<%BANNER%>

The relationship of selected institutional variables to community college foundation revenue

HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Review of related literatur...
 3. Design of the study
 4. Analysis of data
 5. Conclusions, implications, and...
 Appendix A. Persons included in...
 Appendix B. Cover letter for first...
 Appendix C. Evaluation form for...
 Appendix D. Persons included in...
 Appendix E. Cover letter for second...
 Appendix F. Evaluation form for...
 Appendix G. Survey cover lette...
 Appendix H. Community college external...
 References
 Biographical sketch
 
MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of selected institutional variables to community college foundation revenue
Physical Description:
xi, 118 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Carrier, Sharon McEntee
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.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sharon McEntee Carrier.
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 - 029641946
oclc - 51947295
System ID:
AA00017704:00001

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of selected institutional variables to community college foundation revenue
Physical Description:
xi, 118 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Carrier, Sharon McEntee
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.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sharon McEntee Carrier.
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 - 029641946
oclc - 51947295
System ID:
AA00017704:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Dedication
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Table of Contents
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    List of Tables
        Page ix
    Abstract
        Page x
        Page xi
    1. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    2. Review of related literature
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    3. Design of the study
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
    4. Analysis of data
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    5. Conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further research
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Appendix A. Persons included in first review panel for survey instrument validation
        Page 81
    Appendix B. Cover letter for first review panel
        Page 82
        Page 83
    Appendix C. Evaluation form for first review panel
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
    Appendix D. Persons included in second review panel for survey instrument validation
        Page 87
    Appendix E. Cover letter for second review panel
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Appendix F. Evaluation form for second review panel
        Page 90
        Page 91
    Appendix G. Survey cover letter
        Page 92
        Page 93
    Appendix H. Community college external funding survey
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
    References
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
    Biographical sketch
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
Full Text










THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION REVENUE













By

SHARON McENTEE CARRIER


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



















to my
mother and father














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for my dissertation chair Dr. Dale F. Campbell and cochair

Dr. Barbara J. Keener. From the beginning of my graduate studies at the University of

Florida, Dr. Campbell inspired me to think about the future educational needs of students,

the valuable role of community colleges, and the leadership needed in higher education. I

am indebted to Dr. Keener, who initiated this research study and sustained it through her

continued enthusiasm, guidance, and support. I greatly appreciate my two dissertation

committee members, Dr. Anne Seraphine and Dr. David Honeyman. From Dr. Seraphine,

I gained the confidence and skills I needed for quantitative research; I am thankful for her

teaching and advising. I also thank Dr. David Honeyman, whose pragmatic suggestions

helped me to structure this dissertation and whose sense of humor helped me to get

through it.

I wish to acknowledge Dr. James Wattenbarger. During classes, he shared the

history of community colleges as his own personal story, and, in conversations, he could

be counted on for his sage advice and common sense. Dr. Karen Luke Jackson was also

very helpful to me as I developed this study. I am grateful for her inspiration and

generosity. I thank the professionals associated with the Council for Resource

Development for their suggestions and support.

At Rollins College, there are many people to thank. I appreciate the

encouragement I received from faculty-especially Dr. Edward J. Harrell, Dr. Larry Holt,

and Dr. Sandra McIntire-and staff, particularly, Marianne Bartman and Laura Salmen.









I also appreciate the expertise kindly provided to me by Dr. James Eck. Without the

support I received from Dr. Patricia Lancaster, I would not have been able to take all the

classes required for my degree while working full time. I thank her for providing me with

the opportunities to advance in my career and for being a valued mentor and loyal friend.

I also thank Dr. James Malek for his trust and belief in me, for the professional

opportunities he has afforded me, and for his integrity and magnanimous example. I

value the tremendous benefit I have had of learning from Dr. Rita Bornstein, Rollins

College's thirteenth president, who exemplifies what presidential commitment to

philanthropy can do to enhance a college. I greatly appreciate her personal

encouragement and inspiration.

Amanda Cosat and Sherry Meaders deserve my special acknowledgment and

thanks. As study partners in the doctoral program, we developed a close and lasting

friendship. Together, we shared intellectual development, laughter, personal trials, and

professional triumphs. I am indebted to them for their understanding and support and for

making the journey enjoyable. To my doctoral cohort peers, who know the true meaning

of "commitment," I am grateful for the learning and personal bonds we still share.

I wish to express my love and appreciation for my late father, William James

McEntee, who, as an educator, set my path and gave me the strength to pursue this

degree; my mother, Agnes Bentley McEntee, whose love and belief in me will forever

sustain me; my sister, Arleen McEntee, who often helped me by listening and offering

her insight and advice; and my sister, Linda McEntee Kallner, who lifted my spirits with

her humor, wisdom, and unwavering confidence in me.









I could not have completed this doctoral program without Dr. Henry Nash Carrier,

my husband, whose love and support, devotion to family, and self-sacrifice made it

possible for me to pursue my dreams. Our children, Chelsea Katherine and Nathan

Henry-ages 8 and 10 upon completion of my doctoral program-deserve my heartfelt

thanks for their support, understanding, and love.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................... ................................................... ix

A B STRA C T ......................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................

Statement of the Problem ................................................... ...................... 4
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms....................................................................................... 9
Delimitations and Limitations ...................................................................... 12
D elim itations...................................................................................... 12
L im itations............................................................................................ .. 12
Significance of the Study .......................................................................... 13
Overview of the Methodology..................................................................... 14
Sum m ary .................................................... ............................................. 15

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .....................................................18

System s Theory .............................................................................................18
Institutional Advancement ........................................................................20
The Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education.................................22
Community Colleges and Private Fund Raising.................................. ....25
Outcome Measures Defining Successful Foundation Performance .................27
Foundation Revenue Sources ....................................................................30
Individuals .......................................................................................30
Community Organizations and Corporations .........................................31
External Foundations.........................................................................3 1
State Matching Programs..................................................................32
Endowment Interest and Investments ....................................................32
Variables Associated with Successful Foundation Performance ...................33
Allocation of Resources to the Foundation Operation..........................33
Roles of President, Chief Development Officer, and Foundation
Board Member ............................................................................34









Meeting Institutional Strategic Goals............................. ...... .......... 40
College Geographic Location ...........................................................42
C college Size ................................................................. ......................44
College Endowment ...........................................................................45
Sum m ary .................................................................................................47

3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY ..........................................................................49

Instrum entation ............................................................................................. 49
Research Population................................................................................... 51
Procedure for Data Collection ........................................................................51
Statement of Variables ........................................................................... 52
Descriptive Profiles................................................................................53
Research Hypotheses .................................................... ...................56
Sum m ary ..................................................... ............................................ 57

4 ANALYSIS OF DATA..........................................................................59

Introduction ...................................................................................................59
Research Population................................................. ...............................61
D descriptive R results ..................................................................................... 61
Multiple Regression Results.......................................................................62
Sum m ary .................................................... ............................................. 65

5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH........................................................................67

Introduction .............................................................................................. 67
A nalysis................................................................................................... ... 68
C conclusions .............................................................................................. 69
Im plications .............................................................................................. 75
Suggestions for Further Research...................................................................78

APPENDIX

A PERSONS INCLUDED IN FIRST REVIEW PANEL FOR SURVEY
INSTRUMENT VALIDATION...........................................................81

B COVER LETTER FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL ......... ............. 83

C EVALUATION FORM FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL ................................ 85

D PERSONS INCLUDED IN SECOND REVIEW PANEL FOR SURVEY
INSTRUMENT VALIDATION.........................................................87

E COVER LETTER FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL....................................89









F EVALUATION FORM FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL ............... .......91

G SURVEY COVER LETTER...................................................................93

H COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY...................95

R E FE R E N C E S...................................................................................................... 104

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................ ................. ...................................118













LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1 Profile of Sample by CRD Region ........................................ ............ ... 53

2 Profile of Sample by College Structure ................................... ............ 54

3 Profile of Sample by Geographic Location............................. ............ .. 54

4 Profile of Sample by Foundation Office Establishment Decade.................... 55

5 Descriptive Statistics of Outcome and Explanatory Variables................... 62

6 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standardized Regression
Coefficients, t-test Statistics, and Semi-Partial r-squares..................... 64














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

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION REVENUE

By

Sharon McEntee Carrier

December 2002

Chair: Dale F. Campbell
Cochair: Barbara J. Keener
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations

This study examined the annual revenue gained by community college

foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the literature with successful

foundation performance. Systems theory provided the conceptual framework for

analyzing the foundation subsystem's interconnections and interdependencies with its

next higher system level, the college.

The outcome variable was the amount of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999

from individuals, community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state

matching programs, and endowment interest and investments. The explanatory variables

were the foundation operating budget; degree to which the president, chief resource

development officer, and foundation board member individually were rated as playing a

critical role in the foundation operation; degree to which meeting institutional strategic









goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; college

geographic location; college size; and college endowment.

The population was limited to two-year United States public community colleges

that held membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more

years between 1998 and 2001. Data were obtained primarily through a survey instrument,

which was completed by a resource development professional at each institution.

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, and it was concluded that

the regression model accounted for approximately half of the variance in foundation

revenue, indicating a good overall fit of the selected explanatory variables to the outcome

variable and a strong joint association that holds for the population. Of the explanatory

variables, those having a significant and positive relationship to foundation revenue were

college endowment, foundation board member, and college size.

Conclusions regarding the significant and insignificant variables were presented,

and implications were addressed from a systems perspective. Further research was

recommended regarding the president's role at various system levels-external and

internal to the college-as related to resource development. A more in-depth analysis of

how community college foundation operations are funded was suggested so that the

relationship of foundation operating budgets to foundation revenues can be compared

consistently across institutions. Follow-up studies were recommended to examine

foundation revenue relative to external influences on the college, endowment investment

policies and spending rates, foundation board functions, and donor motivation.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Philanthropic giving to community colleges is a relatively recent and increasingly

essential activity (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Financial support of public community

colleges, historically, has come from local and state taxes and tuition fees (Wattenbarger,

1982). Due to declining state and local tax support, public community colleges have had

to rely more on additional external revenue sources for basic operations (Merisotis &

Wolanin, 2000; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). It has been suggested, however, that, as

service providers, community colleges could suffer potentially detrimental effects over

time through increased dependence on private funds to balance their budgets (Bock &

Sullins, 1987). Yet, the role of resource development in community colleges is an

important means of diversifying the community college funding base (Glass & Jackson,

1998b).

The percent of all state appropriations to higher education in the early 1990s

ranged from 12% to 15% and by mid-decade had fallen to about 8% to 11%. Contributing

factors including the recession of the early 1990s, a fiscally conservative stance at all

government levels, a near moratorium on raising taxes, and increasing public demand for

services caused states to absorb the additional burden for funding public programs.

Increased spending for medical services, corrections, K-12 education, welfare, and

various public agencies compressed the funds available for higher education (Alfred,









1996; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996). Compounding the problem has been the rejection, on the

part of voters, of any new tax proposals (Lorenzo, 1994; Parsons, 1994).

In response to unsteady tax-dollar support and cuts in state appropriations, public

colleges and universities increasingly have sought and relied upon support from the

private sector (Moore, 2000). Private support of higher education, of course, is not a new

phenomenon. Colleges have engaged in efforts to secure funds to operate since the first

documented mission in 1641 to send three clergymen to England on Harvard's behalf

(Cutlip, 1965/1990). The Kansas University Endowment Association, established in

1893, was the first institutionally affiliated foundation to be established for support of a

university (Rennebohm, 1981).

Foundations, most often associated with institutions created under state statute,

have allowed such institutions a vehicle for fund raising, provided flexibility in

administrative and investment decisions, and encouraged volunteer involvement and

leadership (Rennebohm, 1981). The statutory restrictions that apply to college staff and

governing boards do not apply to foundations, which have organizational and legal

independence from the colleges they serve to enhance (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). These

foundations have forged productive partnerships, provided discretionary funds, and

served as safety nets and as catalysts for change (Moore, 2000). The primary reason that

most of the older foundations were established, however, was for the purpose of

channeling gifts to create a "margin of excellence" for these institutions (Rennebohm,

1981, p. 317). Over the past decade, however, college and university foundations

originally created to enhance excellence now support endowments and day-to-day

operations (Moore, 2000).









Community colleges were the last division of higher education to engage in fund

raising (Anderson & Snyder, 1993; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). While the oldest

established community college foundations have been traced back to Long Beach City

College in 1922, Santa Monica City College in 1955, and Vincennes University in 1949,

Illinois' Highlands Community College, which established its foundation in 1962, is

often cited as establishing the first foundation, most likely because its story was

documented in The Junior College Journal (Robison, 1982).

It was not until later, however, that the establishment of community college

foundations gained momentum, with over 80% of these foundations being established

after the late 1960s (Robison, 1982). This growth paralleled that of community colleges,

which, in 1960, served 11% of the total enrollment in higher education as compared with

35% of the total by 1979 (Breneman & Nelson, 1981). Passage of the 1965 Higher

Education Act, tax-exemption rulings by the Internal Revenue Service, and the decline in

public funds positively influenced the establishment of community college foundations,

rare before the 1970s, but commonplace by 1980 (Angel & Gares, 1989).

In the 1970s, professional organizations began addressing the need for

professional recognition and support of community college resource development

personnel and their efforts. The newly chartered National Council for Resource

Development (NCRD), an affiliate organization of the then-named American Association

of Community and Junior Colleges (AAJC), provided training and assistance to its

constituents, and, in 1974, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education

(CASE) allowed community college membership (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Smith, 1993).

By 1988, NCRD recorded over one thousand members and the "emergence of a new









profession on two-year campuses across the county" (Parnell, 1988, p. xviii). By 1990, it

was predicted that "resource development will be an integral part of the day-to-day

operations of the college as well as an integral part of planned change and renewal of the

institution" (Bender & Daniel, 1986, p. 23). It is forecasted that the role of institutional

advancement in community colleges will become increasingly important (Parsons, 1994).

Statement of the Problem

Until recent history, scholarly attention has not focused on fund raising and its

theoretical context; such scholarship and reflection are necessary to inform higher

education fund-raising practices (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Payton, Rosso, &

Tempel, 1991). College presidents, governing boards, and fund raisers are interested in

knowing which organizational patterns, program characteristics, and techniques are

associated with more effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). The escalating costs

involved in fund raising, along with the tremendous benefits that an organization can

realize through fund-raising success, make it critical to discern what factors influence

fund-raising results (Duronio & Loessin, 1993). Understanding the larger environment

within which fund raising takes place is necessary for a balanced and enlightened

approach to fund raising (Payton et al., 1991).

The existing literature regarding philanthropy and higher education mostly

pertains to those four-year institutions with long histories of giving and well-established

offices of institutional advancement (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). The scarcity of

research for community college resource development efforts may be due, in part, to the

relative youth of community college foundations, as compared with their older

counterparts in four-year institutions (Jenkins & Glass, 1999). Compounding the problem









is that the majority of the literature regarding community colleges does not account for

the diversity in institutional size, geographic location, and governance among community

colleges (Katsinas, 1996). Likewise, the success of fund-raising programs is not often

analyzed with attention to institutional size, location, degree level, mission, and other

important factors (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

Differences in institutional type have been shown to be important in identifying

the characteristics of effective fund-raising operations (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b). The

number and wealth of alumni (capacity), the maturity of the fund-raising program

(history), and the institutional priority-including resource commitment (effort)-have

been linked to effectiveness when comparing resource development programs of various

institutional types (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). While community colleges have

adopted elements from the senior institution models of institutional advancement, these

institutions, with their fully staffed development offices, sizable endowments, and strong

alumni support, are not characteristic of most community colleges (Glass & Jackson,

1998a; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). Additionally, some development activities typical to

four-year colleges may not be applicable to community colleges (Luck & Tolle, 1978).

Overall, community colleges have not placed an emphasis on traditional alumni

activities, and their development staffing assignments have consisted of one-person and

part-time support (Smith, 1993). Instead of relying on alumni allegiance, community

colleges have turned to the community itself for resources and foundation viability

(Conrad, Davis, Duffy, & Whitehead, 1986; Degerstedt, 1982). Seeking external funding

for community colleges ideally involves a balanced approach "that leverages public

dollars with private, builds on established business relationships to create major gift









opportunities for donors, and focuses on meeting the needs of a college by meeting the

needs of its students and surrounding community" (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 15).

While the community college foundation is the "nucleus" for the college's

resource development efforts, integration of these efforts with the college's management

and advancement functions is necessary: "Resource development cannot be visualized as

a separate area, striving solely to procure external dollars for random college purposes"

(Keener, 1982, p. 5). Most research available on public community college fund-raising

effectiveness focuses on characteristics within the foundation, but it is the community

college and the forces therein that help shape the success of the foundation (Koelkebeck,

1994).

Philanthropic support of public community colleges and the elements within these

colleges that encourage such support have not been fully examined. A lack of

comprehensive data on community college foundation performance has precluded

accurate analysis of the value added by these foundations (Craft & Guy, 2002). The only

consistent national data for resource development activity in higher education are gained

through the Voluntary Support of Education annual survey conducted by the Council for

Aid to Education (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). While the Council has conducted the annual

Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey since 1954-1955, participation has never

been more than half of all higher-education institutions and has varied greatly by

institutional type (Council for Aid to Education, 2000). In 1998 and 1999, only 75 public

community colleges participated in the VSE survey, and in 2000, only 73 reported

(Council for Aid to Education, 2000; Council for Aid to Education, 2001). The National

Center for Education Statistics, Council for Resource Development, and American









Association of Community Colleges have provided additional information, as have the

various scholarly works discussed in this study, but much about the condition,

effectiveness, and impact of resource development efforts in public community colleges

has yet to be analyzed.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States

public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the

literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount

of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,

corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and

investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;

the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation

board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation

operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an

important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;

the college size; and the college endowment. The proposed regression model was as

follows: Foundation Revenue = b(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of

college president) + b(critical role of chief development officer) + b(critical role of

foundation board member) + b(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +

college geographic location) + b(college size) + b(college endowment).

Related literature, as discussed in Chapter 2, suggests that there should be a

statistically significant and positive relationship between the foundation revenue and each

of the following variables: the amount of the foundation operating budget, the degree to









which the college president is rated as critical to the foundation operation, the degree to

which the chief resource development officer is rated as critical to the foundation

operation, the degree to which the foundation board member is rated as critical to the

foundation operation, the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as

an important foundation evaluation factor, the more urban the college geographic

location, the greater the college size, and the larger the college endowment.

The research questions guiding the study were as follows:

1. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?

2. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the college president is rated as playing a critical role in the
institution's foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

3. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the chief resource development officer is rated as playing a critical role
in the institution's foundation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

4. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the foundation board member is rated as playing a critical role in the
institution's foundation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model?

5. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in
evaluating the institution's foundation operation when controlling for the
other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

6. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?

7. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college size
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model?









8. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
endowment when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in
the proposed regression model?

Definition of Terms

For purposes of this study, the following definitions were used:

Chief resource development officer-In a community college, the chief resource

development officer generally has responsibility for identifying, developing, and

cultivating public and private funding opportunities that support institutional mission and

needs; initiating and maintaining advocacy relationships with constituents both internal

and external to the college; and supervising and managing staff, foundation operations,

investments, budgets, and other resources essential to these functions (Brumbach, 1994).

Community college-The community college is defined as "any institution

accredited to award the Associate in Arts or the Associate in Science as its highest

degree" including private and public comprehensive two-year colleges and technical

institutes (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 5). "Community college" is the term used in this

study to describe the responding institutions, which included multi-college districts,

multi-campus districts, single community colleges, junior colleges, and technical

institutes.

Development-A sophisticated and continuous process, "development" or "fund

development" requires broad understanding of the institution, long-term relationship

building, and commitment to the institution's financial and physical growth. More

commonly called "resource development" in the community colleges, the process

emanates from the institution's academic plan, in which the institution's priorities and

needs are identified. It includes identifying, cultivating, informing, and involving









prospective donors and other funding sources; preparing and making solicitations or

submitting grant applications; and providing gift stewardship and monitoring of

externally funded projects through reports and personal communication with the donor or

funding source (Boguch, 1994; Keener, 1982; Worth, 1993a, 1993b).

Endowment-An institution's endowment refers to funds that are invested with

the expectation that the principal will remain intact and that the income generated will

support institutional needs, programs, and activities (Worth, 1993b).

External funding-In community colleges, external funding is a "hybrid activity

that merges grants writing and donor relations expertise with planning, instructional

methods and programs, and advocacy" (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 19).

Foundation-A foundation that is institutionally related "exists solely for the

purpose of raising, managing, and disbursing funds to support the programs of a specific

(usually public) college or university" (Worth, 1993b, p. 417).

Fund raising-Requiring communicative and interpersonal skills, fund raising is

"episodic" in nature and constitutes an institution's gift solicitation programs and

activities focused on meeting particular objectives or goals (Worth, 1993a, p. 7,

1993b).

Institutional advancement-"In its broadest sense, institutional advancement is a

state of mind that must pervade all aspects of the institution's life. It is an attitude of

optimism and ambition that drives an institution's desire to grow and improve in a

competitive environment" (Worth, 1993a, p. 5). It encompasses "all those programs and

activities undertaken by a college or university to develop understanding and support

from all its publics for its educational goals" (Rowland, 1977, p. xi). "The term usually









includes the professional specialties of educational fund raising, alumni relations, public

relations and publications, student recruitment and marketing, and government relations"

(Worth, 1993b, p. 417).

Philanthropy-The term "philanthropy" refers to the "tradition in which

individuals contribute, for reasons, of altruism, their time and financial resources to

nonprofit institutions, with the goal of improving society" (Worth, 1993b, p. 418). Unlike

charity, which is an immediate act of goodness directed toward cases of human suffering

and unfortunate conditions, philanthropy is voluntary giving, service, and association

meant to elevate humankind over an extended period of time (Fisher, 1989b).

President-The college "president" refers to the chief executive officer of an

educational institution. For purposes of analysis in this study, distinctions are not made

among the titles of "president," "campus president," "district president," or "chancellor."

Public college-A "public college" is "an institution partially or fully supported

by public funds made available by state, county, and/or local taxes" (Luck & Tolle,

1978).

Voluntary support-This term describes "all gifts and noncontractual grants given

to colleges and universities, defined in accordance with accounting standards established

by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the National Association

of College and University Business Officers" (Worth, 1993b, p. 420). Voluntary

support, as defined, excludes income from investments and endowed funds as well as

support from local, state, and federal governments and government agencies (Jacobson,

1978b).









Delimitations and Limitations

Delimitations

This research was conducted with the following delimitations:

1. The population for this study was limited to two-year United States public
community colleges that held membership in the Council for Resource
Development (CRD) one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for
Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).

2. Data in regard to community college foundation operations were obtained
primarily through the use of a survey instrument, which was completed by a
resource development professional at each institution.

3. This study examined the resource development function connected only with
funds gained in connection with private giving and foundation operations, not
the grant development, contract operations, property holdings, or auxiliary
functions of the colleges.

Limitations

This research was conducted acknowledging the following limitations:

1. The results of this study may be generalized only to United States public
community colleges that were members of the CRD one or more years
between 1998 and 2001.

2. This study relied on the 1998-1999 data reported by individual resource
development professionals who responded to the survey instrument; data
obtained through the survey instrument were based on the knowledge,
perceptions, records and/or estimates of the responding resource development
professional at the respective community colleges. Additional information
was obtained from CRD membership directories and the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

3. The outcome variable used for quantitative analysis throughout this study was
the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from individuals, community
organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching programs,
and endowment interest and investments. A review of the literature reveals
that while total annual dollars raised may be one way to measure a
foundation's success, there are other methods.

4. The influence of economic factors, including socio-economic conditions, tax
laws, or the fluctuation of public support that might affect philanthropic
giving, were factors beyond the scope of this study.









Significance of the Study

Contemporary discussions of leadership and organizational effectiveness point to

the importance of examining an organization's performance as part of an entire system

rather than a function of isolated factors (Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1994). Such

discussions have their origin in systems theory, which was applied by social scientists to

examine organizational structures, relationships, and interdependence (Katz & Kahn,

1978). Systems theory has been suggested as an appropriate framework for research

pertaining to fund raising and development (Clements, 1990; Kelly, 1998; Koelkebeck,

1994; Murray, 1987).

Research in the field of resource development for community colleges is

relatively new (Jenkins & Glass, 1999). Comprehensive national data on community

college resource development have been lacking, and the existing data do not fully

represent the increased levels of support over the last decade (Jackson & Keener, 2002).

Additionally, an appropriate theoretical framework for discussing fund raising and

development, especially at community colleges, has lagged behind other educational

issues (Jackson & Glass, 2000).

The justification exists, therefore, to examine the performance of community

college foundation operations from a conceptual framework based on systems theory.

Fundamental to systems theory is the understanding that there are various levels of

systems and interconnections among them and that information regarding the higher,

more complex, system level is valuable in understanding what happens in the system

below it (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Also important is that system inputs, processes, roles, and

relationships are integral to system outcomes (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Van Gigch, 1978).









Grounding this study in systems theory, this researcher analyzed the foundation

subsystem's interconnections and interdependencies with its next higher system level, the

college. This researcher hoped to determine if key variables within the college system

and foundation subsystem had a significant and positive relationship to foundation

revenue. Ultimately, the significance of the study would be to advance the theoretical

understanding of community college resource development.

As community colleges continue to seek additional external funding, it is

incumbent upon trustees, presidents, and chief resource development officers to

understand relevant organizational analysis as applied to their institutions and the

implications of such research for policy, administration, and implementation. Attention to

key variables for resource development in community colleges may provide for greater

fund-raising potential for community colleges nationwide.

Overview of the Methodology

Resource development professionals in the Council for Resource Development

(CRD) prompted interest in a survey that would provide an understanding of the status of

external funding efforts in both grants offices and foundation offices in community

colleges nationwide. In response, a University of Florida research team, including this

researcher, developed a survey questionnaire to provide information about community

college resource development. The survey was based on a review of the relevant

literature pertaining to resource development in higher education and, particularly,

community colleges. The Council for Aid to Education's annual Voluntary Support of

Education survey was used as a point of departure, but major revisions were made to

adapt the survey to the conditions and realities common among community colleges as









gleaned from experts in community college resource development and literature on the

subject.

Ten content experts, primarily members of the CRD Executive Board (see

Appendix A), provided external validation by reviewing the drafted survey questionnaire

and providing extensive comments, which the research team incorporated into the survey

instrument. A second panel of nine reviewers, consisting mainly of CRD Board of

Directors (see Appendix D), reviewed the second draft of the survey instrument and

provided detailed responses for further refinement of the survey. In July of 2000, CRD

mailed the final cover letter and survey to the membership of CRD and the American

Association of Community Colleges (AACC) combined, representing approximately

1,100 community colleges. Completed surveys were requested by August 15, 2000, and

were mailed or faxed to the survey team at the University of Florida. A second mailing of

the survey was sent in January 2001 to the CRD and AACC members who had not

responded.

Summary

Philanthropic support of public community colleges and the elements within these

colleges that encourage such support have not been fully examined. The literature

regarding resource development in higher education mostly pertains to four-year

institutions with long histories of giving and well-established offices of institutional

advancement (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).

Differences in institutional type have been shown to be important in identifying

the characteristics of effective fund-raising operations (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b).

While community colleges have adopted elements from the senior institution models of









institutional advancement, these senior institutions, with their fully staffed development

offices, sizable endowments, and strong alumni support, are not necessarily characteristic

of community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).

Certain variables, however, emerge from the literature on development and may

be applicable to examining community college foundation performance. In this study, the

outcome variable measuring foundation performance was the amount of foundation

revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations, corporations,

external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and investments.

The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget; the degree to

which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation board member

individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation operation; the degree to

which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating

the foundation operation; the college geographic location; the college size; and the

college endowment. Through this study, the researcher hoped to determine the

relationship of the selected explanatory variables to foundation revenue in a given year

and whether greater levels and integration of these key variables within the college and

foundation could be associated with increased foundation revenue.

The population for this study was limited to two-year United States public

community colleges that held membership in the Council for Resource Development

(CRD) one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development,

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). Data in regard to community college foundation operations

were obtained primarily through the use of a survey instrument, which was completed by

a resource development professional at each institution. This study examined the resource









development function connected only with funds gained in connection with private

giving and foundation operations, not the grant development, property holdings, contract

operations, or auxiliary services of the colleges, and was based on the 1998-1999 data

reported by the respective community colleges. Additional information was obtained

from CRD membership directories and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System (IPEDS).

Chapter 2 follows with a review of relevant literature to include systems theory,

institutional advancement, the role of community colleges in higher education,

community colleges and private fund raising, outcome measures defining successful

foundation performance, foundation revenue sources, and variables associated with

successful foundation performance. Chapter 3 describes the design of the study, and

Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 provides conclusions and

implications, as well as suggestions for further research.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter reviews systems theory, institutional advancement, the role of

community colleges in higher education, community colleges and private fund raising,

outcome measures defining successful foundation performance, foundation revenue

sources, and variables associated with successful foundation performance.

Systems Theory

Fund-raising questions and methodologies can be explored using organizational

theory (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Contemporary discussions of organizational

effectiveness point to the importance of examining an organization's performance as part

of an entire system, rather than a function of isolated factors (Senge, 1990; Wheatley,

1994). The structural dynamics of Marxian theory, the subsystems focus of Talcott

Parsons and the structural functionalists, Allportian event-structure theory, and

Bertalanffy's general system theory contributed to the interest in a social psychology

based on social organization and structure (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In turn, systems thinking

is a vital leadership function and a powerful tool in understanding and addressing how

underlying structures generate certain behavioral patterns that affect organizational

performance (Senge, 1990).

First applied in the fields of biology and the physical sciences, systems theory was

later adapted by social scientists. Not unlike biological organisms, organizations import

energy from their external environment, transform this energy into some product

characteristic of the system, export the product into the environment, and reenergize the









system. Likewise, organizational structure can be viewed as a dynamic system of

interrelated activities, occurring as a chain of events that cyclically returns to its point of

origin, providing both closure and the opportunity for the cycle to be repeated. Social

organizations, because they share properties common with other open systems, can be

examined according to the constructs of system theory and the characteristics of open

systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978). A college or university typifies the type of organization to

which the concepts of systems theory apply (Perry, 1978).

Systems theory examines organizational structures, relationships, and

interdependence and takes into account how an organization's inputs from other

structures in its environment can determine that organization's vitality and what kinds of

relationships an organization must have to ensure its own survival. Rather than viewing

an organization as a self-contained and closed system, the open-systems model allows for

the influence of rapid societal change and the resulting changes within the organization.

That an organization's environmental properties and their influence are integral to a

social system's functioning is a necessary precept for applying the open-systems

framework in organizational analysis (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Acknowledging that there are various levels of systems and interconnections

among them in an open system, a primary strategy suggested in organizational analysis is

to look upward in the system. The next higher, more complex, system level provides

valuable understanding due to the hierarchical dominance of higher system level actions

over lower ones (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Fund raising and development can be analyzed through a conceptual framework

based on systems theory (Clements, 1990; Kelly, 1998; Koelkebeck, 1994; Murray,









1987). In applying systems theory to an organizational analysis of community college

foundations and their performance, one would need to go beyond the examination of the

college foundation and its functions alone. The next higher level of the organization-the

community college itself-can be examined as the dominant system affecting the

foundation subsystem through the inputs, interconnections, and interdependencies that

exist between them.

A systems approach can be used to assess an organization's internal and external

environments in order to determine its preparedness for fund raising, with the variables in

the system seen in relationship to their contribution to the entire system (Murray, 1987).

In an open-systems framework, one can differentiate an organization's general and

specific environments, with the specific environment being "that part of the environment

that is directly relevant to the organization in achieving its goals" and consisting of those

critical constituencies that most influence effectiveness of the organization (Robbins,

1990, p. 206).

Institutional Advancement

Understanding that college fund raising is only one part of an interrelated

institutional effort is fundamental to the concept of institutional advancement, a

commitment made by and involving the entire institution (Rowland, 1977). The first

articulation of the need for an integrated coordination of efforts for institutional

advancement was made in a report following the 1957 joint conference between the

American Alumni Council (AAC) and the American College Public Relations

Association (ACPRA). The report was entitled, "The Advancement of Understanding and

Support of Higher Education," and known simply as the "Greenbrier Report," and the









two groups responsible for it later merged to form the Council for Advancement and

Support of Education (CASE) (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

It has been stated that the institutional advancement program is only as effective

as the institution itself (Rowland, 1978). For maximum effectiveness, fund development

must be part of an organizational culture that is nurtured and institutionalized (Boguch,

1994). As an essential college function, institutional advancement requires integration

with the college's philosophical, administrative, organizational, and operational

mainstream (Jacobson, 1978a). Successful philanthropy depends on sound management,

with attention to systems and people, and, for colleges and university leaders, a keen

awareness of how fund raising relates to an institution's finances and the funding of

higher education in general (Francis, 1980). Fund raising itself is part of a "larger system

of philanthropy" and is "inextricably tied to philanthropic values, purposes, and methods"

(Payton et al., 1991, p. 4).

The resource development function must be considered and treated as an integral

part of the total college operation, not as an appendage as has often been the case for

community colleges (Daniel, 1985). Community college development offices must be

integrated with the other college offices since intrainstitutional cooperation is imperative

for effectiveness of fund-raising efforts (Keener, Ryan, & Smith, 1991). Besides

foundation operations, institutional advancement in two-year colleges often includes

grants and contracts, research and planning, staff and program development, government

relations and legislative affairs, public and media relations, alumni outreach, special

events, and publications (Smith, 1991). To be successful, the entire institutional

advancement effort of the community college must be viewed "as a system of mutually









interacting parts operating to advance the interest of the community college within an

even larger social and economic community system" (Koelkebeck, 1994, p. 70).

Raising funds and community awareness are not simply functions of a foundation,

nor are they isolated functions separate from the larger system (Koelkebeck, 1994). The

community college can be examined as part of the larger system, providing context and

support for the resource development function, a subsystem within it (Clements, 1990).

"The community college is the bedrock on which the foundation will rest. Therefore, it is

the community college and the forces therein that will help shape the success of the

foundation" (Koelkebeck, 1994, p. 69).

The Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education

Democratization, industrialization, and the demands of a growing populace were

major factors contributing to the development of the community college. When local

governments won the control to fund secondary education (Stuart v. School District No. 1

of the Village of Kalamazoo. 1874) it led to a 600% increase in the number of high-

school enrollments during the next 30 years. America's elite colleges proved too

expensive or exclusive for these new graduates, and the classical education of these

institutions was also insufficient preparation for the new industrial society. The

increasing number of students enrolling in the universities (52,000 in 1870 to 238,000 at

the turn of the century) necessitated the creation of additional colleges flexible enough to

meet the changing times. By the end of the 19th century, the new junior college

(including both the six-year high school and the two-year "decapitated" private college)

was beginning to serve such a need (Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, & Suppiger,

1994).









Historically, the community college movement started with William Rainey

Harper's national plan for creating junior colleges. Harper divided the upper and lower

divisions of the University of Chicago, created the associate degree, and advocated six-

year high schools and freestanding two-year colleges affiliated with the university.

California's Upward Extension Law of 1907 allowed high schools to extend their upper

two years. The Ballard Act, passed by the California legislature in 1917, funded junior

colleges on a per-student basis. Additional funding in California was appropriated

through a special committee headed by Senator H. C. Jones. The District Junior College

Law (1921), based on Jones's report, boosted the California junior college movement and

became the nation's model for public college districts. The law made it possible for

districts to fund and administer junior colleges. Local control, through district boards of

education, also contributed to the rise of vocational and adult education. Additionally, in

the 1920s, with booming industrialization and mass production of goods, farmers were

leaving rural America for towns and cities--creating an even greater demand for a low-

cost education. The local college served as a focal point for these towns. By the end of

the 1920s, the United States had 450 junior colleges that enrolled almost 70,000 total

students (Witt et al., 1994).

The American Council on Education (ACE) provided national guidance on the

subject of junior colleges by defining them, in 1921, according to nine standards. The

following year, the newly established American Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC),

provided the first nationwide definition of the junior college and, with it, the idea that it

would offer a different curriculum based on the expanding and changing needs of the

community (Witt et al., 1994). Such a definition contained the essential idea that the









junior college would be different from other forms of higher education, that it would

adapt to its dynamic environment, and that it would be responsive to the ideals and

practical realities of its community.

During the Depression, an even greater need existed for inexpensive education

vocational and terminal programs. The Commission of Seven Report in 1932 emphasized

the importance of technical and vocational education and the value of the two-year

college (Witt et al., 1994).

The President's Commission of Higher Education, known as the Truman

Commission, issued an influential report in 1947, suggesting a name change from "junior

college" to "community college" to account for the enhanced functions taken on by two-

year institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 13). After the Truman Commission's report,

statewide planning became increasingly important and enrollments soared. Great

expansion was due, in large measure, to important legislation including the GI Bill in

1944, the Veteran's Readjustment Act in 1952, and the Community College Act in 1957.

Significant support of community colleges through the Kellogg Foundation began in

1958, with the Associate Degree in Nursing project in California, Florida, NewYork, and

Texas. As a forerunner of the future expansion in distance education, the first television

course was offered in 1956 (Witt et al., 1994).

Living up to the early ideals espoused for them, America's community colleges

continue to provide social benefits that traditionally have not been the focus of other

forms of higher education. Sixty-eight percent of the students starting college at age 30 or

older begin their studies at a community college (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Additionally,

community colleges enroll almost half of the U.S. undergraduate minority population and









provide much of the nation's workforce education, training, and welfare-to-work

programs (Phillippe & Patton, 2000).

By offering local accessibility, low tuition costs, open admissions, and remedial

opportunities, community colleges have served the educational needs of students

regardless of their economic status, educational background, and skills (Gillett-Karam,

Roueche, & Roueche, 1991). For example, in 1996-1997, community colleges provided

educational opportunities for 44% of all U.S. undergraduate credit students (fall

headcount), at an average annual tuition of $1,569 (in constant 1997-1998 dollars), and

awarded more than 450,000 associate degrees and over 170,000 one- to two-year

certificates (Phillippe & Patton, 2000).

The financial bargain, in terms of government spending per full-time equivalent

(FTE) student, is with the public two-year institutions. General education revenue, in

constant 1997 dollars, per FTE student in public two-year institutions in 1995 was $6,137

($4,313 from government appropriations and $1,824 in tuition and fees). In comparison,

revenue per FTE student in public four-year colleges was $10,839 ($7,279 in government

appropriations and $3,560 in tuition and fees). For public universities, FTE student

revenue was $12,140 ($7,714 in government appropriations and $4,426 in tuition and

fees) (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a).

Community Colleges and Private Fund Raising

By the 1990s, community college presidents responding to a national survey

identified a lack of resources as being among their three critical problem areas (Deegan,

1992). Due to the unique mission of two-year colleges, to offer "opportunity with

excellence," their resource needs exceed what is afforded through public financial









support, tuition, and fees (Parnell, 1988). Improving the financial support for community

colleges is a priority that requires organizational changes including the roles of the

president, administrators, and staff (McCabe, 1996). Finding other sources of external

funding is necessary to uphold the mission of the nation's "access colleges," and the most

promising source for such support is the private sector (Conrad et al., 1986, p. 35).

This critical realization, which began in the 1970s, led to the encouragement of

resource development efforts from the then-named American Association of Community

and Junior Colleges (AACJC) and its affiliate, the National Council for Resource

Development (NCRD) (Smith, 1993). Already, the movement had begun to establish

institutional foundations, which were sanctioned by two-year college districts or trustees

and created to help their institutions fulfill their mission and achieve their goals (Sharron,

1978). Originally, these foundations collected and dispersed funds annually, providing

funds for facilities and projects, without developing endowments (Woodbury, 1989).

Relations with the private sector were further enhanced during the 1980s when

cooperative programs and contract learning opportunities with business and industry

became the focus for community college leaders nationwide (Deegan & Tillery, 1985). In

a national survey conducted in 1987, community college presidents cited the creation of a

college foundation as the entrepreneurial concept most used and second only to contract

training programs in terms of having a very successful impact on the institution (Deegan,

1989).

In the face of inadequate funding through student tuition and tax revenues,

community college foundations have been leading the way in obtaining private resources

for the growing needs at their institutions (Adams, Keener, & McGee, 1994). As









separately incorporated entities with 501(c)(3) approval from the Internal Revenue

Service, foundations have encouraged tax-deductible contributions from individual

donors, civic organizations, and companies; developed portfolios of stocks, bonds, real

estate, and other investments; held, managed, and leased property; and established and

secured income from various college auxiliaries (Woodbury, 1989). Roles of community

college foundations also have included service to the college in planning and budgeting,

faculty enrichment, student financial aid, student activities, and community outreach and

improvement (Keener, 1982).

The strongest case for resource development in community colleges has been in

establishing the close connection with and service to the community, providing a "formal

means for citizens to participate in the growth and development of 'their' community

college" (Robertson, 1981, p. 341). Due to the generic nature of state funding formulas, it

has been difficult to differentiate and support the local needs of community colleges

through traditional funding methods (Lorenzo, 1994). The college foundation has allowed

fund-raising programs to be established so that institutional needs and donor interests can

be addressed with flexibility (Conrad et al., 1986). It is a means of engaging influential

individuals in ways that are meaningful to the institution (Simic, 1998). Hence, the

foundation has served the purpose of fostering community support and revenue necessary

for sustaining special projects (Bock & Sullins, 1987).

Outcome Measures Defining Successful Foundation Performance

A debate exists in the literature over the use of dollars raised as the best measure

of success for foundations affiliated with institutions of higher education (Koelkebeck,

1994). By definition, an institutionally related foundation exists to raise funds to support









the institution's programs (Worth, 1993b). Foundation success or effectiveness, then, can

take on multifaceted definitions that account for the amount of funds raised, the

sustainability of foundation efforts, and the degree of support the foundation is able to

give to the institution.

Although fund-raising results often are measured in terms of revenues raised,

determining fund-raising success must take into consideration the purpose for which

funds are raised: "Fund-raising units doing good without raising money, or raising money

without doing good, are neither successful nor acceptable" (Duronio & Loessin, 1991 a,

p. 129). One researcher contends that fund-raising's primary purpose "is not to raise

money, but-as a part of public relations-to enhance and protect organizational

autonomy by effectively managing communications between a charitable organization

and the donor publics in its environment" (Kelly, 1991, p. 320). Such a focus might well

involve an analysis of the relationships or changing relationships between the institution

and its constituents or a study of perceptions regarding institutional image (Jacobson,

1978b). Another scholar states that the "public relations program exists to enhance the

ability to generate resources" for the academic program (Fisher, 1989a, p. 13). This view

would tend to justify using the amount of funds raised as an evaluation of all institutional

advancement efforts. A combination of these prevailing views would include evaluating

fund raising by the "number and amount of gifts received" and a program's performance

by the "quality, quantity, frequency, continuity, and effectiveness of its initiatives with

each prospective giver" (Dunlop, 1989, p. 185).

While the main performance indicator in development obviously remains the total

amount of gifts obtained, the evaluation of advancement effectiveness should involve









cost and productivity indicators, which can and should guide the efforts of development

managers (Leslie, 1978). Still, those in development work most often measure their

program's effectiveness on the basis of dollars raised (Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Fisher,

1989a; Hunter, F. D., 1987). It is important to remember, however, in assessing

development results, that major gifts require time to nurture relationships and that

consistent support over time generates the best results; likewise, deferred or planned gifts

often involve considerable time from donor intent to receipt of the gift by the institution,

making analysis in terms of cost effectiveness extremely difficult (Evans, 1989).

Overall, there are three approaches to the study of fund-raising effectiveness that

have been practiced: (a) studies using measures of "perceived effectiveness," (b) studies

employing "objectively defined effectiveness," and (c) studies in which effectiveness is

"adjusted for potential" (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p. 19). The first approach derives

an operational definition of effectiveness based on the frequency of responses to various

survey items from professionals who rate or rank a list of institutional characteristics.

Such judgments are based on perceptions, which may or may not relate to actual fund-

raising effectiveness. The second and more desirable approach employs a more objective

measure of effectiveness, such as total dollars raised, and examines institutional

characteristics in relation to this measure. The third and best approach accounts for an

institution's potential to raise funds by including some measure of this potential in the

consideration of effectiveness. Such studies adjust effectiveness to account for an

institution's potential for raising funds as compared with actual fund-raising results

(Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).









Studies pertaining to the success of two-year college resource development

programs have defined and measured success in these various ways. In one early

exploratory study, the perceptions of college administrators regarding the characteristics

of and conditions for a successful foundation were analyzed to develop evaluative criteria

(Duffy, 1979). Other methods of gauging success have included measuring the amount of

funds raised overall-or per student-in a given period of time, examining total assets or

net worth, or analyzing the enhanced capacity of the college (Clements, 1990; Glandon &

Keener, 1994; Hagerman, 1978; Koelkebeck, 1994; Luck & Tolle, 1978). Measures of

revenue relative to potential, satisfaction ratings, and cost-effectiveness also have been

used as determinants of success (Gatewood, 1994; Hagerman, 1978; Koelkebeck, 1994;

Jenner, 1987).

Foundation Revenue Sources

Individuals

Due to the qualities unique to community colleges, the more conventional

approaches to cultivating fund-raising support through alumni class reunions, annual

giving programs, and parents groups have not been applicable, thus presenting a need to

find different constituencies and means for resource development (Robertson, 1981).

Rather than taking a restricted view of alumni, community colleges have the opportunity

to include all community members as alumni (Keener et al., 1991). Potential donors in

the institution's geographical area include those who are given the opportunity to

understand the college's important role in the community (Loessin, Duronio, & Borton,

1986). When their experience as donors is positive, these individuals are in a position to









strengthen the college's relationship with other influential members of the community

(Smith, 1991).

Community Organizations and Corporations

With its obvious case for support being an investment in one's community,

potential sources for community college resource development have been corporate and

business partners as well as citizen groups (Conrad et al., 1986; Robertson, 1981).

Provisions in federal tax laws, since 1935, have encouraged corporations to give in return

for substantial tax deductions (Cutlip, 1965/1990). Effective targeting of corporate

prospects, vendors, training contractors, and major employers holds particular fund-

raising promise for two-year colleges (Ryan, 1988, 1993). Inviting business leaders to

learn about the institution, to serve as foundation board members, and matching corporate

interests with college needs can have positive results for resource development (Glass &

Jackson, 1998a).

External Foundations

External philanthropic foundations, too, have been another source of revenue for

community colleges. Although two-year colleges have been excluded from consideration

in past foundation grant policies (Ryan, 1988), foundations have begun to award large

gifts to two-year colleges (Van der Werf, 1999b). By 1962, there were approximately

15,000 foundations making grants to organizations in the United States (Cutlip, 1990).

While competition for foundation support is steep-approximately one million

foundation proposals are submitted annually and only 7% are funded-personal

relationships, geographical proximity, philosophical alignment, and historical affiliation

are ways in which opportunities for such support are increased (Murphy, 1986).









State Matching Programs

States that have passed legislation for matching programs typically allow for

donations, above a certain level, to public-college endowments to be matched, 50% to

100%, with state funds. As many as 27 states, including Connecticut, Florida, Maine,

Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Virginia, have instituted public-private matching

fund programs for scholarships, endowed professorships, and other purposes (Moore,

2000). These state matching programs have enhanced the fund-raising capacity of

community colleges (Craft & Guy, 2002). Despite some states' problems in honoring the

promise of matching state funds, the programs have encouraged donor support of

institutions including community colleges (Schmidt, 1997).

Endowment Interest and Investments

Associated with foundation performance is the wise management of endowments

and other invested funds. Since some states restrict how organizations that receive state

support can invest their funds, having a foundation increases investment flexibility for

greater growth potential (Rennebohm, 1981; Simic, 1993). More aggressive investment

policies for endowment funds have been advocated as an important new revenue source

for community colleges (Riggs & Helweg, 1996).

Community college revenues from endowments have increased 48% from 1979-

1980 to 1995-1996 in constant dollars, which equates to a 16% increase per student

(Merisotis & Wolanin, 2000). In 1998, a strong stock market handsomely rewarded

colleges that had aggressively invested their endowments and provided to colleges with

more moderate investments an impressive 18% rate of return, on average (Van der Werf,

1999a). In 1999, endowments earned 11% as the market flattened (Pulley, 2000).









Variables Associated with Successful Foundation Performance

Allocation of Resources to the Foundation Operation

Fund-raising success has been linked with an organization's resource allocation to

the fund-raising operation (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b;

Glennon, 1985; Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Jenner, 1987; Johnson, J. J., 1986;

Leslie, 1969; Levis, 1991; Luck, 1974; Luck & Tolle, 1978; Maples, 1980; Miller, 1991;

Pickett, 1977). Certainly, institutional spending is reported most consistently as the

variable best correlated with fund-raising effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

"Revenue budgets must be adequate to the task, consistent, long term, and in keeping

with performance expectations"; clearly, foundation management time spent in searching

for operating funds and negotiating predictable budget revenues could be better spent in

acquiring major gifts (Hedgepeth, 1999, p. 7).

Resource allocation to the development function affects staff size (Glennon,

1985). Personnel is the largest cost of a development program (Wisdom, 1989).

Resources in terms of budget and staffing allow for an institution's increased fund-raising

effort and are indicative of institutional priority and commitment (Brittingham &

Pezzullo, 1990; Jacobson, 1978b). Research demonstrates that fund-raising productivity

positively relates to the number of professional advancement staff in four-year

institutions (Hunter, F. D., 1987; Pickett 1977). The high correlation between dollars

raised and the number of development staff may be due to the time and personal attention

that good development work requires (Wisdom, 1989). Understandably, staffing of

development offices will vary relative to the age of the college, gift-income potential,

number of constituents to be served, and other factors (Dittman, 1981).









As a fairly new endeavor for community colleges, development was approached

"on a low-cost, test basis" (Conrad et al., 1986, p. 36). Understaffing of community

college development offices was common; historically, one person was charged with the

entire development function (Conrad et al., 1986). More recently, staffing assignments

have consisted of one-person and part-time support (Smith, 1993).

Not surprisingly, community college chief development officers reported

increased staffing as a priority for increasing fund-raising effectiveness (Ryan, 1989).

The prevailing view is that community colleges that provide appropriate staffing and

resources to their development function and that treat development as a critical

institutional function-equal to other operational units-are the most successful

(Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993; Ryan, 1994).

Roles of President, Chief Development Officer, and Foundation Board Member

Building relationships beyond the organization primarily is a function of an

organization's officers and can predict an organization's effectiveness and survival (Katz

& Kahn, 1978). For success, the college's development program must be an

administration's top priority and should involve its key people in the management team

(Luskin & Warren, 1985). Community college foundations, examined from a systems

perspective, should be analyzed in the context of their specific systems environments,

including the roles most critically affecting foundation performance. For two-year

colleges, the three most significant roles to the resource development program are the

president, chief development officer, and key volunteers or board members (McNamara,

1988).









Leadership of the college president repeatedly has appeared in the literature as a

factor contributing to the success of fund raising in various types of higher education

institutions (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Fisher, 1989a; Glennon, 1985; Miller, 1991;

Rowland, 1977; Webb, 1982). A national study of state universities and colleges,

however, found no significant relationship between total voluntary support and the

president's involvement in fund raising (Hunter, F. D., 1987). Behaving like their private

college counterparts have been expected to for years, presidents of public colleges spend

more time on fund raising than they did in the past (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).

Research has shown that a distinguishing feature of effective nonprofit

organization chief executives is their political skill and engagement with external groups,

including governments, to offset reduced resources and to manage other threats to

organizational stability and viability (Heimovics, Herman, & Jurkiewicz, 1993).

Likewise, presidents of public colleges must use political skill in sustaining their

institutions with support from state government resources (Sweet, 1980).

The president must take the primary initiative for interesting others in making an

investment in the institution (Fisher, 1989b). Because people give money to realize the

fulfillment of a vision, the "president's main job is to describe his or her vision for the

institution and get others to make it theirs" (Conklin, 1989, p. 93). The persuasive and

persistent articulation of this vision, so that it is shared by all internal and external

constituencies, is the most significant contribution to institutional advancement that a

president can make (Hesburgh, 1980).

As an institution's "chief institutional advancement officer," the president plays a

significant role in defining and reflecting the institution's goals and objectives and









serving as the major link to the institution's various publics (Rowland, 1977, p. 530). The

president, positioned between the internal and external forces of the college, is the nexus

in a complex and ever changing environment (Beehler, 1993). The president's primary

role in raising major gifts is to model and give voice to the institution's values (Dunlop,

1989). Likewise, in a capital campaign, the president is the "institution's chief fund-

raiser" who must "carry the banner of the institution" and act as "chief spokesperson and

advocate" (Bornstein, 1989, pp. 202-203). "So central is the role of the president to the

success or failure of an institutional advancement program that his or her lack of

participation and support can negate any efforts made in this direction" (Rowland, 1977,

p. 530).

In general, fund raising has not been a high priority for community college

presidents (Ryan, 1993). To be sure, tension exists for community college presidents who

must decide how much time to devote to fund raising while meeting the other demands of

their position (Vaughan, Mellander, & Blois, 1994). Yet, the role of the president has

been cited as important for success in fund raising for community colleges (Bock &

Sullins, 1987; Duffy, 1979; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998b; Glennon,

1985; Ironfield, 1991; Jackson & Glass, 2000; Keener, 1982; Keener et al., 1991; Mosier,

1980; Robinson, 1989; Ryan, 1988, 1989).

The president's leadership capacity in the area of advancement largely will

determine fund-raising success for most community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998b).

It is not surprising, therefore, that searches for community college presidents now include

fund raising among the desired candidate criteria (Gilley, Fulmer, & Reithlingshoefer,

1986). Community college presidents who are newly appointed, however, often lack an









understanding of institutional advancement and, consequently, provide less support to it

than to other divisions of the college (Fisher, 1982). The forecast is that community

college presidents increasingly will see the raising of private funds to be an important

part of their job (Vaughan et al., 1994).

The community college president's understanding of the advancement process,

combined with advocacy and support for it, may, in fact, be more important than his or

her personal solicitation of funds (Ryan, 1994). Critical to the success of the development

program, the community college president's high visibility and service on community

boards demonstrate leadership and commitment to the betterment of the community

(Smith, 1993). Understanding the college's relationship with similar institutions and its

role in meeting society's needs is necessary for a president's effective leadership

(Vaughan, 1994). Presidents who can inspire change and commitment, appeal to higher

ideals, and focus on new possibilities demonstrate transformational leadership, which has

its origins in systems thinking and is associated with philanthropy (Glass & Jackson,

1998b).

In a study across 10 different institutional types, highly effective fund-raising

programs were found to have several common characteristics including the fund-raising

leadership demonstrated not only by the president but by the chief development officer as

well (Duronio & Loessin, 1991 b). The chief development officer has been identified as

critical to fund-raising effectiveness (Fisher, 1989a).

An executive-level position within the administration and involvement in the

institution's strategic planning have been tied to the successful leadership of the chief

development officer (Bomstein, 1989; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Fisher, 1989a). Being









a part of the administrative executive team, with a direct reporting line to the president, is

the most desirable position of the chief development officer (Webb, 1982). As such, the

chief development officer is better positioned to participate in institutional planning, to

assist in establishing funding priorities, and to contribute valuable information about

funding conditions (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Leslie, 1969). Additionally, as the

institution's fund-raising specialist, the chief development officer is in a critical boundary

role, working closely with the president, college officers, and governing board;

interpreting the organization to its publics; and establishing linkages with other systems

(Kelly, 1991; Leslie, 1969). Consequently, the development officer has been identified as

one of the "new power brokers" on campus and in "prestige positions at both public and

private institutions" (Gilley et al., 1986, pp. 84, 86).

Chief development officers from institutions cited as highly effective in fund

raising emphasized the importance of fund-raising programs designed for long-term

benefits. The value in viewing fund raising as a long-range, developmental process

underscores the important responsibility chief development officers have in establishing

well-organized fund-raising programs, with excellent information management systems,

to offset the negative impact of high staff turnover characteristic in the fund-raising

profession (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b).

Having a chief development officer or individual responsible for external resource

development was characteristic of community college foundations with values of $1

million or more in a 1992 national survey (Glandon & Keener, 1994) and of successful

foundations in an earlier study (Hunter, C. B., 1987). Furthermore, a 1997 national









survey found that the community college development officer or foundation executive

director played the most active role in soliciting funds (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).

While development staff perform most development functions, board members

must support the process and commit to its importance for the organization (Boguch,

1994). Trustees and regents of public colleges and universities increasingly have an

important role in raising private funds for their institutions (Nason, 1989); however, it has

been reported that community college trustees have not participated actively in providing

fund-raising support (Ryan, 1989). While public trustees have responsibilities in

overseeing adequate funding, they often are elected or appointed for reasons other than

their fund-raising potential or personal wealth; it is important, therefore, for public

institutions to create independent foundation boards to act in a fiduciary capacity to

donors and to avoid possible conflicts of interest for the governing trustees (Sader, 1986).

For community colleges with small governing boards, one proposed model is to

have each trustee serve on separate foundation committees (Katsinas, Herrmann, &

Traylor, 1990). Another recommendation is for the foundation board to include one or

more of the institution's trustees (Fisher & Koch, 1996; Simic, 1998). The prevalent

community college model is to create separate foundation boards (Ryan, 1989). In fact,

most public institutions delegate fund raising to a foundation board (Legon, 1989).

The literature suggests that the strength of the foundation's board of directors

contributes to the community college foundation's success (Sharron, 1982; Hunter, C. B.,

1987). A study of public colleges of various types in New York found that an uninvolved

foundation board versus an involved one was the difference between colleges that were

considered underproductive versus overproductive (Webb, 1982).









An important first step in creating an involved and interested board is serious

consideration of board composition (Bryant, 1988). In a national survey of resource

development personnel from 418 public community colleges, careful selection of board

members was the suggestion most frequently cited to assure foundation success; the

pitfall most often cited was not choosing the right foundation board members

(Degerstedt, 1982). The college president should pay special attention to the selection of

the foundation board (Fisher & Koch, 1996) but not necessarily be involved in the

selection of foundation board members (Katsinas et al., 1990).

With the help of a nominating committee, foundation board members must be

chosen carefully to include "only those who can give and get money, or who can help in

public relations" (Gale, 1989, p. 104). A study of community colleges in North Carolina

found the most important criteria in selecting foundation board members to be the

willingness to give or procure funds for the college and an interest in, and support of, the

college's mission and goals (Bryant, 1988). Through their relationships in the private

sector, community college foundation members can convey with credibility the college's

action plans (Conrad et al., 1986).

Meeting Institutional Strategic Goals

Linking institutional planning to resource development goals and strategies

underscores institutional commitment to fund raising (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993).

Institutional priorities should provide the basis for resource development efforts since

each funding request is a statement of institutional identity and direction (Brittingham &

Pezzullo, 1990). Put bluntly, "mission justifies fund raising" (Payton et al., 1991). In fact,









if gifts detract from an institution's mission, priorities, or desired direction, they should

be rejected (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

Besides mission, institutional autonomy and ethics may also be at stake if the

implications of resources are not assessed in accordance with principles established

through consensus (Parsons, 1994). Moreover, an institution could lose control of its

power to determine and pursue its own goals if too much internal autonomy is given up to

external donors (Kelly, 1991).

Connecting college planning and research to development efforts and seeking

external funding only in support of the college's mission and goals have been cited as

necessary elements for the pubic community college resource development program to

thrive, especially in an era of diminishing state appropriations (Blong & Bennett, 1991;

Daniel, 1985). Following good managerial practices-including "matching effort to

strategic advantage and institutional mission" and conducting institutional

evaluation-are advised for the resource development operation (Brittingham &

Pezzullo, 1990, p. 25). If the impact on the direction of the community college and its

constituencies are disregarded in the quest for external funds, it can result in "skewed

programming and a disappointed clientele who cannot be served when external dollars

are no longer available" (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 15). Successful fund raising

for community colleges largely depends on planning and taking strategic advantage of

community support gained through excellent institutional reputation (Ryan, 1994).

Community colleges are realizing the important role of involving resource

development in institutional planning (Daniel, 1991). In fact, it is quite possible for

funding proposal development to occur simultaneously with strategic planning and









reaccreditation efforts (Groff, 1985). The ability to plan well, due to the college's

comprehensive planning, management, and evaluation system, was cited as a primary

reason for one community college's successful resource development (Hooks & Kelley,

1990).

The foundation must be involved in and stay current with institutional planning

and priorities for the foundation to fulfill its purpose and have the greatest impact

(Keener, 1982). Among the top conditions cited by development personnel as being

critical to community college foundation success were an organized, planned effort and a

clear statement of purpose for the resource development function (Glandon & Keener,

1994).

Rather than being subject to haphazard growth, the community college foundation

should be part of an intentional plan with realistic expectations (Deegan, 1989). If

integrated into a total institutional plan to achieve desired ends, the foundation serves as a

proactive part of the plan instead of being used as a reactive device (Wattenbarger, 1982).

Ultimately, the evaluation of an advancement program must be linked to achieving the

educational objectives of the institution (Leslie, 1969). Thus, the successful performance

of a college foundation must be evaluated relative to the college's goals (Robison, 1982).

College Geographic Location

The success of the college foundation also can be influenced by the institution's

potential for fund-raising success. Fund-raising potential may take into consideration the

institution's geographic location and access to resources. In a study of private

undergraduate colleges, access to the total pool of resources available was more

important than geographic proximity in helping to determine which colleges were









overproductive and underproductive in realizing their fund-raising potential (Pickett,

1977). A national study of state colleges and universities found a significant relationship

between total voluntary support and an institution's location in an urban area (Hunter, F.

D., 1987).

Because the community college mission, generally, is to serve the local

population, community college foundation activities are focused primarily on particular

geographic locations as compared to four-year institutions that may have a more regional

or national reach; however, this proximity to the local community provides community

colleges with unique development opportunities (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). In a study of

public two-year colleges in the Northeast, size of the service area was found to be a

significant variable for foundations with successful fund-raising programs (Ironfield,

1991). Likewise, population of the service area and size of the civilian labor force were

significant variables in predicting total annual income for community college foundations

in North Carolina (Gatewood, 1994). Larger service areas characteristic of urban

locations and regions with healthy economies were associated with successful fund-

raising programs in a national study of public community colleges (Hunter, C. B., 1987).

A large urban area with multiple businesses and industries provides advantages

for selecting foundation board members and soliciting corporate contributions (Bulpitt,

1982). Companies supporting community colleges see them as integral to the community,

providing training programs that meet company needs and supplying new employees,

whose children also benefit from college programs (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

One model demonstrating community college fund-raising potential characterized

colleges with high potential as being located in an urban or large suburban population,









colleges with medium potential as being in a mid-size to small suburban population, and

colleges with low potential as being in a rural population (Ryan, 1993). While access to

wealth through geographic location may help explain a college's increased fund-raising

effectiveness and foundation success, geographic location is not likely to be changed for

this reason (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

College Size

Regardless of the topic of analysis regarding colleges or their organizational

structure, institutional size appears repeatedly in research studies as an important, if not

the most important, variable in differentiating public institutions (Cohen & Brawer,

1996). For public two-year institutions, specifically, size of institutional enrollment has

been cited as the "most distinguishing characteristic" and the "driving variable for

differentiating public institutions from one another" (U.S. Department of Education,

2001, p. 24).

Larger colleges have the advantage of making more of an impact on the

community and reaching more potential supporters (Pickett, 1986). In terms of student

enrollment, college size has been related to the community college's establishment of a

foundation, with smaller institutions being less likely to have established one (Angel &

Gares, 1989; Degerstedt, 1982). The same model that showed high, medium, and low

fund-raising potential for community colleges by geographic location also associated

significant enrollment with high fund-raising potential, moderate enrollment with

medium potential, and small enrollment with low potential (Ryan, 1993). However, like a

college's geographic location, college size would not likely be changed to enhance fund-

raising potential (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).









A 1997 national survey of community colleges found a direct relationship

between fall enrollment and foundation value (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). Other studies

have concluded that two-year colleges with greater full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment

receive more private support (Maples, 1980) and experience greater foundation success,

whether the enrollments are in credit or noncredit programs (Glandon, 1987).

It should be noted that enrollment calculations, especially FTE formulas, vary.

Among the two-year colleges reporting data to the National Association of College and

University Business Officers' 17th annual Comparative Financial Statistics Study, a full-

time course load for students ranged from 30 to 48 credit hours (Meeker, 1995). One

method used for estimating FTE enrollment is to combine the actual full-time enrollment

with one-third of the part-time enrollment (Watkins, 2000). In a research study to provide

a new classification system for two-year postsecondary institutions, the enrollment

measure used was the annual (12-month) unduplicated headcount (U.S. Department of

Education, 2001).

College Endowment

At its sixth annual meeting in 1926, the American Association of Junior Colleges

considered a question concerning the "Amount of Endowment Necessary for a Standard

Junior College" (American Association of Junior Colleges, 1926, p. 38). The question

had been posed a year earlier by the accrediting body of the North Central Association,

whose commission on higher education wanted AAJC to provide a recommendation on

the question of endowment as a source of permanent income for junior colleges. The

AAJC committee members charged to research the issue reported to the AAJC that the

endowment amount set for four-year colleges was arbitrarily determined and that an









income requirement would more appropriately be based on student instructional costs.

They further stated that a college's endowment should not be considered apart from the

organization and administration of its educational program and that accreditation

approval should be based on the educational program and not the endowment amount.

The AAJC proceedings recorded the lively debate of the endowment question, taxation,

expenditure per student, and other financial sustainability issues and, thereby, provided a

glimpse of how two-year college pioneers staked new ground in the landscape of higher

education. Ultimately, AAJC passed the committee's recommendations for presentation

to the North Central Association. These recommendations called for further information

to be gained regarding instructional costs and more careful consideration of colleges that

potentially were in jeopardy of losing accreditation because they did not meet the

endowment requirement (American Association of Junior Colleges, 1926).

In recent decades, as community colleges administrators have sought increased

financial sustainability from alternative revenue sources, endowment income has been

viewed as another source of potential revenue. An endowment size of $50,000 was

considered significant in 1986; however, in 1993, foundation endowments for 165

community colleges exceeded $1 million (Adams et al., 1994).

Endowment size has been cited as a variable that can help to predict fund-raising

effectiveness for postsecondary institutions (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Dean, 1985;

Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Pickett, 1977). It has been stated that endowment size can

indicate the successful history of the institution in raising funds or operating in general,

and, thus, serve to forecast its continued success (Pickett, 1986). For community colleges,

however, the research regarding endowments has been scant (Clements, 1990). One









national study found that a greater percentage of administrators from two-year colleges

with foundations having a net worth of $1 million or more rated the endowment as

critical to foundation success as compared to the group responding from colleges with

foundations with less than $1 million (Glandon & Keener, 1994). Another national study

found that public community colleges with successful development programs used

endowment growth as a fund-raising strategy (Hunter, C. B., 1987). A study limited to

community colleges in Illinois and Iowa found no significant relationship between the

income from private gifts and college endowment (Clements, 1990).

Like some other institutional characteristics, endowment size is not a variable that

is easily manipulated as a way to increase fund-raising success (Duronio & Loessin,

1993); "advising a college president to increase the size of the endowment as a way to

improve the effectiveness of fund raising is no advice at all" (Brittingham & Pezzullo,

1990). Managing money wisely, however, is a significant function of the college

foundation and the community college foundation board (Katsinas et al., 1990). Outside

counsel also has been employed by community colleges to provide assistance in wisely

investing endowment funds (Ryan, 1994).

Summary

Systems theory has provided a framework and a broader context for

understanding community college foundation performance. By acknowledging that there

are various levels of systems and interconnections among open systems, it is possible to

examine the foundation as a subsystem, whose specific environment will greatly affect its

success and survival.









From their earliest development, community colleges answered the demands of a

growing populace, industrialization, and democratization. Due to the unique mission of

two-year colleges, to offer "opportunity with excellence," their resource needs exceed

what is afforded through public financial support, tuition, and fees (Parell, 1988).

Studies in higher education philanthropy and research on private support for

community colleges have shown that certain institutional and programmatic factors

support fund-raising effectiveness. These factors include the college's allocation of

resources to the fund-raising operation; critical roles played by the college president,

chief resource development officer, and foundation board member; importance of

evaluating the college's foundation in terms of meeting institutional strategic goals;

college geographic location; college size; and college endowment.

Chapter 3 follows with the design of the study, which includes a description of the

instrumentation, research population, procedure for data collection, statement of

variables, descriptive profiles, and research hypotheses.















CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This chapter presents the instrumentation, research population, procedure for data

collection, statement of variables, descriptive profiles, and research hypotheses.

Instrumentation

In the fall of 1999, initial discussions among resource development professionals

in the Council for Resource Development prompted interest in a survey that would

provide an understanding of the status of external funding efforts in both grants offices

and foundation offices in community colleges nationwide. With support from CRD,

Dr. Barbara Keener, Graduate Faculty in the College of Education, University of Florida,

led a research team, including this researcher, in the development of a survey

questionnaire. The research project received financial support from the Clements Group,

an institutional advancement and resource development consulting firm, and endorsement

by the American Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). A review of the

literature and previously administered survey instruments in the field of resource

development guided the research team's development of questions to include in the

survey instrument.

The primary purpose of the survey instrument was to provide baseline data for an

analysis of community college resource development functions, characteristics, and

performance in both grants and foundation operations. The survey items germane to this

researcher's study were those having to do with the annual revenue of community college









foundations and selected variables associated in the literature with successful foundation

performance.

For external validation of the survey, a review panel with expertise in community

college resource development provided assistance in reviewing survey questions and

potential problems. These ten content experts, primarily members of the CRD Executive

Board (see Appendix A), received a cover letter, survey draft, and evaluation form by

e-mail on March 21, 2000, including a request for their response by March 28, 2000 (see

Appendices B and C). In early April 2000, a synopsis of changes was compiled and

reviewed by the University of Florida research team. Based on the input of the content

experts, the research team made extensive changes to the survey instrument throughout

April of 2000.

On May 4, 2000, a second panel of reviewers, consisting of the CRD Board of

Directors and other individuals with expertise in resource development and community

colleges (see Appendix D), received the second draft of the survey instrument.

Instructions in a cover letter asked for return of the evaluation form and any additional

comments by May 15, 2000 (see Appendices E and F). Numerous revisions were made

based on the input from the nine reviewers who provided detailed responses. A research

protocol for the study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review

Board (IRB), which granted its approval in June 2000. The IRB approved the protocol

and the statement of informed consent, which appeared on the front page of the survey.

The statement explained the conditions of the research study and assured participants of

the confidentiality of their identity.









Research Population

Resource development professionals whose institutions were members of the

CRD and/or AACC were invited to participate in the research team's study. The CRD

and AACC membership lists provided a research population of approximately 1,100

community colleges. Of the total universe of 2,068 two-year postsecondary institutions, it

was determined that 1,029 are public, 309 are private not-for-profit, and 730 are private

for-profit institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). For this researcher's study,

the population.was limited to the two-year United States public community colleges that

held membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more years

between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). It

was determined that between 1998 and 2001 the annual average number of two-year

United States public community colleges belonging to CRD was 650.

Procedure for Data Collection

In July of 2000, CRD mailed to the membership of CRD and AACC, combined, a

cover letter addressed to the "Resource Development Professional" (see Appendix G) and

the final survey questionnaire (see Appendix H). Instructions stated that completed

surveys should be mailed or faxed to the survey team at the University of Florida by

August 15, 2000. In January 2001, a second survey was mailed to the CRD and AACC

members who had not responded. Collection of survey results continued through

February of 2001. A research assistant was hired to enter the data into an Excel

spreadsheet template according to detailed instructions prepared by the research team;

data entry was completed by March of 2001.









Statement of Variables

Since the purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United

States public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated

with successful foundation performance, the researcher focused on Section I (College

Profile) and Section III (Foundation/Private Gift Development) of the survey instrument.

The outcome variable was the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from

individuals, community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching

programs, and endowment interest and investments (see Appendix H, survey questions

#53a, #53b, #53c, #53d, #53e, #53f, #53g, and #52a).

Selected explanatory variables consisted of the foundation operating budget,

including salaries and benefits (see Appendix H, survey question #49); the degree to

which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation board member

individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation operation (see

Appendix H, survey questions #60a, #60d, #60c); the degree to which meeting

institutional strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation

operation (see Appendix H, survey question #57b); the college geographic location (see

Appendix H, survey question #15a, #15b, and #15c); the college size or credit enrollment

in nonduplicated student headcount (see Appendix H, survey question #12); and the

college endowment (see Appendix H, survey question #51). In cases where the

respondent did not complete survey question #12 for the fall 1998 enrollment, this

information was obtained through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS) (U.S. Department of Education, 1998b).









Descriptive Profiles

A total of 380 colleges returned the survey instrument. Of the 380 survey

respondents, 45 states and one U.S. territory were represented. Of the 380 total surveys

returned, 362 (56%) were from the target population of 650 two-year United States public

community colleges that were members in the Council for Resource Development (CRD)

one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001).

Applying the CRD Regional Structure (CRD, 2000) to the 362 respondents from

the target population, Table 1 presents a profile of the sample by the 10 CRD regions and

demonstrates the national scope of the sample.

Table 1

Profile of Sample by CRD Region

CRD Region n Percent
Region I 16 4.4
Region II 31 8.6
Region III 28 7.7
Region IV 77 21.3
Region V 64 17.7
Region VI 43 11.9
Region VII 25 6.9
Region VIII 13 3.6
Region IX 43 11.9
Region X 22 6.1
N= 362

Tables 2 and 3 provide the sample profile by college structure and geographic

location. Nearly 90% of the sample indicated being from a single community college









campus or a multi-campus district. Almost 57% designated either urban or suburban for

the geographic location of the institution; rural was the predominant geographic location

for just over 43% of the sample.

Table 2

Profile of Sample by College Structure
College Structure n Percent
Multi-College District 36 9.9
Multi-Campus District 146 40.3
Single Community College Campus 177 48.9
Other 3 .8
N = 362


Table 3

Profile of Sample by Geographic Location
Geographic Location n Percent

Rural 156 43.1
Urban 105 29.0
Suburban 101 27.9

N=362

The Katsinas classification system for community colleges, that was based on

1990 United States Census data and 1993 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System (IPEDS) information, bears an interesting comparison to the geographic profiles

of the sample. Of the 1,074 publicly controlled institutions in the Katsinas typology, 766

(71.3%) were rural, 103 (9.6%) were urban, and 205 (19.1%) were suburban (Katsinas,

1996).









Of the 350 sample respondents who reported on the year the college was

established, 118 (34%) were founded between 1852 and 1959, and 232 (66%) were

founded between 1960 and 1999. The 1960s represented the decade of greatest growth

for 50% of these respondents.

Of the sample, 342 (94.5%) indicated that a foundation or private gift

development office existed at their institutions, 17 (4.7%) answered that there was not

such an office, and 3 (.8%) did not respond. Regarding whether the grants office was

separate from the foundation or private gift development office, 195 (53.9%) answered

"yes," 88 (24.3%) answered "no," 72 (19.9%) answered "not applicable," and 7 (1.9%)

did not respond.

The date of establishment for foundation offices ranged from 1944 to 2000, as

shown in Table 4. The highest number of foundation offices established (122 or 33.7%)

occurred during the 1980s.

Table 4

Profile of Sample by Foundation Office Establishment Decade
Decade n Percent
1940 1 .28
1950 2 .55
1960 29 8.01
1970 93 25.70
1980 122 33.70
1990 64 17.68
2000 (Year Only) 3 .83
Total 314
Missing 48 13.26









Regarding the responsibility for the resource development function, 285 (78.7%)

of the sample answered "yes" to having a chief resource development officer or person

with similar responsibilities at their institution; 74 (20.4%) answered "no," and 3 (.8%)

did not respond. A total of 291 (80.4%) indicated the reporting line for the chief resource

development officer or person with similar responsibilities: 13 (3.6%) reported to the

chancellor, 58 (16%) to the district president, 141 (39%) to the campus president, 46

(12.7%) to a vice-president, and 33 (9.1%) to "other."

Research Hypotheses

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0

software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model

described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the

outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The proposed regression model was as

follows: Foundation Revenue = b(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of

college president) + b(critical role of chief development officer) + b(critical role of

foundation board member) + b(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +

b(college geographic location) + b(college size) + h(college endowment).

The following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the amount of the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 2:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the college
president is rated as playing a critical role in the institution's foundation
operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest
in the proposed regression model.









Hypothesis 3:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the chief resource
development officer is rated as playing a critical role in the institution's
foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 4:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the foundation
board member is rated as playing a critical role in the institution's
foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 5:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which meeting
institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in evaluating the
institution's foundation operation when controlling for the other
explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 6:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the more urban the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 7:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the greater the college size when
controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed
regression model.

Hypothesis 8:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the larger the college endowment
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model.

Summary

As part of a research team from the University of Florida, the researcher

developed a survey instrument, which was externally validated by review panels with

expertise in community college resource development. Resource development









professionals whose institutions were members of the CRD and/or AACC were sent a

cover letter and survey questionnaire by mail in July 2000. A follow-up mailing was sent

in January of 2001. While the CRD and AACC membership lists provided a research

population of 1,100 community colleges, the population for this study was further refined

to include only the 650 two-year United States public community colleges that held

membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more years between

1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).

The researcher focused on selected variables associated in the literature with

successful foundation performance to determine if they would have a statistically

significant and positive relationship to the amount of annual foundation revenue. The

outcome variable was the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from individuals,

community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching programs,

and endowment interest and investments. Selected explanatory variables consisted of the

foundation operating budget; the degree to which the president, chief resource

development officer, and foundation board member individually were rated as playing a

critical role in the foundation operation; the degree to which meeting institutional

strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation operation;

the college geographic location; the college size; and the college endowment.

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed to determine the extent to

which the proposed regression model described the sampling data and to examine the

degree of association between the outcome variable and the explanatory variables.

Chapter 4 follows with an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 provides conclusions

and implications, as well as suggestions for further research.














CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter includes an introduction that restates the study's purpose and

research questions, a summary of the research population surveyed, and the descriptive

and multiple regression results.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States

public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the

literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount

of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,

corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and

investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;

the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation

board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation

operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an

important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;

the college size; and the college endowment.

The proposed regression model was as follows: Foundation Revenue =

h(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of college president) + b(critical role of

chief development officer) + b(critical role of foundation board member) + b(importance









of meeting institutional strategic goals) + b(college geographic location) + b(college size)

+ b(college endowment).

The research questions guiding the study were as follows:

1. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?

2. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the college president is rated as playing a critical role in the
institution's foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

3. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the chief resource development officer is rated as playing a critical role
in the institution's foundation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

4. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the foundation board member is rated as playing a critical role in the
institution's foundation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model?

5. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in
evaluating the institution's foundation operation when controlling for the
other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

6. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?

7. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college size
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model?

8. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
endowment when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in
the proposed regression model?









Research Population

A total of 380 colleges returned the survey instrument. Of the 380 survey

respondents, 45 states and one U.S. territory were represented. Of the 380 total surveys

returned, 362 (56%) were from the target population of 650 two-year U.S. public

community colleges that were members in the Council for Resource Development (CRD)

one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001).

Descriptive Results

The descriptive statistics of the measures included in the analysis for the overall

sample are shown in Table 5.

In Table 5, the average response is simply the total score reported in terms of the

scale of the item response (i.e., the total score divided by the number of items of the

scale). For example, because the responses regarding the roles of the college president,

chief development officer, and foundation board member are on a 4-point Likert scale, an

average response of 3.708 for President suggests that, on average, the responses were

between the two categories, "4-very critical" and "3-critical." Likewise, an average

response of 3.556 for Chief Development Officer and 3.684 for Foundation Board

Member suggests that, on average, the responses were between the two categories "4-

very critical" and "3-critical." For Institutional Strategic Goals, or the importance of

meeting institutional strategic goals as a factor in evaluating the foundation operation, the

average response of 3.330 shown in Table 5 suggests that, on average, the responses were

between the two categories, "4-very important" and "3-important." For each of these

variables-President, Chief Development Officer, Foundation Board Member, and









Institutional Strategic Goals-there was general concurrence on the critical nature or

importance of each to the foundation operation as indicated by the high mean scores.

As reported in Table 5, the average foundation revenue was $1,010,694.1. The

average foundation operating budget was $232,479.08. College endowments averaged

$2,220,436.6, and the average college size was 9,251.075 students.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics of Outcome and Explanatory Variables


Variables
Foundation Revenue
Foundation Operating Budget
President
Chief Development Officer
Foundation Board Member
Institutional Strategic Goals
GEO-Rural
GEO-Urban
Size
Endowment
N = 362


M
1,010,694.1
232,479.08
3.708
3.556
3.684
3.330
.290
.431
9,251.075
2,220,436.6


SD
1,894,879.981
463,595.589
.669
.925
.672
.889
.454
.496
11,049.240
3,669,468.619


Multiple Regression Results

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0

software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model

described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the

outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The significance level for all statistical

tests was fixed at a = .05. The "missing listwise" option was selected for treating records

with missing data.


--


w









The R2 of .514 for the model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p <

.001, suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the

foundation revenue variance. The adjusted R2 was .499. The high magnitude of the R2

indicated a strong joint association that holds for the population. The regression equation

for the model was as follows: Foundation Revenue = -2,748,994 + .0818(foundation

operating budget) + 263,786.41(critical role of college president) + -178,650.7(critical

role of chief development officer) + 471,995.79(critical role of foundation board

member) + 172,199.36(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +

29,818.832(college geographic location: X1 = rural) + 190,597.98(college geographic

location: X2 = urban) + 16.696(college size) + .357(college endowment).

Table 6 reports the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), the standardized

regression coefficients (g), the observed t-values, and the squared semi-partial

correlations (r2). The explanatory variable for geographic location was categorical and,

therefore, dummy coded, resulting in two dummy coded variables, Xi where rural was

coded 1 and X2 where urban was coded 1. The category of suburban served as the

reference category. Three of the explanatory variables were statistically significant:

Foundation Board Member (b = 471,995.79, t(274) = 2.360, 2 = .019); Size (b = 16.696,

t(274) = 2.054, 2 = .041; and Endowment (b = .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000).

The interpretation of the unstandardized regression coefficient of any explanatory

variable is a function of the scale of measurement of that variable. For continuous

variables, the interpretation of the regression coefficient can be made in terms of rate and

direction of change. The regression coefficient indicates the expected unit change in the

outcome variable for each unit change in any one explanatory variable, while holding the









other ones constant. For instance, as reported in Table 6, the regression coefficient of

16.696 for Size suggests that for each additional credit student enrolled, there is an

average increase of $16.70 in Foundation Revenue. Likewise, the regression coefficient

of .357 for Endowment suggests that each dollar increase in endowment funds leads to an

average .36-cent increase in Foundation Revenue. Finally, the regression coefficient of

471,995.79 for Foundation Board Member suggests that for each unit increase (from "not

applicable," to "not critical," to "critical," to "very critical") in the resource development

professional's perception of the foundation board member's role, there is an average

increase of $471,996 in Foundation Revenue. Obviously, such perceptions are subjective

and would not, in themselves, create a difference in foundation revenue except as

indicators of greater board commitment, activity, and support.

Table 6

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients. Standardized Regression Coefficients, t-test
Statistics, and Semi-Partial r-squares

Variables b Std Error P t p
Intercept -2,748,994.00 926,553.53 -2.967 .003
F. Oper. Budget .0818 .222 .017 .368 .713 .00
President 263,786.41 213,864.91 .059 1.233 .218 .01
Chief Dev. Off. -178,650.7 107,932.48 -.074 -1.655 .099 .01
F. Board. 471,995.79 200,015.03 .110 2.360 .019* .02
Mmbr.
Inst. Str. Goals 172,199.36 118,003.64 .064 1.459 .146 .01
GEO-Rural 29,818.832 229,578.74 .007 .130 .897 .00
GEO-Urban 190,597.98 209,741.81 .048 .909 .364 .00
Size 16.696 8.127 .099 2.054 .041* .02
Endowment .357 .025 .679 14.211 .000* .42
*1 < .05.









Somewhat unanticipated were the statistically insignificant results for the

following explanatory variables: Foundation Operating Budget (b = .0818, t(274) = .368,

p = .713), President (b = 263,786.41, t(274) = 1.233, p = .218); and Institutional Strategic

Goals (b = 172,199.36, t(274)= 1.459, p = .146).

To determine the relative contribution of each explanatory variable, the squared

semi-partial correlation was calculated for each. The squared semi-partial correlation (r2)

represents the proportion of total variance (i.e., of the outcome variance) that is

associated with any one explanatory variable over and above that of the others. The

magnitude of 2 can be examined in terms of effect size where r = .26 is considered to be

large, r2 = .13 is considered to be medium, and r2 = .0196 is considered to be small

(Cohen, 1988). Effect sizes of .01 or lower are considered negligible, at best.

According to these criteria, for the three statistically significant variables, the

effect size of Endowment (1r = .42) was large, and the effect sizes of Foundation Board

Member (r2 = .02) and Size (r = .02) were small, as shown in Table 6. The explanatory

variables having negligible effect sizes were President (r = .01), Chief Development

Officer ( = .01), Institutional Strategic Goals (r= .01), Foundation Operating Budget (r2

= .00), Geographic Location of Urban (r2= .00), and Geographic Location of Rural ( =

.00).

Summary

The R2 of .514 for the model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p <

.001, suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the

foundation revenue variance. The adjusted R2 was .499. The high magnitude of the R2

indicated a strong joint association that holds for the population. Three of the explanatory






66

variables were statistically significant: Foundation Board Member (b = 471,995.79,

t(274) = 2.360, p = .019); Size (b = 16.696, t(274) = 2.054, p = .041; and Endowment (b

= .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000). For the three statistically significant variables, the

effect size of Endowment (e = .42) was large, and the effect sizes of Foundation Board

Member (r2 = .02) and Size (r2 = .02) were small.

Chapter 5 follows with conclusions and implications, as well as suggestions for

further research.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This chapter summarizes the study's purpose and analysis of data. It provides

conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further research.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States

public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the

literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount

of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,

corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and

investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;

the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation

board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation

operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an

important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;

the college size; and the college endowment.

The proposed regression model was as follows: Foundation Revenue =

b(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of college president) + b(critical role of

chief development officer) + b(critical role of foundation board member) + b(importance

of meeting institutional strategic goals) + b(college geographic location) + b(college size)

+ b(college endowment).









Analysis

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0

software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model

described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the

outcome variable and the explanatory variables. It was found that the R2 of .514 for the

model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p < .001, suggesting that the

explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the foundation revenue

variance. The adjusted R2 was .499. The high magnitude of the R2 indicated a strong joint

association that holds for the population. The regression equation for the model was as

follows: Foundation Revenue = -2,748,994 + .0818(foundation operating budget) +

263,786.41(critical role of college president) + -178,650.7(critical role of chief

development officer) + 471,995.79(critical role of foundation board member) +

172,199.36(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) + 29,818.832(college

geographic location: X1 = rural) + 190,597.98(college geographic location: X2 = urban) +

16.696(college size) + .357(college endowment).

Three of the explanatory variables were statistically significant: Foundation Board

Member (b = 471,995.79, t(274) = 2.360, p = .019); Size (b = 16.696, t(274) = 2.054, p =

.041; and Endowment (b = .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000). For the three statistically

significant variables, the effect size of Endowment (r2 = .42) was large, and the effect

sizes of Foundation Board Member (r2 = .02) and Size (r2 = .02) were small. The

explanatory variables having negligible effect sizes were President (r= .01), Chief

Development Officer (r= .01), Institutional Strategic Goals (r= .01), Foundation









Operating Budget (r2= .00), Geographic Location of Urban (r = .00), and Geographic

Location of Rural (r2 = .00).

Conclusions

It was concluded that the regression model accounted for approximately half of

the variance in foundation revenue, indicating a good overall fit of the selected

explanatory variables to the outcome variable and a strong joint association that holds for

the population. Of the explanatory variables included in the model, those having a

positive and significant relationship to foundation revenue were college endowment, role

of the foundation board member, and college size.

Of greatest influence in the model was the college endowment. That there was a

significant and positive relationship between endowment size and foundation revenue

reinforced existing research of postsecondary institutions (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990;

Dean, 1985; Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Pickett, 1977) and, specifically, two national

studies of community colleges (Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987).

Literature regarding community college endowments is limited, due, in part, to

their historically recent inception and growth. For example, an endowment size of

$50,000 was considered substantial in 1986; however, in 1993, foundation endowments

for 165 community colleges exceeded $1 million (Adams et al., 1994). The 1998-1999

endowments for the community colleges in this sample averaged over $2.2 million.

The healthy economic environment and the 18% and 11% average stock market

investment returns for higher education endowments in 1998 and 1999, respectively,

(Van der Werf, 1999a; Pulley, 2000), could also help to account for the significant and

positive relationship between foundation revenue and endowment in this study. Since









endowment interest and investments were part of the foundation revenue comprising the

outcome variable, institutions with larger endowments were more likely to experience

larger interest and investment gains during the 1998-1999 fiscal reporting period of this

survey. Robust economic conditions and investment earnings also may have encouraged

additional generosity and support on the part of individuals, corporations, and

foundations and, thus, affected the community college foundation revenue gained and

reported in this study.

Of secondary influence in the model was the role of the foundation board member

as perceived by the resource development professional responsible for the foundation

operation. The role of the foundation board member was significantly and positively

related to the foundation revenue. The average response of 3.684 for the role of the

foundation board member suggested that most survey respondents viewed the foundation

board member's role as "very critical" or "critical." These findings concurred with the

literature regarding the importance of the foundation board for successful community

college foundations (Degerstedt, 1982; Hunter, C. B., 1987; Sharron, 1982). In a national

survey of resource development personnel from 418 public community colleges, careful

selection of board members was the suggestion most frequently cited to assure foundation

success; the pitfall most frequently cited was not choosing the right foundation board

members (Degerstedt, 1982).

College size proved to be positively and significantly related to foundation

revenue. This result followed prior research findings that institutional size is an important

variable in researching public institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). The finding

supported previous literature that linked greater college size to the community college's









establishment of a foundation (Degerstedt, 1982; Angel & Gares, 1989) and to more

successful community college foundations and development programs (Glandon, 1987;

Maples, 1980; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998; Ryan, 1993).

The statistically insignificant finding for foundation operating budget ran counter

to the literature supporting resource allocation as an important variable for fund-raising

success (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Glennon, 1985;

Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Jenner, 1987; Johnson, J. J., 1986; Leslie, 1969;

Levis, 1991; Luck, 1974; Luck & Tolle, 1978; Maples, 1980; Miller, 1991; Pickett,

1977). In general, institutional spending is reported most consistently as the variable best

correlated with fund-raising effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

That no significant relationship was found between foundation operating budget

and foundation revenue may have been the result of how this information was requested

in the survey instrument and of possible misunderstanding on the part of respondents.

Survey respondents were to indicate the total annual foundation operating budget and to

include the salaries and benefits of foundation personnel. Of the 300 respondents to this

survey item, 275 (92%) reported a foundation operating budget of less than $500,000; the

remaining 25 (8%) reported a foundation operating budget from $500,000 to 4.5 million.

That 13 of these respondents indicated having no foundation operating budget and that 10

respondents reported budgets from 1 to 4.5 million raises questions as to whether these

data were reported consistently. Differences in how foundation operations are funded

may have compounded the problem. The literature suggests that funding for foundation

operations can come exclusively from the host institution, from foundation-generated

resources alone, or some combination (Hedgepeth, 1999; Simic, 1998). Perhaps some









respondents excluded budgetary contributions from the host institution or included all

foundation assets in response to this question. Such misinterpretation may have

confounded a relationship between the foundation operating budget and foundation

revenue.

This study also found no statistically significant relationship between the critical

role of the president and foundation revenue. While this finding concurred with one

national study of state colleges and universities (Hunter, F. D., 1987), it contradicted the

literature specifically regarding two-year colleges (Bock & Sullins, 1987; Duffy, 1979;

Glandon & Keener, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998b; Glennon, 1985; Ironfield, 1991;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; Keener, 1982; Keener et al., 1991; Mosier, 1980; Robinson,

1989; Ryan, 1988, 1989).

While no significant relationship existed between the amount of foundation

revenue and the role played by the president, survey respondents, on average, thought the

president played a "very critical" or "critical" role in the institution's foundation

operation. The statistically insignificant finding may be explained, in part, by the limited

range of responses at the high end (M = 3.708) of the 4-point Likert scale.

It has been suggested that fund raising has not been a high priority for community

college presidents (Ryan, 1993) and that the president's understanding, advocacy, and

support of the advancement function may be more critical than his or her personal

solicitation of funds (Ryan, 1994). Additionally, it has been stated that the president's

leadership capacity in the area of advancement largely will determine fund-raising

success for most community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998b). While these issues

deserve further exploration, this study's findings are inconclusive regarding the









relationship between the amount of foundation revenue gained and the role of the

community college president.

Research has shown that having a chief development officer or individual

responsible for external resource development is characteristic of successful foundations

(Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987). Having a chief development officer or

individual responsible for external resource development was characteristic of

community college foundations with values of $1 million or more in a 1992 national

survey (Glandon & Keener, 1994). Another national survey in 1997 found that the

community college development officer or foundation executive director played the most

active role in soliciting funds (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). While the relationship

between foundation revenue and the chief resource development officer's role was

statistically insignificant in this study, the finding remains inconclusive. At least 20% of

the respondents in the sample did not have a chief resource development officer (or a

person with similar responsibilities) at the institution, in which case "not applicable" or

"1" on the Likert scale would have been noted on the survey. Still, the high average

response (M = 3.556) on the 4-point Likert scale suggested that most survey respondents

rated the role of the chief development officer as "very critical" or "critical" to the

foundation operation.

Connecting college and development planning has been cited as necessary for

successful community college resource development (Blong & Bennett, 1991; Daniel,

1985; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hooks & Kelley, 1990; Keener, 1982; Robison, 1982;

Ryan, 1994; Wattenbarger, 1982). That a statistically significant relationship was not

found between meeting of institutional strategic goals and foundation revenue in this









study may be misleading. Asked to indicate the importance that meeting institutional

strategic goals had in evaluating the foundation operation, survey respondents,

understandably, may have based their answers to this item on whether the foundation was

formally or informally evaluated. While the foundation may have used institutional

strategic goals for planning and guiding operational decisions, the lack of a formal or

informal evaluation component may have contributed to a lower response regarding the

importance of this item. Still, on average, the responses were between the categories

"very important" and "important," an indication that meeting institutional strategic goals

was meaningful to most foundation operations. The relationship of foundation revenue to

the foundation's meeting of institutional strategic goals, however, remains inconclusive.

In this study, no statistically significant relationship was found between

foundation revenue and an urban versus a suburban location. Likewise, no statistically

significant relationship was found between foundation revenue and a rural versus a

suburban location. While geographic location did not prove to be a significant variable in

this study, the literature suggested that an urban location could enhance success in

development operations (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Bulpitt, 1982; Gatewood, 1994;

Hunter, C. B., 1987; Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Ryan, 1993). Fund-raising

potential still may be linked to an institution's location and access to resources, yet the

college's geographic location, alone, may not provide the depth of information needed to

determine such access to resources. Measures of regional social and economic conditions

would enhance the understanding of environmental factors potentially affecting the

college system and foundation subsystem.









Implications

A systems framework can be used to examine structures, roles, and

interrelationships affecting community college foundation revenue. In examining system

relationships, it should be remembered that systems that are critical to the success of

higher systems are those that thrive (Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). This dynamic reinforces

the importance of considering the college system when analyzing the foundation.

Furthermore, the system or subsystem's existence should be questioned, the function

diagnosed, and the desired results planned relative to interrelated systems and their

demands (Van Gigch, 1978).

Philanthropy, entrepreneurship, and grantsmanship will be necessary for

decreasing overall dependency of decreasing revenue from more traditional sources

(Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). To meet the challenges of long-term viability, community

colleges will need leaders who can present compelling evidence of institutional and

student success in the community while showing that public funds are falling short of

important needs (Johnson, J. A., 1986). Leaders with vision and systemic solutions will

be needed for these future challenges (Clements, 1996). These leaders must recognize the

necessity and potential of a foundation and the elements that contribute to a foundation's

success. If discrepancies exist between variables of significance in theory and those in

practice, especially if foundation revenue is less than expected, college leaders and

managers might forego minor tweaking of the current system as the more limited

approach to solving systems problems, and, instead, redesign the system as the more

effective way to solve problems inherent in the system (Van Gigch, 1978).









Based on the significance between the critical role of the foundation board

member and foundation revenue in this study, encouraging board leadership will be

essential so that foundation board members are empowered to act in ways that will best

support the college. It will be important for community college leaders not only to

reconsider foundation board composition and selection, as has been suggested (Bryant,

1988; Gale, 1989) but also to examine board commitment and the barriers to increased

responsibility and self-direction.

Leadership, in successful organizational cultures, is shared systemwide and from

all levels (Wallin & Ryan, 1994). Challenging underlying assumptions and methods of

doing things will be necessary as foundation board members move forward (Hedgepeth,

1999). Creating a more proactive foundation board may involve an overhaul of the

foundation bylaws and a revamping of foundation structures for more direct oversight of

vital foundation functions such as raising, investing, and disbursing foundation funds

(Katsinas et al., 1990).

Development professionals should determine whether board members fully

understand their roles prior to joining the foundation board. A job description to clarify

responsibilities, a comprehensive and carefully designed orientation program, and a

continuing education program that includes self-assessment are ways in which board

members can be made aware of their roles, responsibilities, and contributions (Legon,

1989). In any case, foundation board members should see their role as a serious fiduciary

one (Robertson, 1982), and they should take an "active, intentional, and conscious role in

determining their functions and the manner in which they will be implemented"

(Hedgepeth, 1999, p. 6).









The positive and significant relationship between college endowment and

foundation revenue indicates that endowments have added resource development

potential for community colleges that have begun to make them a priority. The finding

underscores the importance of building a tradition of successful fund-raising practices

and sound resource management policies. The more successfully endowed funds are

invested and managed, the stronger the base of support for future foundation

performance. Managing money wisely is a significant function of the college foundation,

and community college foundation board members should consider having an

endowment and asset committee to oversee this important service to the college (Katsinas

et al., 1990). Outside counsel might also be employed to provide assistance in wisely

investing endowment funds (Ryan, 1994). Whether such funds are externally or internally

managed, community colleges should develop an effective investment policy to guide

investment decisions and to provide optimal investment returns (Kapraun & Heard,

1993).

This study's finding that geographic location did not have a significant

relationship to foundation revenue confirms that geographic location alone should not

deter community colleges, particularly those in rural and suburban areas, from looking to

the community as a "reservoir of support" for a better performing foundation (Degerstedt,

1982, p. 63). Similarly, college size, while significantly and positively related to

foundation revenue, had only a small effect and should not preclude smaller institutions

from implementing a resource development program or enhancing one currently in place.









Suggestions for Further Research

"Philanthropy is about leadership" (Payton et al., 1991, p. 14). Further

investigation of the link between leadership and foundation revenue in public higher

education is recommended. A follow-up survey regarding the president's role at various

system levels-external and internal to the college-is necessary to examine, more

specifically, the relationship of the community college president's role to successful

resource development. Multiple perspectives regarding the community college

president's role in development could be obtained from presidents, chief development

officers, foundation directors, and foundations board chairs for comparison relative to

foundation revenue.

Further research also is needed to study the relationship of resource allocation to

foundation revenue and operations. The literature suggests that funding for foundation

operations can come exclusively from the host institution, from foundation-generated

resources alone, or some combination of the two (Hedgepeth, 1999; Simic, 1998). An in-

depth study that accurately identifies the funding sources and budget allocations for

community college foundation operations, as well as the amounts dedicated to salaries

and benefits, would provide important data for consistent comparison of foundation

operating budgets to foundation revenues across institutions. It should be noted that

interpretation of such questions by survey respondents can vary widely, so survey

questions should be worded carefully, with definitions provided as necessary, so that

respondents provide information as accurately and consistently as possible.

External influences on the college system and foundation subsystem should be

considered in a follow-up study to determine what remaining variance in the model can









be accounted for by variables associated with such external influences. Initial studies

have included regional economic measures along with variables internal to two-year

colleges (Clements, 1990; Gatewood, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987). Ideally, variables

indicative of social and economic conditions should be tested through multiple regression

analysis with a national sample to determine if a relationship exists between community

and regional wealth and foundation revenue. From a systems perspective, determining the

degree to which the external environment beyond the college system relates to foundation

revenue would further advance the theoretical understanding of community college

resource development. In practice, certain external factors, of course, would be beyond

the control of college administrators (Sharron, 1982).

Leadership among community college foundation board members is another

suggested area of study. The characteristics of the foundation board, in particular, should

be examined to determine if board size, selection methods, and composition relate to

foundation revenue. Also, further study should focus on foundation revenue relative to

the strategic functioning of the foundation board. Such examination should include the

degree of foundation board autonomy and empowerment; the level and quality of the

foundation board's interaction with the college president, chief resource development

officer, and foundation director; and the foundation board's engagement in training and

self-assessment activities. Various models for structuring and empowering the foundation

board might be explored through case studies that could lead to greater understanding of

enhanced foundation performance.

Additional research is needed regarding community college endowments.

Quantitative and qualitative studies of colleges that have built impressive endowments









could reveal strategies and models for others to follow. Endowment purposes, spending

rates, and investment practices might be examined relative to revenue fluctuations. In

such studies, institutional size should be considered among other variables. Replication of

the current study in less-positive economic times, with a depressed stock market, might

reveal different results regarding the relationship between the endowment and foundation

revenue.

Finally, donor motivation, including perceptions of the college's quality and

success as related to endowment size, could be studied in relation to the foundation's

revenue and, particularly, the attainment of major gifts and future bequests. In assessing

development results, especially major gifts that require long-term commitment and

consistent nurturing of relationships, longitudinal studies would be helpful in tracking

community college donor relationships cultivated over several years.














APPENDIX A
PERSONS INCLUDED IN FIRST REVIEW PANEL
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION


Marilyn Appelson
Director of College Development &
Foundation
Oakton Community College
Des Plaines, Illinois

William Atkins
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Nassau Community College
Garden City, New York

Mary Brumbach
Executive Director of Resource &
Economic Development
Brookhaven College
Farmers Branch, Texas

David Canine
Vice President for Institutional
Advancement
Richland College
Dallas, Texas

Mike Gaudette
Director of College Advancement
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Coos Bay, Oregon


Perry Hammock
Director of Resource Development &
Foundation
Ivey Tech State College
Indianapolis, Indiana

Elaine Ironfield
Vice President
The Clements Group
Salt Lake City, Utah

Karen Luke Jackson
Consultant
Hendersonville, North Carolina

Sonja Jackson
Grants Writer
Polk Community College
Winter Haven, Florida

Susan Kelley
Vice President for Resource Development
& Government Relations
Valencia Community College
Orlando, Florida















APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL









March 21, 2000


Dear Survey Review Content Expert,

Thank you for serving on the panel of reviewers for the Community College External
Funding Survey. Our research team from the University of Florida is conducting this
national survey with the Council for Resource Development and additional support from
the Clements Group. The study results will provide much needed data on the status of
resource development in community colleges and on success factors pertinent to
community college external funding from grants, contracts, and private giving. These
results will be useful to trustees, presidents, development officers, human resource
personnel, and other decision makers who can positively influence external funding
efforts and outcomes.

You were selected as a member of the review panel because of your expertise in
community college resource development. Your cooperation in evaluating the first draft
of the enclosed survey will greatly assist the research team in identifying potential survey
problem areas such as ambiguous or difficult questions, irrelevant items, missing
questions, terms that need clarification, or survey format.

After reviewing the survey, please complete the attached evaluation form. You may add
comments directly on the email version of the survey draft. If returning the revised survey by
email, please make your changes in a different color (blue or red), use the strikeout feature
(delete), and add your comments at the end of the survey or on the evaluation form. If returning
the survey by fax or regular mail, please write directly on the printed survey. List any terms that
are used in the survey that you believe need a specific definition for a clear understanding in
answering the survey questions.

The research team will use your comments to refine the survey prior to its review by the Council
for Resource Development (CRD) Board in April and its national distribution in May. To keep to
this timetable, it is very important that you return the completed evaluation form and survey draft
by March 28, 2000 to the research team, attention Barbara Keener, via email to
bkeener@coe.ufl.edu or fax to 352-392-3664.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,


Barbara Keener, Ed.D.
Graduate Faculty
Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations
University of Florida

Sharon M. Carrier Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida University of Florida














APPENDIX C
EVALUATION FORM FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL









COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY


Evaluation Form

1. From the list below, please check the ONE person who should receive the survey
mailing for distribution at the college.


Chancellor
District President
Campus President
Resource Development Officer

Comments:



2. Are the survey instructions clear?


Yes


Grants/Contracts Officer
Foundation Officer
Chief Business Officer
Human Resource Officer


No How could they be improved?


3. Are the survey questions understandable?


Yes


No List the item number of any unclear survey
questions and state how these questions could be improved:


4. Are the survey questions easy to answer?


Yes


No Identify questions/items that would be
particularly difficult to answer and briefly explain why.


5. Will the information requested be difficult to access or calculate?

SYes Identify which questions ask for information that would be difficult to
access or calculate.
No









6. Is the format of the survey appropriate for the information being requested?


No Please comment on how the format could be
improved.


7. Estimate the time needed to answer the complete survey.


Minutes


8. What additional questions or items would you include to accomplish the survey
purpose?






9. What terms need to be defined or further clarified?








10. Will the answers to this survey result in the support of the survey's purpose?


Yes


No Please explain why.


Please make additional comments on the survey and return this form and survey by
March 28, 2000 to the attention of Barbara Keener, via e-mail bkeener@coe.ufl.edu
or by fax: (352) 392-3664.


Name:


Date:


Thank you for serving as a Content Expert Survey Reviewer and for providing your
critique of this important national survey. Your comments will assist the research team
in validating this survey for the benefit of community college resource development.














APPENDIX D
PERSONS INCLUDED IN SECOND REVIEW PANEL
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION


Marilyn Appelson
Director of College Development &
Foundation
Oakton Community College
Des Plaines, Illinois

Steven Budd
Dean of Institutional Advancement
Greenfield Community College
Greenfield, Massachusetts

Joan Edwards
Vice President of Planning and
Development
College of Southern Idaho
Twin Falls, Idaho

Kathleen Guy
Executive Director, Foundation
Northwestern Michigan College
Traverse City, Michigan

Bob Kiser
Director of Resource Development
Elgin Community College
Elgin, Illinois


Ann Munz
Director, Grants Development
Pellissippi State Technical Community
College
Knoxville, Tennessee

Theresa Roffino
Dean, Planning & Development
Bill J. Priest Institute for Economic
Development
Dallas, Texas

Annee Tara
Director of Planning, Development &
Public Relations
Central Maine Technical College
Auburn, Maine

Doug Van Nostran
Director of Grants
William Rainey Harper College
Palatine, Illinois














APPENDIX E
COVER LETTER FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL









May 3, 2000


Dear CRD Board Member and Guest Reviewer,

Thank you for serving on the panel of reviewers for the Community College External Funding
Survey. Our research team from the University of Florida is conducting this national survey with
support from the Council for Resource Development and the Clements Group and with the
endorsement of the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). The study results will
provide needed data on the status of resource development in community colleges. These results
will be useful to trustees, presidents, development officers, human resource personnel, and other
decision makers who can positively influence external funding efforts and outcomes.


You were selected as a member of the review panel because of your expertise in community
college resource development. Your cooperation in evaluating the enclosed survey will greatly
assist the research team in identifying potential survey problems such as ambiguous or difficult
questions, irrelevant items, and terms needing clarification.

After reviewing the survey, please complete the attached evaluation form. You may add
comments directly on the email version of the survey draft. If returning the revised survey by
email, please make your changes in a different color (blue or red), use the strikeout feature
(delete), and add your comments at the end of the survey or on the evaluation form. If returning
the survey by fax or regular mail, please write directly on the printed survey.

The research team will use your comments to refine the survey prior to its national distribution in
July. To keep to this timetable, it is very important that you return the completed evaluation form
and survey draft by May 15, 2000. If you are sending your comments by email, please directly
reply to the email address: crd@aacc.nche.edu. If you are faxing your comments, please send
them to the University of Florida, attention Barbara Keener, at fax number: 352-392-3664. If you
have questions, please call Barb at 352-392-2391, ext. 275.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,



Barbara Keener, Ed.D. Perry Hammock, Ph.D.
Graduate Faculty Vice President, Research
Department of Educational Leadership, Council for Resource Development
Policy and Foundations Ivy Tech State College
University of Florida

Sharon M. Carrier Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida University of Florida