where we are headed." I hope some day to meet his

scholarly standards.

I thank my daughters, Tina, Ellen, and Andi, for their patience and understanding

while their mother was engrossed in this study. As a qualitative researcher, certainly

these three taught me a great deal about the triangulation of data to validate versions of a

story.

I would also like to thank my twin sister, Peg Birmingham, for her tremendous

encouragement.

To my dissertation committee, Dr. Dale F. Campbell, Dr. David S. Honeyman,

Dr. Barbara J. Keener, and Dr. H. John Hall, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for their

guidance.

Lastly, I am grateful for my experiences at Eisenhower College. My interest in

the income acquisition and management systems of colleges began in the early 1980s at a

most unusual private institution. My hope is that the life cycle of a college, as chronicled

by Dr. David L. Dresser's 1995 case study, may not have to be leased the hard way.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................... ii

ABSTRACT ......................................................... v

CHAPTERS

1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ..................................... 1

Introduction ............................ ... .................... 1
Statement of the Problem ......... ............................. 7
Purpose of the Study ................... .............. ... .......... 8
Statem ent of Intent .................................................. 11
Guiding Research Questions ....................................... 12
Significance of the Study .......................................... 13
Definition of Terms .......................... .................... 15
Research Design .................................................... 17
M ethods .................... .................................... 17
Lim stations ......... .................................... .. ...... 18
Assumptions ..................... ... ..................... .19
Organization of the Study .......................................... 19

2 A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY ............ .... ............. 20

Changes in the Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges ................. 21
Fundraising in Community Colleges ................................... 23
Resource Development and Institutional Planning ......................... 30
Changing Management Activities ...................................... 38
Income Acquisition and Management as a System ......................... 39
Summary .......................................................... 45

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................... 47

Research Problem ................................................... 47
Purpose of the Study .............. ............................... 48
Design of the Comparative Case Study .................. .............. 50
Research Methods ....................... ....................... 53
Sum m ary ...................... ................................. 59












4 FIN D IN G S ........................................... .......... 61

Selection of the Colleges ................. ........................ 61
Research Methodology for Individual Cases .............................. 62
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Each Case .......................... 62
College A ................................................. ....... 63
College B ................ .. .. .................................... 85
College C ....................................................... 104
College D ........................................................ 122
Summary ......................... .......... ..... ...... ......... 146

5 CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 147

Comparative Case Conclusions ..................................... 147
Modifications to IIAM Continuum Theory .............................. 168
Summary of Findings .............................................. 171
Management Implications .........................................172
Public Policy Implications .........................................177
Recommendations for Further Study ................................. 178
Implications for Theory and Practice .................... ............ 180

APPENDICES

A CRITERIA FOR COLLEGES IN STUDY ............................ 182

B KEY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH
ADVANCEMENT FUNCTION .................................. 183

C CASE STUDY PROTOCOLS ..................... ................ 184

D INTERVIEW GUIDES ............................ ... .. ... ....... .. 188

REFERENCES ........... ...... .................................... 213

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......... ........................................... 225
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

TOWARD AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF
INCOME ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT:
FOUR COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESPONSES

By

Kathryn M. Birmingham

May 2002

Chair: Dr. Dale F. Campbell
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations

Higher education literature documents changes in the source of the revenue

stream for community colleges and states that fundraising and resource development

must become a long-term core function of a community college and must be integrated

with institutional planning, academic planning, and marketing activities. Organizational

structure and management practices of higher education institutions change in response

to changes in the funding environment.

The research problem was (a) to identify and describe how organizational

structure and management activities have changed in four community colleges in

response to the change in proportional funding of college operations by the state

government and (b) to develop and test a theoretical framework. The comparative case

study examined the advancement activities within the income acquisition and

management systems of four community colleges in the states of Florida, New York,










North Carolina, and Texas. An Integrated Income Acquisition and Management

Continuum (IIAM) Model was developed.

The four institutional systems were placed at Stage I to V on the IIAM

Continuum based upon evidence of their system's integration from 1996 to 2000. The

stages are graduated to include key advancement activities, levels of integration of those

activities within the advancement function, and level of integration of the advancement

activities with institutional planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities.

Each of the cases showed movement toward greater integration of their income

acquisition and management systems. The cases illuminate the theoretical foundations of

the IIAM Continuum as a model.

The sources of data were semi-structured interviews with 33 administrators as

well as on-site observations and review of institutional documents. The findings of this

study will contribute to understanding the experiences and decision-making processes of

community college leaders in the states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and

Texas. It will be of use to college leaders that desire to integrate the acquisition of

federal, state, local, and private dollars as well as tuition and student fees with strategic

planning and management. Implications for management and public policy are given.

Suggestions for future research are discussed.
















CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY


Introduction

Changes in the revenue streams of community colleges are well documented. An

Education Commission of the States (2000) study found that the most serious issues

facing community colleges across the nation are the dual challenges of increasing state

and local financial support for community colleges and improving methods by which the

colleges are funded. Increasingly the colleges are seeking funding sources other than

state revenues, local taxation, and student fees and tuition (Jenkins & Glass, 1999). Over

the past 20 years, external and internal influences have resulted in community colleges

moving from total public support to less public assistance as a percentage of the total

operating budget (Honeyman, Williams, & Wattenbarger, 1991; Smith, 1985).

Among the external forces affecting the sources of income are economic changes,

rising costs of labor and technology, the impact of demographics and immigration, K-12

trends, public policy resulting in legislative cuts, and financial trends. Internal evidences

are fund development trends, the response to competition and a new emphasis on

marketing, and strategic management practices and hard data showing student outcomes

and successes (Alfred, 1996). Competition for government funding and dissatisfaction

over the level of productivity and performance of public higher education in the 1990s

gave rise to performance funding (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001).










Another documented external force is shrinking public resources to support

higher education from federal budgets (Townsend & Twombley, 2001). With college

costs outpacing inflation, grants for students declined from 49% to 42% of all federal aid

allocated from 1990 to 1996. Loans increased from 48% to 57% for all students during

this period. Although the Pell Grant remains a critical foundation of federal financial aid

for community college students, the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has fallen

sharply during the 1990s, negatively impacting access and equity (Merisotis & Wolanin,

2000). The maximum Pell Grant buys less than 30% of the average tuition, room and

board, and fees at public colleges (Callan & Finney, 1997).

Community colleges that in the 1980s and 1990s relied heavily on federal grants,

such as Federal Work-Study, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

(SEOG), GEAR Up. Carl D. Perkins (for Tech-Prep), and Campus Child Care, are

finding they are no longer as plentiful, if available at all (Merisotis & Wolanin, 2000).

The great exception is National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. NSF Awards for

community colleges have remained constant at around $31.2 million annually from 1995

through 1999 with a jump to $35 million in 2000 (V. Ross, NSF Budget Division,

personal communication, September 25, 2001).

State financing of community colleges has been impacted by the elimination of

remedial education in 4-year institutions and public financial assistance plans that award

on the basis of merit rather than need (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001). Following the

trend to concentrate remediation courses in the 2-year sector higher educational systems,

Florida, New York, and Texas have already begun to deliver most or all of their remedial

classes in the 2-year sector (Shaw, 2001). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education








3

(1999) predicts that there will be a steady increase in enrollment in public 2-year colleges

over the next decade.

In response to economic pressures, public policy, and level of appropriations, as

well as new academic and service challenges, college administrations have become more

focused on fundraising and better management practices (Tierney, 1998). Private

foundations, individuals, and corporate charitable gifts are receiving greater attention as

new sources of income to ensure quality public education (Banks & Mabry, 1988;

Keener, 1982; Yee, 1998). Decreasing public investment in education by the state

governments can stimulate private development efforts and innovative financial aid

solutions (Yee. 1998). Between 1992 and 1997, revenue from private grants, gifts, and

contracts increased by 24% for community colleges. The number of public 2-year

colleges with endowments grew by nearly 40% between 1992 and 1997 (Phillippe &

Patton, 1999).

Higher education competes with health care, prison, police services, and other

public services for state financial support. Community colleges have lost ground in the

competition for state resources, while at the same time broadening their mission

(Breneman, 1997). In 1998, community colleges were educating 43% of the nation's

undergraduates for a small share of state and federal higher education monies. In the

1980s community colleges became major competitors for state tax dollars with many

state appropriations ranging from 75% to 90% of the total expenditures of the colleges

(Richardson & de los Santos, 2001). However, by 1992 state funds accounted for only

46% of community college revenues, local support dropped to 18%, and student tuition

and fees covered 20%. Federal and other sources made up 16% of the operating revenues

(Education Commission of the States, 2000).











The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education [WICHE] (1998) data

give a more dire picture of overall state appropriations to higher education as a

percentage of tax revenue in Figure 1-1. Despite the favorable budgetary environment for

many states, the U.S. rate of higher education appropriations to total state appropriations

declined from 12% to 9.7% from 1992 to 1997.

13%




12%

S11% -










Year
Source: Adapted from Western Interstate Commission (WICHE) data,
Policy Implications for Higher Education, 1998

Figure 1-1. State Higher Education Appropriations
(As a % of tax revenue for all states in the U.S.)


Merisotis and Wolanin (2000) suggest that revenue trends show that the funding

of community colleges has migrated toward a more private and workforce-oriented

education model.

The significant shift in revenue sources toward contracted government and private
program funds for training has been accompanied by a parallel decline in
operating funds from state tax coffers. At the same time, students have been asked
to pick up an increasing proportion of the tab. (Merisotis & Wolanin, 2000)










They claim that the share of community college revenues from state and local

government appropriations has shrunk from 70% of total revenues in 1980 to 50% in

1996. This shrinkage of public funding for basic support has declined as the community

college mission has broadened. Merisotis and Wolanin recommend that community

college leaders change management activities to meet these shifts and attend to tuition

pricing policies.

Individual states have reduced allocations to public higher education institutions,

federal programs for student grants have been curtailed, deferred maintenance projects

have come due, overall personnel costs have escalated, technology infrastructure

investments have skyrocketed, and more students, with less financial resources, are

pursuing a higher education (Eldredge, 1999). The failure of both state and local

governments to provide adequate funding for enrollment increases threatens the access

mission of community colleges by making students pay for an ever-increasing share of

operating costs (Campbell, Leverty, & Sayles, 1996).

Fundraising as a management practice of community colleges has been influenced

by policy emerging at the state level and federal level. According to Schuyler, large-scale

external fundraising at community colleges began as a result of the 1965 Higher

Education Act and the federal funding opportunities that it offered. In a 1993 survey of

American Association for Community Colleges members, 542 of 550 respondents

reported having a foundation, and almost 30% reported endowments of more than $1

million (Schuyler, 1997). Fundraising as a management and strategic function of

community colleges has taken on a greater importance. The proliferation of foundations

and resource development staff was documented through the 1970s by Sharron (1982)

and in the 1980s by Ryan (1989a). Between 1992 and 1997, revenue from private grants,

gifts, and contracts increased by 24% for community colleges. The number of










community colleges with endowments increased by 40% between 1992 and 1997

(Philippe & Patton, 1999).

A national survey of community college revenue from grants from private and

public sources for the fiscal year 1998-99 reported an average of $5.14 million in grant

income ($4.15 million through the grants offices and $.99 million through the college

foundations). For urban community colleges, the grant income was $6.4 million through

the grants offices and $1.6 million through the college foundations with an urban total

average of $8 million (Keener, Carrier, & Meaders, 2002).

Another public policy impetus for prolific growth in community college

structures for fundraising was the introduction of matching funds from state legislatures

to the schools for private dollars raised. Florida, North Carolina, and Texas instituted

matching fund programs for the community colleges. In addition, the legislated economic

and workforce development missions of community colleges stress public/private

partnerships that often result in corporate matching donations for new training programs

and new technology (Johnstone, 1997).

Institutionally related foundations are a way to protect private gifts from

confiscation by the state to meet budgetary shortfalls in funding. These foundations stand

legally apart from their institutions but exist exclusively to enhance their programs. For

example, there is the belief among community college foundation staff that having a

scholarship fund created through the use of private money is the only way to ensure that

the open door policy is realized (Jenkins & Glass, 1999).

There is a body of knowledge and empirical data about how community college

foundations are formed and how they operate in relationship to their institutions (Adams,

Keener, & McGee, 1994; Banks & Mabry, 1988; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Council

for the Advance and Support of Education [CASE], 1989; Duronio & Loessin, 1990;








7

1991; Gatewood, 1994; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Jackson, 1997; Jackson & Glass, 2000;

Jenkins, 1997; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Johnson, 1986; Koelkebeck, 1994; Phillippe &

Eblinger, 1998; Robison, 1982; Ryan, 1988, 1989c; Schuyler, 1997; Sharon, 1982).

Public 2-year higher education institutions use a variety of systems to acquire

grant funding from private and government sources. Most community colleges have

disparate systems for acquiring dollars from the state legislature, private foundations,

individual donors, and government funding agencies. In other words, the colleges may

seek and obtain grant revenue from all of these sources and advancement activities may

not be coordinated. Glass & Jackson (1998a, 1998b), Keener (1982), and Keener, Carrier,

and Meaders (2002) assert that resource development as an integrated function of the

community college will be a critical success factor.


Statement of the Problem

It has been theorized that resource development must become an institutionalized

core function of the American community college and that fundraising as an activity of

resource development must become integrated with institutional planning, academic

planning, and marketing activities (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). Experience tells us that

organizational structure and management practices change when the political and funding

environment changes. Organizational cultures change when there is a significant change

in the organization's environment to which it must adapt to survive (Gold, 1999; Lewin,

1951, 1980).

In other words, the organization must accommodate to the environment within

which it exists. The management of community colleges is experiential and learned over

time. The management systems and practices of community colleges are studied in social










science research. Case studies have researched decisions about programs, management

systems, the implementation process, and organizational change (Yin, 1994).

The research need is to discover how organizational structure, administrative

management activities, and faculty management activities have changed in community

colleges in response to the change in the proportional funding by the state government of

college operations. Community college administrators have authority over designing and

coordinating organizational structure and management activities. As the importance and

influence of private support other than from the state in the life of higher education have

expanded, so, too, have the structures that obtain and manage these dollars.


Purpose of the Study

This study examined the income acquisition and management process and

organizational structure in four public community colleges located in the states of

Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. The purpose of the study was to identify

the qualitative elements of the process and their perceived impact upon the organizational

structure and the management activities of administrators and faculty at each of the four

institutions. For purposes of the study, the income acquisition and the management

systems were compared at four colleges. The institutional systems were placed on a point

on the Integrated Income Acquisition and Management (IIAM) Continuum. The colleges

systems judged to be more aggregated or less aggregated were based upon evidence of

characteristics of the five stages of the IIAM Continuum. The stages are graduated to

include certain advancement activities, levels of integration of those activities within the

advancement function, and level of integration of the advancement activities with

institutional planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities.










Stages I to V on the IIAM Continuum move from disaggregation to

interconnectivity of the income acquisition and management system of the institution.

The colleges are placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of the characteristics

listed in Table 1-1, "IIAM Continuum."

The data from the interviews, observations, and document review answered

questions such as, "Does the college perform this advancement activity?" "Who does it?"

and "Where is the activity located in the organizational structure?" The colleges are

placed at a stage in the continuum from disaggregated to aggregated. A college has

attained a higher stage when it can show a higher level of integration of the advancement

activities with strategic planning, budgeting and evaluation. For example, to reach Stage

IV a college must show (a) evidence of an administrative structure that links academic

planning and budgeting with fundraising to achieve strategic goals (i.e., initiatives to

integrate the activities of the advancement function) and (b) evidence of methods of

determining which revenue stream is best suited to fund each institutional priority and a

strategy of income acquisition and, subsequently, a plan to implement these strategies.

The analysis and rationale for placement on the IIAM Continuum is linked to interview

question responses (Appendix E), site observations, document review, and the academic

literature reviewed in Chapter 2.

The comparative case analysis describes the participants' understandings and

perceptions and relates the HAM Continuum theory to the college environments. The

college systems movement on the continuum over time is also compared. Understanding

the experiences and decision-making processes of leading institutions in bellwether states

will be of use to college leaders who desire to integrate the acquisition and management

of federal, state, local, and private dollars as well as tuition and student fees. Of particular

interest is the integration of raising private dollars, as a new core activity of the resource











Table 1-1. IIAM Continuum


(Stage I Disaggregated)----------------- --------------- (More Aggregated Stage V)


Stage I
College has some
of the key
activities
associated with
the advancement
function and they
are not
coordinated

Marketing
y/n

Institutional
Research
y/n

Media Relations
y/n

Community
Affairs y/n

Corporate
Relations
y/n

Government
Relations
y/n

Resource
Development
y/n

Foundation
y/n

Alumni Affairs
y/n


Stage II
College has
all of the key
activities
associated
with the
advancement
function and
they are not
coordinated


Stage Ill
College has
all of the key
activities
associated
with the
advancement
function and
some are
coordinated


Publications y/n
* Institutional Strategic Management System has (a) Mission and Objectives, (b)
Strategic Analysis including internal and external scanning, (c) Strategy Formulation, (d)
Strategy Implementation, and (e) Strategy Evaluation.


Stage IV
College has all of
the key activities
associated with the
advancement
function and they
are all are
integrated as
evidenced by
a) institutional
strategic
management
system*
b) all directors of
the key activities
report to an
administrator who
oversees all of the
advancement
activities and the
president provides
top level support
for the
advancement
function
c) key activities are
interdependent and
administrators
share and use
strategic
management
information from
the other key
activities' systems


Stage V
College has all of the
key activities
associated with the
advancement function
and they are all are
integrated as evidenced
by
a) institutional strategic
management system*
b) all directors of the
key activities report to
an administrator who
oversees all of the
advancement activities
and the president
provides top level
support for the
advancement function
c) key activities are
interdependent and
administrators share
and use strategic
management
information from the
other key activities'
systems
d) the college
evaluation system
rewards and recognizes
innovating ideas, team
building, continuous
views of process
changes, and attention
to learning
organization practices
that lead to
mission-based high
performance









11

development function within advancement, into the colleges' planning. Filling this gap in

knowledge is the purpose of the process study. A process study explores the why and

how of change while linking context, content, and process of change outcomes. In both

the academic and nonacademic sectors, an innovation's meaning is not self-evident, but

instead is "gradually worked out though a process of social construction" (Rogers, 1995,

p. xvii).

Institutions that do the same things, such as community colleges, can be

organized in different ways because the institutions must accommodate to the

environments within which they exist. Community colleges may require different

advancement activities and relationships among those activities. Management has

discretion over designing and coordinating these activities. By applying theory to the

qualitative data, the researcher will produce knowledge that can inform higher education

administrators of theoretical foundations and successful practice for improving planning

and management systems in the community college advancement function. Scholars of

higher education finance and management can use the conclusions from this theoretical

and empirical inquiry to debate the desirability of integration of the acquisition and

management systems for federal, state, local, and private dollars as well as tuition and

fees in America's community colleges.


Statement of Intent

The researcher was brought to this study by her experience in local government,

the nonprofit sector, and community college management and fundraising; teaching

management and leadership theory and practice; as well as academic discourse. The

study evolved out of a concern for how changes in the revenue streams of community









12

colleges have changed organizational structure, notions of management, and professional

practice at community colleges in the United States. One mission of community colleges

in America is to provide open access to higher education for anyone motivated to learn-

regardless of social and economic distinctions. In order to reach this ideal while

maintaining quality teaching and instructional technology and services, most community

college leaders have considered the necessity of the infusion of private dollars for

operating and capital budgets. How this acquisition of private dollars should be managed

is debated by community college leaders.

To inform public policy and practice the researcher captured the phenomenon

under study with a comparative case study. Case studies capture bounded instances such

as decisions about programs, implementing management decisions, and organizational

change (Yin, 1994). The portrayals of the college cases were compared and contrasted in

an overall comparative study concluding with modification of the postulated IIAM

Continuum theory.

The researcher intended to derive the meaning of community college

administrators' experiences and relate it to their decisions that caused changes in

institutional structure and management activities. Implications of the inquiry included the

support or repudiation of the postulated IIAM Continuum theory.


Guiding Research Questions

The theory was that as the sources of income have become more diverse and

changed in proportion to one another, community colleges organize themselves on a

point along an integrated income acquisition and management continuum. The main










question of the study was, "How have the colleges adapted to the changes in size of the

income sources?" The four research questions were

1. How has organizational structure changed?
2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?
3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?
4. Where do the colleges' systems stand on a continuum from a disaggregated
system of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system?
Have they moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance
of the study?

It is hypothesized that an aggregated income acquisition and management system

is more desirable than not. Future studies may indicate that aggregated systems result in

more income and greater institutional effectiveness than disaggregated systems. More

aggregated systems may also help a college to recover more quickly from sudden drops

in enrollment and funding crises.

These four research questions were related to the theorized IIAM Continuum.

Factors derived from the construct of the ideally integrated advancement function as well

as community college advancement literature were used to create an interview guide.

Justification of choice of questions for the study were taken from literature and

discourses among community college administrators. Through semi-structured interviews

the researcher collected data in order to link the data to the theoretical propositions.

Interview questions were written to get at factors posited in the theoretical frameworks.

The study concludes whether the factors are empirically and theoretically sound.


Significance of the Study

In response to the declining percent of state appropriations as a proportion of

operating budgets along with the need for new service and academic programs,

community college staff, administrators, and faculty have become more focused on










income acquisition and management. They are also more focused on fundraising as an

activity of the resource development subfunction within the function of institutional

advancement (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

America's community colleges are fundraising in order to keep up with demands

for technology for their economic development and workforce development missions as

well as their learning centered mission. Acquisition of private dollars includes cultivating

public/private partnerships for business alliances and corporate contributions. The

colleges' success in acquiring income from public and private sources requires a greater

finesse with and a greater reliance upon external scanning of constituencies. This requires

the integration of the institutional activities that fall under the heading of "institutional

advancement." These activities are government affairs, marketing, resource development,

media relations, community affairs, corporate relations, institutional research,

publications, and alumni affairs. The colleges may also have a foundation to assist in the

resource development activities. The community college organizational structures differ

widely to cover the function of institutional advancement.

Glass and Jackson's research suggests that private fundraising as a community

college activity has only been marginally understood and instigated in times of financial

crisis. They claim that resource development must become a long-term core function of

community colleges and it must be integrated with institutional planning, academic

planning, and marketing (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

The case studies look at the effect of advancement initiatives on (a)

administrative structure, (b) management systems, (c) decisions regarding institutional

financial resources, and (d) the integration of income acquisition and management









15

activities. The proposed research will contribute to the scholarly literature on community

college fiscal strategy.

A case study can answer how the administrators of a college arrived at

management practices and can describe the stresses and disjunctures that threaten shared

income acquisition goals within an institution. A case study can get at the belief systems

that make certain errors possible (Yin, 1994). Case studies help in understanding

complex interrelationships and patterns of practice (Stake, 1995). The case studies

describe how changes in revenue streams can affect the management experiences of

community college administrators. The case studies suggest how changing organizational

structure, management practice, and observed patterns of practice can assist in

institutional success in meeting income acquisition and management goals. A case study

can suggest management practices that can be duplicated as best practice.


Definition of Terms

For the purposes of this study institutional advancement is defined as a

community college function that encompasses the activities of govemment affairs,

marketing, resource development, media relations, community affairs, corporate

relations, institutional research, publications, alumni affairs, and the possible addition of

a foundation to affect income acquisition and management.

Resource development is defined as the generation of revenue from both public

and private grant sources. Fundraising is defined as activities that acquire monetary

contributions from private sources and activities that cultivate relationships with

individual financial donors, corporate charities, business and industry, and private










foundations. Private revenue is defined as monetary gifts from individuals, corporate

charities, business and industry, and private foundations.

An aggregated management system is one that is considered with reference to its

constituent parts. For example, a college is the aggregate of its departments under one

common head, the president.

Integration is the process of regrouping and re-linking activities into a unified

function in an organization. For example, government affairs, marketing, resource

development, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations, institutional

research, publications, alumni affairs, and foundation activities are integrated in the

advancement function.

Strategic planning is a system of elements such as definition of mission,

environmental monitoring, and assessment of internal strengths and weaknesses to

determine direction and establish decision-making processes and objectives. An array of

strategies are developed to achieve measurable, time-anchored, obtainable, and assigned

objectives. The strategies are implemented through the selection of programs and

projects. Strategic planning is distinguished from an internally focused, closed system of

traditional long-term planning. Instead it is the institution's use of an externally focused

open system.

Strategic management is a system that links strategic planning and decision-

making with day-to-day business of operational management. Before implementing a

strategic plan to obtain objectives, five steps are undertaken:

1. definition of organizational structure and assignment of responsibility,
2. appropriate allocation of resources or budgeting,
3. motivation of employees,
4. approval of administrative policies and procedures, and
5. readiness of executive leadership to change the plan if necessary.











Using these definitions, strategic planning in community colleges treats the

interaction of external forces, college systems, and institutional outcomes.


Research Design

A comparative case analysis was used to determine repetition of phenomenon.

Theoretical frameworks were used as a template with which to compare the empirical

results of the case studies. When two or more cases are shown to support the same

theory, a claim of repetition may be made (Yin, 1994).


Methods

The inquiry process and procedures for each use of datum to address each guiding

research question are detailed in Chapters 3 and 4. The researcher proceeded in the

following manner:

1. Literature and research reviewed
2. Theory developed
3. Questions developed
4. Case study protocols written
5. Interview guides developed
6. Interview guides juried
7. Data collected
8. Descriptive data coded and analyzed vis-a-vis theoretical factors of the IAM
Continuum
9. Findings and conclusions drawn and presented to colleges to further validity
10. Audit peer review conducted
11. Individual case studies written
12. Case studies compared and contrasted
13. HAM Continuum modified

Thus, the institutional advancement activities and their integration with the

income acquisition and management process were identified through qualitative research

methods.










Limitations

The study was conducted under certain intent and scope. The focus of the

comparative case study was the function of institutional advancement as it related to the

income acquisition and management systems in four community colleges, one each in

Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and New York. The description was further restricted to

advancement initiatives as depicted in the interviews and observed behavior of each of

the college's administrators including the written planning documents of the participants

from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000.

This is a study on income acquisition. Although cost containment strategies are

often used in tandem with income acquisition strategies as a response to changes in

revenue, cost containment strategies were not included. In order for an income

acquisition strategy to be considered an institutional strategy the income strategy must be

reflected in the planning and operational activities of the college.

Deleted from the consideration was a critique of the specific competencies of

each of the advancement systems. The focus was on the aggregation of the systems. The

study did not evaluate the organizational culture of the four colleges. Although

organizational culture is a part of institutional planning it was not within the limits of this

study.

Experience tells us that organizational structure and business practices change

when political and funding environment change. The parameters of the study were a

bounded instance of five years of advancement function activities and their integration

with income acquisition and management systems in each of the four community

colleges.








19

The study did not compare state-to-state funding of operating budgets per se. The

changes in the percentages of the operating budgets for each college are investigated as

to the meaning of those changes in four particular environments. The responses to the

changes are analyzed and compared with an eye toward the documented trends and the

trends described in academic literature.


Assumptions

It was assumed that

1. The administrators of the four community colleges are responding to changes in
financial support of their colleges and the study asks what are they doing about
the changes. The study asks how did the administrators arrive at decisions to
change income acquisition and management strategies or pursue an advancement
initiative and how did they manage the change?

2. Income generating strategies are formulated before they are implemented and
planning is the central process by which they are formulated, therefore structures
should be designed to implement given strategies.

3. The decision-making process, planning process, and activities to sustain the
change at each college were identified through qualitative research methods.


Organization of the Study

The study is reported in five chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the problem

under study and its context. Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature and

discourses. Chapter 3 describes the data collection and analysis along with qualitative

methods used. Chapter 4 is an analysis of (a) how the four colleges responded to changes

in funding streams in light of their management and planning systems and (b) where the

colleges stand on the IIAM Continuum.

Chapter 5 gives the conclusions drawn from a comparison of the four cases vis-a-

vis the theoretical framework. The final chapter also includes the questions and

recommendations raised in the study for public policy and practice.
















CHAPTER 2
A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY

The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the growing scholarly

literature on community college income acquisition management, fundraising, and

advancement in relation to each of the guiding research questions. The four research

questions are as follows:

1. How has organizational structure changed?
2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?
3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?
4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?

The foundations for the study are community college advancement and

organizational management research, higher administration literature, and studies on

planning and change in public organizations and community colleges.

The problem was to discover how organizational structure, administrative

management activities, and faculty management activities have changed in four

community colleges in response to the change in proportional funding for college

operations by state government. The design of organizational structure and management

activities by community college administrators has an impact on the effectiveness of the

institution. The colleges were placed on a point of the Income Acquisition and

Management (IIAM) Continuum to show the degree of integration of the key

advancement activities with planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities during the 5-

year period of the study.










This chapter is organized under four headings: (a) Changes in the Sources of

Revenue for Community Colleges, (b) Fundraising in Community Colleges, (c) Resource

Development and Institutional Planning, and (d) Income Acquisition and Management as

a System. The historical evolution of the problem on a national level is addressed in

Chapter 1 and summarized in this chapter under the first heading "Changes in the

Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges." That section is followed by "Fundraising

in Community Colleges," a literature review of the emergence of fundraising as a core

activity of the advancement function in community colleges. Studies on community

college organizational structure and changing management activities as they relate to

institutional planning are grouped next under the third heading, "Resource Development

and Institutional Planning." The last section of Chapter 2 covers organizational

management theories and research findings on the factors that comprise the I1AM

Continuum under the heading, "Income Acquisition and Management as a System."


Changes in the Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges

Over the past 20 years community colleges have lost ground in the competition

with other state agencies for state resources for operating funds. Students, through tuition

and fees, have picked up the tab. In 1979, percentages of tuition support for general

operations of the community college systems with colleges in this study were 21.50%

(FL), 6.90% (NC), 25.20% (NY), and 11.80% (TX) (Breneman & Nelson, 1981, p. 14).

In 1999, percentages of tuition support for general operations of the community college

systems with colleges in this study were 23.06% (FL), 8.20% (NC), 34.00% (NY), and

19.90% (TX) (Education Commission of the States, 2000, p. 11).









22

The types of funding sources for public community colleges may be divided into

public and private. Most public sources are state, federal, and locally generated tax

dollars. All states use state tax funds and charge students tuition for the funding of

community colleges. The appropriation formulas for state funding for the four colleges in

the study are based on full time equivalents (FTEs) and performance-based budgeting.

Three of the states in this study have local tax components. In these states, New

York, North Carolina, and Texas, local funding is obtained from regular property tax

(NY), special levy property tax (NC) and local option sales tax (TX). Local funding is

also used for capital construction and for other short-term, high-need financing programs

and projects.

In looking to federal funding to offset a states' lowered funding base as a

percentage of the total operating budget, community colleges seek grants and special

programs. While block grants, categorical grants, formula grants, and discretionary funds

provide a good means to initiate new programs, they cannot be relied upon to sustain

programs on an ongoing basis. Honeyman, Williams, and Wattenbarger (1991) observed

that federal funds were not keeping up proportionally with the numbers of students

entering public postsecondary education. A 1993 report by the National Commission on

Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education and studies by Jenkins and Glass

(1999) indicate that federal dollars for postsecondary education have decreased.

Charting the state trends has made it clear that public community colleges cannot

rely on the state for tax-assisted increases in funding in the future. The trend of

decreasing levels of state support accompanied by an increase in the level that students

contribute through tuition and fees to total operating revenue documented in

Wattenbarger's 1988 study (Honeyman, Williams, & Wattenbarger, 1991) continues.










Fundraising in Community Colleges

The variety of funding sources, especially the trend toward more private funds,

points toward private sector support as necessary for maintaining public two-year

institutions and as a source of income to support innovation and excellence (Pezzullo &

Brittingham. 1990; Honeyman, Williams, & Wattenbarger, 1991). Nongovernmental

financial support is often necessary for capital construction and when government or

private contributions require matching funds.

Community college foundations are a source of private dollars for scholarships,

student support, faculty professional development, programs, equipment, and capital.

According to an AACC survey of community college foundations, local business and

industry are cited as the most frequent source of major contributions to community

college foundations, followed by individuals not affiliated with the college (Phillippe &

Eblinger, 1998).

The growth of community college foundations as an organizational approach to

fundraising was most dramatic in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1970s the

colleges began to adapt the university and liberal arts college model of engaging

nongovernmental contributors for private gifts (Keener, 1984). In 1980 only 18

community colleges claimed foundations of 20 years or older. By 1987 about 800 of

America's 1,222 community colleges reported having a college foundation (Jenkins &

Glass, 1999).

Gifts to public 2-year colleges from private foundations, business and industry,

and local philanthropists have grown considerably since the 1980s. In 1986, $50,000

represented a significant endowment for a community college foundation. By 1993, 30%

of respondents in an NCRD study reported foundation endowments of more than










$1 million (Adams, Keener, & McGee, 1994). On average, community college

endowments more than doubled between 1989 and 1996. There were three community

colleges with endowments of more than $100 million, placing them among the largest

275 endowments in American higher education (MacArthur, 2000).

By 1987 53% of community colleges had established a college foundation as a

recipient of tax-deductible contributions under Section 501 c(3) of the Internal Revenue

Code. One hundred and seventy-five colleges created endowments between 1989 and

1995 (Williams, 2000). Through the 1980s many of these foundations were passive,

serving only as collection agencies for people who contacted the college about

contributing. In 1988 private gifts and endowments accounted for 1% of the total

revenues of the average community college (Koltai, 1993). By 1989, only 200 of the

nation's 1,222 community colleges reported having aggressive foundations

professionally engaged in fund raising operations (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

A recent study of public community college foundations in Michigan described

characteristics of the foundations raising the most money. They were (a) utilizing a

foundation annual and strategic plan, (b) promoting a positive college image, (c)

articulating the college mission to the public, (d) visibility of college personnel serving

the community, (e) active participation by the president, college board of trustees, and

foundation board of directors, (f) a full-time professional foundation director, (g)

administrative, faculty, and volunteer support for the foundation, and (h) continuous

communication to college stakeholders (Miller & Seagren, 1997). Also in 1997, a delphi

study of the North Carolina community colleges identified the need for additional

training for presidents, trustees, and foundation board members, greater public relations

efforts, and the elevation of development officers to senior level status for the








25

foundations' success (Jackson, 1997). Again in 1997, a case study done on a community

college foundation in North Carolina stressed that the foundation's success was

attributable to good public relations and organizational development characterized by

Robison's (1982) description of the five types of community college foundations

(Jenkins, 1997). Robison described five types of community college foundations:

1. Holding corporations, or passive foundations, whose sole purpose is to receive or
manage assets.

2. "Old boy" systems with a social head and several friends that solicit funds, but
operate the foundation as a personal charity.

3. Actual operating foundations, acting as separate legal entities form the college,
managing financial transactions not allowed [by state laws] for public schools.

4. Single purpose foundations, which solicit, disburse, and manage funds for a
single cause, such as a library or scholarship fund.

5. Comprehensive mature foundations that include the preceding features and
characteristically have ongoing capital campaigns of several years duration.

Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1980s, the American

Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC), the National Council for

Resource Development (NCRD), and the Council for the Support of Education (CASE)

sponsored studies to inform college advancement efforts to acquire financial support

from private foundations and corporations. Ryan's work during this period documented

the status of community college fundraising and philanthropy to 2-year colleges.

Resource lists containing corporate and foundation contact people and funding policies,

bibliographies, literature reviews, case studies, and best practices were available

throughout the latter part of the 1980s (Duffy, 1982; Ryan, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c;

Ryan & Smith, 1989). The 1986 Handbook of Institutional Advancement (2nd ed.),

edited by Rowland, was updated in 2000 to include more relevant practice for the key










activities of the community college advancement function. There is a greater emphasis

on the use of integrated marketing and government relations activities to strengthen

community college advancement.

Correspondingly, there was a huge increase in private dollars for community

college operations and development. While in the 1970s federal grants contributed to

public 2-year colleges more than any other resource development source, by the mid-

1980s financial support from private sources had taken a greater share. In 1986-1987

almost 44% of monies from resource development to community colleges was provided

by corporations, alumni, individuals, and private foundations (Ryan, 1988). In analyzing

a 1997 survey, Phillippe and Eblinger (1998) also cited local business and industry and

individuals not affiliated with the college as major contributors. The other revenue

sources cited most often for the college foundations were foundation board members,

government or state matching programs, national corporations or foundations, college

staff or faculty, college alumni, development staff, and college board members (Phillippe

& Eblinger, 1998). The Council for Aid to Education reported that after an 8.6% decline

in private gifts to community colleges from academic years 1996-97 to 1997-98, public

and private community colleges experienced a 37.9% increase in 1998-99. The 1998-99

increase-from $98 million to $129 million-is attributed to greater experience with

organized campaigns as 2-year schools progressed from annual drives and major gift

campaigns to more sophisticated planned giving and capital campaigns (Lively, 2000).

Resource development must generate revenue from both public and private

sources. Honeyman, Williams, and Wattenbarger (1991) have suggested that resource

development has attained a new dimension-diversification. Traditionally, community

colleges have looked to alumni for support of capital campaigns. The activities of











resource development have broadened to include the investigation and acquisition of

funds from a diverse population of constituents. The fund raising repertoire has

broadened along with the image building and research activities required for external

scanning and relationships (Schuyler, 1997).

Many terms are used to describe systematic efforts to attract financial support. In

community college culture, "advancement" implies forward movement on the fronts of

media relations, marketing, image promotion, alumni programs and activities, fund-

raising, and external relationships with all constituents. Enrollment management

activities may be included in the advancement function in some community colleges as it

produces tuition and fee income, but this is not the usual practice at this time.

"Advancement staff are the strategists and practitioners, the fundraisers, the publicists,

the image builders, and the connectors" (Tromble, 1998, p. 13). In his text on principles

and practice of educational fundraising, Worth also places educational fundraising in the

broader context of institutional advancement. He describes educational fundraising as

beginning with the sophisticated process of development, a stage in which the

fundraising goals are based upon the academic needs of the institution and financial

donor aspirations are meshed with the academic objectives. These steps require

considerable research for identification of prospects, and prospect tracking and

management. Consequently, the development stage must be undertaken before gifts may

be solicited from donors. Therefore, fundraising is episodic while development is

continuous (Worth, 1993).

In undertaking the fundraising strategies of annual campaigns, planned and

deferred giving, capital campaigns, special event fundraising, grants identification and

acquisition, and business partnerships for cultivation of corporate gifts, there is a need to










enhance the image and visibility of the college. A 6-year study of community college

fundraising found that those colleges that are most successful in fundraising have two

characteristics in common-strong marketing and widespread community support

(Keener, Ryan. & Smith, 1991). Schuyler (1997) contends that as community college

foundations play an essential role in the future of community colleges their resource

development professionals should be specifically trained in both the technical aspects

and the human factors of fundraising.

Lovelock and Weinberg (1984) found that the search for increased revenues from

existing markets and from entirely new revenue sources is changing the orientation of

many public organizations. They report that the organizations are developing a structure

closer to that of private firms, becoming more entrepreneurial and more commercial as

they are increasingly more interested in the utility of marketing practices. Oster

documented this same orientation change in nonprofit organizations in her 1995 case

studies (Oster, 1995). A study of markets allows the organization to examine ways to

supplement and diversify its funding base (Lauffer, 1984). In order to better study

external constituencies and trends, the function of institutional research is taking on a

greater role. Membership surveys conducted between 1988 and 1998 by the Association

of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA) have declared that professional

fundraising in community colleges has given rise to a new information specialist

profession. This career path, which has been known as prospect research or advancement

research, is also defined as information resources management for advancement (Mayer,

1999).

Although community college foundations may lack the loyalty of older and

financially successful alumni, and the more experienced staff of well-established 4-year








29

institutions, they have an edge in resource development when they can show a company

how their success serves its interests. Thus, corporate relations activities are grouped

with the other activities associated with the advancement function because community

colleges are in unique positions to attract corporate gifts by demonstrating matching and

parallel priorities (Worth, 1993).

Scholarly research on the community college foundation began in earnest in the

early 1980s. This was mainly descriptive research, such as Robison's Types of

Foundations (1982). During the decade of the 1980s there was little research on the

process by which community college foundations achieved success (Baxter, 1987;

Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Carbone, 1986; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Loessin &

Duronio, 1989).

Carbone (1986) found that very few studies have focused on resource

development activities at public higher education institutions. This trend has been

consistent despite Robison's identification of the need for qualitative research on actual

foundations in 1982. Carbone documented the need for case studies of specific fund-

raising programs in 1986; Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) agreed that case studies on

the new core activity of findraising in higher education income acquisition are needed.

Loessin and Duronio (1989) found that foundation fundraising activities and

capacities to raise funds vary widely. Qualitative studies can capture the "deliberate,

sustained efforts involved in successful foundation activity" (Loessin & Duronio, 1989,

p. 14) and the process aspects of fundraising. The case studies presented here capture

activities and decision-making processes related to resource development and income

acquisition and management capacity at four community colleges. The study sought










answers to questions regarding changes in organizational structure and management

activities as well as changes in the integration of activities.

Literature that suggests how to address these process questions is found mostly in

studies on institutional planning and organizational behavior theory. These are covered

below under the headings "Resource Development and Institutional Planning" and

"Income Acquisition and Management as a System."

Encapsulating the 20-year trend in fundraising in community colleges, Glass and

Jackson (1998b) argue that resource development officers have become the new power

brokers when they have a direct report to the president of the institution, are informed

about strategic issues and planning, and participate in setting college priorities and fund-

raising goals. Although community college leaders report that private fundraising is of

increasing importance to their institutions, private fundraising efforts have not been

integrated into planning and management (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Jackson & Glass,

2000). Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) define fundraising as integral to institutional

priorities for reasons beyond the revenues generated. "Each accepted gift, with all its

stipulations and restrictions is a statement about what the institution is willing to become

[and] how it is willing to see itself and the world" (p. 57).


Resource Development and Institutional Planning


Organizational Structure

Resource development and fundraising are implementation activities for the

strategic planning process. It takes money to realize the mission, to fund programs, and

to carry out activities. Organizational structures should be designed to implement

strategies (Jackson & Glass, 2000; Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000;

Thompson & Strickland, 2001; Tromble, 1998).








31

For example, if there is an assumption that public community colleges should be

democratizing institutions that provide access and opportunities for students who have

traditionally been shut out of the higher education experience, then this assumption

should be reflected in the mission of the college and in the mission statement of the

college's foundation as well. Control issues with community donors who give very large

gifts or conflicts between the college board of trustees and the foundation board members

may be prevented when the foundation's mission is seen as to implement the institution's

strategic plan (Evelyn, 1999). Some colleges structure the alignment of foundation goals

with college mission, objectives, and activities by having the development officer report

directly to the president of the college (the staff model approach). Matsoukas (1996)

agrees with Ryan and Smith (1989) and Keener (1989) that the line model for the

advancement function best serves the community college mission.

Answering the strategic question, "How will we pay for the implementation and

realization of the mission of our college?" requires strategic planning to align the

institution with its environment. The first step is gaining an understanding of that

environment. The literature indicates that structuring the chief advancement officer as a

direct report to the president and as a peer of other senior officers improves the alignment

of resource development goals with institutional planning. As far back as 1976

Wattenbarger advocated for the resource development officer's role in campus planning

and oversight of advancement activities. In 1988, Ryan introduced a line model that

placed the chief advancement officer in line with the chief academic, student services,

and administration services officers all with direct report to the president.

There is growing commitment by community college administrators and faculty

to concentrate the use of resources and focus on priorities for their use. These

commitments lead to a strategic decision-making where the process of strategic planning










can increase the effectiveness of outcomes of the decisions. The challenge is that

strategic planning requires an understanding of external expectations and their contexts

in order to develop responses to the expectations in the form of objectives and to sustain

responses as strategic change (Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Pettigrew, 2000).

When resource development officers understand relationships between their

college's programs and its external environment they may adapt to or influence changes

that impact fundraising. In a survey of the presidents of the 58 community colleges in

North Carolina, the respondents advocated elevating the position of development officer

to senior level and ensuring his/her involvement in institutional planning and decision-

making (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

As a leadership function strategic management involves the integration of

future-shaping processes with operational levels of strategy making. It encompasses

strategic planning and other management techniques (Myran, 1983). Strategic planning

and strategic management begin with a scan of the external environment to identify

emerging issues that pose threats or opportunities to an institution. Evaluation of these

issues is followed by trend forecasting, the establishment of objectives and strategies, and

the implementation and monitoring of results. The diagram in Figure 2-1, "An

Institutional Strategic Management Model," charts the flow of this process. This is an

iterative process whereby administrators may cycle back to activities as necessary in the

event of unforeseen public policy, regulatory, or environmental changes.

Most models of institutional planning and strategic management for higher

education assume that external forces drive the central administration to develop systems

and processes to produce responses and outcomes. Baker's "Core Values Model" for

community colleges emphasizes a focus on the college culture and the results of

responses to the strategic management process (Figure 2-2).










Scan External
Environment
Identify Strategic
Opportunities
and Threats


Implement
Strategies through
Program Selection


Scan Internal Environment
and Identify Strategic
Strengths & Weaknesses


Source: Adapted from Bimbaum, 2001; Dolence & Norris, 1995, Mintzberg, 1994;
Schmidtlein, 1990; Thompson & Strickland, 2001.

Figure 2-1. An Institutional Strategic Management Model



Systems and Processes


Drivers


Outcomes


External
Environment Leadership


Individual &
Group
Response
Rfes rll


Outcomes


Source: Baker, 1998


Figure 2-2. Core Values Model











Barker and Smith's (1997) "Internal Management Model for Institutional

Planning" identifies the elements of strategic planning, and also provides for evaluation

and feedback starting at the lowest level in the institution using a hierarchy of plans to

support goals (Figure 2-3). This model suggests that the interest and involvement of the

president is critical to the success of the plan.




Vision
S SWDoT Analysis
President Mission
C tral Administration Strategic Plans (10 years)
Broad Goals
Priorities


Evaluation Presidents
eternal Schools IenediaePla (3-5 years)
Envrinment IColleges Program Goals
Entonment i -s -- PrioritPies

Evaluation paments ---
Office RaniPlans (Budget Cycles)
------ Specific Gtis
iPriorities


Source: Barker & Smith, 1997

Figure 2-3 Internal Management Model for Institutional Planning


Peterson and associates (1997) examined strategic planning and strategic

management in higher education institutions and concluded that there is no fixed protocol

for academic strategic decision making. The differences in models seem to be more

differences of form than differences of substance. Above and beyond the inherent











elements of strategic management-treating the interaction of external forces, college

systems and processes, and outcomes-it must respond to culture and include a senior

level champion of strategic change with the buy-in of other campus leaders. Strong and

continual communication along with the discipline of ranking priorities is essential

(Peterson et al., 1997).

A crucial factor in strategic planning and management in higher education is the

relationship of funding and program implementation (Baker, 1998; Barker & Smith,

1997; Cohen et al., 1994; Peterson et al., 1997). "Many community colleges have

sophisticated development and finance systems. The problem is that rarely are they

connected at vital points" (Peterson et al., 1997, p. 319). This study assumes that

institutional effectiveness is increased with a greater integration of strategic planning,

budgeting, and financial allocation systems. The IIAM Continuum includes all the

elements of strategic management for the institutional strategies related to image

building, integration of the advancement activities, income acquisition and management,

evaluation of activities, and motivational aspects of making change in the income

acquisition and management system.

Higher education planning literature focuses on decentralized decision-making

for strategic planning. Schmidtlein (1990), Benjamin and Carroll as cited in Tierney

(1998), Howell (2000), Pettigrew and Fenton ( 2000), and Bimbaum (2001) state that a

new decentralized organizational structure may be required for strategic decision-

making. In his discussion of how the structure of the college determines where power and

authority will be placed, Baker (1998) contends that existing organizational structures of

community colleges "have not provided the degree of control and accountability desired

by external accountability forces" (p. 12). These researchers suggest that organizational








36

structure and strategy must hold equal importance in higher education planning because

of the interdependence of increasingly complex systems. The need to fit structure to

strategy is now well accepted. The density of this fit requires attempts at centralizing

strategy and decentralizing operations.

In advancement function literature, the debate continues over centralized or

decentralized operations (Worth, 1993; Worth & Asp, 1994). Keener (1989) asserted that

the effectiveness of planning for resource development is dependent upon a community

college organizational structure that links the resource development function to the rest

of the institution. In a centralized income acquisition and management system, all

resource development and advancement staff and programs are organized within a central

college advancement office. In a decentralized system, resource development and

advancement efforts are divided by divisions within the community college. Resource

development and other advancement directors report to the deans or directors of the

programs they serve or campus provost. While arguing for an integration of all of the

activities associated with advancement, Worth (1993) warns that the advancement

structure decisions should not be based on lines of authority as much as on (a) staff

commitment to the campus or program, (b) ease and quality of goal setting and planning,

(c) evaluation and compensation, (d) training and career development, and (e) major gift

and grants management.

Glass and Jackson (1998a) recommend that the decision to use a staff or line

model for resource development within the advancement function should be predicated

on the size, location, and competitive situation of the community college.

In the staff model, the development officer is an adjunct of the president's office.
This model grows out of the philosophy that the president is the chief
advancement officer and his or her leadership is predominant in fundraising. In











the line model the development officer reports to the president, but on an equal
footing with academic, business, and student affairs. This structure permits a flow
of information through interactions with other administrators, enabling the
development officer to address institutional concerns. (Glass & Jackson, 1998a,
p. 179)

This study analyzed the position of advancement officers in four colleges on the

organizational chart (staff or line) and in regard to formal and informal authority

(centralized or decentralized), with particular attention to working relationships and

communication systems with offices with which the foundation officer must interact

regularly to be successful. Phillippe and Eblinger (1998) identified these offices (in order

of time spent) as the president's office, public information, institutional advancement,

resource development, fiscal planning, enrollment and registrar, economic development,

and contract training. In addition, Matsoukas (1996) suggests that there is a relationship

between the location of the college grants office in the organizational structure and the

office's level of success and argues for an integrated model of the advancement function.

Cain (1999) posits that communication patterns in community colleges both

reveal and create the nature of relationships. Verbal, nonverbal, and contextual

communication must be transactional (Cain, 1999).

A 1991 survey found that community college presidents' preferred an

organizational structure that maintained the following advancement activity staff

positions with direct report to the president: public relations, development and research,

and development/alumni affairs (Underwood & Hammons, 1999).

Phair and King's (1998) study of organizational structures for the advancement

function suggests that the organizational chart is not as important as advancement

administrators' knowledge of what roles the key advancement offices can play. They

describe current restructuring in the advancement function as due to three factors: the









38

ascendancy of marketing in higher education, the growing role and impact of technology,

and the necessity of capital campaigns. "Institutions that are heavily enrollment and

marketing driven-especially community colleges-often place the advancement functions

under enrollment management" (p. 65). An example is Macomb Community College

where the vice president for marketing and enrollment services oversees enrollment

services, public relations, and marketing.


Changing Management Activities

Literature on the changing roles of community college administrators and faculty

stresses increased attention to marketing and grants management activities. Miller and

Seagren (1997) contend that despite the growing scholarly attention to community

college fundraising and advancement, department chairs have rarely been studied in

regard to income acquisition and management. Their study of 9,000 academic leaders,

department chairs, deans, and program heads in the United States and Canada implied

that although half of the academic administrators believed that they had no financial

management responsibility to seek external funding. 64% agreed with the concept of

seeking external funding for their departments. In agreeing to take on this new challenge,

the academic administrators felt strongly that they needed applied training to cope with

the increased attention and time they spend on grant proposal writing, marketing, and

grants management activities and how these are related to institutional strategic planning

(Miller & Seagren, 1997).

Dickinson (1999) predicts a transformation in the role of community college

faculty from that of instructor-worker to that of learning process manager. This study

looks for evidence of an emphasis on resource development and external relations











becoming a part of community college academic vice-president, dean, and department

chair responsibilities.

Acknowledging that higher education governance is largely consensual, the

research suggests that the support of faculty and other key decision-making groups along

with building coalitions with administrators and faculty leaders is necessary to

implement change successfully. New organizational structures and rewards for team

efforts are necessary (Tierney. 1998). This study looks at how academic administrators

and faculty establish objectives, develop an array of strategies, select strategies, and

implement these strategies with resources obtained through resource development

activities.


Income Acquisition and Management as a System

When the activities of income acquisition and management are integrated in the

American community college, they compose a system that involves all of the

advancement activities; that is, Marketing, Institutional Research, Media Relations,

Community Affairs, Corporate Relations, Government Relations, Resource

Development, College Foundation, Alumni Affairs, and Publications. This system, when

integrated with strategic planning, budgeting, and resource allocation systems, provides

the theoretical context for the IIAM continuum. Thus the income acquisition and

management system is built of other systems in mutual dependency and as such is a

whole with irreducible properties. It cannot be separated into orderly components

because it is more than the sum of its parts-relationships, people, and resources (Cain,

1999).









40

Fundraising, public relations, and marketing are approached by higher education

scholars as subfunctions of institutional advancement. Kelly (1991) places fundraising as

a specialization of public relations. Based on her work and Gruning and Hunt's (1984)

four models of public relations behavior, Kelly sees the activities of fundraising under

the umbrella of managing important relationships and institutional communications. This

differs from most fund- raising professionals' placement of public relations in a

supportive role. Duronio and Loessin (1991) define fundraising as a marketing activity as

in "telling the college's story." Sevier, a proponent of integrated marketing, found that

higher education institutions are rarely optimally organized from a marketing

perspective. He places a great importance on integrating the key advancement activity of

marketing with the college's strategic plan. This integration lends greater assessment of

target audiences, a greater sharing of resources and goals, and greater message

integration for recruitment, public relations, institutional research, and governmental

relations. Integrated marketing is more narrowly focused than the communications plan

and is distinguished by its commitment to strategic, organizational, and message

integration (Sevier. 1998, 1999, 2000).

The necessity of integrating resource development into institutional strategic

planning has been trumpeted for almost twenty years (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Ryan,

1989c; Tromble, 1998; Worth, 1993; Wattenbarger, 1994). The notion that greater

integration of institutional and financial planning may lead to greater college

effectiveness is supported by Cohen et al. (1994) in their comprehensive work, The

American Community College. The case for linking strategic planning and budgeting in

community colleges is made by McClenney and Chaffee (1985) and by McClenney in

Baker's A Handbook on the Community College in America (1994).










Public two-year postsecondary institutions' systems of income acquisition and

management are inherently different than those of public four-year universities because

community college programs and missions are more influenced by state and local

revenue systems and the local city, town, county, or area that comprises the sponsoring or

funding community (Cohen et al., 1994). This necessary difference in approaches to

income acquisition and management systems and, consequently, the structures that raise

and manage the dollars from private support is often seen as the reason why community

college income acquisition effectiveness is contextually driven. In the competition for

private funding, fundraising by community colleges might follow a community-based

rather than a traditional four-year educational fundraising model (Eldredge, 1999;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; ). This study related the IIAM continuum to four community

college contexts.

There is a growing feeling that community college administrators must improve

their relationships with those who criticize them for raising tuition and continued lapses

in accountability and the detractors who threaten to withhold or reduce funding. Scholars

suggest that to regain credibility higher education institutions must create strategies to

counteract the inertia of academic culture (Baker. 1998; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence,

1997).

There is a general acceptance of the concept and value of strategic planning in

business, private nonprofit, and public organizations. The value of strategic planning in

higher education has been championed by the National Center for Higher Education

Management Systems (NCHEMS) and the Society for College and University Planning

(SCUP). However, there is confusion over the term "strategic planning." Planning

language has been overused and incorrectly applied as jargon. This misuse of strategic










planning language makes it confusing and uninformative for organizational planners

(Mintzberg, 1994; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Thompson &

Strickland, 2001). This has led to cynicism among higher education administrators about

strategic planning and has led to strategic planning being lumped with other management

fads such as Zero-Based Budgeting, Planning Program Budgeting System, and

Management By Objectives (Birnbaum, 2001).

There is a critical difference between operational planning (operations-driven

planning) and strategic planning (opportunity-seeking planning). An analogy for this

study is: management will not fix the funding problem in these community colleges, but

managerial judgment can help the administrators and faculty to implement a strategy to

align the institution and its resource development activities with its mission and

environment.

Best practice in academic management is not the same as best practice in business

management. The literature on higher education planning stresses the importance of

adapting planning practices to the institution's unique characteristics (Schmidtlein &

Milton. 1990). Because individual community colleges do not have control of the

strategic variables of price, location, and program, academic leaders' options are

confined to the limited authority of supporting relatively autonomous professionals (i.e.,

faculty and specialists) within the context of a particular governance framework and

culture. Academic planning requires external scanning of constituent groups with

conflicting goals. Therefore, administrators must customize ideas to be consistent with

the college's shared governance structure and culture, achieve top-down support for the

ideas, and sustain them through systematic implementation of strategic objectives and an

integrated comprehensive evaluation system (Bimbaum, 2001; Chaffee, 1982, 1985;










Ferlie, Ashburner, Fitzgerald, & Pettigrew, 1996; Pettigrew & Fenton, 2000;

Schmidtlein, 1990; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Thompson & Strickland, 2001).

This recommendation suggests that participative planning systems that include internal

and external constituents in the early phases of planning the process may be more

important than the plan itself if the goal is to make decisions strategically.

Tierney (1998) posits that there must be a systematic and integrated system that

guides overall resource allocation in higher education institutions, which includes (a)

flexibility to changing objectives, (b) broad communication to support decision-making

throughout the institution, (c) resources to support the integrted planning, and (d)

incentives for individuals to support the institution's objectives. Studies of particular

models of strategic planning systems in community colleges show that organizational

effectiveness may be increased by integration of strategic planning, budgeting and

resource allocation. A study of 59 community colleges in the southeast found that those

with well-written documentation of planning had a higher goal attainment (Greer, 1999).

A study of 107 California community colleges showed inconsistencies between planning

and resource allocation which resulted in a low mean ranking of the integration of

planning, budgeting, and financial resource allocation. Institutional size was not

significant (Williams, 1998).

Institutional effectiveness planning models which allow for outcomes assessment

to be linked with strategic planning and budgeting are available for review (Nichols.

1996). Colleges are beginning to use software packages for this purpose (Braswell &

May, 2000; Greer, 1999). San Jacinto College (TX), Lakeland Community College (OH),

and others are cited as examples of early models of institutional effectiveness planning

(Braswell & May, 2000).










In order to implement and sustain the changes brought by strategic decision-

making and planning that integrate income identification, acquisition and expenditure,

many factors are recommended. Eight of these are repeated in higher education

administration and public management literature as best practice. These are

1. Persistent and top level support of the president and senior administrators through
posing issues for strategic change and tolerating controversy (Baker, 1994;
Birnbaum, 2001; Peterson et al., 1997; Pettigrew, 2000; Roueche & Baker, 1987;
Rowley & Sherman, 2001; Tiemey, 1998; Vaughan, 1986).

2. Skill in leading change and in linking strategy and operational change (Alfred &
Carter, 1999; Cohen et al., 1994; Deegan and Smith as cited in Baker, 1994;
Pettigrew, 1988, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Rowley & Shennan,
2001; Tierney, 1998). All decision makers must have access to information
regarding the issue and the context of the problem and its impact on the
organization, and buy into the implementation of strategic objectives to act on the
problem. Tying strategic enrollment management, resource planning, and
academic planning with budgeting is key here.

3. Customization to draw in commitment of operational levels (Chaffee as cited in
Tierney, 1998; Hecht, Higgerson. Gmelch, & Tucker, 1999; Peterson et al., 1997;
Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Rowley & Sherman, 2001;
Schmidtlein, 1990; Vaughan, 1986).

4. Operations indicators to create and publicize interim successes (Nichols, 1996;
Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Educating participants and
stakeholders about the plan and making the planning document public
(Butterfield & Wolfe, 1997)

5. Team management (Cohen et al., 1994; Deegan as cited in Baker, 1994; Ewell &
Chaffee as cited in Tiemey, 1998; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley & Sherman, 2001).

6. Organizational structures and team/individual rewards and recognition that move
behavior in desired directions (Baker, 1994; Carroll as cited in Tierney, 1998;
Cohen et al., 1994; Galbraith, 2000; Pettigew, 2000; Roueche & Baker, 1987;
Rowley & Sherman, 2001).

7. Continuous views of process changes e.g. incorporate strategic planning as a
continuous process focusing on outcomes assessment and opportunities (Baker,
1994; Butterfield & Wolfe, 1997; Cohen et al., 1994; Peterson et al., 1997;
Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley & Sherman, 2001; Senge, 1990). By creating processes
and techniques specifically aimed at facilitating change, the college employees
can become continuous learners to help create an overall competency of how to
better compete in the external environment.









45

8. Coherent management of overall process of change in organization (Baker, 1994;
Birnbaum, 2001; Peterson et al., 1997; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Rowley
& Sherman, 2001; Senge, 1990; Tiemey, 1998). This last factor includes long-
term vision, short-term successes, and linking strategic planning and operational
changes. Here the emphasis on mission-based performance integrated into
institutional culture and practices whereby continuity of practice leads to mission-
based performance. Examples of this factor are capitalizing on centralized
databases, use of planning software, outsourcing data collection for student
success, and reduction of reporting duplication.

In the four colleges in this study there are (a) state system level changes in

revenues and spending patterns over time, (b) revenue and expenditure differences and

foundation activity differences among the state system colleges (c) a variety of

advancement activities present, (d) a variety of organizational structures, (e) a variety of

best practice within the advancement units of resource development, institutional

research, marketing, etc., (f) a variety of strategic initiatives grouped to integrate private

revenue into planning, budgeting, and fundraising efforts, yet the study theorizes the

colleges may be placed on a model because the management and planning principles are

applicable to all institutions. "Sound management reduces uncertainty through the

application ofjudgment to context-specific situations in order to define problems in ways

that may lead to effective action" (Birnbaum, 2001, p. 225).

Where is the juncture between management theory and the strategic environment

of the college? The fiscal strategy should lie here. The elements of fiscal strategy are

resource identification, acquisition, and resource allocation.


Summary

The literature review in this chapter gives justification for this comparative case

study. The scholarly work described changes in the sources of revenue for community

colleges and how fundraising, resource development, and institutional planning fit within










the framework of the advancement activities. Organizational structure and changing

management activities are defined within the context of fiscal strategies of community

colleges. Income acquisition and management activities are shown as a system. The

development of the IIAM Continuum is built upon the research reviewed in this chapter.

The factors of the IIAM Continuum are based upon empirical research and theories to

build a coherent model.

"New funding streams change the fundamental shape of the river, and institutions

must strike a balance between managing a coherent identity, matching items on deans'

wish lists with institutional priorities, and identifying those strategic initiatives that also

map to donor expectations" (Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000, p. 3). The

literature reviewed in Chapter 2 also indicates that in addition to reshaping, building, and

maintaining new linkages and cooperative relationships among external constituents,

community colleges must reshape the relationships and decision-making apparatus

among internal stakeholders as part of fiscal strategy making.

In the following chapter the methodology for the comparative case study is

explained. Chapter 4 is a presentation and analysis of the data for each of the four case

studies. The last chapter presents the cross-case conclusions and modifications of the

IIAM Continuum. Recommendations for public policy and future studies are given in

Chapter 5.
















CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter defines the research methodology used in this study. The research

purpose, problem and design are detailed; the research instrument and research sample

are described. The data collection methods are listed followed by the methodology used

for data analysis. The colleges were placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of

the characteristics required for that stage.


Research Problem

The research problem was to discover how organizational structure, management

activities of administrators, and management activities of faculty have changed in four

community colleges in response to the change in the proportional funding of college

operations by the state government. As the importance and influence of support other

than from the state in the life of higher education have expanded, so too have the

structures which obtain, raise, and manage these dollars.

Unlike deductive research in which the researcher hopes to find data to match a

theory; this study is inductive in that a theory is found to explain the data (Geotz &

LaCompte, 1984). Qualitative research is most useful here for exploring institutional

phenomena, articulating participants' understandings and perceptions, and generating

tentative theories that directly pertain to particular environments (Hathaway, 1995).










Purpose of the Study

This study examined the income.acquisitionand management.activities..within.....

four community colleges located in the states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and

Texas. The purpose of the study was to identify the qualitative elements of the process

and their perceived impact upon the organizational structure and management activities

of administrators and faculty at each of the four institutions. The advancement systems

within the income acquisition and management systems were compared at four colleges

to place each of the institutional systems on an Integrated Income Acquisition and

Management (HAM) Continuum. Stages One to Five on the IIAM Continuum move from

disaggregation to interconnectivity of income acquisition and management activities of

an institution. The colleges were placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of the

characteristics required for that stage.

The data from the interviews, observations, and document review revealed

factors, such as, "Does the college perform this advancement activity?" "Who does it?"

and "Where is the activity located in the organizational structure?" The colleges were

placed on a stage in the continuum from disaggregated to aggregated. A college attained

a more aggregated stage when it showed a higher level of integration of the advancement

function and planning systems. For example, to reach Stage Four a college must show

(a) evidence of administrative structures that link academic planning and budgeting with

fundraising to achieve strategic goals, that is, initiatives to integrate the activities of the

advancement function, (b) evidence of methods of determining which revenue stream is

best suited to fund each institutional priority and a strategies of income acquisition for

that revenue stream; and subsequently (c) a plan to implement these strategies. The

analysis and rationale for placement on the IIAM Continuum is based upon the academic











literature in Chapter 2 and linked to the data from the interviews, site observations, and

document review.

The case studies described participants' understandings and perceptions of

changes in management activities and related the HAM theory to the college

environments. By applying theory to the qualitative data collected, the researcher

produced knowledge that can inform higher education administrators of theory and

successful practice for improving planning and management systems in community

colleges.

At the conclusion of the literature review, qualitative elements were identified

and categorized. Data collection was conducted in two phases. The first phase included

collecting data related to the selection criteria of the colleges. The second phase was

conducted through four site visits to the college to interview administrators, observe

planning meetings, and to review materials related to the advancement process and

income acquisition and management. Data analysis was conducted in two phases. The

first phase examined advancement and management activities. The second phase was

coding interview transcripts and employing qualitative evaluation techniques (content

analysis) to determine the perceptions of the administrators regarding where their college

was placed on the IAM Continuum and which factors (qualitative elements) were in

evidence to warrant the placement of the income acquisition and management system at a

stage of the HAM Continuum.

The theory is that as the sources of income have become more diverse and change

in proportion to one another, community colleges organize themselves on a point on the

1AM Continuum. The main question of the study is, "How have the colleges responded

to the change in income streams?" The four research questions are











1. How has organizational structure changed?

2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?

3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?

4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?

It is hypothesized that an aggregated income acquisition and management system

is more desirable than not. Future studies must determine whether aggregated systems

result in more income and greater institutional effectiveness than disaggregated systems.

These four questions constitute the study's major issues, or conceptual structure

(Stake, 1995). The logic linking the data to the theoretical propositions, and the

phenomena to be examined within the bounded instance of the case study are reflected in

the research questions (Yin, 1994).


Design of the Comparative Case Study

The case study method is used when the phenomenon and the contextual

conditions of the phenomenon are inextricably bound. Or, as Yin (1994) states, "the

boundaries between phenomenon and context" are not clear (p. 13). This study is an

embedded, multiple-case design (Yin, 1994). An embedded design is used when a case

involves more than one unit of analysis. The units of analysis in each case were the

advancement subfunctions as they relate to the income acquisition and management

systems of the colleges.

A multiple-case design is used to determine replication of phenomena. This study

was designed to determine whether the same results are replicated in each case.

Figure 3-1 illustrates the multiple-case design.















DEFINE AND DESIGN
I "


PREPARE, COLLECT, &
I


ANALYZE & CONCLUDE
S4 -


Figure 3-1. Framework for Comparative Case Studies











The study investigated factors cited in the literature as affecting income

acquisition and management and components of the advancement function in community

colleges. See Chapter 2 for these factors.

Theory development, prior to the conduct of any data collection, is a major

distinction between case studies and other qualitative research methods (Lincoln & Guba,

1986, Stake, 1995; Van Maanen, Dabbs, & Faulkner, 1982). To acquire a theoretical

framework for designing this study, previous research on community college

advancement and organizational management were reviewed to find a framework. This

knowledge base is covered in Chapter 2. To summarize Chapter 2, the major theoretical

frameworks that provided guidance for this study are descriptions of the effective

advancement function and community college foundation (Adams, Keener, & McGee,

1994; Banks & Mabry, 1988; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1995; Burlingame & Hulse, 1991;

Duronio & Loessin, 1991; Gatewood, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Jackson, 1997;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Keener, 1982, Kelly, 1991; Koelkebeck,

1994; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998; Robison, 1982; Ryan, 1998b; Ryan & Smith, 1989;

Sharon,1982; Williams, 1988; Worth, 1993) and the integration of the advancement

function planning objectives with the community college strategic objectives (Baker et

al., 1992; Bimbaum, 2001; Cameron & Whetten, 1984; Cameron, 1986; Chaffee, 1989;

Cohen et al., 1994; Dolence & Norris, 1995; Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Hecht, et.al., 1999;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000; Miller & Seagren,

1997; Peterson, et. al, 1997; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Tiemey,

1998; Tromble, 1998; Wolverton, 1998). The theoretical frameworks are used as a

template with which to compare the empirical results of the case studies. When two or











more cases are shown to support the same theory, a claim of repetition may be made

(Yin, 1994).

Case studies rely on analytical generalization in which a particular set of results

may be generalized to a broader theory. This pattern matching logic of case studies

allows for an organization to be studied from multiple perspectives rather than the

influence of a single variable (Eisenhardt, 1991).

Questions were developed to relate management activities and affinity to the

theoretical framework. The case studies show how and why each college restructured

functions and implemented specific management activities to support particular

advancement and income acquisition strategies. The case studies show why the simple

addition of the presence of an advancement activity without the coordination of the

activity into the total advancement function is not sufficient to move the institution to a

more mature stage of the IIAM Continuum.


Research Methods


Selection of the Colleges

The selection plan answered the question, "What group of colleges will help us to

understand the problem?" For this criterion a diversity of characteristics was sought. The

characteristics give balance, variety, and an opportunity to lear. Each of the four

institutions had private sector fund raising initiatives from 1996 through 2000 in response

to erosion in state and/or local funding as a percentage of the operating budget. Detailed

profiles and the selection characteristics are provided in Chapter 4.

Case studies can give a refined understanding of process and situation through a

rich description of the unique and complex experiences of others (Stake, 1995). The











cases were designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges

appropriate to their various settings as well as the economic and political situations in the

states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Analyzing the various units on a

continuum, the IIAM, gave more breadth in the description of maturity and integration

of each college's advancement subfunctions.


Case Study Protocols

In integrating data across the case studies, the study protocol used the same

categories across all cases. The data was presented so that patterns can be spotted and

differences examined. The protocol used the same categories for all of the cases'

document abstracts, field observations, interview field notes and analyses. See Appendix

A "Handbook on Protocols" and Appendix D for the juried interview guide. The protocol

was designed to describe the checks and balances, decision rules, and other design

features.


Collection of Data

Interviews. Administrators were contacted and provided a description of the

study. They were asked to participate in an interview and to supply certain documents.

The interview guide questions were mailed to each leader before the interview. The

interviews were structured to last one hour. When needed, clarification of data was

obtained through phone calls conducted within a week of the initial interview. When

accuracy was confirmed, the case evidence was deemed suitable for analysis. Detailed

notes from the interviews were transcribed.

Instrument and data collection. The juried interview questions (Appendix E) were

used for the semi-structured interviews. The interview questions focus on the income











acquisition and management activities of administrators and faculty and the factors

which frame the five stages of the IIAM Continuum.

Participant observation. The researcher observed planning meetings at the

schools. Observation notes were coded in the same manner as the interview transcripts to

discern data to answer the four research questions and the factors in evidence for

placement in the appropriate stage on the HAM Continuum.

Document review. The study protocol was the use of a document abstract form

developed for all cases. Planning documents, meeting minutes, reporting documents,

performance or assessment reports, organizational charts, job descriptions of

administrators, marketing and solicitation materials, budgets, memos, and other

communiques were collected and listed on individual document abstract forms. The data

from these documents were coded in the same manner as interview transcripts and

observation notes.

Empirical data collection. All of the above methods are empirical in that they

make use of data external to the knower. They all use observation, interview, and

examination of artifacts to collect data. Documents from the educational environment

and conversations with informers are important sources.


Analysis of the Data

The units of data were obtained from the transcripts of the interviews, observation

notes, and notes from the document abstract forms. First, data was broken into segments

representing single pieces of information. The segments were then grouped into

categories. Finally, the categories were analyzed for patterns. A case report was written

for each institution. The case reports were compared and cross-case conclusions were











made. Using this process, the theory was used to describe in which of the five stages of

the HIAM Continuum the college systems should be placed.


Coding of Data

The interview data, data from observations, and data from document reviews

were analyzed using the constant comparison method (Merriam, 1998; Sherman &

Webb, 1995). This method is an inductive theory discovery methodology that combines

concurrent coding and analysis of data during data gathering. The resulting theory is

grounded in the data from which it was derived.

Findings were grouped into the same areas as the factors of the theoretical

framework described in Chapter 2. Data were coded in relation to the four research

questions and the factors of the IIAM Continuum. System analysis, participant

observation, and interviews created thickly descriptive field notes. As themes emerged

from the study the theoretical construct for the IAM continuum was modified as

necessary.


Triangulation of Data

The term "triangulation" was coined by Denzin (1970) to describe how

qualitative researchers find their position in relation to two other points. By showing at

least three sources of evidence for every claim or interpretation and the use of several

data collection techniques the researcher can increase the credibility of her work.

Focused interview notes, notes on observation, document review notes, notes on coding

of data, and peer review can close the triangle between the emic and etic perspectives and

the situation at hand. Triangulation is also referred to as the use of multiple data









57

collection methods, multiple resources, multiple investigators, and/or multiple theoretical

perspectives.


The Constant Comparative Method of Analysis

Domain analysis is used in ethnographic research. Domain means literally "what

resides here." As qualitative researchers look for patterns, relationships, and themes in

their data, they place the data in the appropriate emerging category. An ethnographer

calls this category "the domain." The sociologist refers to the idea of domain as "coded

data." The philosopher may use the term "classification."

The categories may be borrowed from another's research or discovered by the

researcher. In this study, the emerging categories used for coding are the factors in

Chapter 2 taken from literature on community college institutional advancement and

higher education management.

This method of domain analysis employs an on-going look at how categories are

similar or different. Qualitative data is moved to a more abstract interpretation to codes.

The codes are compared and then moved to factors. The factors are compared to one

another and then moved to constructs until saturation is obtained.


Validity and Reliability Issues

The concepts of validity and reliability in qualitative research used in this case

study are based upon the works of Yin (1994), Stake (1995), and Lincoln and Guba

(1986) unless otherwise cited. Construct validity is established in the data collection

phase of the research and was increased by using multiple sources of evidence,

establishing a chain of evidence, and having key informants review draft case study

reports. This study used multiple data collection methods, multiple sources, and multiple











theoretical perspectives to increase validity. A conscientious search for unconfirming

evidence to produce a rival theory was used in the data collection phase and used in the

modification of the theory.

Internal validity is established in the data analysis phase of research. It was

increased with the tactics of pattern matching, explanation building, and time-series

analysis. Internal validity was increased with triangulation, multiple sources of

information, and consistency of results. Internal validity is seen in a deeper and richer

understanding of the phenomenon because of study (Lincoln & Guba, 1986).

This study uses triangulation of data in each case and across cases. An external

auditor (an outside person to examine the research process and product) probed for

similarity, consistency, and convergence of results. Consistency of coding was

emphasized in the case study protocols. Participant corroboration of the drafts of the

findings and peer review were used to avoid systematic bias in data collection.

Field observation, multiple-day site visits, individual and focus group interviews,

and systems analysis were used. The four individual case studies as instances were used

to increase credibility and persuasiveness of support for the case study conclusions.

External validity is established in the research design phase. It was increased with

replication logic in multiple-case studies. Multiple case designs may be more robust as

the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling (Yin, 1994). Yin

argues that although not generalizable to populations, case studies, like experiments, are

generalizable to theoretical propositions. In case studies, external validity is the extent to

which the study's findings may be applicable to similar contexts. Mook (1983) defends

purposive sampling in case studies with similar reasoning. Because case studies start

with the theoretical proposition, in this case "community college administrators respond










to public policy which decreases the relative percentage of government funding for

college operating budgets by increasing advancement activities," predictions can be

made, for example, "therefore the administrators we observe ought to do that." And the

prediction is confirmed or disconfirmed (Mook, 1983).

This study used purposive sampling to increase external validity. The data

collection and analysis were of colleges operating in different regions, settings, and at

different levels of integration of their advancement activities. External validity is

increased if the current study can be tied to other studies done on the advancement

activities of the four schools.

Reliability is established in the data collection phase of the research. The tactics

used to establish reliability were use of case study protocol and development of a case

study database. Consistency of results and dependability is shown by the production of

similar findings with similar cases. This study used the case study protocol in Appendix

C and coding forms to increase reliability.


Summary

Case study is contemporary and often idiosyncratic. Case studies are bounded by

a small group of individuals and an instance. The bounded instance is the focus of the

study. A case study leads to anticipation of a behavior because a specific situation is

densely described. For example, in this study there was evidence of agreement on the

change in income streams and that a new way of doing business is essential and

desirable. The case studies describe the decision-making processes about how to change

management activities to attain more income, thus certain behaviors were anticipated. As

the political and funding environment changes community college administrators may








60

anticipate certain behaviors. Through a full and thorough knowledge of the particular a

universal may be perceived.

Chapter 3 defined the research design and methods of the study. Methods to

improve reliability and validity were addressed. Chapter 4 provides the findings of the

four individual case studies. Chapter 5 gives cross-case conclusions and

recommendations for research and practice.
















CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

The problem that prompted this study was the need for a description of how

organizational structure, administrative management, and faculty management have

changed in the income acquisition and management systems of community colleges as a

response to the change in proportional funding of college operations by the state

government. The purpose of the study was to identify the qualitative elements of the

change process and their perceived impact upon the organizational structure and

management activities at four community colleges. The purpose of this chapter is the

presentation and analysis of the data collected in the four case studies.

This chapter describes what was discovered. The categories, themes, key events

and incidents are tied to the theoretical framework as positive or negative cases. The

empirical results are tied to the theoretical foundation of the IIAM Continuum Model.


Selection of the Colleges

The selection plan answered the question, "What group of colleges will help us to

understand the problem?" For this criterion a diversity of characteristics was sought. The

characteristics chosen were (a) evidence of private sector fundraising initiatives from

fyl996 to fy2000 in response to an erosion in state funding as a percentage of the

operating budget, (b) a stable presidency over the 5-year period, (c) an institutional

structure which includes the functions listed in Appendix B, (d) an urban environment of

a district campus or single institution with one or more campuses, (e) an enrollment

range of 6,000 to 20,000 for fy2000, (f) an operations budget ranging from $26 million to










$58 million for fy2000, (g) the presence of academic literature on community college

advancement and its context in the college's state, and (h) active membership in the

Council for Resource Development (CRD). These characteristics give balance, variety

and an opportunity to learn. The reader may find a refinement of understanding process

and situation in the unique and complex experiences of others (Stake, 1995). The cases

are designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges appropriate to

their various settings as well as the economic situations and public policy in the states of

Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Analyzing the various units on a

continuum, the HAM, gives more breadth of maturity and competency of the described

advancement function. The sampling process was chosen to maximize comparability of

incidents and management activities within the income acquisition and management

system.


Research Methodology for Individual Cases

The study began in the summer of 2001. College presidents who agreed to have

their colleges take part in the study were sent a description of the study, sample questions

of the juried interview questions, and consent forms for each of the participating

administrators. During three-day visits at each of the four sites, interviews, observation,

and document review were conducted using case study protocols. Domain analysis was

conducted on the data. The data was coded and triangulated. The cases were written and

the drafts of the cases were presented for verification by the administrators.


Presentation and Analysis of Data for Each Case

Each case begins with a one page profile of the college during the period studied.

State and local context is given along with a description of the changes in income sources











for fiscal year 1996 through 2000. The activities, organizational structure, and

responsibilities of the advancement function are described.

Changes in management activities for the advancement function within the

income acquisition and management system are chronicled along with the participants'

understandings and perceptions of the changes and their decision-making during the

change process. The changes are related to the IIAM Continuum Model and the college

environments.

The cases include analysis of data used to answer the research questions

1. How has organizational structure changed?

2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?

3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?

4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?

Evidence of transformed administrative structures is given. Task and role changes

for management of activities in the income acquisition and management system are

described. The colleges are placed at a stage on the IIAM Continuum.


College A


Profile of College A

College A is a 2-year unit of the State University of New York (SUNY) system

located in the south central area of the state about 200 miles from New York City. It is

one of 30 community colleges in the SUNY system. A mid-size urban college with one

campus, in 2000-2001 there were 5,651 students and 4183 FTE enrolled in credit










courses. Of the students, 75% came from the local county. Over the past 8 years, the

college has lost about 800 FTE due to corporate downsizing and out-migration. One FTE

equals 30 annualized credit hours.

With a $31 million operating budget in 1999-2000, the college has seen state

funding erode from 39% of its budget in fy1991 to 30% in fy2000. For 1997 the State of

New York funding per capital for community colleges was lower than the national

average of $49 at $37.96. For 1998-99 the average expenditure per student FTE in New

York's 47 SUNY and CUNY community colleges was $9,383 and the amount of state

support for FTE was $2,050. New York State policy sets tuition at community colleges at

no more than 30% to 35% of the cost of instruction. College A also receives local county

support for its operating budget.

College A's foundation, begun in 1965, raised $2 million in 1999-2000 with a

foundation operating budget of $284,000. Total foundation assets are $10 million.

Governance of the SUNY community colleges is complex. Both 2- and 4-year

institutions outside of New York City make up the State University of New York

(SUNY). A board of trustees governs the SUNY system. Day-to-day operations of SUNY

are overseen by a System Administration Council, including the chancellor and vice

chancellors, one of which is the community college vice chancellor. New York has two

or more governing boards for its higher education institutions, along with a coordinating

board or governing board for community or technical colleges. New York also retains its

own local governing boards. Therefore, the governance is divided in two heterogeneous

systems each with its own governing board. Thus the same board that governs one of the

nation's largest higher education systems also serves as the coordinating board for a very

large system of locally governed community colleges.










College A has its own 10-member board of trustees. Trustees appoint college

presidents, recommend the approval of the capital and operating budgets, and set policy

for academic affairs, student services, and administration. In the SUNY system an

appointed local board governs each community college, and the board of trustees of

SUNY serves as a coordinating board for all SUNY community colleges. With these

three layers of governance college administrators must determine who has jurisdiction,

"we often have to take time to figure out who to start with to begin a process."

A 1999 study concluded that SUNY colleges are operating under an outdated and

unpredictable funding policy that provides limited support for fiscal strategy change and

is not connected to the developing mission of effective community colleges of providing

affordable access through low tuition and fees.

Despite repeated efforts to amend the Educational Law to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each of the participants, ambiguities and conflicts remain.
Unresolved problems of governance and funding continue to sap the energy and
undermine the capacity of community college-individually and as a system-to
serve their students, their regions, and the State of New York. (National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems, 1999, p. iii).


Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000

This section provides an overview of state funding systems and historical context

for the case beginning with a description of state appropriations. There is a single

consolidated appropriation for all the SUNY community colleges. From this

appropriation, the State of New York uses a funding formula to determine individual

appropriations to the community colleges within the SUNY system. The formula is

legislated and can be modified only through regular and/or budget legislation. The state

funding formula is based upon the prior 3 years' enrollments. It is a weighted formula

funding the best of two FTE numbers: either last year's FTE or a weighted average FTE









66

that is comprised of 50% of the last year's FTE, 30% of the FTE from 2 years prior, and

20% of the FTE from 3 years prior. "The idea is that in times of increasing enrollments,

the college benefits immediately by being funded, but in times of declining enrollments

the loss of revenue is cushioned by the use of the weighting formula."

Included in the FTE calculations for community colleges are high school students

taking community college courses for credit (early admissions). Students may take up to

30 credit hours of remedial work but they must have some college level coursework. The

state budget includes a separate line item appropriation for community college

specialized training programs for businesses and workforce development. Competitive

grants from other state agencies for workforce development programs are available.

The funding formula does not include performance indicators nor perfonnance

based funding. The requirements for registration of postsecondary curricula under the

Regent's mandate (found in Section 52.1, Regulations of the Commissioner of

Education, Subchapter A, Part 51) focus strongly on inputs and resources, not on

performance and productivity. A system of performance indicators and some degree of

perfonnance-based funding are under development.

Early admissions students are charged tuition that may be at a reduced rate for

certain circumstances (offsite, off peak hours, etc.). The tuition rate charged for distance

education is the same as the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students. For

international students the tuition is doubled.

In the late 1990s, upstate New York began to climb out of the recession of the late

1980s and early 1990s. Its recovery was slow compared to many other states. As the third

largest state in the nation with a population of almost 19 million, New York's income

growth is dependent upon the finance, insurance, and real estate industries. The largest











source of revenue for New York is the personal income tax, followed by user taxes and

income taxes. State revenues remained relatively flat during the first half of the 1990s at

a time when most other states were beginning to rise. Governor Pataki's tax cuts took

effect in 1995 resulting in a meager state revenue increase of 3% from 1993 to 1996.

Competition for state funds intensified in the current decade due to the recession,

the accompanying drop in income tax and sales tax revenue, and tax cuts. The declining

state support for higher education was very pronounced in terms of budget share. From

1990 to 1995 there was a huge increase in the share of state appropriations for Medicaid.

The general funds of K-12 Education and Higher Education which respectively had a

23% and 9.3% share of the 1990 state appropriations dropped to 19.3 and 7.3 in 1995

whereas Medicaid grew from 18% to 29.4% of the appropriations in the same period.

Higher education spending in New York State fell from 9.3% of total state spending in

1990 to 7.3% in 1995 (Callan & Finney, 1997).

Unlike states with merit systems, New York has structured its state financial aid

program-Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)-as an entitlement. As tuition rates

increased, maximum TAP awards rose steadily at SUNY. Incrementally, New York has

shifted its funding from direct support of institutions to direct support of students. Until

the mid-1990s, the maximum TAP award covered 100% of tuition at the SUNY

community colleges. In fiscal year 1996 this was dropped to 90%. Student loan value

increased 50% in New York State from 1990-91 to 1994-95.

New York's community colleges have local sponsors (one or more counties) that

have financial responsibility for the colleges. In the case of College A, the county

legislature determines the sponsor share for the college. The community college local










share is included in the county budget, the same as other county agencies. The local

sponsor's share includes not only the sponsor contribution from local tax revenues but

also revenue from charge-backs from New York State residents from nonsponsor

counties for their residents, out-of-state tuition above resident rates, and the use of

college fund balances. College A has a high rate of charge-backs compared to other New

York community colleges. Local sponsors can count funds that derive from student

tuition, College A's foundation, and other nonlocal sources as a local contribution.

New York State requires matching funds for capital outlay. The community

colleges may not use general appropriations for capital construction. The average in New

York State is 50% local taxes/bonds and 50% state taxes/bonds.

To reiterate, SUNY community colleges are funded by state, local government

sponsors, and tuition and fees. State aid cannot exceed 40% of operating income and

tuition revenue is capped at one-third of the operating income. Four public policy

changes and an outmigration event caused by local army base closings and corporate

downsizing led College A to more aggressive advancement initiatives in the period under

study. These were (a) a relatively flat funding of SUNY community colleges during the

first half of the 1990s, (b) a loss in three types of categorical funding for technical

programs effective 1994-95, (c) a 10% jump in tuition for SUNY community colleges

from fiscal year 1995 to 1996 culminating in a 58% increase in tuition from 1991 to

1996, (d) a decrease in the coverage of the TAP award, and (e) a 20% enrollment drop

from 1993 to 1998.

The advancement initiatives described in this section were responses to changes

in the income streams. The president and administrators at College A made the decision









69

to retain staff while trying to ameliorate blows to student access and choice in the midst

of declining state support and increasing tuition rates. In the challenge of this period

maintenance of buildings and grounds were put on hold. Table 4-1, "Sources of Revenue

for Operations-College A," shows the percentages of operating funds for the revenue

categories in the period addressed.

For Table 4-1, note that TAP and Pell grants are digested into a percentage of the

revenue category, Tuition and Student Fees. The Technology Fee is also included in this

revenue category. The table includes operating funds only, no building construction

funds. The average breakdown for general operating funds for New York community

colleges in 1998-99 was Federal-5.70%, State-29.00%, Local-31.30%, and Tuition

and Fees-34.00 (Education Commission of the States, 2000).

Despite the bleak outlook, several factors that positively impact income

acquisition were going quite well for College A during the period of the study. The

public image of the college was, and continues to be, prestigious. The SUNY system was

shifting its focus from governing colleges to serving students and the system allowed for

its executive council to provide funding for priority items to colleges outside of the

formal budget process. College A implemented a technology fee in 1997. This fee took

some pressure off the squeeze to update technology. College A won several workforce

development grants and began to offer corporate training as a profit center. A new cost

analysis system was instituted to helping administrators to plan and have more warning

time to adjust to unanticipated fluctuations in revenue. College A came out of the 1990s

with a more cost-effective management emphasis and a ratio of 65:35 full-time to part-

time faculty, better than the statewide average.












Table 4-1. Sources of Revenue for Operations College A


SOURCE 1995-96 % 1996-97 % 1997-98 % 1998-99 % 1999-00


Tuition& Fees $10.364,993 36.4% 10,486,241 38.7% 11,367,254 38.6% 12,050,032 39.9% 12,714,821 41.0%
NYS SUS 8,392.910 29.5% 8,180,905 30.2% 7,974,320 27.1% 8,322,223 27.6% 8,766,979 28.2%
County (sponsor) 4,690.393 4,690,393 4,850,393 5.100,393 5,250,853
County (other New York 1,398.438 1,516,343 1,740,093 1.725,453 1,870,068
State counties via an
enrollment based "chargeback")
Total county 6,088,831 21.4% 6,206,736 22.9% 6,590,486 22.4% 6.825,846 22.6% 7,120,921 22.9%
Federal Grants 1,266,545 4.5% 921.328 3.4% 1,127,464 3.8% 1.056,064 3.5% 1,040,843 3.4%
State Grants 498,351 1.8% 317.781 1.2% 376,964 1.3% 418,630 1.4% 213,475 0.7%
Private Gifts 207,095 0.7% 310,098 1.1% 902,424 3.1% 336,090 1.1% 286,549 0.9%
Investment Income 331,223 1.2% 318,824 1.2% 335,548 1.1% 286,626 1.0% 373,455 1.2%
Contracts 229,844 0.8% 248,001 0.9% 134,967 0.5% 156,680 0.5% 114,167 0.4%
Sales & Services 76,127 0.3% 77,288 0.3% 75,475 0.3% 67,383 0.2% 69,783 0.2%
Other Revenue 377,093 1.3% 528,137 1.9% 459,874 1.6% 556,878 1.8% 553,948 1.8%
Fund balance 621,729 2.2% -464,240 -1.7% 82,682 0.3% 90,150 0.3% -216,018 -0.7%
TOTAL 28,454,741 100.0% 27,131,099 100.0% 29,427,458 100.0% 30,166,601 100.0% 31,038,923 100.0%

Source: SUNY annual financial report College A final report of revenues FBM 095-C1, prepared by Budget Officer, College A











Institutional Advancement and its Key Activities

College A has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,

institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,

government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni

affairs. Marketing is decentralized. The profit center of continuing education (workforce

development and contract training), and the foundation are responsible for marketing

their respective programs. The departments and the foundation take the lead of the vice-

president for student and community affairs for marketing messages. There are no

written marketing messages or targeted audiences. Marketing activities are viewed as a

low priority because administrators do not see their long-term effect.

The vice president for student and community affairs writes all press releases and

covers media relations activities. Publications, advertising, and community affairs are

also under the vice president for student and community affairs. College A publishes an

annual report as a financial statement. This is not a marketing piece.

Government relations for local relationship building is largely the responsibility

of the president, vice president for administration and financial affairs, and the vice

president for student and community affairs. SUNY administrators take responsibility for

state lobbying efforts. The corporate relations activities are under the vice president for

student and community affairs because continuing education and corporate training are

placed in this division. Institutional research is under the vice president for

administration financial affairs.

Resource development for grants management is divided between student and

community affairs and the division for academic affairs. The vice president for academic

affairs oversees the program development grants; for example, National Science









72

Foundation, and the vice president for student and community affairs monitors grants for

aid for special student audiences and workforce development grants. Grant proposals to

private agencies are managed by College A's foundation. All resource development

grants, whether from public or private sources, require presidential approval and must be

tied to an institutional priority.

The foundation raises private dollars for scholarships, equipment, professional

development, the president's discretionary fund, and capital equipment and facilities.

Foundation staff provide the marketing activities, media relations, alumni relations,

prospect research activities and website production for the foundation. Fundraising

activities and special events include an annual campaign, a planned giving program, and

relationship building with corporations and private foundations. The foundation director

is not a direct report to the president but is a welcome participant on the institutional

planning committee. The responsibility for alumni affairs is shared with the vice-

president for student and community affairs. The director of alumni affairs is a staff

report to the president, and a direct report to the vice-president of student and community

affairs with some delegated reporting to the foundation executive.


Changes in Organizational Structure of the College and Foundation 1996-2000

The erosion in state funding described above, the loss of categorical funding, and

the loss of 20% of FTE set the stage for the period under study. Although in 1993 the

organizational structure was changed to add a vice president of advancement with the

intention of bringing the foundation executive and the alumni affairs function under this

vice president, by 1995 negotiations with the foundation board had not produced this

inclusion. The vice president of advancement became the vice president for student and








73
community affairs upon the retirement of the vice president for student services. During

this same year the college president was made a permanent member of the executive

committee of the foundation board of directors.

Thus the fourth vice presidency was cut to save administrative dollars and the

direct reporting of 8 of the 10 advancement subfunctions to one vice president did not

occur (resource development under the name of sponsored programs reported to the vice

president for academic affairs and institutional research was under the vice president for

administrative and financial affairs). Student and community affairs, the most project-

oriented division, uses a more informal structure than the other divisions.

In 1999 the part-time alumni affairs/annual campaign coordinator became a direct

staff report to the president with a report to the vice president of student and community

affairs with the new title, Director of Alumni Affairs. Responsibility for writing and

publishing the alumni newsletter remained in the student and community affairs division

through 2000 while the foundation maintained the alumni database.

The position of director of institutional research, reporting to the vice president

for administrative and financial affairs, was vacant from 1996 to 1998. Two searches

were conducted without a successful outside hire. The position was filled with an internal

hire.

The foundation executive officer reports to the foundation board of directors and

is not hired by the president. Despite the lack of formal lines of authority the foundation

executive seeks approval and support from the president to ensure that every fundraising

initiative is attached to an institutional priority. In 2000 the foundation executive officer

became part of College A's institutional planning committee. College A is the only









74

community college in the state that does not use state funding to pay for foundation staff

salaries and foundation expenses.


Changes in Management Activities of Administrators and Faculty Members

During the period of the study College A's administrators faced very little

leverage in negotiating for state and county funding. Dealing with a highly politicized

environment where seven chancellors of SUNY with their respective priorities have

served in the past thirteen years, the unpredictability of the state budget timeframes also

made it hard to plan budgets. The State of New York operates on a fiscal year of April 1

through March 31. College A must have its budgets completed by June to ensure the

faculty and other resources to begin the fall academic year. College A begins forecasting

FTE funding for the fall semester. Tuition and sponsor funding are calculated in January.

The sponsor increase must be requested by May 15. The college did not get the state

budget information on base aid and TAP until June or July for some of the years of the

study and one year, September. Added to this scenario are uncertainties in sponsor

contributions because of disputes over charge-back payments to counties.

In order to maintain a greater degree of stability College A administrators began

to hold 10% of supply and equipment budget to the last quarter of the fiscal year when a

reevaluation of the budget could result in a shifting of departmental funds to meet

institutional priorities. Government relations changed with the county sponsor when a

new interpretation in Plan C (the legislation that specifies the relationships between

community colleges and local sponsors) was negotiated. Fiscal responsibility was

delegated to the community college board of trustees within the terms of the approved

budget. The sponsors relinquished authority of line item, preapproval audit of










expenditures. Although a new county executive may interpret Plan C differently than a

predecessor, the president and vice presidents have been able to negotiate with the

sponsor once per year to maintain this interpretation.

During the period of the study, the state FTE funding policy provides incentives

for College A to focus on relatively lower cost liberal arts and science programs and low-

cost, high enrollment professional programs to generate FTE numbers. There is little

incentive for innovative technology programs, economic development initiatives with no

immediate payoff, or entering into partnerships that may serve students better but not

generate FTE. The local sponsors do not fund colleges on the basis of FTE or level of

service. For the 5 years studied, the county sponsor has tolerated funding increases for

inflation costs for goods and services only.

Technical programs have been hit hard at College A. The categorical funding

dropped in fiscal year 1994-95 included $82 per FTE for business courses, $195 per FTE

for technical programs, and $212 aid for disadvantaged students allocated on a headcount

basis. College A's state funding is formulated on a credit basis. Even though the FTE

funding is the same for liberal arts credit programs and applied science certification

programs the certification programs are underfunded because the state formula does not

cover the costs of clinical and lab science components. In discussing the erosion of state

funding for technical programs the vice president for academic affairs lamented,

"SUNY's message is to jettison applied science or get money from the county or students

to support it." Foundation and sponsor dollars have been used to cover some lab fees for

the more expensive technology programs. Delaying the maintenance and replacement of

equipment during 1993 and 1997 along with a growing reliance on new technology to









76

deliver education and training led to the institution of a technology fee in 1997. By 1999-

2000 the technology fee added $300,000 in annual revenue to the operating budget.

As a result of the squeeze for dollars, the college has made a new prioritization

process for technological purchase decisions. Deans, vice presidents, the president and

his executive council are involved in technological purchase decisions. "The dollars are

so scarce it [decisions about technological purchases] has risen to the level of executive

decision."

In considering program mix as an income acquisition and management strategy,

the vice president for academic affairs said that this strategy cannot be pursued without

an increase in marketing data and dollars. "We tend to see enrollment drops as a change

in community interest rather than attempting to drive the interest in programs. We react

to enrollment shifts through the use of our advisory committees to spark interest and

determine direction." In his role as chief integrator and planner, the president has

communicated that strategies to increase market share will require greater marketing

competencies. Other administrators echo this thought. They described the need for

marketing data and external scanning to complete a SWOT analysis. As of 2000 no

money was budgeted for these activities. There is no marketing plan. Enrollment is used

as an indicator of the market demand. "The vice president for student and community

affairs directs each marketing activity under a generally agreed-upon strategy."

In the attempt to generate revenue by generating FTE, College A has been

successful in enrolling international students and distance education students. In 1999-

2000 international students comprised 100 FTEs and the college enrollment numbers

were in the top quartile in the state for community colleges offering distance learning.

Dual enrollment of high school students increased this same year generating tuition and











FTEs. During the period of the study College A instituted a retention tracking

system--CONNIX to monitor student persistence.

College A began to use private dollars to start professional training programs

during the period of the study. Its nursing program expansion was the most extensive

example with a grant from a hospital foundation to College A's foundation. The vice

president for academic affairs has taken on a greater role in proposal writing for program

startups and expansions. Planning with the foundation for the capital campaign for a

health science building and proposals for equipment for engineering technology were

new administrative tasks during the latter half of the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000 the

academic chief officer doubled the time spent on grant proposal writing and grants

management to six weeks of work time per year. "It takes more time to use resources

more strategically and there is more reporting and accountability for evaluation of grants

projects."

In 1995 the vice president for academic affairs spent most of his time on

curriculum development and review. By 2000 he spent most of his time on reviewing

cost structures, process improvement, efficiency, and faculty load. He supervised the

process for 20 faculty members (out of 160 full-time) who applied for grants during the

period of the study. By writing grants objectives into the strategic plan, both the

foundation executive and the sponsored grants director have assisted faculty in becoming

more aware of the availability of private and public dollars. "With the players [grant

proposal writers] scattered across divisions and departments we attempt to have

cohesiveness through committee work." Administrators have proposed a "Teaching and

Learning Center" division as a faculty development function that could orient faculty to,

and develop skills in, advancement activities.









78

There are three private, and two public colleges and universities within a 50-mile

radius of College A. The abundance of institutions of higher education is both an

advantage and disadvantage when looking to increase enrollment, roll out new programs,

and raise private dollars. College A's president decided upon a growth strategy for online

courses and technology upgrades in order to compete with other institutions.

Implementation of competitive strategies is hampered by the difficulty of compliance in

registering new programs and the lengthy process. Under New York State regulations,

new registrations for curricula are required for changes in title, focus, design,

requirements for completion, or mode of delivery. College A's president commented

upon the challenges of beating the competition in the online and corporate training

business, "The registration process is too long for us to be a highly responsive

community college." Given these constraints, College A has done well implementing a

recruitment strategy for high school students. Over the last 10 years, College A has

captured 21% to 39% of the yield of high school graduates in their district.

The director of continuing education managed $3 million in state grants for

workforce development during the period of the study. Sources of corporate training

grants are federal, within the SUNY system, and through member item funding through a

local senator. College A received the funding for its EXCEL center from an annual

member item. A consortia grant with the local university brought $750,000 and federal

funding through a state block grant brought $450,000. The director of continuing

education works with the director of sponsored programs to stay in compliance with the

strategic goals of the college. Two new tactics were used to gain more grant dollars. The

College partnered with nonprofit organizations for sharing costs and profits of hiring

speakers for professional association events. Joint ventures with online training










companies were sought and negotiated for the College to serve as a broker for

customized training.

The director for continuing education has tried to gain grants for training for

companies to administer their own training as a service but this created frustration. "The

companies want grants but don't want to write the proposals and [don't want to] stick to

the requirements of the grant." For example, a grant may require class lists by date, social

security number, age, and ethnic background. In managing these types of grants the

college had no control over these administrative tasks.

Corporate training acquires more money than it costs. Net income from corporate

training under the directorate of community education was $221,093 over the period of

the study. The marketing activities of research to determine what price the market would

bear, advertising design, and relationship building with corporate training directors

became the regular responsibilities of this unit. During the period of the study the

continuing education director began to collect benchmarking data on community colleges

with similar course offerings. "We could use a strong marketing plan for the department.

We use a project management model and rely heavily on the publications department for

art, catalogs, and brochures. It helps that we are all under the same division vice

president. At staff meetings have representation from every department." The continuing

education department began the practice of briefing the foundation executive on

corporate and business and industry news to enhance her relationship building with

corporate CEOs.

To foster greater communication between those prospecting and writing public

and private grant proposals and to give attention to the thought process of how the grants

may impact other departments and college priorities, a standardized form was developed










by the budget officer. The use of this standardized form has created a greater

understanding of writing case statements with objectives that are tied to institutional

priorities. One administrator defined the resource development function as "not on the

organizational chart. It's like tentacles that no one can map on the chart. Personal

relationships make things happen rather than planned [efforts]." The foundation director

is expected to form the necessary relationships with administrators in order to support

institutional objectives.

The purpose of College A's foundation has shifted since its initial focus on

indigent students to supporting students through the maintenance of quality programs,

funding specific projects, and capital. In 1995-96 College A's foundation raised $1.2 in

private dollars for a health science center to add to $8.5 million in building funds from

the state. A local foundation grant and gifts from individuals made up this first capital

campaign for the college. To assist in a greater understanding of college priorities among

foundation board members, College A board of trustees are encouraged to join the

foundation board when they rotate off the College board. From 1996 to 2000 the

foundation has assumed increasing responsibility for administrative costs, donor research

costs, and new hires.

Foundation disbursements to the operating budget were $207,095 for 1995-96,

$310,098 for 1996-97, $902,424 for 1997-98, $336,090 for 1998-99, and $286,549 for

1999-00. Most of the funds were allocated to enhance professional/staff/faculty

development opportunities, to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, and for

scholarships, equipment, programs, and capital projects. The spike in funding from the

foundation to the operating budget occurred during the capital campaign for the health

sciences building. Although New York State requires a 50% match from the local








81

sponsor for capital outlay, this match did not take place for the new building. College A's

foundation raised $1.2 million toward the sponsor's match, plus $1 million for equipment

for the building.

Student financial assistance has always been the priority of the foundation but

pressure to find more dollars for scholarships grew as College A's students faced tuition

hikes of the 1990s and a decrease in the coverage of the TAP award. Student need for

financial aid increased from 48 percent of the total student population in 1994-94 to 85

percent in 1999-2000. The pressure from SUNY to increase tuition continued throughout

the period of the study. College A did not reach the tuition cap of one-third of the

operating income.

The local county sponsor can claim foundation support to the college's operating

budget as part of its contribution. Restricted private dollars and grants from the

foundation are revenues offset to expenses in the line items of the individual

departments. This support from the foundation is usually for scholarships, but

technological equipment purchases, program and capital support, and faculty

development dollars are increasing. In deciding income acquisition strategy for the

foundation College A is caught between the perceptions of the county sponsor and

individual donors. "If the county thinks you can get private dollars, then they will stiff

you. The more successful we are [in fundraising] the less we will get from the county.

The donors know it and want to see a positive gain." The foundation executive pitches

ideas to the president to get around this dilemma. One solution had been funding

endowed chairs.

The leadership of the income acquisition and management system is a formal link

based upon tradition and the chemistry that exists between the president, executive









82

director of the foundation, the vice president for administration and finance, and the vice

president for student and community affairs. In 2000 the foundation executive officer

became part of College A's institutional planning committee. This access helped the

foundation executive to target her work on external relationships and receive internal

news and information, especially from the academic units in a more timely fashion.

Armed with more specific faculty and program needs, the foundation executive has

focused on educating faculty about using foundation funds for the institutional priorities.

"I encourage them to focus on 'the big stuff in regard to professional development

assistance or program grants. We don't want to tell people that we did the little things...

put it [the foundation effort] where it counts."

In her reporting relationship as staff to the president, the foundation director

attempts to support the role of the president as the chief fundraiser. In day-to-day

operations during the period of the study the foundation director "sets up the deals and

the president closes the sale."


IIAM Continuum

College A has all of the key activities of advancement and many of the elements

of strategic management. During the period under study College A approached

institutional planning as a consultative process using implicit strategy rather than a

formal strategic planning process. Strategic planning is easier to do in times of relative

stability than in times of crisis. During a crisis, strategic planning loads the organization

with more work when it is highly stressed. This College was coming out of crisis during

the period of the study. The administrators described a general attitude of cynicism

regarding strategic planning as too elaborate a process. The president prefers "organic








83

planning-something akin to a guided missile system that gives regular feedback used to

re-align targets" rather than written plans.

There was a general consensus among the advancement units and other academic

units on the problems faced by the college although they had not developed a formal

strategic plan. At the close of the period of study College A had reached a more stable

mode and its institutional planning committee was searching for a strategic planning

process appropriate for its culture, consensual environment, and complex state

governance system. There is a need for a common lexicon for the institutional planning

committee regarding management and planning terms, goals, objectives, and strategic

management. Difficulty distinguishing between strategic and operational objectives was

observed at the 2001 annual planning retreat.

In 1999, the foundation funded consulting fees for Michael Dolence, an expert on

higher education strategic planning, to come to campus to discuss how to get started. The

foundation executive had a role in the attempt to gain clarity in defining College A's

strategic goals. The push for a strategic planning system is shared with the institutional

research director.

The first annual planning retreat was held in 2000 with a goal of linking the

planning process to institutional assessment and resource allocation. By the 2002

planning retreat the institutional planning committee was beginning to discuss a new

system for choosing institutional priorities and implementing objectives. The dialogue

continues on how to align organizational structure and assignment of responsibility,

appropriate allocation of resources, and institutional effectiveness monitoring to this new

planning system.










College A began at Stage Ill of the IIAM Continuum Model in fiscal year 1995-

1996. College A experienced greater integration of its income acquisition and

management system. Organizational effectiveness was enhanced by this greater

integration. There was evidence of greater support of the advancement function by the

president, especially fundraising. College A did not demonstrate a strategic management

system as illustrated in Figure 2-1 by fiscal year 1999-2000, thus did not move to

Stage IV.


Conclusion

In the case analysis of College A eight themes emerged from the 28 categories of

the coded data. They are

1. Decentralization of structure with use of project teams.
2. Foundation planning integrated with institutional planning.
3. More resources committed to advancement.
4. Efforts at transparency of management.
5. Linking planning and budgeting.
6. Shortened strategic cycles for income acquisition and management.
7. Academic administrators and faculty expanded development responsibility.
8. Greater information sharing.

College A's assumption for income acquisition and management strategy is tied to these

themes. The financial stability of College A depended upon striking a balance between

funding for fixed costs (i.e., buildings, equipment, and personnel) and funding for more

transitory programming that serves a need and then disappears, requiring resources for

development of new short-term programming.

College A is building capacity to acquire more varied revenue streams and to

continue to integrate its income acquisition and management system. As FTE formula

funding, categorical funding, and TAP funding eroded the revenue from the county,

tuition and fees, public grants, private grants and private gifts increased.










Like the ship that has weathered the storm, College A has withstood the hard

years of 1992 to 1998. In recognition of the need to take the ship to the harbor and mend

the sails, the administrators have focused on planning systems and the income acquisition

and management system. It is a handsome and inherently seaworthy ship.


College B


Profile of College B

College B is located on the east coast of Florida. Serving four counties, the

college has five campuses with about 40,000 students and 9,320 FTE in 1999-2000. One

FTE equals 30 annualized credit hours. The college's district is experiencing high

population growth. Population projections for the four counties anticipate growth from

448,190 in 1998 to 497,091 in 2003, and 543,786 in 2006.

College B had a $58 million operating budget in 1999-2000 and construction

funds of $32 million. The College received 56.35% of operating budget from state

allocations in fiscal year 1996 and 58.38% in fiscal year 2000. In the State of Florida

community colleges receive no local per capital appropriations. The state funding per

capital for community colleges was slightly lower than the national average of $49 at

$48.47 in 1998-1999. For 1998-1999 the average expenditure per student per FTE in

Florida was $ 4,810 and the amount of state support per FTE was $3,351. Florida policy

sets tuition for community colleges at no more than 25-30% of the cost of instruction.

The foundation serving College B, begun in 1965, raised $2 million in 1999-2000

with a foundation operating budget of $147,000. Total foundation assets were $31.7

million for 1999-2000.










The per capital costs for Florida community college students historically have

been well below the cost of the public universities in Florida, making a case for the cost-

effectiveness of the 28 community colleges. Although in constant dollars the Florida

community college system's total revenues and spending have grown over the period of

the study the system is receiving a smaller percentage of the state's general revenue

higher education dollars (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government

Accountability [OPPAGA], 1997).

As part of the change in the governing system for higher education in 2001,

Florida dismissed its coordinating board for community colleges. The Florida Board of

Education, an overall board for K-20 appointed by Governor Bush, was instituted to

establish educational goals, implement policy, and recommend the education budget. A

commissioner of education, also appointed by the governor, oversees the chancellor of

community colleges, the chancellor of colleges and universities, the chancellor of public

schools, and the executive director of the division of independent education (private

schools and universities). The chancellors are appointed by the Florida Board of

Education. Higher education institutions retained local boards of trustees. Community

college literature often cites Florida as one of the states most subject to legislative

micromanagement (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001).

Florida requires community colleges to report on specific performance indicators.

These are (a) the totals of Associate in Arts degrees awarded, (b) the total of Associate in

Science degrees awarded, (c) the total Postsecondary vocational certificates (PSV)

completed (1/2 counted), (d) the total Postsecondary adult vocational certificates (PSAV)

completed (1/2 counted), (e) number of graduates with targeted characteristics

(remediation, economically disadvantaged, disabled, English as a Second











Language//ENS, and African American Males) and (f) partial completers who were

placed in a job or transferred to the state university system. The community colleges can

draw upon "new money" as a source for performance based funding.

In 1996 the Florida legislature began performance-based budgeting for

community colleges with a $12 million allocation for workforce development. The new

funding was provided to the community college system based upon performance at each

institution. The new funding represented 2% to 3% of base funding. By the 1999

legislative session $23 million was allocated for distribution to the colleges based upon

the college's percentage of the system total of increased number of students in the

performance indicator categories. The colleges receive 85% of prior year funding

allocation and 15% of prior year performance-completions/placements per the measures

described above.

The general revenue for Florida community colleges is an FTE base plus system

for the A.A. degree programs. Florida funds noncredit certificate programs through each

college's base operating dollars for workforce development programs. Dual enrollment

courses do not generate support through FTE and are not funded as part of college

appropriation. Adult basic education is funded through the Workforce Development

Program at less than 1.0 FTE. The tuition rate charged for distance education is the same

as the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students.

The Florida Resident Access Grant (FRAG) gives tuition assistance to almost any

full-time undergraduate student registered at an accredited independent, nonprofit college

or university. A tuition voucher award, FRAG is not need nor merit based. Florida

legislature limited the state-funded credit hours to 60 for an associate degree.










Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000

In 1995-1996 as the Florida economy was recovering from the economic

recession of the early 1990s. The stagnated state revenues from sales tax (70% of state

revenue) and business tax (25% of state revenue) fell below budget projections in 1990,

1992, and 1992 as the demand for state services escalated. Voters demanded no new

taxes and state funding for higher education stagnated and then kept pace with inflation

from 1993-1994 to 1995-1996. From 1990-91 to 1995-96 student enrollment headcountt)

increased by 7.5%. Appropriations per student dropped to below the 1990-1991 level.

This restricted situation was compounded by tuition rates that ranked 31st in the nation

and tuition was not raised substantially during the first half of the 1990s. The average

full-time annual fees for Florida's community colleges rose from $766 in 1990-1991 to

$1,052 in 1994-95.

The drop in the share of state spending for higher education was faster than the

national average: from fiscal year 1994-1995 to 1995-1996 the U.S. average went from

6.1% to 6.0% of the state budget and in this same period Florida went from spending

6.0% of its state budget on higher education to 5.25% (Callan & Finney, 1997, p. 111).

For fiscal year 1997-98, of the entire state education budget, the community

colleges received 4.34% of the general tax revenue and 5.18% of the lottery funds for a

total of 4.52% of all the state funds to the state's educational system. For 2000-2001 this

total slipped to barely 4%.

State lottery funds are a distant second to sales tax for Florida community college

system revenue. The 1999-2000 total state appropriations to the community college

system were $847,557,728, of which $750,387,728 was from general revenue and

$97,170,000 was lottery funds. Lottery funds provide no new source of revenue but are










an internal distribution now used to fund performance-based programs. There are

additional performance-based budget grants. The Workforce Development Fund is

performance-based. The Special Categories are five pots of monies-mostly challenge

grants and matching funds.

In 1996-97 College B was ranked second lowest in Associates in Arts

expenditures per FTE student among the 28 Florida community colleges at slightly less

than $3,000 with a system average of $3,491. The same year College B was ranked third

lowest in Associate in Science Program expenditures per FTE student among the system

colleges at about $3,250 with a system average of $4,160. For Continuing Education

expenditures per FTE during this year, College B ranked 7th lowest of the 28 colleges at

close to $3,400 with a system average of $4,222. For College Preparatory Program

Expenditures per FTE student, College B ranked 8th highest at slightly over $4,000 with

a system average of $3,647. In reviewing these figures with College B's administrators, it

was clear that the cost of an FTE for "college prep" had outstripped the cost of an FTE

for A. A., A. S., and continuing education.

Up to fiscal year 1995-1996 Florida's community colleges were rewarded for

increasing access for high school students with dual enrollment funded at 1.25 FTE. This

ratio was decreased to 1.0 FTE in 1996-1997. The state ceased funding dual enrollment

in 1999-2000. College B considers dual enrollment a part of its access mission. To cover

the dual enrollment program funds were taken from other areas. One administrator

explained, "Most of the programs that we have grown in are fee-exempt programs like

dual enrollment or occupational programs with nonrecurring dollars or the funding was

frozen particularly in [fiscal year] 1999 and 2000." Investing in the development of










programs that are partially funded by the state and then seeing those new programs not

receive recurrent funding has led to dilution.

Adult basic education is funded through the Workforce Development Program at

less than 1.0 FTE. Because it is considered a service to the community, adult basic

education for those who can't read, do not have a high school diploma, or speak English

as a second language, is hard to get fully funded." The State of Florida has 50% high

school dropout rate and its community colleges have the primary responsibility for

workforce development, remedial education, and basic skills training for adults.

Although the funding for the Florida community college system total FTE

declined over the period of the study, there has been incremental increases for College B

because College B was growing during a period of time when most other community

college in Florida were experiencing declines in enrollment. As a growing school in a

time of overall system decline, College B saw the tendency of the legislature is to give

minimum incremental funding to all schools. As a growing school College B did not get

funded proportionally for growth. (An equalization formula was sought during period of

the study to adjust for this situation and was put into effect in 2000-2001.)

Florida schools are funded for the enrollment of the prior year. For the years

under study the school experienced high enrollment growth with the corresponding

faculty, technical infrastructure, and facility cost increases. "We remained behind the

curve on maintenance, hiring full-time faculty, providing support services, and staff

development." In addition the number of at-risk students increased dramatically requiring

more federal grants for student services.

Workforce funding had some unintended affects. "Workforce initiatives were

supposed to be performance-based. In response, every college [in the system] performed










better but there was no increase in the pool of money [from the state]. As a result if a

college received more money for performance it was out of the pocket of another

college." College B administrators agree that advancement dollars are needed more

greatly by the occupational programs for quick response and the ability to impact

accountability measures than for AA degree programs where accountability measures

have not yet been implemented and where funding is more stable.

In fiscal year 1996 College B received workforce development funds in the form

of Florida Department of Labor grants. In 1997, mostly in response to federal legislation

that eliminated the number of players and layers in the labor system, Florida restructured

its services and dismantled the Department of Labor. It was replaced by a One Stop

Center system. College B administrators found that state workforce development grants

were difficult to administer because the federal mandate on the One Stop System was

incongruent with the mandates on other federal dollars that flowed through the state.

Table 4-2, "Sources of Revenue for Operations-College B," shows the

percentage changes in funding sources in relation to one another for the 5 years under

study. The table includes operating funds only from the general fund, restricted fund, and

auxiliary fund. The auxiliary category includes revenue from the College bookstore,

foodservice and computer sales to departments. No construction funds are included. The

average breakdown for general operating funds for Florida community colleges in 1998-

99 was Federal-.25%. State-68.51%, Local-.02%, Tuition and Fees-23.06%, and

Other-8.00%. Source does not equal 100% (Education Commission of the States,

2000).












Table 4-2. Sources of Revenue for Operations-College B


SOURCE 1995-96 % 1996-97 % 1997-98 % 1998-99 % 1999-00 %

Tuition & Fees $7,425,348 17.51% 7.933,288 17.18% 8,259,552 16.22% 9,067,370 16.48% 9,418.480 16.15%

FLCC Approp 23,889,707 56.35% 26,561,764 57.53% 30.578,914 60.06% 32,058,440 58.28% 34,035,858 58.38%

Local Govt 30.794 0.07% 52.895 0.11% 76,150 0.15% 104,753 0.19% 50,653 0.09%

Federal Grants 4,133,086 9.75% 4,647,012 10.06% 4,724,846 9.28% 5,168,363 9.40% 5,234,437 8.98%

State Grants 1.222,894 2.88% 1,251,875 2.71% 1,497,222 2.94% 2,021,273 3.67% 2,352,464 4.03%

Private Gifts, Grants,
Contracts 547901 1.29% 855,326 1.85% 259,056 0.51% 742,124 1.35% 664,683 1.14%

Investment Income 494,422 1.17% 579,332 1.25% 652,725 1.28% 554,056 1.01% 709,608 1.22%

Sales & Services 189,166 0.45% 211,491 0.46% 289,264 0.57% 581,830 1.06% 542,853 0.93%

Auxiliary 3,667,523 8.65% 3,666,620 7.94% 4,220,871 8.29% 4,483,810 8.15% 4,792,105 8.22%

Other Income 795601 1.88% 410818 0.89% 352470 0.69% 228425 0.42% 500741 0.86%

TOTAL $42,396,442 100.00% 46,170.421 100.00% 50,911,070 100.00% 55,010,444 100.00% 58,301,882 100.00%

Source: College B Vice President for Administration and Finance










Institutional Advancement and its Key Activities

College B has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,

institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,

government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni

affairs. Most marketing activities are centralized for the college under the director of

institutional advancement who reports to the associate vice- president/provost for the

main campus. Enrollment management is decentralized as a responsibility of the campus

presidents and instructional deans with direction from the associate vice-

president/provost of the main campus. The college foundation provides its own

marketing activities with assistance from the advancement office.

Media relations, publications, and community affairs are centralized under the

director of institutional advancement. Corporate relations are decentralized with

responsibility resting with the five campus provosts, the vice-president for applied

science and technology and the three workforce development administrators and deans

under his division. The assistant dean of research and reports, who provides for the state

reporting, manages institutional research.

Government relations is covered by the president with assistance from the board

of trustees and the president's executive council. College B uses the services of a

resource development firm in Washington, D.C. to earmark discretionary funds. The firm

provides an electronic listing of federal and private grant opportunities that match

College B's institutional priorities. The planning and program development office covers

the resource development function for federally funded grants such as Pell, Title III and

Department of Education TRIO grants (GEAR UP, CROP, Upward Bound, and Talent

Search) Perkins, Title IV, and the National Science Foundation; and state workforce











development grants. Curriculum development grants from private sources are sought in

conjunction with the foundation executive director. For example, seed money for the

Upward Bound programs was acquired through a foundation proposal to the Kellogg

Foundation. The resource development subfunction is decentralized and project-based as

teams of faculty members write proposals with the coaching of the associate vice-

president for planning and program development.

Fundraising from individuals, private foundations, and corporations is centralized

with the college foundation. No public dollars are deposited with the foundation. Placing

donated dollars with the foundation as a 501 (c ) 3 organization gives a higher investment

yield as state regulations for college investing are more stringent. The foundation

executive director reports to the president as an administrative staff member with 40% of

her time dedicated to fundraising and 60% of her time managing the foundation. The

foundation raises money for scholarships, endowed chairs, instructional equipment,

faculty and staff development, special projects, and capital campaigns. There is no

alumni campaign. The foundation began building a database of former students and

reestablishing a relationship with them in 2001. The foundation plans and implements its

special events using foundation operating budget dollars and assistance from publications

department for invitations and programs.

The foundation board of directors aligns the foundation mission and priorities

with College B's planning statements. For the 5 years under study College B's

foundation was in an aggressive growth stage to prepare for its first capital campaign.

The assets of the foundation tripled, endowed chairs were funded, and annual campaigns

grew markedly. Donors are sensitive to the fact that the community college receives state




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ED4NVN8CU_PW48HC INGEST_TIME 2013-10-24T20:27:26Z PACKAGE AA00017703_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES