Title: Evaluative criteria for community college foundations
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098838/00001
 Material Information
Title: Evaluative criteria for community college foundations
Physical Description: x, 129 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Duffy, Edward Francis, 1947-
Copyright Date: 1979
 Subjects
Subject: Educational fund raising   ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- Finance   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 122-127.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Edward Francis Duffy.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098838
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000091157
oclc - 05859396
notis - AAK6552

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 7 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text












EVALUATIVE CRITERIA CFR COMMUNITY
COLLEGE FOUNDATIONS









By

EDWI"'ARD FRANCIS DUFFY


A DISSSRTATICN PRESENTE' T7O ihE :GilD;UATE CC UNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSE IT OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULF-LLMENT OF TH-E REQU IMRENME S F O THE7
DEGREE OF DOCTOR DOF HILOSO'PHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1977

































Copyright i379

by

Edward Francis Duffv














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation

to Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairman of his doctoral

committee,for his assistance and help in completing the

study. The writer is also grateful to the other members

of his committee: Dr. Phillip A. Clark, Dr. James A. Hale,

and Dr. Robert S. Soar, for their helpful guidance.

The writer is appreciative of the support and advice

given by W. Harvey Sharron, Dean for Deveiopment at Santa

Fe Community College, whose assistance made the topic of

this study a reality. The writer would like to thank Dr.

John Young and Dr. Augustus Little for their encouragement

and editorial advice. The ;riter would also like to thank

.lice Price and Linda Blow fcr Eyping the study.

'N list cf particulars can encompass the depth of

gratitude the writer feels to his wife, Janet, for her part

in encouraging the undertaking and insuring its completion.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOLEDG NTS - - - - - -

LIST OF TABLES - -

ABSTRACT - - - - -

CHAPTER --INTRODUCTION -

The Problem - - - - -

Assumptions - -

A ( Definition of Term. -

CHAPTER II--REVIEW OF LITERATURE -

Historical Overview of Foundations -

CoSmnunity, College Foundations
Characteristics of a Commlunity
College Foundation ------- -

The Environment of a Foundrtinr -
Conditions Found in a
SuccessEul Foundationc -

Evailuaatve Criteria -

Conclusions - - -

CHAPTER II--ANiAYSIS OF THE DAFA -

Sntroduction - - -

summary - - - - - - -


RECO,.i ,LAT S - - - - -
CF \W RL1'--0T' M RY, CDNC.TI MS D


Sunmm:'. of the Study - - -

Finding - - - - - - -
Evaluative Criteria - -

rnc.clu- ion - - -


Page

- - - ii i

- - - vii

- - - vii


'C".' -


F~ -F16


- - 3




- - - 32





- - -

- - - Sc
i










TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


Page

CHAPTER IV--continued

Recommendations - - - - - - - 94
Implications for Further Action - - 95
Suggestions for Future Research - - - - 96

APPENDIX A--FOUNDATION INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE - 99

APPENDIX B--LETTER TO COLLEGES IN REGION IV- - - 102

APPENDIX C--FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO COLLEGES
IN REGION IV - - - - - - 104

APPENDIX D--PANEL OF EXPERTS - - - - - - 106

APPENDIX E--LETTER AND MATERIAL SENT
TO PANEL OF EXPERTS - - - - - 108

APPENDIX F--QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE CHARACTERISTICS
AND CONDITIONS OF A SUCCESSFUL COM-
MUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION - - - 113

APPENDIX G--LETTER TO PRESIDENTS OF
PARTICIPATING COLLEGES - - - - 117

APPENDIX H--LETTER TO DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS
AT PARTICIPATING COLLEGES - - - 119

APPENDIX T--KENDALL'S CCFFLICiENT
OF CONCORDANCE - - - - - - 121

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - -- - --

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH - - - - - - - -12














LIST OF TABLES
Page

TABLE 1---Percentage of Monev Raised bv
College Foundations by Fiscal Year - 15

TABLE 2---Characteristics of a Successful
Community College Foundation by
Ranking - - - - - - - - 43

TABLE 3---Conditions That Influence a Successful
Community College Foundation by
Likert Scores - - - - - - 50

TABLE 4---Conditions That Influence a Successful
Community College Foundation by
Rank Order Scores - - - - - - 54

TABLE 5---Comparison of Administrative Percep-
tions of Foundation Characteristics - -

TABLE 6---Analysis of Variance of Perceptions
of Foundation Characteristics bv
Size of College - - - - - - 5

TABLE 7---Comparison of Administrative Percep-
tions of Foundation Conditions Using
Likert Scores - - - - - 9

TABLE 8---Analysis of Variance of Likert
Scores by Size of Community College - 63

TABLE 9---Cooparison of Administrative Percep-
tions of Foundation Conditions, using
Rank Order Scores - - - - - - 53

TABLE 10--Analysis of Variance of Rank
Ordered Scores by Size of
Cozmmunity College - - - - - - 70

TVABLE l--Analysis of Concordance of
Respondents by Groups to
Foundation Characteristics - - - 71

TABLE 12--Analysis of Concordance of Respondents
bv Groups to the Ten Top Conditions - 76













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

EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY
COLLEGE FOUNDATIONS

By

Edward F. Duffy

June, 1979

Chairman: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Maijr Department: Educational Administration
and Supervision




The purpose of the study was to develop evaluative

criteria for developing and maintaining successful

community college foundations. These criteria were rank

ordered oni he basis of perceptions of selected presidents

and development officers at community colleges in the

Southeastern United Sta-es.

As a result of t.e study, the following questions ';ere

answered:

1) How many community colleges in the Southeastern

United States have foundations?

2) Nhat do selected community college administrators

perceive as the characteristics which identify a

successful comm sunim'r college foundation?









3) What do selected community college administrators

perceive as the conditions found in a successful

community college foundation?

1) How do these perceptions of success vary between

types of public community colleges (e.g., single,

multi-campus, large or small colleges)?

5) How do the development officer and the president

of a college vary in their perceptions of the

characteristics and the conditions of a successful

community college foundation'



A survey was completed of all colleges in the South-

eastern United States (Region TV) listed in the 1977

Community, Junior and Technical College Directory to

determine those colleges that had active foundations.

Through a review of literature and a panel of experts, a list

of characteristics and conditions of a successful foundation

were formed. These criteria were refined through the

responses of ten presidents of community colleges with

exemplary foundations .

The established list of seven characteristics and

tent y-two conditions were mailed to the presidents and

development officers at 38 active college foundations in

the Southeastern United Crates. Sixty-two presidents and

developm-ent officers (4S") from thirty-two colleges returned

their questionnaire.


, i- i i i










The respondents were asked to rank order the conditions

and characteristics. A four-point Likert scale of

"no influence" to "great influence" was also applied to

the list of conditions. The returns of the second

questionnaire were analyzed to determine those characteris-

tics and conditions that were favored by the respondents.

A t-test was used to identify significant difference

between the responses of presidents and development officers.

Analysis of Variance was used to determine those variables

that measured differences for administrators at small single

campuses (under 2,000 FTE), large single campusess (over

2,000 FTh) and multi-campuses. Kendall's Coefficient of

Concordance was used to see if there was significant

agreement among the respondents.

The collected perceptions established that characteristics

and conditions do exist that are associated with a success-

ful community college foundation. Those community colleges

that had a planned and defined effort a fund-raising and

resource development involving the president and develop-

ment officer were seen as meeting the major conditions

for a successful community college foundation. An informed

governing board was also seen as a major condition for

success.

The study established seven characteristics of a

successful foundation. An analysis of the perceptions was

able to derive ten conditions necessary for a successful










foundation from the twenty-two established by a panel of

experts. These conditions and characteristics were found

to be significant.

The perceptions recognized that fund-raising was an

integral part of a strong public relations program and

basically cannot exist unless there were well-conceived and

strong public relations activities. Alumni associations

were ranked the lowest of the twenty-two conditions for a

successful community college foundation.














CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Declining resources was one of the major problems in

the higher education system in the 1970's. This condition

has had a greater impact on education than any foreseeable

trend (Abranowit: & Rosenfeld, 1973, p. 1). The period of

the late 1970's was marked by dwindling federal categorical

aid, decreasing student enrollment, high levels of inflation

and increased student demands for more diverse educational

programs. Specifically, this decline had a significant

effect on the community college (Cheit, 1972, Green 6 Obanion,

1972). Harper (1976) made the point clearly:

Faced with first serious threat tc
the open door concept since it became
the cornerstone of the movement tmvo
decades ago, community colleges must
either accept a closing door or find
some ner ways to prop it open. (p. 48)

The use of fund raising and development has been offered '.s

a viable alternative for meeting this concern at community

colleges.

The not-for-profit college related foundation has the

potential of being a major method to tap various services and

fu'ds as stated by ioodbury (1973):

The primary purpose of establishing a
community college foundation is to pro-
vide an effective vehicle for local










solicitations of funds to help support
programs and facilities at the college
not being adequately Funded elsewhere.
(p. 16)

The foundation concept has been found throughout world

history. Ancient records have revealed the characteristics

of modern charitable or non-profit foundations (Bremer,

1965, p. 13). These took on different forms:

The Ptolemies endowed a library in
Alexandria; Plato bequeathed his funds
to support his Academy after his death,
and in the early centuries A.D. in Rome,
private associations for relief of the
poor, educational institutions, hos-
pitals, foundling asylums, and old
people's homes were established.
(Fremcnt-Smith, 195., p. 11j

In the Middle Ages, the church became the main dispenser

of charity: "During the Reformation in England, the guilds

and companies replaced the church as the dispenser of many

charitable gifts" (Freemont-Smith, 1966, p. 11).

This practice continued in the United States, along with

the endowment of many early colleges. Bremer 1965) con-

sidered the alumni fund to be a significant step in the de-

velopment of philanthropic giving to higher education (p. 16).

Yale had the first fund which was started in 1390. Midway

Junior College of Kentucky was said to be the first junior

college with a program of annual giving (Bremer, 1965, p. 16)

The emphasis on the present form of foundations came in

iS9-1 with the first general income tax bill (Dermer, 1972,

p. 7). Education and charities were given a vehicle to avoid

taxes and enable their donors to do the same. The modern









American foundation grew out of the great American fortunes.

Early examples of foundations were the George Peabody Edu-

cation Fund which put aside $2 million for the promotion and

encouragement of education in the South, and the $1 million

John F. Slater Fund that provided for the education of freed

men. In the early 1970's, foundations in the United States

increased from approximately 50 foundations at the turn of

the century to some 26,000 major foundations in 1972 (:ucher,

1972, p. 7).

The first foundation in higher education was established

in 1893 at the University of Kansas (Johnson, 1966, p. 1).

The not-for-profit foundation at community colleges has not

had such a long history. The community college foundation at

Highaldns Community College in Illinois was established in

1962 and was believed to be the oldest foundation at a public

community college (Sims, 1976).

In a study done in mid-1978, ". approximately fifty-

two [52) percent of the public community colleges in the United

States had established the foundation as a vehicle for en-

couraging and receiving private funds" (Sharron, p. 1)

Not all of these foundations have been effective in gener-

ating external funds (Luck, 1974). A successful foundation

calls for a coordinated effort at raising money. There are

many conditions that affect the success of community college

foundations. In the review of literature the following

factors have been found to affect the community college










foundations: 1) the community, 2) the college, and 3) the

foundation itself. At the time of this writing, however,

general knowledge about the not-for-profit foundation in the

community college is limited. There have been only three

dissertations on community college foundations over the last

ten years (Sims, 1973; Luck, 1974; and Silvera, 1974). None

of these studies examined the characteristics of a success-

ful community college foundation.

This study was designed to research the foundation as

a sub-system of the college and examine these perceived con-

ditions that enable a foundation to be successful as well as

the characteristics of a successful foundation. The re-

searcher emphasized the conditions found in the foundation

rather than those which are outside the college and there-

fore cannot be known or affected by persons working with the

foundation itself.


The Problem

Statement of the Problen

The problem cf the study was to develop evaluative

criteria for community college foundations and to validate

and rank order these criteria on the basis of perceptions of

selected community college administrators in the Southeastern

United States.

As a result of this research, the following questions

were answered:

I. How many conu:nity colleges in the Southeastern

United States have foundations?










W. hat do selected community college adminis

trators perceive as the characteristics which

identify a successful community college

foundation?

3. What do selected community college adminis-

trators perceive as the conditions found in

successful community college foundations?

4. How do these perceptions of success vary be-

tween types of public community colleges

(e.g., single, multi-campus, large or small

colleges)?

5. How do the development officer and the president

of a college vary in their perception of the

characteristics and the conditions of a

successful community college foundation?

Limi-ations

i. These findings may have significance only to

community colleges similar in purpose, structure,

clientele and services offered, to the community

colleges included in this study.

2 The ex post facto design has an inherent weak-

ness in:

a. the inability to manipulate the independent

variable

b. the lack of oower to randomize

the impossibility of establishing definite

cause-effect relationships.









3. The findings are limited to the perceptions

of selected community college administrators

at the time of the study.

Delimitations

1. The scope of the study was confined to public

community colleges in Region I' of the U. S.

Department of Health, Education and welfare.

The study was limited to the public community

colleges that have established not-for-orofit

foundations which have been in existence for at

least two years. The colleges also met the

following criteria:

a. the college has had a full-time person

working at resource development for the last

two years,

b. the data will be representative of the scho-

lastic year 1977-78 except for data dealing

with full tine equivalent enrollment and the

resources reviewed by foundations which will

use the data from the fiscal years 197o-7S.


Assumptions

several assumptions were made relative to the conduct

of this study:

1. There are characteristics of a successful com-

munity college foundation as well as conditions

that are conducive to the development and mainten

ante of a successful college related foundation.









2. The members of the panel of experts were knowl-

edgeable of community college foundations and

are capable of identifying probable character-

istics and conditions relative to a successful

foundation.

3. The questionnaire developed by the researcher

and reviewed by the panel of experts and a

selected group of community college presidents

was appropriate for identifying the character-

istics of and conditions necessary for a success-

ful community college foundation.

Justification

The concern for money has become crucial during the decade

of the 1970's. The decline of enrollment of the mid-sevenzies

ushered in a new era in education. This era of declining en-

rollment and economic support placed a stronger emphasis on

planning and finance.

Hansen (19"6. stated that there were two possibilities

for increasing support to higher education: . "1. to

increase non-fcrmula funds, and 2. to increase enrollment"

(p. 29). The college related foundation has shown the toten-

tial for fostering these two potentialities. Several studies

have recommended further research on community college founda-

tions. Silvera (1974J, in his California study, pointed to a

need for continuous and current reporting and evaluation of

foundation efforts (p. 104). Luck and Tolle 1978S) in their









recent book, Community College Development: Alternative

Fund-Raising Strategies, supported Silvera's point:

It is unfortunate that there is not
more information from public compre-
hensive community colleges concerning
their fund-raising efforts and utili-
zation of not-for-profit foundations.
.The evidence suggests that little
is truely known about the increasing
two-year public college trend toward
the cultivation and development of pri-
vate financial resources. (pp. 14-15)

Although foundations can be found throughout the history

of the Western World, and some work has been done on the

legal aspects of college-related foundations, (Fiarmont-Smith,

1965; Hopkins, 1977; Weithorn, 19~0) very little research

has been done on the social, political and psychological con-

ditions affecting community college foundations. This study

addressed the identification of characteristics of a success-

ful community college foundation as well as those conditions

that foster a successful foundation.

The community college foundation has come . into

its own in the mid-1970's as a result of a necessity to assist

two-year institutions in meeting their goals and attaining

their stated mission" (Sharron, 1978, p. 1). There has been

a need to build on the limited research done in the past

(Sims, 1973; Luck, 1974; Silvera, 1974; Sharron, 1978) as

well as to establish criteria for the evaluation of com-

munity college foundations. A need for these criteria was

expressed by Suchman (1967):










All social institutions or subsystems,
whether medical, educational, religious,
economic or political are required to
provide 'proof' of their legitimacy
and effectiveness in order to justify
society's continued support Both the
demand for and type of acceptable
'proof' will depend largely upon the
nature of the relationship between
social institutions and the public.
(p. 2)

Research into social, political and psychological conditions

affecting a community college foundation enables college

administrators to establish a more effective foundation and

also enables the college to be more responsive to the needs

of the community.

Finally, the need for such a study has been encouraged

by the National Board of the National Ccuncil for Resource

Development (N.C.R.D.) as well as the Regional Board of

N.C.R.D. for Region IV. The findings will add to the research

already completed on resource development.


Definitions of Terms

Active college-related foundation: A college related

foundation that has been incorporated for three or more

years (for the purpose of this study, 1976-73), and has

raised at least $1,000 each year or a total of $5,000 over

the three year period, or sponsored at least three activities

each year.

College-related foundation: A foundation established

to maintain and aid the social, educational, charitable or

other activities of the college.







10

Development officer: A professional person knowledge-

able of institutional resources, goals and missions, and

possessing the capabilities and sophistication to identify

and link internal and external resources to support insti-

tutional priorities (Young, 197-.

Evaluative criteria: Those perceived factors, identi-

fied by a panel of experts and verified in a field survey

as being characteristics of and representing conditions

relating to a successful foundation.

Fiscal year: A twelve month period generally between

July 1 and June 30, for purposes of financial planning,

expenditures, and accountability of projects funded by

the state or federal government (Young. 19'7). (The re-

searcher realized that the federal fiscal year was changed

in 1977; he did, however, record the fiscal year as defined

in this study).

Foundation: A non-governmental, non-profit organization,

having a principal fund of its own and established to main-

tain or aid social, educational, charitable or other ac-

tivities serving the common welfare (Andrews, 1950, p. 901.

'ulti-camnus: A community college organizational

pattern utilizing the following: one district, a single

college, two or more campuses, where a central administration

directs many of the internal operations of the college and

the campuses each have a chief administrator reporting di-

rectly to the president, a chief community service, student

services and academic officer on each campus.










Public community college: An institution supported

by public funds and governed by a publicly-appointed board,

which offers courses and/or programs limited to the first

two years of post-secondary education in at least two of the

following areas: transfer, occupational-technical, and

community service (Arney, 1969).

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare--

Region IV: A designated geographic area used by the depart-

ment to administer programs. It is made up of the following

states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,

North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.


Procedures

The study was divided into two chases. The first was

to establish the characteristics and conditions found in a

successful public community college foundation. The second

chase was to validate and rank order these characteristics

and conditions on the basis of the perception of adminis-

trators at selected community college foundations in the South

eastern United States.

Phase I--Evaluative Criteria

The purpose of this phase was to establish the size and

characteristics of the population to be used in the study as

well as to develop a listing of initial criteria of a success-

ful community college foundation. The phase was divided into

two sections.

In the first section, a questionnaire was developed

(see Appendix A) for public community colleges which helped








12
identify colleges with an active foundation that was in-

corporated on or before January 1, 1978, and colleges that

had a person responsible for resource development.

The questionnaire was aimed to establish those colleges

with foundations that were incorporated for at least three

years. New foundations have been found to take about three

years to become fully operational (Sharron, 1977). The re-

searcher only wanted to survey those administrators who had

established active foundations.

College foundations were chosen only if they had a per-

son responsible for resource development. The researcher

desired to get two knowledgeable opinions of the character-

istics and conditions of a successful foundation. Basic data

regarding the size of the student body and the designated or-

ganinational structure of the college were also collected.

This questionnaire was distributed to the 192 colleges

in Region IV as listed in the 1977 Community, Junior and

Technical College Directory. A cover letter fro the Di-

rector of the Institute of Higher Education at the University

of Florida accompanied the questionnaire, asking for consid-

eration in completing the instrument (see Appedix B).

The original mailing consisted of a stamped envelope

addressed to the president of each institution. Enclosed

with the envelope was the cover letter, a questionnaire, and

a pre-addressed stamped return envelope.

Three weeks later, a follow-up letter was sent to the

presidents who had not yet responded to the questionnaire










(see Appendix C). This letter was signed by the investi-

gator. Another copy. of the questionnaire was enclosed

with the letter along with a self-addressed, stamped en-

velope.

A hand tabulation of the returned questionnaire de-

termined the number and characteristics of the community

colleges having active foundations.

In the second section of -he first phase, initial

evaluative criteria were developed for successful community

college foundations. To accomplish this objective, a panel

of experts were formed (see Appendix D), made up of the past

three presidents of the National Council for Resource De-

velopment (K.C.R.D.). the regional head of N.C.R.D., for

Region IV of the U. S. Department of Health, Education arid

Welfare, and the state representative of N.C.R.D. for Florida.

Each of these individuals was chosen because of their ex-

perience with resource development and college related

foundations as well as their contact with community colleges

throughout the United States.

A survey of literature was made to determine the

characteristics and conditions of a successful community

college as stated in previous studies. Because of the

limited information available, the panel of experts was used

to add to the list of criteria gleaned from the literature,

The panel was asked b\ telephone to list characteristics

and conditions of a successful foundation. The panel was

also asked to list between five and ten exemplary community








14

college foundations. The individual panel number sugges-

tions were added to the lists established frcm the review

of literature. The suggestions of exemplary community

college foundations were combined in a list. A letter was

then sent to the panel participants (see Appendix E) along

with the three lists, characteristics, conditions and exem-

plary community college foundations. They were asked to:

1) add to the characteristics and conditions already estab-

lished and 2) rank order the exemplary foundations. Finally,

those college foundations that were highly ranked by the

panel were sent the developed questionnaire. These presi-

dents reviewed the criteria and rank ordered the character-

istics and conditions. This formed a field test of the

questionnaire. The findings were used to refine the in-

strument.

Phase II--The Application of the Evaluative
Criteria to Selected Community College
Foundations in the Southeastern United States

This chase has been divided into two sections. The

first section validated the characteristics and conditions

of a successful community college foundation. The second

section summarized the findings of the study and the impli-

cations taken from the findings.

In the first section a questionnaire was refined from

the instrument sent to the ten presidents of community

colleges which the panel designated as having exemplary

foundations. The refined questionnaire (see Appendix F)

was sent to the president and development officer of public








15

community colleges in the Southeastern United States that

met the criteria for the study. A letter of explanation

was sent by the researcher to the president (see Appendix

G) and the person in charge of resource development at the

college (see Appendix H]. A self-addressed, stamped en-

velope was enclosed for the return of the questionnaire.

Three weeks later tie respondents who did not return their

questionnaire were contacted by telephone. The rankings of

respondents to the questionnaire were tabulated to determine

the characteristics of a successful foundation as well as the

perceptions of conditions that foster a successful foundation.

An analysis of variance was used to determine if there was a

significant difference in the perceptions of administrators

at small single campuses, large single campuses and multi-

campus colleges. A t-test was used to determine if signifi-

cant difference existed between the perceptions of presi-

dents and development officers. Kendall's Coefficient of

Concordance (Siegel, 1954) was used to determine if there was

significant agreement among the respondents to the question-

naire. In the second section of this phase, summarizations

were made about each group of respondents in the study. The

relationship of the themes of planning, communications and

motivation to a successful community college foundation was

examined.

Analysis of Data

The data were analyzed using the established groups. A

rank order of the conditions and characteristics of a successful










foundation was established through an averaging of the

returns of the respondents. The responses were summarized

according to the characteristics of the institution and

the roles of the respondent. Analysis was done on the

similarities and dissimilarities of the perceptions. The

results were reported in a narrative form as well as through

summary tables of the statistical findings.

Organization of the Research Report

The research report is presented in four chapters.

The first chapter includes the introduction, the problem,

definitions of terms, and the procedures. The second chapter

includes a review of the related literature. The third

chapter discusses the findings as well as an analysis of the

findings. The fourth chapter presents a summary, the con-

clusions and the recommendations of the study.













CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Historical Overview of Foundations

Within the origins of higher education there are

elements which are the rudiments of external support for

the concept of higher education and its implementation.

Evidence of these early roots can be found in the beginning

of Western Civilization, and the establishment of the European

higher education model in early American Colonial history,

with the beginning of "log-college" Princeton and the devel-

opment of higher education. ost institutions of higher edu-

cation have never been able to generate enough reserve from

their students to insure survival, they have had to rely on

sources of funds from other segments of the society. The

evolution of the college related foundations has been an in-

tegral part of this development.

The history of foundations has been traced back to the

Greeks and Romans. The ancient Greeks endowed libraries

while te he Romans had private associations for the relief of

the poor, educational institutions, hospitals, and old

peoples' homes. During this long history, the concept of a

Foundation has taken on many different forms:










The concept of helping the poor and
suffering received its first powerful
stimulant through organized religion.
Later, the Industrial Revolution
broadened the scope of concern for
others spreading the giving and help-
ing concept to the newly risen wealthy
class of merchants, factory owners, and
bankers. (Silvera, 1974, p. 17)

Private support played a substantial role in the

founding of universities in Europe. According to Carmichael

(1959):

Individuals and private groups provided
the original support for higher educa-
tion in the English speaking world.
Gifts and grants made possible the first
buildings and the meager equipment they
contained. In the earliest days of Ox-
ford and Cambridge, instruction was
given in houses provided by the com-
munity. Many of the colleges that con-
stitute these two ancient universities
bear the names of men whose generosity
made possible their establishment.
Voluntary donations were the seed from
which the colleges and universities in
England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland
have sprung. (p. 107)

The concept continued in the United States as Hopkins

(1977) established

Since the founding of the United States
and beforehand in the Colonial period,
tax exemptions particularly with re-
spect to religious organizations was
common. The churches were openly and
uniformly spared taxation. This prac-
tice has been sustained throughout the
nation's history. (p. 3)

Foundations as they can be found in the 1970's developed

out of the income tax laws of 1894. As Dermer (1968) sug-


gested:










In 1894, when the first general income
tax was approved for corporations or-
ganiZed for profit making, it was auto-
matically assumed it would not apply
to religious, educational and chari-
table institutions and it wasn't until
1913 that Federal Income Tax legisla-
tion gave specific tax exemption to
religions, and educational legislation
extended the benefits by making gifts
to such activities deductible. (p. 7)

Many of the great foundations of the United States

developed out of the wealth and tax laws of the 1900's. A

majority of the sources were from the huge fortunes made in

the expansion of American industries. Iron and steel gener-

ated wealth for Carnegie, oil for the Rockefeller and Hark-

ness' Commonwealth Fund, copper for the Guggenheims, tobacco

for Duke, retailing for Rosenwald, Field and Hartford, and

the more recent growth of the automobile industry for Sloan,

Mott, Kettering, and Ford (Whittaker, 1974, p. 41).

These foundations have had substantial influence on the

development of education in American society. In 1913, the

Carnegie Foundation spent 5.6 million dollars while the fed-

eral budget for education that year was 5 million dollars

(Kuhn, 196S, p. .

Although the federal government gave a major impetus to

higher education through the Morrill Act of 1862, which

created land grant colleges, private philanthropy was a major

resource for the development of private institutions in the

United States. Yale University established the first alumni

fund in 1S90. The oldest independent but affiliated founda-

tion designed to aid a state institution through the use of










private resources was the Kansas University Fndowment

Association, incorporated in 1893.

Foundations and private giving played a major role in

the development of many of the great institutions of higher

education in the United States. Curti and Nash (1965) in

their book Philanthropy in the Shaping of American Higher

Education outline the role of the university foundation in

the development of American universities. Universities'

foundations have provided the funds and support to sustain

and maintain a high level of quality at both public and

private institutions.


Community College Foundations

The history of foundations at community colleges has

been much shorter than that of university foundations. The

first public junior college opened in 1902 at Joliet,

Illinois.

William Rainey Harper, the president of
the University of Chicago, recommended
to school officials in Joliet, Illinois,
that they offer two years of classwork
beyond high school. If successfully
completed these students would be ac-
cepted by the University of Chicago
for the junior and senior years.
(Wattenbarger and Cage, 1974, p. 19)

Similar plans were instituted in other cities through-

out the United States. in 1906 the California legislature

provided that ". . the board of trustees of any city,

district union, joint union or county high school could

prescribe postgraduate courses of study for graduates of

its high school or other high schools" tFields, 1962, p. 2'










Community colleges grew in number following the

depression. The enrollment in two year colleges tripled

between 1940 and 1960, extending from 200,000 to 600,000

full-time and part-time students (Carnegie Commission, 1970,

p. 4).

This growth demanded financial resources to meet the

needs of the ever increasing number of students. College

related foundations were a source used by a number of col-

leges to supplement local, state, and federal funds.

The first program of annual giving at a community col-

lege was established in 1906; foundations did not fully de-

velop at the community college level until recently. The

vast majority of community college foundations have been

formed since the 1960's. The oldest foundation supporting a

public community college was the Highlands Community College

Foundation established in 1962 (Sims, 1976, p. 30). The

community college foundations were primarily formed to:

provide an effective vehicle for the
local solicitation of funds to help
support programs and facilities at
colleges not being adequately funded
elsewhere. (Woodbury, 1973, p. 16)

The foundations provided services to both the students

and the community. Their purpose has been oriented to the

community rather than the alumni of the college. Edison

(19681 in a paper presented at Northern Illinois University

saw several advantages in operating a foundation:








22

1) By requiring precise definitions
of all cooperative elements, the
foundation could minimize any local
political and/or personal pressures,
and simultaneously insure continuity
of operation as organization member-
ship change personnel.

2) A foundation will broaden the base
of college support throughout the col-
lege district and will thus contribute
substantially to the public relations
and educational objectives of the college.

3) A foundation provides a reciprocal
tax exempt organization to receive funds
for the college and will increase the
base of participants capable of solic-
iting funds on behalf of the college.

4) A foundation frequently lends
prestige to its operation in fund
solicitation, since it is not neces-
sarily limited to a geographic area
and need not tie itself up by repre-
senting the name of only one specific
institution.

5) A foundation can more readily de-
termine the need for outside organiza-
tions and also obtain professional coun-
sel when required.

6) A foundation can construct a rela-
tionship for lay citizens to work on
specific phases of the college develop-
ment in which they have the greatest
interest.

7) A foundation can emphasize the lo-
cality of the college and educate the
public to the fact that the college is
responsive to local needs.

8) A foundation can define public re-
sponsibility for the needs of the college
without the onus of any personal benefits
which might accrue to the college staff.
This function should result in the de-
velopment of a highly cooperative, en-
lightened, and responsive citizenry which
would fulfill the goals of the college
programs. (pp. 14-15)







23

The administration of a college can be aided greatly

by a foundation. Several studies have been written over

the last twenty years on fund-raising while a limited number

of studies have been completed on community college founda-

tions.


Characteristics of a
Community College Foundation

One of the purposes of this study was to determine the

characteristics of a successful community college foundation.

Success can be defined as the ability of an organization to v

meet its stated objectives. Although no studies were found

that identified the characteristics of a successful founda-

tion, several statements have been made regarding successful

foundations.

Woodbury (1973) in his article saw the community college

foundations' primary purpose as an effective vehicle for

raising funds. Many of the earlier studies of fundraising

at community colleges included data dealing with community

college foundations. These studies showed an increasing

amount of funds coming to colleges through the foundation

(Bremer, 1965; MacRoy, 1970; Hargis and Blocker, 1974).

This emphasis was continued in 1973 when Sims completed a

study of The College Related Foundation as a Viable Concept

for Resource Development in Alabama Junior Colleges. Sims

(19-3) defined the effective foundation as one that brought

in the largest amounts of money.







24
Silvera (1974) further clarified Sims' study. Silvera

defined an effective foundation in terms of the amount of

funds raised per full time equivalent student. The study

examined the effectiveness of California community colleges

based on this definition.

In another study, Luck (1973) examined fund-raising

methods used by community colleges, as well as the role of

the college related foundation. Luck and Tolle (1973) stated

in their book on college fund-raising that:

One measure of success for a foundation
is the number of gifts accumulated. How-
ever, the best evaluative measure is re-
flected by the fiscal assistance pro-
vided to the college. (p. 49)

Strong public relations with the community was seen as

another characteristic of a community college foundation.

Sharrcn (1978) cited the foundation as ". .a means of oro-

viding additional citizen input into meeting the special

needs of the college" (p. 2). The involvement of community

leaders and potential donors can also be an important asset

to the college. Ioodburv (1973) stated:

An additional advantage is a broadened
base of local support for the college
by the recruitment of leading members
of the community for the effort. (p. 4S)

The involvement of the formal and informal power struc-

ture eo the community was seen by Sharron (1978) as a major

need of the foundation board.

Kuhn (J_68) saw the foundation as a vehicle to "

effectuate and aid in general the cause of education in the

community college" (pp. 3-4).








25
Many of these characteristics developed from the Uni-

versity foundation model. Student scholarships were a major

part of the University foundation program. These scholar-

ships were used to aid students with special talents and

needs to enter the institution. The level and size of these

scholarships was seen by Woodbury C1973) as another function

of the community college foundation.

Foundations in the United States have taken on many

different forms. Andrews l1960) and Curti and Nash (1965)

both gave a long history of examples of successful founda-

tions. In each of the examples presented the foundation

showed a history of successfully funded projects and a list

of innovations brought about through the funds of the founda-

tion. Past studies have suggested several characteristics

of a successful foundation. Some came from a University

model, others have been developed from the past history of

foundations. This study examined the perceptions of those

most involved with community college foundations, the college

president and development officer, to determine the charac-

teristics of a successful community college foundation.


The Environment of a Foundation

Advantages can be offered to a college through a

successful community college foundation. ,Many conditions

or factors can aid or insure that a community college founda-

tion will be successful. These factors can be aivided into







26

three areas: 1) the community, 2) the college, and 5) the

foundation itself. Some of these areas can be controlled

while others are beyond the control of the administrators

of the college.

The characteristics of a community can be a great asset

to the community college foundation. Bremer (1965) in his

study found that the Middle Atlantic States had the greatest

total average of funds given to colleges. New York was the

best state for philanthropic support. Besides the grographic

location of a college, the wealth of a ccmmunitv can also

have an effect. Struckhoff (1977) felt that in order for

wealth to be drawn from the community, a certain amount of

wealth must be present (p.1-4). Sharron (1978) pointed cut

that people have been educated to give in communities with

other colleges and universities. Each of these factors is

beyond the control of the college administration, but have a

maior effect on the success of the foundation.

The success of the foundation can also be influenced

by factors within the college. Robertson (1967) saw the

need for presidential support:

There can be no less than total
commitment. A development program
should not even be initiated if the
chief executive officer does not be-
lieve in it or does not want it.
Success in development programs may
depend on the president's commitment
of time and energy. (p. 75)







27

Other writers have seen the effects of conditions

with the college. The age and si:e of the college have also

been found to affect the success of the foundation. Alumni

were seen by Bremer (1965) as being an important element in

the success of a foundation. Silvera (1974) found some

effects of the structure of the college on the success of the

community college foundation. All of these are factors found

in the college that cannot be easily changed.

This study has examined those conditions that can be

manipulated by the administrator to foster a successful

foundation. This review of literature centers on three themes

derived from the conditions of j successful community college

foundation as developed by the panel of experts for the study.

The themes of planning, communication-, and motivation were

examined in relation to the development and maintenance of a

community college foundation.


Conditions Found in a Successful Foundation

Every organization has certain functions that enable it

to be successful in its environment. Without these functions

the organization has been shown to have great difficulty

reaching a level of success.

Barnard (1933) speaks to this point:

A cooperative system is incessantly
dynamic, a process of continual re-
adjustment of physical, biological,
and social events as a whole. (p. 39)

A cooperative system is a complex of
physical, biological, personal and









social components which are in a
specific systematic relationship by
reason of the cooperation of two or
more persons for at least one def-
inite end. (p. 65)

The survival of such a system has been found to be

dependent upon equilibrium of the following in an organiza-

tion: 1) communication, 2) willingness to serve, and 3)

common purpose (Barnard, 1938, p. 32).

These three areas are similar to the three themes de-

veloped by the panel of experts for the present study.

Barnard's statement summarizes the conditions affecting the

community college foundation: planning, communication, and

motivation. Struckhoff (1977) in his discussion of community

foundations was supportive of this statement:

A foundation must 1) create aware-
ness of its existence, 2) build
acceptance of its utility, and 3)
motivate individual donors to take
action in support of the foundation.
Awareness, acceptance and action
are the keys to growth. (p. x-5)

Struckhoff (1977) emphasized the importance of planning:

A plan keeps foundation effort and
expenditures within reasonable
bounds and relates costs to re-
suits reasonably to be expected.
It should be a continuing process
designed to fulfill objectives
over the short and the long term.
(p. x-6)

These three areas summarize the conditions conducive

to the development and success of an organization. They

should have relevance to the development of a community

college? foundation.










Planning

Planning can be considered a process to accomplish

systems change in an organization. McClenney (1978) in an

article in the Community and Junior College Journal entitled

"The President as Manager" stated that:

One of the most significant ways for
a president to provide leadership in
charting the course of an institution
is to indicate a systematic planning
program. A good planning process,
if successful, will enable the presi-
dent to anticipate change in the fu-
ture, clarify organizational priori-
ties, and fairly allocate resources.
(p. 32)

Kast and Rosenzveig (1974) were also supportive of

planning.

Planning is a key managerial function
which provides the means by which
individuals and organizations cope
with a complex, dynamic, everchanging
environment. (p. 436)

As a function, planning involves setting organizational

objectives and designing the means for achieving them.

Planning provides a framework for integrated decision making

throughout the organization (p. 436).

Without planning, the decisions made by an administrator

tend to be made on a superficial basis, either in response

to a crisis or in the footsteps of the actions of other

colleges in a similar situation. Sims (1973) felt that

planning was an important part of management and this im-

portamce would grow over the next decade with the scarcity

of funds and declining enrollment at community colleges.








50

McClenney (1373) found planning to be a major part of

a well-managed institution. The Higher Education Management

Institute regarded an institution as being well-managed when

it had:

Clear goals and objectives stated
in terms that will insure they are
observed and which are understood
and adopted by college staff members.

Policies and procedures supporting
efficient allocation and management
of available resources.

An organizational structure and
climate in which the college staff
members are highly motivated to
work toward achievement of college
goals. (McClenney, 1973, p. 321

Planning can be applied to community college founda-

tions. Struckhcff (1977) showed that it was a necessary

part of the development of a community foundation (p. 11-1)

Through planning the foundation staff fostered the backing

of the population and through that support the community

foundation met their goals.

Bremer (1965), in one of the earliest studies of pri-

vate support to public two-year colleges, examined the ex-

tent to which junior colleges had planned programs for se-

curing private support. The study concluded that there was a

need for more study of planned giving at public community

colleges. Sims (1973], in one of the first studies of com-

munity college foundations, recommended that college related

foundations should be established with precisely defined goals.

Sil-era (1974), in his study of California Community College







31

foundations, found that college administrators were passive

in their utilization of college related foundations. The

study concluded that a greater effort needed to be made by

the foundation staff to plan the use of community college

foundations. Silvera (1974) recommended:

Existing foundations should review
their development programs to de-
termine whether they have made pro-
visions for appropriate staffing of
a development office, program goals
and objectives, public relations ac-
tivities, and publicity, an active
alumni association, and membership
in organizations. (p. 104)

Luck (1974) in his national study of community college

foundations supported Silvera's conclusions:

Most public comprehensive community
colleges with foundations do not
fully utilize the potential of their
foundations. (p. 165)

Luck concluded that many community college foundations

focused the purposes of their foundation too narrowly (p. 165).

Luck felt that a foundation could be used to meet a broader

body of needs at the college. Luck and Toile (1978) saw

that the activities of the foundation needed to be carefully

evaluated and thoroughly planned. Sharron (1978) found vague

and unclear statements of purpose and inadequate planning of

foundation activities to be one of the major pitfalls in the

establishment of a community college foundation (p. 8).

Studies of development, fund-raising, and foundations

have consistently placed heavy emphasis on the use of plan-

ning. Planning enables an organization to operate effectively









in an environment of change, therefore becoming a

necessity for a college and its foundation.

Communications

Edmund Gleazer (1968) in his book This Is The Community

College outlined a special relationship between the community

and the college.

Undoubtedly when this institution
is at its best it reaches out to
the people who comprise its environ-
ment, involves them, identifies
with them, is of them and by them.
(p. 90)

This type of relationship assures a strong program of

public relations or good communications between the college

and the community. William Cummerford (1978) defined pub-

lic relations as:

The planned creation and mainten-
ance of a climate favorable to the
orderly achievement of certain de-
fined objectives without adversely
affecting other desirable objectives.
(p. 291)

Kerns (1968] in a presentation quoted Abraham Lincoln

as saying ". .. public sentiment is everything. With public

sentiment, nothing can fail, without it, nothing can

succeed" (p. 13). Hagan (1968) applied this principle to

the community colleges and university:

No college or university can dis-
regard the importance of a positive
public relations program both for
the maintenance of its own prestige
and for advancing the vital contribu-
tions it makes to the world of higher
education. (p. 31)









Public relations has been shown to be a cortinucis

process of administrators of the college, especially the

president, to obtain good will, understanding and support

from the public at large. Communications, according to Gross

(1964), was an essential part of the internal functioning of

an organization as well as the only way the group can have any

affect on the people and groups in their environment.

According to Woodbury, foundation board members can be

an important means of communicating the benefits and needs of

the college to community leaders and organizations (p. 2).

Sharron (1978) expressed communications in two of the phases

he outlined in developing a community college foundation.

In the Educational Awareness Phase, foundation board members

were made aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the college

as well as the various programs of the college. This input

formed the basis of the Community Relations Program which ex-

panded the information about the college and foundation to the

rest of the community. Sharrcn (1973) suggested that '

each member of the board of directors should be assigned to

contact a minimum of ten to twelve potential donors or friends

for most campaigns" (p. 5).

Luck and Tolle (19 7' saw the operation of the two year

college foundation as a task of deliberate public relations

(p. 17). They advocated the use of the community college

staff and faculty to promote the development olan of the

college Bremer (1965) supported zheir view:










The faculty can be very effective
in interpreting the various parts
of the blueprint to the institution's
publics in creating an institutional
image, in building the profile of
the student the institution wishes
to attract, and in actually helping
obtain financial support by listing
the educational concepts for which
money can be given to realize the
institution's goals. (p. 25)

Although Sharron (1973) stated that they should not be

a member of the foundation board, little study has been made

of faculty participation in the community college foundation.

According to Bremer, the alumni were crucial to the

development of a program of giving at the college. Bremer

(1965) stated that without substantial alumni support, more

vital in participation than amount, any appeal to non-alumni,

foundations, corporations, parents or any other source, will

ultimately fail. Silver (1974) differed in his findings

regarding alumni. The California study found no correlation

between alumni associations and effective community college

foundations.

Good communications and public relations have been shown

to be a need of community colleges. Harper (1976) stated

...the community college does
operate in an increasingly competi-
tive society where the recipe for
support must be cut into increas-
ingly smaller portions as various
good things in the society vie for
attention and assistance. (p. 9)

This same competitiveness faces the community college

foundation. Elements of communication should be a part of

the conditions necessary for a successful foundation.










Motivation

A person or community must be motivated to be suppor-

tive of an organization. Plans can be developed along with

a well established communications system but the substance

of the plans and communications must be oriented to the needs

of the community served by the organization. According to

Kast and Rosenzweig (1974):

A motive is what prompts a person to
act in a certain way or at least de-
velop a propensity for specific behavior.
This urge to action can be touched off
by an external stimulus, or it can be
internally generated in individual
thought processes. (p. 254)

The challenge to every organization has been to identify

those factors which will motivate the community to support

that organization. As Metcalf and Urwick (1940) quote Mary

Parker Follett:

The success of organization engi-
neering depends on its treatment
of the problem of participation,
of functional relating. To draw
out the capacities of all and then
to fit these together is our prob-
lem. (p. 229)

Barnard (1938) made a similar case regarding motivation;

For the continual existence of an
organization, either effectiveness
or efficiency is necessary, and the
longer the life, the more necessary
both are. The vitality of organiza-
tions lies in the willingness of in-
dividuals to contribute forces to
the cooperative systems. (p. 92)

Effectiveness is the extent to which the organization's

goals are accomplished. Efficiency, on the other hand, is







36

the extent to which the individual goals are realized. An

institution must respond to these needs of the population

or theinstitutional organization will fail.

Hertzberg (1966) pointed out:

The primary function of any organiza-
tion, whether religious, political or
industrial, should be to implement
the needs of man to enjoy a meaning-
ful existence. (p. x)

The definition of meaningful existence has been found

to be ever changing. As Kast and Rosenzweig (1974) stated:

It is apparent that needs vary with
the individual and hence lend to
differential behavior patterns. To
confound the matter even further, an
individual's needs vary over time.
His value system evolves continually
and an integral part of that evalua-
tion is the motivational process. As
some needs are satisfied, they become
less important in the scheme of things.
Others develop through experience.
(p. 254)

Maslow (1954) sees a human being as an ever-searching

individual never reaching complete satisfaction except for a

short time. "On the whole we yearn consciously for that

which might conceivably be actually attained" (p. 77).

Bremer (196S) quoted Longyear as stating ". .. the

most effective way to stimulate and sustain interest is to

bring alumni back to campus for conferences" (p. 38). Bremer

(196S) felt that personal contact with the donor could be an

important motivation for him to donate to the college as well

as to allow the college representative to know the donor

better.








37

In writing of donor solicitations, Sheppard (1972)

highlighted the importance of close contact with the donor.

Each logical prospect should feel that his gift was vitally

needed by the well-run, useful agency so it can perform better

in the future. Sharron (197S) was supportive of the idea of

close personal contact between the donor and the college when

he suggested that: "The board of directors should use per-

sonal contacts (rather than letter or telephone) with poten-

tial donors" (p. 6).

Volunteers have been shown to be an important asset to

the college development. Bremer (1968) quotes Gonsen and

Gerber stating ". . there is no substitute for the enlist-

ment of people as active volunteer workers in college de-

velopment programs. Volunteers increase the potential of the

number of people who could be personally contacted" (p. 28).

Gonsen and Gerber (1961) felt that the volunteer needed

to be sold on the cause of the institution. The effective

volunteer was one who was knowledgable of the operations of

the college and aware of the functions and objectives of the

college (p. 80).

Because of the special and varying needs of the com-

munity, Pollard (1958) suggested that files be kept on toe

prospective donors. These donors fell into three

categories. 1) alumni, 2) individuals (non-alumni) and 3)

business concerns.

Nunnery and Kimbrough (1971) stressed the importance

of the involvement of the power structure of the community










in an organization to foster its success:

The power structure of the community
is the systematic, relative distribu-
tion of social power among the citizens
in determining the type of community
they want and the kind of institutional
arrangements that will serve them. The
exercise of power by citizens is not
equal; there is an unequal distribution
of influence in the system. (p. 8)

The return from the support of this group becomes

greater because of the power they hold in the community.

The structure of community power structures will vary be-

cause of a number of variables in the community (Kimbrough

and Nunnery, 1976, p. 343).

The motivation to make a college foundation a success

is not just limited to the community participants.

According to Woodbury (1973):

Its (the foundation) success, however,
is dependent upon the time and energies
available on the part of the college
staff and their ability to select en-
thusiastic board members and to main-
tain their interest. It should only be
created when the college is willing to
give it a high priority, adequate staff
and a commitment of institutional re-
sources; otherwise, there is more to be
lost than gained. [p. -8)

Motivation should be one of the themes found in the

conditions of a successful community college foundation.

Previous writings on community college foundations, as well

as the studies done on planning, communication, and motivation

theory, all offer insights into the college foundation. Each

offer criteria for the evaluation of community college founda-

ticns.









Evaluative Criteria

As community college foundations have evolved over

the last twenty years, certain characteristics have marked

the more successful foundations. There have been certain

conditions that have enabled these college foundations to

grow successfully.

Although authors (Kuhn, 1963; Edison, 1968) were able to

list certain functions of a foundation and other researchers

(Sims, 1973; Silvera, 1974; Luck, 1974) have surveyed com-

munity colleges with regard to fund-raising, none of these

writers examined the perceptions of presidents and development

officers regarding the characteristics and conditions of a

successful foundation. A descriptive survey was used as the

most appropriate method to survey the community colleges in

the Southeastern United States. This process established

the state of foundations in Region IV. The method was

chosen because of two existing conditions pointed out by Fox

(19691:

First, that there is an absence of
information about a problem of edu-
cational significance, and second,
that the situations wnich could
generate that information do exist
and are accessible to the researcher.
(p. 313)

This method enabled criteria to 0e derived for the

evaluation of community college foundations. The evaluative

process has taken on many different forms over the years.

Stufflebeam (i171) defined evrluaticn as:









the process of delineating, obtain-
ing, and providing useful informa-
tion for judging decision-alternatives.
(p. 40)

More specifically, Bigmann (1961) saw six purposes for

evaluation:

1. To discover whether and how well
objectives are being fulfilled.

2. To determine the reasons for
specific successes and failures.

3. To uncover the principles under-
lying a successful program.

4. To divert the course of experi-
ments with techniques for in-
creasing effectiveness.

5. To lay the basis for further re-
search on the reasons for the
relative success of alternative
techniques.

6. To redefine the means to be used
for attaining objectives and even
to redefine subgoals in the light
of research findings. (p. 99)

Stated more precisely:

Evaluation then is an activity which
attempts to provide the administrator
with valid data on the consequences
of his action. As such it provides
a resource which may be used for the
modification of programs to increase
the chances of realizing both short-
and long-range objectives. Thus,
evaluation is a part of the process
of bringing about organizational
change. (VanMaanen, 1979, p. 31)

In order to allow for evaluation in an organization:

time, money, creativity and
skills are necessary. Moreover
evaluation is useless unless in
those situations where participants









cannot agree on what the program is
attempting to achieve. (VanMaanen,
1979, p. 31]

Because of these factors, the evaluation takes on many

different forms.

In this study, the research has been limited to the

criterion of success of a community college foundation.

Gooler (1977) in a recent article in the Journal of

Higher Education saw the investigation of criteria of success

as not solely summative judgment of a program, but as an

important aspect of clarifying intentions. Gooler made the

point:

Success criterion should also be ex-
amined because people will make judg-
ments about continued support for new
programs, and it is important to under-
stand the possible bases on which
those judgments will be made. (p, 79)

The definition of these criteria provided a rationale

for the existence and improvement of the community college

foundation.


Conclusions

Foundations have played a major role in the development

of education in the United States. Many of the great founda-

tions grew out of the wealth of the 1900's. Foundations have

affected the growth and development of both private and pub-

lic universities. The history of foundations at community

colleges has been much shorter. Past studies of community

college foundations have shown them to be changing in scope

and direction. These studies have suggested characteristics









of a successful foundation, but none have established these

characteristics. The delineation of these characteristics

offers administrators an instrument to evaluate and examine

their foundation's goals and objectives.

Since the development of the first community college

foundation at Highlands Community College in 1962, an in-

creasing number of colleges have developed college related

foundations. Some of these foundations have been successful,

many have not met the expectations of college administrators.

Certain conditions were responsible for this success or

failure. Although studies have not been done on conditions

found in a successful foundation, writers in the areas of

planning, communications, and motivation theory offer sug-

gested conditions that might apply to a community college

foundation.

The past chapter has outlined the studies and writings

on areas related to community college foundations. Chapters

IIT and IV give the findings and conclusions front the study.

These findings give administrators a picture of the present

state of community college foundations.













CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the charac-

teristics and conditions of a successful community college

foundation as perceived by the presidents and development

officers of public community colleges in the Southeastern

United States, the U. S. Department of Health, Education

and Welfare, Region IV.

Specifically, answers to the following questions were

sought:

1) How many community colleges in the Southeastern

United States have foundations?

SWhat do selected community college administrators

perceive as the characteristics which identify a

successful community college foundation?

3) What do selected community college administrators

perceive as the conditions found in a successful

community college foundation?

4) How do these perceptions of success vary between

types of public community colleges (e.g., single,

multi-campus, large and small colleges)?

5) How do the development officer and the president of

a college vary in their perceptions of a successful

community college foundation?










In this chapter, the results of the survey are pre-

sented and the findings to the previously stated questions

are given.

In the first section of Phase I, the number of active

foundations was determined. A basic questionnaire was

developed to ascertain this information (see Appendix A)

The questionnaire was sent to all Region IV colleges listed

in the 1977 Community, Junior and Technical College Directcry.

Of the 192 colleges surveyed, 156 (Sl%) responded to the

questionnaire. Of the 156 responding colleges, 31 (20%) were

not accepted for the study because the constitution of the

state specifically stated that these institutions were not

community colleges. Out of the remaining 12S institutions,

53 (42%) did not have a foundation, four (35) had founda-

tions but they were not active, eight (6%) had foundations

but they were incorporated after January 1, 19'6. Twenty-

two [17%) of the colleges had foundations and met the other

criteria but did not have a development officer.

Thirty-eight (30) of the colleges had active founda-

tions that were formed on or before January 1, 1976. The

selected community colleges met the criteria for a community

college as set by Arney (1969) and had a person responsible

for resource development. Sixty-two of the presidents and

development officers from thirty-two colleges returned their

ques t ionnaire.

Of those who responded, twelve were designated as small

single campus institutions (under 2,000 FTE), twelve were








45
designated large single campuses (over 2,000 FTE), and

eight had multi-campus designations.

Basic data were collected on the amounts of money raised

by foundations in the fiscal years 1976 to 1978. Table 1

presents the percentage of colleges raising money in each of

the established categories:


TABLE 1

Percentage of Money Raised by
College Foundations by Fiscal Year

1976 1977 1978

$ 100-1,000 9.7 9.7% 0

1,000-10,000 43.5% 33.9% 40.3%

10,000-50,000 27.4% 30.6% 33.9%

30,000-more 19.4% 25.8% 25.8%


Over this three year period over 60% of the colleges

surveyed raised between $1,000 to $50,000 each year.

In an effort to survey those colleges that had active

foundations the researcher developed three criteria for an

active foundation. If any one of these criteria was found

to be true of the college foundation, it was considered to be

active. The first criterion stated that the college founda-

tion had raised at least $1,000 each year during the 1976-1S78

period. Of the colleges meeting at least one of the criteria,

93.5% met this criterion. The second criterion stated that

the college foundation had raised 55,000 over the three year

period (19-5-197S). Again, 93.5% responded positively to this










criterion. The third criterion established that the founda-

tion had sponsored at least three activities [receptions,

scholarships, mail-outs, etc.) each year during the 1976-1978

period. Seventy-four percent responded positively to the

criterion.

Characteristics of Successful
Community College Foundations

A panel of experts was formed to help develop possible

characteristics of a successful community college foundation.

This panel was made up of the immediate past presidents of

the National Council for Resource Development (N.C.R.D.,

the regional head of N.C.R.D., for Region IV of the U. S.

Department of Health, Education and PWelfare, and the state

representative of N.C.R.D. for Florida.

The criteria were formed through telephone conversations

with the panel participants and a review of literature. The

panel participants also gave a listing of conditions of success

as well as a list of ten exemplary community college founda-

tions. The lists of those characteristics and conditions

taken from the literature as well as those noted by the panel

of experts were combined. The suggestions of exemplary com-

munity college foundations were also stated. These three lists,

exemplary community college foundations, characteristics of

successful community college foundations, and conditions found

in a successful community college foundation Lsee Appendix E),

were mailed to the panel participants (see Appendix D). The

responses from this survey formed the basis of the questionnaire.








47

The questionnaire was then sent to the presidents of the

ten nominated exemplary community college foundations through-

out the country. A letter was sent to the president asking

for his support. Seven of the nominated presidents returned

the questionnaire. The survey of the presidents of the ex-

emplary foundations formed a field test and the responses were

used to revise the questionnaire.

The final questionnaire (see Appendix F) was sent to the

president and the person in charge of development at each of

the 38 selected community colleges. Separate letters were

sent to both the president and the person in charge of de-

velopment (see Appendices G & H). Following is a summary

of the returns.

Eighty-two percent of the presidents and development

officers returned their questionnaires. From these returns,

the mean ranking for each of the seven characteristics of a

successful foundation were computed. Tables were formed to

present the findings of the questionnaire.

Table 2 gives an ordered listing of the characteristics

of a successful community college foundation. The character-

istics were ordered according to the mean ranking of the

sixty-two respondents. The mean was used because it gave

the best measure of central tendency [Thorndike & Hagen,

1977).

Eighty-nine percent of the respondents accepted the

characteristics given in the questionnaire; only seven made

additions to the established characteristics. These were

largely clarifications of the established criteria.
















I C)
O )j







^ 0 '-
U O Y-n O
0 *.

o -- C)
*,- > ) 0 C)"




o .- C O C
-; ) ) C)-' > o





Ln -i >i C O U u 1) C 3


C O OC -





,-. ,) U
30 C 3 0cJ O -




*O 00 . +
U-^ >O i O rJ 2
:p > -O O) C
'- C) -







- C 1C --
C)l CC -C [CC C) c
--^ C)l C) C)






c I I C










-o o r o .
1 ( 1 (N T C



























1 uc








- -rr uC -- r-(










These additional characteristics given by the respond-

ents were summarized in three statements:

1) Has a strong durable leader with a background in

all aspects of administration;

2) Recruits students and assists with faculty develop-

ment and morale;

3) Allows a means for money to be raised as needed

by the college to promote the desired progress.

The median and mode were also included in the table

to give added information regarding central tendency.

Conditions Found in a Successful
Community College Foundation

The same steps used in the development of the character-

istics were also followed in the development of the condi-

tions that foster a successful foundation.

The result of the development process established a

final questionnaire containing 22 variables. In order to

facilitate the responses from the participants in the field

and to get response on the relative inmortance of each of

the conditions, the respondents were first asked to rate each

of the conditions, using a Likert scale. A "0" was given

if the respondents felt it was not applicable; a "1" was

given if they felt the condition was of no influence; a "2"
was given if they felt the condition was of little influence;

a "3" was given if they judged the condition to have some in-

fluence; and a "4" was given if they felt the conditions were

of great influence.















4 00


C -i 0






4-1
0 %) 0 0 0 .

C) U



z 7 C- I) :: : -0 a)
S- 04 0
0 CO O 0
CO 4 - -0= ..-

4--1 0 0- 0
u | *f C = 4 4; O
I a. 1; o c-, -- - i

































4-
S, ^ 'Z - 3 3
- MC. w




























0^ t- -;






0 .



















0' 0
>0 3
0000u


p


2i-






- *0


>0


C)
>s







441
'J '-
0

y.




0 4

-=0
0i

03
-3 ^-



+-'r:

T- *-


0 -r-

0, 0

*- 4- =

Suc
- ---0


4 .-i
0'- --





0 2- 0

>4 0
c0














u 5i *-
0-' 0
0! >03


C> 2 C> -T C '' -C










en en '-: -T en~ eni;


'1 ^ ,
02 CC 0 -


1 N O

en 4-~. en en


-~~ ~ N n -- -( z U


.4










-JO












0-!




00;

0 0U


0
0




0 3




0-4 0 C


00%j













3 C L
t -= I


00
-"03
0c2

0 4-4

0 2Z.-

'A 0~i

0 0-i
-ncr


en
1^ 3
ren -m

en en



















0 ,


D 0*
O -Z- 3 *- ,

>"



~00 -



S' 2 -- i



















N; N; N








K N N;/


^ -j ~








53

The responses were summarized on Table 3. The condi-

tions were ranked according to mean response to the Likert

scale. The mode and median were also included to give other

measures of central tendency.

Presidents and development officers were then asked to

give any additional conditions that they felt would foster a

successful community college foundation. Eighty-one percent

of the respondents accepted the conditions as stated in the

questionnaire. The majority of the additional conditions

were clarifications of the established conditions. The re-

sponses could be grouped under the following areas:

i) Regular informal meetings between the foundation

trustees and college presidents;

2) Adequate staff for research contact and follow-up;

3) Plan for institutional development;

4) Having a full-time director for the foundation with

appropriate salary level and expertise;

5) Development of an internal fund raising plan.

The respondents were also asked to rank order the ten

top conditions from the established twenty-two conditions.

The aim was to establish those conditions which administrators

perceived as being the most influential in fostering a suc-

cessful foundation. The rank ordering procedure offered

more information regarding the importance of the established

conditions (Kerlinger, 1973). The findings of this section

are given in Table 4.










54



c O
0 3
0 i

S>. '' 0 0 0
* 0 4-' ^ 0 0 1- 4-"

00 a 30
o 0 3 0- 4-

>= 3 O i 3
0 0 1 0 _- -
0 O O -0
S0 0

c.-C > 4-c 7
0 0,
-' 0^ 0. -i 0 3 4- 00 0e- u *'>

> A-AG .
30O 3n


0 -^ 3 ~ 03^ ^ ^^l 0 *-+) 3 ^&
-0 0 C t







O 00 O
0: 0. .-- o C n



o O 00 -. ,- D

'*! *0*- 2 0 ~ ;- _; O S 00 ] 0.0 -3
o^; ~ ~ r *-' = aa- sc cl o vr ^- o- ct3 ^




n 0> 3 N 3 C 0 41 0" *" I +J 0 4- 0




0 3 *- *~ -0 0 O l s.



S0- I O i c > s '
3 I "^- O 0 *J - -H 3 0 1) 3 C-D 'J ^
'J m i : 3 > ^ r3 -i- ^c; Y 4- O T^ -









0 0 - C) E CT CT 0 i
5 ~ a^ ~'"n -" i _ .







~Z >- 0n : 0=3' E=







0 = 00 N) Q N 0
C~ ~ '/' ~: CC C- Ti t-^ c; co
-3 * f *= *
'JY L i S-i c^ r' Ln i- r~ cc t^ ^
3 2 j ~ r 3 C















;ru i i ~ r i



j O I- ~c~ 3 t r; c: Cr o^
1 rt "* > ^r c^-] oo ~r i^ c, o J


" I f = ^n Y r- f-: c~~ co c-i

















] 1 4 1 .SO L 44
/~~ 4 4 4 :4= CLl i 1C?







55

Table 4 gives an ordered ranking of the conditions

found in a successful community college foundation as per-

ceived by presidents and development officers. The mean

responses for each of the conditions were tabulated. The

variable with the lowest mean was given the ranking of one.

The ten lowest means were also appropriately placed.

The researcher, in Table 5, examined the question of

whether there was a significant difference in the responses

of presidents and development officers in their ranking of

the characteristics of a successful foundation. The use of

a t-test was able to determine those characteristics which

showed significant difference. The researcher was inter-

ested in seeing if any of the variables differentiated be-

tween perceptions of presidents and development officers.

The following characteristics were found to be sig-

nificant at the .10 level:

B) Established strong public relations with the community;

F) Provides a major source of student aid; and

G) Has a series of ongoing projects sponsored by the

foundation that are oriented to the college.

Examination of those variables showed that the respond-

ing presidents ranked public relations slightly higher than

development officers. Making a comparison between presi-

dents and development officers, the presidents gave a higher

ranking to a series of ongoing projects oriented to the

college while a lower ranking to the foundation as a source

of student aid.



















0--,
C)O
iO
criL

C


C),-



C).-



>C)

'C










'-C


Cr rr


= = 0 M
- -C)





SO "- '-
C C)


cC cCC
2*-


C-C
.- 0 C C








0 C" '.000





o o- C,-o C) C
CCA-


CC 0 '.0 C0 -C

























S * , . . .
cmo r-f -1 c- -c C)CN-























-Nr
-(N N (N N t

- CC(N cN.-T rl A- --- -C-- --








00r cAi- -


-C


C.-

'-C)
C)CZ


0
C)



'C)
0E -



3 cc C)


C) >, U
C 4-ll 0
A

-C) ~





0 -
C)


- Ci






-ZC)




c-C





C :
z~s









In Table 6, the researcher examined the perceptions of

administrators at small single campuses, large single

campuses, and multi-campus institutions to see if there was

significant difference in their perceptions of character-

istics. Analysis of Variance was used to determine if a

significant difference existed. The researcher was interested

in those characteristics that differentiated the responding

groups of administrators. The findings were summarized in

Table 6. An examination of the findings showed no signifi-

cant difference in the responses of administrators at various

size community colleges in their perceptions of character-

istics of a successful community college foundation.

In Table 7, the responses of presidents and development

officers were examined to see if there was significant dif-

ference in their ranking of conditions that foster success-

ful community college foundations using the Likert scale

findings from the questionnaire. A significant difference

was found at the .10 level with the following variables:

A) has an organized and defined planned effort at

fund-raising and resource development, involving

the president and community;

R) has an alumni association.

At this level of significance, presidents rated having

an organized and planned effort at fund-raising and resource

development, involving the president and community, slightly

higher than development officers. They did, however, rank






























-0 cc :0
-1 N N


ic.Lni- N---- N-Ni=D L



"-- i- ~--- i -C- -


INN N
-3 N M

L.,r -.j m

h C-. ^ "


0C
.-n
0 o













0--^











- -


L- -0c
- TN:^

-L0 L L


Z-~


0-: ^-]
N :0C

Ni- N PC']



- N N1


h0 p~-

]-fl1



- N ~


N NC"1


- N
Ns rj v

iql q


>a











4-0
0u



o:0

0








0-


11 -3 0 0 '



f0 -r
- Iq



-I -r -


N N~


:02:I









0Z

ii0









--

00


- V


-- .


N NC~






-N c,


*I:











"J
0





cr,










4-i
00^











59




cc 1
L.3 '0 1 < LO Ln


IN


-r- c0 o0


-iN\
'0b

cc cc

C- I


S.-





'0'3


0o





a) 0


-4



0i


0


4-1


- C0 '3 0 -, UI
JO O
0 n C c .-3 *c c. i-


.- --- -," 0 , 0

0C.C.-" -U*. ,-O *" U





S i 3 r .-- o ,",0
C: '^ > .' ) --.,1 O r 0 r Z.4
1) -








U 0 0. Z
C O /5 0 00 0C.'
'0 i .C. 0 4 4 -. -so -) cc: .,










rtn~ n iC i- N r h o i 0 0 j
1O 0 C ) .
P ^ = 0 ^ ^ 0 -' '-JU ( + 0 i- -
-i :. 0 00 00t >>




'0.0- 0 e o ii 0 o o--i s

/ -.0 *- -. 'r 0


0


> 0


0 -'
0 V

















r1 C cc 0 "' c4
^ i-n LO _rn









3C Lr. 1 0 ci Z CO L







LT., -1 n r. l N 0 %O L C r1 -C C E' C
N- c c r- cc- c cc









MN N im NW 0m m; N

~ r 1Q c)n~




-'r- i'c 7 ^ -] i- C i*ci 3


u m
CT cC






'-",.
0. --, -)





o c
C- cc - cc
r3 F >



C)Q CC *C)
> = 1 5







-j 3'n =:^




0 4- (C
*- cc cC> cc
ccc cc) c


CII


*?- C 3



7); -- W

-0 0 c --C



- Cc *- C L - -C
0c -i. -r *- : c0 <


-' 5 0- 3 0C ) ) 0-
o ^ Cc- -- cc0 -r ZOC ? <* ~
-i C rr CC ML





U^ =^ 0i 0- - .1 *^ C: n c ^ I- C=-
C3 3 )- u-C. *C
C O'c 3C -'C) c

- C -C ) C C
-e OP i -' a-cc -CC5 irJ


- i 0C aC 'Pc)

C) C 3 C)L "C)--- ) C)C
C)c cc (Cc C)- O'-n cc C-"---i
-l c - - A E-- c 4-

Cr- J I cc cc- cO cC)Cc cc
-j =~ -- cc OcC)C 00
C)

-~ 2 CC c Cc


Ci























>13



10


m C
r-~ r-~

('K rK 2r


r-O'] ~-C


-

0 0 -1


O -U


C








C -






= 2. =- '-


.-~ -~i C) (1 "1 "K




-('K


3 M

S-4-




L-'E C '-







IM
- 4 C-- -

Z o >, 7.



- 20 O-


O
S'0- o X




>r, 3 J *


- C/C H 2


L- [- C-i 2 C-, 0.
c~, '- Lc ~.C C









o o . .
^*-1 r<: \^ ^t- ^T








'*0C k-fl Lr. CCi cc r-- cc r' ^ *r


-CC

'2~


61



























































| 1

rs
z








M*j
0; S








-300
_J


l 0

0 >

S- 0



-" 1 V



Z








62

having an alumni association slightly lower than the develop-

ment officers.

At the .05 level of significance, the following variables

were noted:

D) has a diversity of activities which allow people

to participate in activities which foster community

development;

G) supports activities and programs that interest the

10% cf the community that gives 90% of the money.

Presidents ranked having a diversity of activities which

allow people to foster community development lower than de-

velopment officers. Presidents, however, gave a much higher

ranking to supporting activities for the 10% of the community

that gives 90% of the money than development officers.

In Table S, Analysis of Variance was used to determine

if there was significant difference in the perceptions of

administrators at small single campuses, large single campuses,

and multi-campus institutions regarding the ranking of con-

ditions that foster successful community college foundations

using the Likert scale provided in the questionnaire.

Using this procedure, the following conditions were

found to be significant at the .10 level:

C) establishes programs to involve community leaders;

K) conducts foundation activities in a "low-key" manner;

L) has an annual funding activity;

1) has a faculty that is supportive and knowledgeable

of the foundation.

















02 Ni "fl 2
02 -r '2; N


- c Gi U cc [x -
=.1 O2-:- 0 0 '2 tN -0O 0 -0 >


- -1 L'i
22 X r

"2MI


20'
-Ci 12 2

CO COr


-rN1VI


U-
*-I


















O
0 O

OU







0
'-l










*/


- NI iCO


.0


0



0


0






02-7
02)
U '~.0
020
22
.0i
U'

122,

1-i1.
0n

00L


S-CO



CO CO C


--0 ,






2-C



-0'j









,-0.0 U



0>-

UC~o
-UO1


'2 02 2
1I- .























C OCO
-- 'l IC










31














.+0
-* -



OC











0 =

S-U
2O



02, 0






C I
iO


3C)-


>0O
2)00
> 5"

y C


-CO C--

--C



















22
c






'2 0


*- o








0





O
- 0 -
'-- t'


- =
UU








SO <
O 0

5 o *^
n- 0

2 .0'


1~~ -- __
.0. 0 02


CO)











02)

0 2-
0 -U.
02 UOT


NN

I I

^ZZ






















com
.0
0 >





rCO
0 0







--




-S



-^ 0

- 0^ --

- 02'-
0-1


















C. Ct-. Z 3?
0-- -= -


C


0


0]C

I-[

0]


-r LO F


'C -



-0] to I


TO












0
'-1















-0-







?-*-' ?


Vtl pfl M
1^ L-O \_
Vt LV LV





i- c>I to~
***
irli


CO tO

oj Vt V


N0] V


0-CC
'C 0] t

Vtr Vt V



-0] V


C




C.'



00


0*


-C
-L,













C-


0] t
0-I to -

Vt to 0


~0 tol


- 'C
C; to Vt


to Vt V


04









-C 0


C-)
Ce


CC




-C-
C


0 7 7:lt C7:


- 'CCCI


SC0] VO











r--s












UC





--
.0

OC
-C


03




'JO

PC)
C)

^ -3







001
C- s









0'-
0 0






-C
=i ^


C

~- h 4-.
C> C> Z > .= -


V -r


"I
0]



-Z






'Vt









30


-C C

C C C>









'CCC







- 0--

0S~L



-0] V





- cc c o 0
- CCCOCC~ rbc> iO OLO C


C-











65


>- I
ra n










r --




S 1 ;. 7. -- 7 o



C









f o f c. -)o o
0 C

5-



+- C






-- r -- ,. ._ ... . .. .4. ..
0 c Cr^' r t) r c t t^) r-J -.I C) t^i I r^ [,


**-< 1,1 Ni r-i^-i ~C- r. ^J K -1 c -] -< l










C


















S .
U | C)O C
O- CO O U 00-
0 30











4-CC C C' *


S3 0- -o -




u C> 54 j
U U - o
3 ~ n i n s - ~ S O



































N i
0 -











Oi=r LO.CKr
Who r^*? T.c'.


rJ N [^1







i-i', Ln Ln [> -*



* *M~! r, *


i-i "^ i ">]th


0.;


Z
VZ



n


r3

c
o
cc
c=


N
IU
F
i) 'r
5U


=C


u
3


= II
CC
~EZ
.`3-U
;iC'


oO~



~Cf
1-- 3
'IIJ1CI


10~
- -~j~
~--i






~~] F1
\J




e-
c i:
Z








67
Administrators at small single campuses saw 1) estab-

lishing programs to involve community leaders, 2) maintain-

ing an annual fund, and 3) having a supportive and knowledge-

able faculty as conditions that were slightly more signifi-

cant than administrators at other size community colleges.

Multi-campus presidents and development officers perceived

conducting foundation activities in a "low-key" manner as

more significant than administrators at smaller sized campuses.

Two other conditions were found significant at the .01

level:

I) has annual sustained activities in several areas;

P) has a governing board that is aware of its role

and responsibility.

Presidents and development officers at small single

campus colleges rated both of these criteria significantly

higher than administrators at other size colleges.

In Table 9, a t-test was used to see if significant

difference existed between presidents and development officers

in their rank ordered perceptions of conditions which foster

a successful community college foundation. No significant

difference was established through the use of the test.

In Table 10, an Analysis of Variance was again used to

determine if there was a significant difference in the per-

ceptions of administrators at small single campus colleges,

large single campus colleges, and multi-campus colleges. A

significant difference was found at the .05 level for the

ellcwing condition:








































LnC
NI


2? C) '


C)




CC

cC





oC






'c

oU



C-'





Co
C




0=



C


0


3
C

C





C
-4

C)
0








C
t/1






4-C

C

0




C-i



,C
-C *~


o

0 -





-3





_-O '.





4-1


Cy -1 *C


C

C








Ci


-C



- 0






C i-


C




COO
C4 C
00



0 4-



^ '^'-4-


C)
-4

- C) 'C C


C








r._





"C
OCC





0
C 4-








0 tL)



C3
CC)

C-^




C


CLC
*r-1

'-f


C 4-.'-
C3 c



C '-i C

0 -
^)
0;


= 3










Si s 5
*- 4^ :
N -


% C- ~
oi 1)



*/)'- > ~


































1 --I U







- C Cl

. r^ c 3


--


3




4-

C =


.0




i











- i


O >
n-


0

CO
0 i




= C




4.^ -/I

>3
*r-4 0
U -

C
u '



1-3
'-i


S-7 ,-

7- 7- I










C o7 -









0-















cc -i 0I c

M O. c


(N


Cin Z: C::
C-c^cc t C3 zc
0'Ccc hi cccc


cc- c

(N cc cc


- 'i V,


CL -






- r(N


- r = -) rt-- 7C1 -- t ( r c -rc
cU)1- occcc oco I 0=ccc

t K- CIj r~ r V' r -w '-r V


cc -~
zU -O

cc cc.


~-4 i


- 0 c





rr C1 p


( (-N
0 cc cc
cic c



-N cc


00n


co P- *


II II


0
0



00
0





s0-












0










-c
-3 -


'L










0
r~








-0
-r-




--'J~J
0

>,-


'^
>,



<


>.








0-


>04
i p













OF
4-4 *M






0O
'0 0



- 0-





C1 -
00


> 0

CO
4/c




- 0-


- 3
0 0




*"o







00C
-Q







0 '3






0 cc




(/C -^
0-
0)V


M ---







0






300
'j










0- 0- 0
or-I
00s
-- (N
-o O

-I '3 T-


0i
h -4
4-4 -4 '-4 -


S0

000







N)
0C



"- 1 1 )




>















c 0
Tj -













CC -5
_r S Cc


'C
Cc I


N-

N


cc~ N~ N. C N ~-N


N N cc

~S N N


-Nr


U















C)C)


N~ c -C
- VL c



N cc N


0




S-
UCn








T a0






=C)c ) ')l







O C 4-- )



+" -3


N NCI
'- t;-


cc ccM


VI




CC)


5 cc
' -C










VC) C-


C)-
C) -z
0" 4





41-^
*-i







Ifl
aj 3


~, N M


- N FC


)4-

4-C
CU



c~c

cC)



cC



cc
cc


N
c--i
;l
II
Z









cc











-'2






,o
rC

N

C)0
-c
- U-







0c c -^
0^30







'/I '^




C ) cc!
C
ci a i






^ =-
T-
0









B) has a not-for-profic association.

Administrators at large single campus colleges rated

having a not-for-profit association significantly higher

than administrators at other size colleges.

A significant difference was found at the .01 level

with the following conditions:

E) develops programs and causes that are people

oriented which lend themselves readily to

resource and fund development;

T) has a faculty that is supportive and

knowledgable of the foundation;

C) establishes programs to involve community leaders;

Q) has a professional person that works with the

president to establish fund-raising plans.

Administrators at large single campuses ranked the

conditions of having programs and causes that are people

oriented as well as establishing programs to involve com-

munity leaders significantly lower than administrators at

other size colleges. The administrators of multi-campus

colleges ranked the condition of having a supportive faculty

much higher than administrators at other sized colleges.

Small, single campus colleges ranked the conditions of

having a professional person to work with the president to

establish fund-raising plans much lower than administrators

at other size colleges.

This procedure established that administrators of various

sized community colleges varied significantly on some of the

established conditions.







73

Kendali's Coefficient of Concordance (see Appendix I)

was used to determine the similarities of responses in each

of the following groups:

1) presidents of small single campus community

colleges (under 2,000 FTE);

2) development officers at small single campus

community colleges (under 2,000 FTE);

3) presidents of large single campus community

colleges (over 2,000 FTE);

4) development officers of large single campus

community colleges (over 2,000 FTE);

5) presidents of multi-campus community colleges;

6) development officers at multi-campus community colleges.

Table 11 gives a summary of the degree of agreement

between the six groups of respondents for the seven character-

istics of a successful community college foundation.

This procedure established a significance level of

.001 for presidents of multi-campus community colleges. A

significance level of .01 was reached for development offi-

cers of small single campus colleges and presidents of large

single campuses. A significance level of .05 was reached by

presidents of small single campuses and development officers

at large single campuses. This procedure established that

there was significant agreement among the respondents with-

in the established groups to the characteristics of a suc-

cessful foundation. The degree of agreement was at a












































~i
~nu


071
3 -(

CC)


ii:
L~j





O


rje~
j






:j

i
3
n
n~
13;
TIC
X;


ZX
d-


00



22


QC

V2






.2








J


K ; iK 4; -4 *K
c C c Ln L) Li
- E) -M 0 Z


-' r- -I CC r






























S c'- 0. C; 2 EI


22












02





z


22 4;


4;
iK


*r; '-o *c *;'


74




















































































C-
3 ^- -;





IIII II II I




LC C
20
(^i-jl ^i.ci rs]
x y. r, X
-v. *K -y. -K * *K
4; 4; 4; 4;
4;i 4;


I



I

!


I
i


L- r-







75


significant level for presidents and development officers

at multi-campus colleges.

This procedure was also followed for the examination

of the degree of agreement of the groups of respondents to

the college foundation. Table 12 gives a summary of these

findings. The findings from the application of Kendall's

Coefficient of Concordance showed that within each of the

groups there was significant agreement. All groups reached

agreement at a significance level of .001.

Chapter III offered a presentation of the findings of

the study. Taking into account the robust nature of the

t-test and F-test, (Boneau, 1960), the findings showed a

level of significance. Characteristics and conditions

of a successful foundation were established and ordered

according to their awarded rankings. Significant difference

and agreement was observed among the various established

groups. In addition to determining the levels of significance,

the application of these conditions to the theories developed

in Chapter II was examined.

Application of Theory to the
Established Condtions of Findings

The researcher developed the themes of planning,

communication, and motivation to summarize the conditions

identified. The conditions were grouped under the

following themes:
























































C In -: v I-










a -f z -


0'

0O










-, I



I-


o




Inj


- ; -


C








-I1








Ci



9-;



C)



>0
0*-e
In1









Planning

A) Has an organized and defined planned effort at fund-
raising and resource development involving the
president and the community;

B) Has a not-for-profit association;

C) Establishes programs to involve community leaders;

J) Has liquid and non-liquid assets;

L) Has an annual funding activity;

0) Has specific public relations activities for small
groups on the community college campus with no
fund-raising agenda;

Q) Has a professional person that works with the
president to establish fund-raising plans;

U) Has a program for deferred giving;

V) Has a clear statement of purpose for the foundation.

Communications

K) Conducts foundation activities in a "low-key" manner;

M). Has developed sophisticated mass and limited
distribution material;

P) Has a governing board that is aware of its role
and responsibility;

R) Has an alumni association;

S) Involves the formal and informal power structure
of the community on the foundation board;

T) Has a faculty that is supportive and knowledgeable
of the foundation.

Motivation

D) Has a diversity of activities which allows people
to participate in activities which foster com-
munity development;

E) Develops programs and causes that are people-
oriented which lend themselves readily to resource
and fund development.









F) Lends itself to activities which allow for
special recognition of donors (i.e., Capital Funds);

G) Supports activities and programs that interest the
10% of the community that gives 90% of the money;

H) Establishes activities and programs that allow for
funds in perpetuity;

I) Has annual sustained activities in several areas;

N) Has activities which are centered on specific
ideas or causes.

The findings give some insight into the application of

these areas to successful community college foundations.

Under planning, the following conditions were rated highly:

Likert Rank
Order
A) Has an organized and defined
planned effort at fund-raising
and resource development, in-
volving the president and the
community 2 1

B) Has a not-for-profit association 7 6

C) Establishes programs to involve
community leaders 4 4

Q) Has professional person that
works with the president to establish
fund raising plans 6 5

V) Has a clear statement of purpose
for the foundation 3 3

Under the theme of communications, the following condi-

tions were rated highly by the respondents:

P) Hlas a governing board that is aware
of its role and responsibility 9 2

S) Involves the formal and informal
power structure of the community
on the foundation board 3

T) Has a faculty that is supportive
and knowledgeable of the foundation 10










Under the theme of motivation, the following was rated

highly by the respondents:



Likert Rank
Order

E) Develops programs and causes
that are people-oriented which lend
themselves readily to resource and
fund development 9 8

H) Establishes activities and programs
that allow for funds in perpetuity 10 9

N) Has activities which are centered
on specific ideas or causes 8


Although each of the themes had conditions that were

rated the lowest among the top ten, planning had the

highest rated conditions. Motivation had conditions that

were rated the lowest of the three. Communications had

conditions that were rated between planning and motivation.


Summary

The findings of the study can be summarized in the

following statements:

1) High levels of returns (over S0%) were observed from

both the presidents and development officers in the

two questionnaires distributed;

) A majority of the colleges in Region IV (3S%) have

foundations. Of the colleges that have foundations, a

majority of them have active foundations. During fiscal

years 1976-1978, a majority of these colleges raised

between 51,000 to $50,000.







80

3) The panel of experts and the review by presidents of

colleges with exemplary community college foundations

developed a list of seven characteristics of a success-

ful foundation and twenty-two conditions of a success-

ful foundation.

4) Of the college presidents and development officers, 89%

agreed with the characteristics of a successful founda-

tion. The added criteria were mostly clarifications

of the established characteristics.

3) Of the 22 conditions developed by the panel of experts,

S1% of the respondents accepted the 22 conditions.

The additional conditions were largely clarifications

and additions to established conditions.

6) A comparison of the mean responses established a rank

ordering of characteristics and conditions. The top

ranked characteristic was: establishing strong public

relations with the community. The top ranked condition

was: having an organized and defined planned effort

at fund-raising and resource development involving the

president and the community.

7) Characteristics could be found that significantly

differentiated the perceptions of presidents and de-

velopment officers. Characteristics could not be

found, however, that differentiated administrators

at various sized colleges.









3) Conditions could be found that significantly

differentiated presidents and development officers

as well as administrators of various size community

college campuses using the Likert scale findings.

9) Conditions could be found that significantly differen-

tiated administrators at various size colleges using

the rank ordered findings. Conditions could not be

found to differentiate presidents and development

officers.

10) The application of Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

to the findings showed significant agreement among the

respondents to both the rank-ordering of character-

istics and conditions by group.

11) The application of Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

to the findings showed that the findings were sig-

nificant and not purely random.














CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


In this final chapter, the study is summarized and

the findings are given. The chapter also lists evaluative

criteria, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.


Summary of the Study

This study was conducted in order to identify character-

istics of and conditions which foster a successful community

college foundation as perceived by community college presi-

dents and development officers at colleges with active

foundations in the Southeastern United States.

Specifically, answers to the following questions were

sought:

1) How many community colleges in the Southeastern United

States have foundations?

) What do selected community college administrators

perceive as the characteristics which identify a

successful community college foundation?

3) What do selected community college administrators per-

ceive as the conditions found in a successful com-

munity college foundation?








83
4) How do these perceptions of success vary between

types of public community colleges (e.g., single,

multi-campus, large or small colleges)?

5) How do the development officer and the president of

a college vary in their perceptions of a successful

community college foundation?

In order to reach these objectives, the study was

carried out in two major phases. Briefly, these two phases

are described below:

Phase I: Evaluative Criteria

This phase was divided into two sections. The first

section (Section A) identified the population used in the

szudy. The second section (Section B) established the

initial criteria of a successful foundation. Through the

use of a mailed questionnaire to the public community col-

leges in the Southeastern United States, the researcher was

able to determine that there were 38 college foundations that

met the requirements of the study.

In the second section, initial criteria were established

for the successful foundation. This was done through a sur-

vey of literature and the use of a panel of experts. A

selected group of 10 presidents from exemplary community

college foundations were used to field test the initial cri-

teria. This procedure established a list of seven character-

istics of a successful foundation and twenty-two conditions

that foster a successful foundation.









Phase II: Application of the Evaluative Criteria
to Selected Community College Foundations in the
Southeastern United States

This phase was divided into two sections. The first

section (Section A) validated the characteristics and con-

ditions of a successful community college foundation estab-

lished in Phase I. The second section (Section B) summar-

ized the findings of the study and developed conclusions.

The questionnaire developed from the criteria established

in Phase I was sent to presidents and development officers

at 38 community colleges. The evaluative criteria were

established using the returns from thirty-two of the colleges.

The mean responses from presidents and development officers

were used to establish a rank order of characteristics and

conditions. A t-test was used to determine if there was a

significant difference in the responses of presidents and

development officers. An analysis of variance was used to

determine if there was significant difference in the percep-

tions of administrators at various size community colleges.

Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance was used to determine

if there was significant agreement among the respondents.

In the second section (Section B), the findings of the sta-

tistical procedures were recorded and implications drawn

from the findings.

Findings

The findings of the study were summarized in the answers

given to the prepared questions. Those findings form the









basis for the conclusions relevant to the ncn-profit

foundations in the Southeastern United States.

1) How many community colleges in the Southeastern

United States have foundations?

Seventy-two of the community colleges in the South-

eastern United States have foundations. Thirty-eight

of those foundations met the criteria of the study

and were included.

2) What do selected community college administrators

perceive as the characteristics which identify a

successful community college foundation?

Community college administrators listed seven

characteristics of a successful community college

foundation. These conditions were:
Rank
E) Establishes strong public
relations with the community 1

OC Involves effective community leaders
and potential donors as members 2

E) Provides a vehicle for community
involvement in the institution 3

G) Has a series of ongoing projects
sponsored by the foundation that
are oriented to the college 4

A) Raises large amounts of money 5

F) Provides a major source of student aid 6

C) Initiates new ideas and processes 7

3) What do selected community college administrators

perceive as the conditions found in successful

community college foundations?







So
Community college administrators ranked the following

ten conditions out of cwenty-two conditions estab-

lished by a panel of experts:
Rank
A) Has an organized and defined planned
effort at fund-raising and resource
development, involving the president
and the community 1

P) Has a governing board that is aware
of its roles and responsibility

V) Has a clear statement of purpose
for the foundation 3

C) Establishes programs to involve
community leaders 4

Q) Has a professional person that works
with the president to establish
fund-raising plans 5

B) Has a not-for-profit association 6

S) Involves the formal and informal
power structure of the community
as the foundation board

R) Develops programs and causes that
are people-oriented which lend
themselves readily to resource and
fund development 8

H) Establishes activities andprograms
that allow for funds in perpetuity 9

T) Has a faculty that is supportive and
knowledgeable of the foundation i0

.) How do these perceptions vary between types of

public community colleges (e.g., single, multi-

campus, large or small colleges)?

Through the use of an analysis of variance of the

characteristics of a successful community college

foundation, no significant difference was found in







87

responses of administrators at small single campus,

large single campus, and multi-campus colleges.

An analysis of variance of the rankings of conditions

of a successful foundation, using the Likert scale, showed

significant differences at the .10 level for:

C) Establishes programs to involve community leaders

K) Conducts foundation activities in a "low-key"
manner

L) Has an annual funding activity

T) Has a faculty that is supportive and knowledgeable.

Two other conditions were found significant at the

.01 level:

I) Has annual sustained activities in several areas

P) Has a governing board that is aware of its
role and responsibility.

An analysis of variance of the responses of adminis-

trators at various size community colleges to the rank order-

ing of conditions that foster a successful foundation showed

significant difference at the .05 level for the following:

B) Has a not-for-profit association.

Significant difference was also found at the .01 level

with the following:

E) Develop programs and causes that are people-
oriented which lend themselves readily to
resource and fund development

T) Has a faculty that is supportive and
knowledgeable of the foundation

C) Establishes programs to involve community leaders

Q) Has a professional person that works with the
president to establish fund-raising plans.










Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance was used to see

if there was significant agreement within groups. A com-

parison was first made of the responses to the character-

istics. Development officers at large single campus colleges

showed significant agreement at the .10 level. Presidents

at single campus colleges and development officers at multi-

campus colleges showed significant agreement at the .05

level. Development officers at small single campuses and

presidents at large single campuses showed significant agree-

ment at the .01 level. Presidents at multi-campus colleges

showed significant agreement at the .001 level.

A comparison was also made of the agreement of the

responses to the top ten rank ordered conditions. This aro-

cedure showed significant agreement in all groups at the .001

level.

5) How do the development officer and the president

of a college vary in their perceptions of the

characteristics and conditions of a successful

community college foundation?

The perceptions of presidents and development officers

to characteristics of a successful community college

foundation, through the use of a t-test, showed sig-

nificant difference at the .10 level for the follow-

ing:

B) Establishes strong public relations with
the community

F) Provides a major source of student aid







89

G) Has a series of ongoing projects sponsored
by the foundation that are oriented to the
college.

The perception of development officers and presidents

of conditions that foster a successful foundation were also

compared for significant difference using the rankings from

the Likert scale. At the .10 level the following were

found to show significant difference:

A) Has an organized and defined planned
effort at fund-raising

R) Has an alumni association.

At the .05 level the following were found to be sig-

nificantlv different:

D) Has a diversity of activities which allow
people to participate in activities which
foster community development

G) Supports activities and programs that
interest the 10% of the community that
gives S0% of the money.

No significant difference could be found in the per-

ceptions of presidents and development officers to the rank

ordered conditions.


Evaluative Criteria

The researcher divided the criteria for the evaluation

cf a successful foundation into two areas. The first area

examined was the characteristics of a successful foundation.

These criteria were established to assist presidents and

boards to clarify their objectives. The characteristics

in rank order according to mean ranking are:









1) Establishes strong public relations with

the community

2) Involves effective college leaders and potential

donors as members

3) Provides a vehicle for community involvement

in the institution

4) Has a series of ongoing projects sponsored by

the foundation that are oriented to the college

5) Raises large amounts of money

6) Provides a major source of student aid

7 Initiates new ideas and processes.

The second area of evaluative criteria examined was

the conditions that foster the development and maintenance

of successful community college foundations. Twenty-two

conditions were developed by the panel of experts. The

following is a listing of the top ten criteria by the mean

rankings of the respondents:

1) Has an organized and defined effort at fund-

raising and resource development, involving

the president and the community

2) Has a governing board that is aware of its

role and responsibility

3) Has a clear statement of purpose for the

foundation

4) Establishes programs to involve community leaders

3) Has a professional l person that works with the

presid-nt to establish fund raising plans




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs