<%BANNER%>

Advancing Relationship Management Theory

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021051/00001

Material Information

Title: Advancing Relationship Management Theory Coorientation and the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship
Physical Description: 1 online resource (280 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Waters, Richard D
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: donors, fundraising, management, nonprofit, organization, public, relations, relationship
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: By providing programs and services, nonprofit organizations address problems that the government and business sectors have ignored, making them a crucial part of the social, political, and economic landscape of America. Recently, scandals in the charitable nonprofit sector have resulted in decreased levels of public confidence that nonprofits carry out their missions effectively and manage themselves efficiently. With individuals providing roughly 80% of the fundraising revenue to charitable nonprofits, it is vital that these organizations cultivate strong relationships with their donors to survive nonprofit controversies. Public relations theory provides a theoretical framework to assess the nonprofit-donor relationship. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of cultivation strategies and their influence on how donors and fundraisers evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The study breaks new ground in public relations scholarship by refining previous relationship dimensions, adding new cultivation strategies, measuring both sides of the organization-public relationship using coorientation methodology, and measuring the organization-public relationship across multiple organizations. Through a stratified random sample of donors (n = 1706) to three nonprofit hospitals and a census of the fundraising team members at the participating hospitals (n = 124), mailed surveys explored the relationship between the donors and the appropriate nonprofit hospital by examining the relationship dimensions of control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and trust, and the following cultivation strategies used to build and maintain relationships: access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, reciprocity, relationship nurturing, reporting, responsibility, and sharing of tasks. The relationship dimensions were found to be valuable in predicting past involvement with the charitable nonprofits? fundraising efforts; however, they only do an adequate job of representing the overall nonprofit-donor relationship. The relationship cultivation strategies impacted annual giving donors, those who contribute less than $10,000, and major gift donors, those who donate $10,000 or more, differently. Whereas the annual giving donors for whom there was a statistically strong influence of all 10 strategies on the dimension evaluation, major gift donors? evaluations were only impacted by six of the 10 strategies. Of those six, all four of Kelly?s stewardship strategies had an influence, while only two of the six strategies derived from interpersonal communication theory impacted evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Turning to the coorientation methodology, measuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship revealed that they each viewed the relationship dimensions and the relationship cultivation strategies positively. However, there were differences in their levels of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy. Overall, the fundraising team members evaluated the relationship dimensions and the cultivation strategies more favorably than the donors did, indicating that increased communication between the sides is necessary to resolve differences. This study shows that nonprofit organizations can use relationship cultivation strategies effectively to produce strong relationships with their donors that withstand the trickle down effect of national scandals. Strong nonprofit-donor relationships allow charitable nonprofits to raise the funds necessary to address the nation?s societal and cultural problems.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Richard D Waters.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kelly, Kathleen S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021051:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021051/00001

Material Information

Title: Advancing Relationship Management Theory Coorientation and the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship
Physical Description: 1 online resource (280 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Waters, Richard D
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: donors, fundraising, management, nonprofit, organization, public, relations, relationship
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: By providing programs and services, nonprofit organizations address problems that the government and business sectors have ignored, making them a crucial part of the social, political, and economic landscape of America. Recently, scandals in the charitable nonprofit sector have resulted in decreased levels of public confidence that nonprofits carry out their missions effectively and manage themselves efficiently. With individuals providing roughly 80% of the fundraising revenue to charitable nonprofits, it is vital that these organizations cultivate strong relationships with their donors to survive nonprofit controversies. Public relations theory provides a theoretical framework to assess the nonprofit-donor relationship. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of cultivation strategies and their influence on how donors and fundraisers evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The study breaks new ground in public relations scholarship by refining previous relationship dimensions, adding new cultivation strategies, measuring both sides of the organization-public relationship using coorientation methodology, and measuring the organization-public relationship across multiple organizations. Through a stratified random sample of donors (n = 1706) to three nonprofit hospitals and a census of the fundraising team members at the participating hospitals (n = 124), mailed surveys explored the relationship between the donors and the appropriate nonprofit hospital by examining the relationship dimensions of control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and trust, and the following cultivation strategies used to build and maintain relationships: access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, reciprocity, relationship nurturing, reporting, responsibility, and sharing of tasks. The relationship dimensions were found to be valuable in predicting past involvement with the charitable nonprofits? fundraising efforts; however, they only do an adequate job of representing the overall nonprofit-donor relationship. The relationship cultivation strategies impacted annual giving donors, those who contribute less than $10,000, and major gift donors, those who donate $10,000 or more, differently. Whereas the annual giving donors for whom there was a statistically strong influence of all 10 strategies on the dimension evaluation, major gift donors? evaluations were only impacted by six of the 10 strategies. Of those six, all four of Kelly?s stewardship strategies had an influence, while only two of the six strategies derived from interpersonal communication theory impacted evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Turning to the coorientation methodology, measuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship revealed that they each viewed the relationship dimensions and the relationship cultivation strategies positively. However, there were differences in their levels of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy. Overall, the fundraising team members evaluated the relationship dimensions and the cultivation strategies more favorably than the donors did, indicating that increased communication between the sides is necessary to resolve differences. This study shows that nonprofit organizations can use relationship cultivation strategies effectively to produce strong relationships with their donors that withstand the trickle down effect of national scandals. Strong nonprofit-donor relationships allow charitable nonprofits to raise the funds necessary to address the nation?s societal and cultural problems.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Richard D Waters.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kelly, Kathleen S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021051:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101113_AAAASC INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T04:17:32Z PACKAGE UFE0021051_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 4245 DFID F20101113_AAEOFM ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH waters_r_Page_159thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3ae42787fa010667ad1ca65c27c2e954
SHA-1
35157a86768c8235cbda8b806144c084b197cee0
53412 F20101113_AAENIT waters_r_Page_098.pro
3972664abff95cd6b734797b37cd4b11
4123fde387c1ead6353cf6eccbd2b8b41bf39250
7167 F20101113_AAEOFN waters_r_Page_191.QC.jpg
cedbf38bafce16905bfe89446a060f7b
cc92f9b80ca6268a351077ab8f0f83e8e8f24405
1053954 F20101113_AAELUA waters_r_Page_097.tif
734295bf34a2e0e65a4414024ac1d25c
73d7e88217015aa6bd726f855b846b642b24bdda
54423 F20101113_AAENIU waters_r_Page_099.pro
198c4480c2b4b25d369558dfb607f432
fc2e4dac8985a165452b9c0268a7b1b1022d9efa
6805 F20101113_AAEOFO waters_r_Page_091thm.jpg
a4391dd15a6da3c65c0e2b4a5bb6704a
53c2791593b96b0cdf734bebff05a2ff9c65e7b2
55005 F20101113_AAENIV waters_r_Page_101.pro
8fc6279ee83624ca43858fe54c145135
dacf1b4ed26677bf7f12fb581eeb3869095935bf
25097 F20101113_AAELUB waters_r_Page_220.QC.jpg
a2394a2f362056ea784f667b1cc9f56c
66a0a8ef46ca1808732dd5d1ecc0690172255754
6816 F20101113_AAEOFP waters_r_Page_277thm.jpg
561388b663e82feb4f8b9f5ea64ebf48
7ab3df7add705eb080ae0fc50c4c303f1e30b24e
54047 F20101113_AAENIW waters_r_Page_102.pro
53a541ad89846257aa1627abc3dc6a3e
0b7fae34bd6b96ce3b18b98720c004d93dca5f86
76059 F20101113_AAELUC waters_r_Page_138.jpg
6002280dbfebcf657710ca96b593b2c9
e5afea5de2355f2a109b1571980962df3470652e
24811 F20101113_AAEOFQ waters_r_Page_230.QC.jpg
44cc156a54dfab8a6ebc770e75cb6931
ad93483c911e21084efd751898b4de6f83b90b9b
53513 F20101113_AAENIX waters_r_Page_104.pro
b1a58a8063d03ff3abc43bc643290509
a28cee5c1a3246edee57ebc95e215359128383e0
101705 F20101113_AAELUD waters_r_Page_255.jpg
dcc98997c959f8a202eef82ff5620cd8
d08305ddc8b04e5ff28c7af5838057390c6e5b9f
13592 F20101113_AAEOFR waters_r_Page_263.QC.jpg
ed074acd34951ec4d88f5f5e0e32cabc
6f8b95523b5953323c406e6c74396def1fe58f93
52720 F20101113_AAENIY waters_r_Page_105.pro
ec064dbf484f2adf5a5c98cebdfce755
6c82c3df328f44df9dd41b4c0e854a8bc3dbe426
25005 F20101113_AAELUE waters_r_Page_229.QC.jpg
93acc4a95d3e14b8b6a86d200a642788
e9f0f8502de6877535023e02dd47805aa84009cc
26390 F20101113_AAEOFS waters_r_Page_246.QC.jpg
47a4750a1953acb308c8294fe552432f
1fb27ce813943f959ea3f66167c1cbb251060313
52232 F20101113_AAENIZ waters_r_Page_106.pro
27d77c60197d2e89bc40fe0803b2ddd0
e057e9cde2b8c9a63945d55659f78aba8b10af82
5997 F20101113_AAELUF waters_r_Page_161thm.jpg
38e267daaee6ee7b62525695adc10829
3cd189c50b0f37ff1cc722a40280cb693badc896
4889 F20101113_AAEOFT waters_r_Page_195thm.jpg
c1bc903db0e14e13156f2f0e33fd3dbc
ed99ba2d465f0d9294dd633cb1879907fc10a5b6
119842 F20101113_AAELUG waters_r_Page_233.jp2
d03bc1b8ad876b7fecd783c1b34e587b
557360fd2616c4937a07f9a98d613127222a2876
7066 F20101113_AAEOFU waters_r_Page_038thm.jpg
a62301f2ee3566508e2a47b35df27be7
6ad50353d3cfb0e220f75b74849fefb7f5e583e0
74057 F20101113_AAEMRA waters_r_Page_203.jpg
6eaf4d00ccf13f06b0e7ee4e0eba75d8
99112cd8cde71cb691c5f7ad79c878a7ec3753bf
55730 F20101113_AAELUH waters_r_Page_023.pro
a320bd9652e65ed484d6e91817f1e235
8f2a7e26ff892bf4708474314436dfa545304ca5
25134 F20101113_AAEOFV waters_r_Page_057.QC.jpg
e497474fb0426d5eafcd77c0b2445a87
db44255ae79d2d8cb0404f4c969dc06b3ff38043
75365 F20101113_AAEMRB waters_r_Page_204.jpg
2e1e15c842ac5d1538c59f137b0ba49c
29386bb40924caf27467df07309d39cb373634ad
6643 F20101113_AAELUI waters_r_Page_107thm.jpg
446b028ed10988aab06e5ff9f414f5ae
3848ba10da468e04979d3b1cc297ed9722a685de
24023 F20101113_AAEOFW waters_r_Page_056.QC.jpg
e5fbe737dfa01a094efc3a61583e5ec4
a6f1ad0cb890f5f46e59a3f7c405ec369735de05
71565 F20101113_AAEMRC waters_r_Page_205.jpg
8624b332fcaf6e144a8c06dd8d5282b8
000a73f98cbe7cd288a1f535b045c44a7f31b841
5384 F20101113_AAELUJ waters_r_Page_188thm.jpg
07e7b64f3e813145c89b93a04dc5feb5
e1279267c00a6a8eca7a5e4ff4260b0d9a11e1a8
6483 F20101113_AAEOFX waters_r_Page_224thm.jpg
ff4e519605e8009aa9b0650fbd9b4252
03af6f94e084fb444955ef89f68f6a5592528845
75234 F20101113_AAEMRD waters_r_Page_208.jpg
79a889dc15664e2628c140c58b496dd1
ebc716e85b219018389b9e2ca40131e6390ca8bb
1947 F20101113_AAELUK waters_r_Page_238.txt
fedae28539861d73b800cc79850d3bfa
68db5669a09d8c14f4dcdfc373224806d43de58f
25178 F20101113_AAEOFY waters_r_Page_219.QC.jpg
cf6321449303446c0676aa717be28b34
5dd05a2b7083eae05615da6128dd26909f8d32d7
75810 F20101113_AAEMRE waters_r_Page_209.jpg
361a89b05c2db5fe5525cbe5ceb60e16
713c75b1f2dbffab6828f1bd7335bfe144ee29a0
F20101113_AAELUL waters_r_Page_267.tif
d532d0b65ad4fb7e27d03b6e6d33548e
3e1f9edc48090dd7d50788184665b25f3d16fbf3
18505 F20101113_AAEOFZ waters_r_Page_012.QC.jpg
37a0c43df4e39b2c217700d261ec79f4
e75eb216896b7f7aa5af5e99b4daeeef7079641b
76760 F20101113_AAEMRF waters_r_Page_210.jpg
e81eed7c363fa633b4cc657e3cd0480f
722b13b3ff7ec249f822920218d1a40a28f97b5d
53126 F20101113_AAELUM waters_r_Page_279.pro
5621c06dc8a37348a2900f17dfab2c76
4742c937ecda385162b7caba12f30680c0fdd288
74271 F20101113_AAEMRG waters_r_Page_211.jpg
8dd2c313f8206e53cab7121375d40999
3f5b5af433a0b8ce8932765278e6d6f53fe4b215
2106 F20101113_AAELUN waters_r_Page_212.txt
066a6ca46850ebfbe42f9a060e5d75d2
b9e7dceaa734b9e997d7586870c3f5aad2d9ab0a
76305 F20101113_AAEMRH waters_r_Page_212.jpg
3de973dc98d2f769f73834ff50b79c64
01bfc286aabdbcea50f56bbaff88fa0275e67817
2118 F20101113_AAENOA waters_r_Page_034.txt
66facac9f4180af0b1c27d2a93f3d4b7
1f92407f07acc45c0afd54c8a058fedecf9a48ed
6499 F20101113_AAELUO waters_r_Page_083thm.jpg
6f886626370a37d8c7cb608234371b88
9685b6e6243d424adae882934743dd4567ef33e1
72954 F20101113_AAEMRI waters_r_Page_214.jpg
4a501b92ec5561d056fbfed19115f83c
1a270e3df59e22145efd3536a0be7e72f23e4eb7
2146 F20101113_AAENOB waters_r_Page_035.txt
d014ba96da01c2d171a55c7ff47d12a6
5c974e3430f375022dfcb4ce412869e4a31716d8
F20101113_AAELUP waters_r_Page_072.tif
53c12cafa865ff7690dffe73d02382dd
838d4f18dadc5598f8c27a11030afda199e8c288
75362 F20101113_AAEMRJ waters_r_Page_216.jpg
051ab348313129f9b1654607be8b0caa
b634aa7eb977e46048293e23cc1f18a3a5d525b9
1991 F20101113_AAENOC waters_r_Page_036.txt
d5ee972a1603eafa986fb96acf90cbac
3504170dfb234865c7520e7cd59f5915e153f124
24707 F20101113_AAELUQ waters_r_Page_041.QC.jpg
9df4fdcd1bda1cb5b1e4b0fdeb8663a0
1e1ea2deaa0778459cdb30d3f4cfc4b911011475
76058 F20101113_AAEMRK waters_r_Page_220.jpg
dcb9040afda85ded80818e4521dd7a2a
66caa234681b95f270478df396b2cfc75ad9e9c4
2194 F20101113_AAENOD waters_r_Page_038.txt
5943f0e7c1f385242ae54f02edd08896
6123d825c505775e9779fdbde1af85997329dee9
6663 F20101113_AAELUR waters_r_Page_051thm.jpg
f0ab2cd3771555dcedbb19f25ac696ec
ff7752094e872c9734bc34e61ee2901112ab192e
75141 F20101113_AAEMRL waters_r_Page_222.jpg
bb4de907dc4578322920228e0d7e1612
66d8e6835b9e2236eb9ac0c69e773a7576708d37
2080 F20101113_AAENOE waters_r_Page_039.txt
85febde24c0d7030e4eab3f8d6c486d9
703fa6a20fd489f8eed4570562b416f29c5d2139
5667 F20101113_AAEMEA waters_r_Page_116thm.jpg
becf92a0a936896ca9a633873176191e
138bcff9dba11db619dac07048ac1c9e45832e95
111982 F20101113_AAELUS waters_r_Page_211.jp2
03a9b5be227b9b8ceb99416e8519e5e1
6082fd560e96e57607aa9585f459174c9b997a32
73348 F20101113_AAEMRM waters_r_Page_224.jpg
74a7724652b482024ec25985811e031f
e519907039ba96a003e33ff4dba72bb13715e47e
2039 F20101113_AAENOF waters_r_Page_040.txt
674ae609ee6ec276d61d62c404b311dd
8648c481b3fd2d94eba6f12b202df6c7a146d569
F20101113_AAEMEB waters_r_Page_126.tif
bc69f68d66702812856116d0824f4af0
ad0c8156a8b7d8effb4558389f773f431e6d8a30
76129 F20101113_AAEMRN waters_r_Page_228.jpg
0443348bcad7ef634a275b6786686695
9631fc8caf2dcaa9c98d2b1258b7bc66e73adcc8
2084 F20101113_AAENOG waters_r_Page_042.txt
72aefa5c63a6705cdcba53f4af9cd806
d70d784bd0e66d45c81c18a59cdb6847cc77137b
53228 F20101113_AAELUT waters_r_Page_199.jp2
bb1bd046981a76d83bbf14ca3e3e8fa1
094d21eb4c11e5efe096056bcaa41a8361d60bff
76825 F20101113_AAEMRO waters_r_Page_229.jpg
1fae451a7f7bb274a2a4d71070984602
d7dbc45d9be25e0938036998e8241d7d18b2345d
2070 F20101113_AAENOH waters_r_Page_044.txt
08e78d06389d0ab832d868bf6c685d1f
e1b1b529e03a59628c52e26feecf8cab8477798f
637 F20101113_AAEMEC waters_r_Page_178.txt
e50312e28eb3456d16682710bf387358
1e937285bb86132ee9b1d841be67683ffea3a74b
120377 F20101113_AAELUU waters_r_Page_037.jp2
8c8a7fd98999a01791b4edc0a8ca156c
5867245126c83c538d54ab679bd553f99058fe42
2216 F20101113_AAENOI waters_r_Page_045.txt
dd71ff377fb6e8aa92b98adf5ab0ac3c
6ce14a636e8ce135170b35e0b1c7adcd1406a789
2094 F20101113_AAEMED waters_r_Page_026.txt
37ff1880ace45706a2aa5bef5528696f
4b147ae7e1b21405ff2082046faf0d22cebef605
F20101113_AAELUV waters_r_Page_173.tif
2fa339932262aaf06a8c962dd3ad3238
7b06eceb91b0644fb0207509968a73235f8966b6
75788 F20101113_AAEMRP waters_r_Page_230.jpg
97fd177a736c753c4c1270f7f561108d
698dd3cfd7e10b2289f78eb42517ea3bfdfd89a1
1949 F20101113_AAENOJ waters_r_Page_047.txt
9e84b37ac1a6dedb341906a2a94ed504
71fa2201bad20a5e7644cc7d5d36c6fe2d5622a7
73526 F20101113_AAEMEE waters_r_Page_134.jpg
4b21d69597191da3a4f2850659a36acc
45137b1dbfe6b8273f112c6aa5c3110ded6c79cc
F20101113_AAELUW waters_r_Page_172.tif
d3cdfa2495ea1eeb9939cccb0df3ce70
67dd22d5158e79581882d7e566e8238f5912e6f4
73744 F20101113_AAEMRQ waters_r_Page_231.jpg
9d4621da721056632c5c1020327c8ea6
8fae21e48bfb2f3c44993d5169c1051d71729327
F20101113_AAENOK waters_r_Page_048.txt
62be8fcb77512fde6eb5543f21eb8b83
2b35a2ad43251527bffe5461c395718ec2916317
17210 F20101113_AAEMEF waters_r_Page_192.QC.jpg
34f0fdc0bb3eb461e61ecb660d98dd36
b8100759d13467cc98d7ec7ec702924c173dd320
41246 F20101113_AAELUX waters_r_Page_160.jp2
f54d1cb2e3b15f5d45d3ed7c88735438
bec88a083b78188a4d609813e24a646eedd19ed8
78656 F20101113_AAEMRR waters_r_Page_233.jpg
92de69c97eae6632447d5158d3f3d795
78a3a90bada47d5fe05ee2a93b388b26bd412d85
2167 F20101113_AAEMEG waters_r_Page_037.txt
4f4c64af19e1acb2ed8eb211167685f4
51a081d82898949877a2c4b0c4c4f3df09ee97ea
6911 F20101113_AAELUY waters_r_Page_155thm.jpg
f0df74271d60e765a356ee1356fd294f
df9427b385e58aaaa6f7724108f940893565878f
F20101113_AAENBA waters_r_Page_057.tif
63b21278dd48d035842e2ef87951071c
72589657c8bd1506a127a34c2e8e19daaedeb825
79207 F20101113_AAEMRS waters_r_Page_234.jpg
8788d4219455bf9b238325bb4fe0ad63
69f6aa738d0513f098787284aa1c78e56891e439
1930 F20101113_AAENOL waters_r_Page_049.txt
e664b26e3f9c60be518067e9cca59a74
7bbf0d966a296e3198a78cd8da9b1eda79d00c7a
75052 F20101113_AAEMEH waters_r_Page_004.jpg
3238092faeb4c14dc9f4accce84496a7
dca1517256535ce107fbfb7ca8573e06b70b6b74
23440 F20101113_AAELUZ waters_r_Page_202.QC.jpg
009d8a2e5c463ba9106ab3e2f5ac39a4
a9a88fa2eb25b021b561d0265192a9bd93af7b6a
F20101113_AAENBB waters_r_Page_058.tif
672811b7f3b0046c373a5b2635cf67b4
9f6ac55b618bda9abe6e7907d57aa4fb8ce6bf00
75024 F20101113_AAEMRT waters_r_Page_235.jpg
66ce130e745ad4384022183f19c0c7f6
4cbd2a3a5871fe4bc4d2efdfe5602eab2896e38e
2160 F20101113_AAENOM waters_r_Page_050.txt
5e8c139c1bd8b379bc9d4af2836f7fcf
52eedbb44857f3e71f2387d30a228b22e79a6d86
23166 F20101113_AAEMEI waters_r_Page_141.QC.jpg
5f2ded3b0a2c5015f3b18cf03d34e525
b83c0af5f616dd94feae1a68353a9d2d1d3d6e9f
F20101113_AAENBC waters_r_Page_059.tif
37ace7466aaa538180fb41fd9d9c5594
26145eaf8a2b711f927267dffc849746b92bc183
78035 F20101113_AAEMRU waters_r_Page_236.jpg
7fc25b7f1fe60d3586e38de1d1b13fb3
4670efc7482ff60f5e88d7cbd973957e09e0e224
2095 F20101113_AAENON waters_r_Page_053.txt
d1f98466f58b323780b1abde83a9946e
8f5fe88c8f9440ee3bcb3daebd359a68a2919587
2174 F20101113_AAEMEJ waters_r_Page_018.txt
a205e23b241a2b9eea6bdc702860a2e7
5fdd9aa51d8d41b528115a89274acd2832e3b542
F20101113_AAENBD waters_r_Page_061.tif
50b9affdff7533f58fe0c1f9cf6c0113
e69699b2341dd7aeca917a26566a027ef3e39811
68683 F20101113_AAEMRV waters_r_Page_238.jpg
1b8fe30ad714a01af739dd0a1802d3d3
033a0d8e2b37cb6d6ed3665e60a3c42ca2cd1880
2078 F20101113_AAENOO waters_r_Page_054.txt
922441a464fdeaf92d37e03d333c8277
2854671019626b7c5d1c4c265223d0298258d8ee
1988 F20101113_AAEMEK waters_r_Page_095.txt
9c05fcdafd5d21e1d9b62cc1c6ec3285
93488187c4f5f5e5fec0dd7c6d69f6ebe45e753e
F20101113_AAENBE waters_r_Page_062.tif
60e66ad5fc2f88addb40b6f52b3a194c
582351269c68a1d8a0fcefcaed63f76fb51d7ae6
80037 F20101113_AAEMRW waters_r_Page_239.jpg
aeb446fc9ed71764edfc0db1964a039b
be46ef18efdd0e6ddebae19f1ac77df83d11ffbc
2123 F20101113_AAENOP waters_r_Page_057.txt
8d109263c9852e61c38bdeeaf0cbb522
4282a259361844e01a9bfa1d230438acdf5e3be2
25552 F20101113_AAEMEL waters_r_Page_155.QC.jpg
b645b02d20b4a13c97125fada17a95c2
ad36ecf815b2172b026e3c5bf500170d61a856f3
F20101113_AAENBF waters_r_Page_063.tif
ce0ca6d1f0a75a659fd7aaee423d00d5
4122f0a4809fca39cb75c112cca8cde30d4d4fe6
77939 F20101113_AAEMRX waters_r_Page_240.jpg
bdac952368fb684aa86bbce029818c8a
97b94d54dc391fe544f7c4bd5fd929d96e97d865
2115 F20101113_AAENOQ waters_r_Page_058.txt
63c38ab002968fd07c098e8323ea416a
61bc94b6d00516c9ed88d364f4e54fbf936395a2
40736 F20101113_AAEMEM waters_r_Page_084.pro
c78411f78a5290a6eef807851ae1379a
62661956d71dc52d23d92843b837562c88196adf
F20101113_AAENBG waters_r_Page_065.tif
1f2e4b111d2e0cc4d92d76f95573ae1f
55514a42b4458fdebd7365cd42ce9255f0815266
73468 F20101113_AAEMRY waters_r_Page_243.jpg
a2b605f8b53c15477aa920a69099532b
0cb2efb73e3ab4d02e5712550c2e41f26b304d05
2009 F20101113_AAENOR waters_r_Page_061.txt
e8508df4547de68743d6138f00b89f18
879b6c02c26020b2a1efe215957a29c97829395b
51706 F20101113_AAEMEN waters_r_Page_043.pro
946721b4ac07e5bf85286a6df4473b8d
8b981d01a402c4206b0fa2a76377b84a630a5adc
F20101113_AAENBH waters_r_Page_066.tif
77e9b2b5684a84704b629a046010b063
f9a0e84dc59ea6edb19ff25d8432064049c3cc59
74334 F20101113_AAEMRZ waters_r_Page_244.jpg
758c6b35f50f02b22f99d0c70bbbe3b5
f1d89b8cb685353c44da0b6657cb8c079ca85d2d
2058 F20101113_AAENOS waters_r_Page_062.txt
aa919401af149943a4d9e1fac4c66045
0c207eb24f5956484b48d9af9a475a8f07c32a7e
F20101113_AAEMEO waters_r_Page_203.tif
efa4de350614baba9b89816b5aeb7615
56c527c9c633a86af65041762a78bf913b8974cc
F20101113_AAENBI waters_r_Page_067.tif
733e594589aa6dd463a9ffdbd7a30556
c532f9a381c58a113ba6e8f58690ca0668bbfec5
2063 F20101113_AAENOT waters_r_Page_063.txt
d2914aa1c12e42d23b6714665c4b56da
44159e125f798d61a32c50731afd869c8c662000
75673 F20101113_AAEMEP waters_r_Page_242.jpg
50676bf435c1133294321d01a7ce8135
715cfa1482f5291086daa06e9996f55bd79df3bb
F20101113_AAENBJ waters_r_Page_068.tif
f610f7b1213780538d4881d72acbeeb3
f5bd229a7ed71a3a153eaeacc793c3f5d67c536b
2075 F20101113_AAENOU waters_r_Page_065.txt
8becd7ee87b2446cce3ab28f3a0db2e9
d73ea58097f8eb90e5ed8ccc4c39fb74e2b6bad2
117718 F20101113_AAEMEQ waters_r_Page_210.jp2
059498c0bd338d1fad28641068ebf1f8
20d56173953421413ae09cd9802be309ee77c2f1
F20101113_AAENBK waters_r_Page_069.tif
42604529165e22100688e835b852f288
b210d32db82b9f9069e96d469d83ab97bbe52f03
2588 F20101113_AAENOV waters_r_Page_068.txt
6aee71d2e3e83267d871827c6ee7c321
6c77d4e1101bc4fa76321cf4468361bc9fceef19
665 F20101113_AAEMER waters_r_Page_009.txt
54cac59efd78d76c71be512f2ea66195
165c3367bb43cfb83c2cffb4f1e9dfef07d6ed09
F20101113_AAENBL waters_r_Page_070.tif
744586ce3e6ef0aea45251c3d7c68e95
a1bc3652df3880e042f62cb89591a71fdbc56154
2074 F20101113_AAENOW waters_r_Page_069.txt
5b8796d244b4714a69762665e4c80a90
876a0866186434c55a8e87b8ae96bf357b050a4d
2100 F20101113_AAEMES waters_r_Page_004.txt
09e5c48092be956f33872dece2efbf6d
3925768037d15087198a079542dc528898dc5327
F20101113_AAENBM waters_r_Page_073.tif
4da7b61f284e693be11d92fa22415a0c
681bf654af8eeb1de34d96fe66bf90719399fc21
F20101113_AAENOX waters_r_Page_070.txt
ecd294c91d5f8cf2da82fec8fa578116
c1d9f3a8cf1fe8afb3a62ebbce2f6f4a774cc4a5
F20101113_AAEMET waters_r_Page_225.tif
2b4a5620af04e3d42055c839871d96eb
6c2d978409ee4ce9b1acac11249e958765b53d72
F20101113_AAENBN waters_r_Page_074.tif
54fb195e316c06eee8403bfc19529996
2ceff6db3dc63d050cba33ca016f35c0f3e0bc8e
2089 F20101113_AAENOY waters_r_Page_074.txt
b3465a2d2131740eb4fd4228c6dc9439
357304a115fe53f0d8e8259dc3d39ba171a77444
F20101113_AAEMEU waters_r_Page_031.tif
12e62161fbc3c25adf4038f144fc240e
70568de7c567d0e8458e6f50c6e9503d8efa88d9
F20101113_AAENBO waters_r_Page_075.tif
9dcdbe71bc3b76efb6b237b15a5118ae
8b4770852895330aa39497173e8d1dbe348d66ea
1994 F20101113_AAENOZ waters_r_Page_076.txt
68862ad8c6a3b0f3416204af45f81cf8
0f51d8d666aaf2a69e8bf26c1f743e467eb5cc0c
53347 F20101113_AAEMEV waters_r_Page_132.pro
e7bf25487e501c4008eeae02a1c7cec4
44ca116f084106c5a91c7eb4ffeb3c3be4904424
F20101113_AAENBP waters_r_Page_076.tif
04271031ac02e2e84d5fde1df67bc5c1
79e006533c0110ff1e2349c5f22223df026c8ba9
6622 F20101113_AAEMEW waters_r_Page_059thm.jpg
b1b321f5ae8c30bfe73d9259de3a2d76
7a06734c6699c179351eab64c1284f2c34720c73
91386 F20101113_AAEMXA waters_r_Page_174.jp2
e3ad19367d898fe68244dc1ac4318cf8
46991215eb38d60e5b7d624136b4981f912af6da
F20101113_AAENBQ waters_r_Page_077.tif
09663c514facbeb7296b075b5225c8ee
bf10bcbd2476a17a3eed7180807089e0784f2f7e
1113 F20101113_AAEMEX waters_r_Page_199.txt
7a0e449bdea27105914723d0e04701de
573b062b9498f0b3a4b0b457a6f82b51f9fb275d
24901 F20101113_AAEMXB waters_r_Page_177.jp2
02419c01993e470d16f506a2d5b99c41
6efd3755ece7bea2936624649a2a8956bf03d2fd
F20101113_AAENBR waters_r_Page_082.tif
f545c27bc130460195b8f4dff0c5e731
3758425e071a2630f9ca92767a31f070179df602
2222 F20101113_AAEMEY waters_r_Page_181thm.jpg
d656e7c109711f37b8a7e5c6d19011c6
2eaa441d9ce570d7fd08ca945a95a66e1110a1e9
130846 F20101113_AAEMXC waters_r_Page_179.jp2
c3ffd98c284546d720ef18aaf16c942e
92b65ea9fc1f263bb48db9d4bfc546711ad0b427
F20101113_AAENBS waters_r_Page_083.tif
bef68a0938a9904a53d6bf13f65ceb65
2813ff7c0c4abcdee31864e55b4c5a7fc59bec5d
6684 F20101113_AAEMEZ waters_r_Page_113thm.jpg
2eb8f9c352f3290717aeb5fd68212446
33421f2bd5254d1cb120a3e84e3b7bdd91004384
F20101113_AAENBT waters_r_Page_084.tif
7d81b8b70ccecb4f05c4022e741ce4fc
d8406ffd05300d667ae7052afaf5082b3756492c
56954 F20101113_AAEMXD waters_r_Page_182.jp2
8ac5c9f9c8c6ae716da03fd56e18d731
1a367528643f3c5389ccbb2f2de4d69680d95048
F20101113_AAENBU waters_r_Page_086.tif
e293e355991770926fdb4d951eee3c04
a10487f1894a7a7a3dfb586148a165966c528496
7104 F20101113_AAELNA waters_r_Page_268thm.jpg
5bad2d026ecbc9fc0e5e3c70a16ffef8
e7365dbc470fcebac62e28221f6a5378b165c7d8
44232 F20101113_AAEMXE waters_r_Page_183.jp2
38d769fa08b6e48e222f692042023b62
ec9853a153455a30d03999478eaaf705631f8809
5953 F20101113_AAELNB waters_r_Page_030thm.jpg
8b731748cef075c4737b3dc5f10817c4
92928d579efa3c86f3012ec0d1dcb152e78aec38
61348 F20101113_AAEMXF waters_r_Page_184.jp2
5b53e9d74fa48e790a000d6094409651
93fdd25e7dc619a02f9ac8b0493c0c1c998849e1
8423998 F20101113_AAENBV waters_r_Page_087.tif
a26ff90d5834b39fa11b69e2cb8a0f95
1eae7316706bb40f701cc591a7e25bc7bbf140fa
2057 F20101113_AAELNC waters_r_Page_025.txt
d83c95110441f363e81e39efb7246d55
35ca73a2f069356cd376bb93704ba8b50e8d65e9
43192 F20101113_AAEMXG waters_r_Page_185.jp2
3f39653d327c42b40dbcb5fcc99482ee
588f5fbe8a1d7c34345ef4033d5991b5153d3332
F20101113_AAENBW waters_r_Page_088.tif
2dac9cfc65e5ee264a5324c4a88370ad
df0e2a765df7825218d1b433f2919f684eaedd58
2624 F20101113_AAENUA waters_r_Page_272.txt
b72c418db92e855e2df1f1fd5680d982
be6a32a60fb9a9afcece218cbe78aaa467a24517
64004 F20101113_AAELND waters_r_Page_267.pro
73239981a029c0486c4cc48ee071d2eb
91a77656f0a1586ef487ea484c25e3cfe1db604e
25572 F20101113_AAEMXH waters_r_Page_187.jp2
c322345b440109010320786491072458
048d3363ada378d75afb8725626b8910c2fa06ef
F20101113_AAENBX waters_r_Page_089.tif
dd50f0499ac301743e7ce2365470d077
84a78422e70e766c345a618efc63c2040c527d00
2754 F20101113_AAENUB waters_r_Page_273.txt
4d91a4b017ae94503225e101682b5838
36db7cdb8abad382ded2e7b4f14837561f8414e6
F20101113_AAELNE waters_r_Page_257.tif
c4bad91c35689d96a34bfd9422900090
7cf19244b153fe57b5a874d3974ca6e8c8c5b43c
87152 F20101113_AAEMXI waters_r_Page_190.jp2
8359ede0f7eba88a510dbb19fe1ff626
e621bb776309c219381cbb4f2bedfc8318dd565a
F20101113_AAENBY waters_r_Page_090.tif
f39ef24b14c2af23fb469d82d4cd2b1d
3b9733377468570c8c56b6b9ee1d4484dea9cb9d
2596 F20101113_AAENUC waters_r_Page_275.txt
23c98ca14e7e63e1b75d247e1e52cc75
cfc19215e563c7aa2cd2433a36a845f5e7da90e8
6965 F20101113_AAELNF waters_r_Page_259thm.jpg
2d328bdc852e03daca6b3cb43cd22e65
822b2ba9c8074deba616e70cf68c98e64f279c54
25382 F20101113_AAEMXJ waters_r_Page_191.jp2
80aa84cecdc219b026b352ec28a67248
703847a645441ac4a8f8391315aaad07e29287a0
F20101113_AAENBZ waters_r_Page_091.tif
6c237f703398d76a6697ff87e191c5ff
be2f203c449f5e6393a5c22aabe7cab49c3f2d04
2427 F20101113_AAENUD waters_r_Page_276.txt
e67d95d9e1352f58365698ad184c0772
8f787ed41b521b5092d7b9afd280a3434dd39ec5
50000 F20101113_AAELNG waters_r_Page_075.pro
a625a52ecb92234f97d6869181caf862
713bb90a813a95b8eb7044391b4d1ccb8b367467
68952 F20101113_AAEMXK waters_r_Page_195.jp2
e89d29cd59bf519c56b67bc9a5e704e4
82d6b136ea54bc21bc46ced9c3a38c63ae85d921
F20101113_AAENUE waters_r_Page_278.txt
df24dccb11c804c96ace5ab2b2a2ea44
26f923b98f0b6c13c13f4dfb6e7e8a6a07176936
F20101113_AAELNH waters_r_Page_047.tif
b82ae7a46717893082883ffb8b6639bb
a7a6d79cd53fbc3d68c021b087407c843dd976f6
6636 F20101113_AAEMKA waters_r_Page_134thm.jpg
44ed0034caa5b198e03ab83e47327bbe
dac5fdee0ec764c34beca90ac9e726998ad2a3fd
52436 F20101113_AAEMXL waters_r_Page_196.jp2
da2065e24d304501d99fca63de3db3ef
4484a5a2cc79affba8b90eb7e2381721637907b7
2164 F20101113_AAENUF waters_r_Page_279.txt
38e330b739da40fdc4863185d37923dd
95105efbaf8b1007371ea2d91236fed306be067c
1742 F20101113_AAELNI waters_r_Page_012.txt
c7d808ac9c44c90a151d650d10d84fbc
9daa25078362f42f1031346f6eabb13fe7b57425
140260 F20101113_AAEMKB waters_r_Page_267.jp2
41127daf4f9fe54716496c2f3d0a825a
64822c08f8d7cb5ed640ba215c3dccc2f60a47c5
50894 F20101113_AAEMXM waters_r_Page_198.jp2
b00ea9a28516fa9904551a90cf84c29d
6dbd92ac51cc8ef8277aeb9620822c1e1791f2f0
883 F20101113_AAENUG waters_r_Page_280.txt
83b2a77b9601997ae6dd9e3d830e9f4e
b28a5b9632f6b415d465170874587d458d44cfd3
6695 F20101113_AAELNJ waters_r_Page_016thm.jpg
e5e605e6695ae7a4dc1b0b1ff4f22934
680e0e6d9ddd67e559fadce95abc84b63eabc054
6715 F20101113_AAEMKC waters_r_Page_247thm.jpg
c6b238caebb63fbeac35c139489d82ee
7e9eea873c54c354c200269959366e27bba9f5f7
109164 F20101113_AAEMXN waters_r_Page_202.jp2
3403feca3e715c8580a08943ad462c00
1604dc296f16be1f8caaa87016b096fdcb4427cd
1108938 F20101113_AAENUH waters_r.pdf
ddf6f2012151c9660bd38aa670590fa9
cca1a6ed02e83bb87cc81faeb9fbf4cf8176673f
7117 F20101113_AAELNK waters_r_Page_073thm.jpg
23691a19a9a2c222ad8bf9f940163dfa
0c5ecf46995e6dc62d3620909d50a1640e30f550
224 F20101113_AAEMKD waters_r_Page_089.txt
a1644e0fb5f05bc8eca7bbdd832d6652
5fd872ddea969fc3ff418e6410e52f3797d771c5
114640 F20101113_AAEMXO waters_r_Page_204.jp2
f5bafa2fe5f5cc7e1aa46fa0f2920270
43efbfbb09e5cf68718817a86ea3aaf93af2bcc4
2278 F20101113_AAENUI waters_r_Page_001thm.jpg
cdbe5982a229f86032a5ed0d48c3ee33
68c94e0a1de873caabe35b0b3eb0231b44b29232
2534 F20101113_AAELNL waters_r_Page_274.txt
d572d03f1ae7b7f6dee0f6b20649243e
9e25389ea1c8beab3e610a1ebf66a636fe3de54a
26265 F20101113_AAEMKE waters_r_Page_023.QC.jpg
beb35e48385e34326035c431658e166f
b8d7629995d128fe4009890641c9d75768d5cbd4
112892 F20101113_AAEMXP waters_r_Page_206.jp2
1938183b51428801587ab0f2896a9a1e
ff8c6269fdb791489614fee164a9b2d4695604af
6919 F20101113_AAENUJ waters_r_Page_027thm.jpg
f80d4a2c28a8ec8fb6ffc78aa0defc22
7070f065319daf6b44ea2e1ab9a734263938f0de
F20101113_AAEMKF waters_r_Page_162.tif
e1745d1ae45377a7b1e756a7e951d96c
03cbc308fb454769b6619d4083299ded9fbd4125
115837 F20101113_AAEMXQ waters_r_Page_209.jp2
f5845709e836b601199ce11e8eec8c3f
60b07aee042cf9e6ffe69bf1b7f476532f0325eb
17998 F20101113_AAENUK waters_r_Page_171.QC.jpg
7f39ad10c76ec83e6be2235997b9b2af
c818789b15839d1f786fe35ae659f81708c18459
26258 F20101113_AAELNM waters_r_Page_275.QC.jpg
e40c38f7338048f70166ab32e0b6b9d2
c4b5a5f119d0398fb6736500809bb716e298c0e2
99151 F20101113_AAEMKG waters_r_Page_194.jp2
8e1391815e8db305dc5fe3dd38428571
e7c272ca8c26f7c49fb9d3dc15846938a7fa5155
114842 F20101113_AAEMXR waters_r_Page_212.jp2
99893f19f49a79a35c8b2a22d62998bc
2843c116fc1a7de038d181f01a39afcf25925d21
6877 F20101113_AAENUL waters_r_Page_128thm.jpg
1db7c6a2933d883c8a3991d1b0b16ba3
481711a8cc4370991838f75458675628324a3a8a
24474 F20101113_AAELNN waters_r_Page_063.QC.jpg
3e00281f674fa7b324cffe412911b547
8e9f586eb2ef6af54e8f5d814718fb6c4de6aaa5
3824 F20101113_AAEMKH waters_r_Page_196thm.jpg
0ede202769b191dc776a75e8005e70ac
ffb6f555716a3ea450d50b504901b060a0f42298
54007 F20101113_AAENHA waters_r_Page_021.pro
8446aa70feb312063345e7be5552d960
c5945c0392125e4c181e28aad1088a3e2b8d5889
114220 F20101113_AAEMXS waters_r_Page_213.jp2
a0f6138b84fdf1aadff8fce198e6faed
4f3b007116e302bbe5c0ece3a93157fef4dbdb1b
21757 F20101113_AAENUM waters_r_Page_030.QC.jpg
ef7895b7c354d46d0f098d2addb324f6
83fa4bf203a1a6e574a10db179ed12e70b22aae1
2027 F20101113_AAELNO waters_r_Page_243.txt
9b0ada7b16ee8938ad6b380d9c953891
bc95efd11bffe6f5fd11e91e23e4bc0dbeeaafcf
55125 F20101113_AAENHB waters_r_Page_024.pro
9b6a060335a500fc675c8ab20d3f693c
732b995c4b03fe7a105e0cf16ce40ab4e51f01f7
110171 F20101113_AAEMXT waters_r_Page_214.jp2
59c5797a24101f81bd5588fc8a22424f
94d2ea1e3dcf679fbafe3b97bd736881149522db
21743 F20101113_AAENUN waters_r_Page_145.QC.jpg
9037e7c7dc0a4ebc51c0a61ce073af08
928f0946d9bb78c9602ad941ce8db9d27b80a48f
16048 F20101113_AAELNP waters_r_Page_009.pro
9a872e2825d31a26ce1eb615f4657386
86a38772c32175560997504f6695b4b484ca5834
25474 F20101113_AAEMKI waters_r_Page_157.QC.jpg
f717a2b9d30a0e672a77d4c96323d6d1
025f4f53a54d001e0600f6f494bacdc09180d8a2
52165 F20101113_AAENHC waters_r_Page_025.pro
58588ccb6e6901ecd511c7e67e55e3d0
aca5767f2f4d2ca56f22c56f69c23f1cfd0a27e9
113825 F20101113_AAEMXU waters_r_Page_215.jp2
b1b9375318ff1a56bbf978b519d9b7f5
c48f5273125b42f98a5d26223e9853e983c1bc3a
6583 F20101113_AAENUO waters_r_Page_205thm.jpg
d7556dc36ba5734f3d991142e95df8cf
4c3e557c74853ce04e0e8b630b36f60d0a140fa4
92043 F20101113_AAELNQ waters_r_Page_266.jpg
c674f5d32398df89d30d01d5f3edb9cb
51cc4474904d341b54b5f232f66b93c68dfe5e0f
F20101113_AAEMKJ waters_r_Page_228.tif
6e12cf6c75c25204cd915c834e9b172b
0f8b0320b9fa3fd9a8aee080a08c993d3c011ba3
53135 F20101113_AAENHD waters_r_Page_026.pro
d92afbd0ab0b5c8770b05e3bc585e885
7534b38235b87152879b138d544d862911b0e871
16896 F20101113_AAENUP waters_r_Page_165.QC.jpg
957d5771dae3f11999b3f1dbaa2604a9
fb7787688252548c6aad4ac8ab8b0bd21f4a7bf2
F20101113_AAELNR waters_r_Page_213.txt
e2411390605d5510d5b912e551552bad
4bb25a272968cd80cd0bff18c3a8213a9de5952e
50584 F20101113_AAEMKK waters_r_Page_217.pro
81c1c259b798449bf03a1df982538902
ee5ebde831f050da5a64483f388855d834c73eb5
116338 F20101113_AAEMXV waters_r_Page_216.jp2
8e98508c31341e692e2eacd9823e686b
09daff73c5c8bc92bb9d4ed3c5b5eb193f516f3f
24711 F20101113_AAENUQ waters_r_Page_070.QC.jpg
c558845813ef2599163e915272d97ef0
8896d393876c9ed30776d6550959e6af6af49070
54252 F20101113_AAELNS waters_r_Page_197.jp2
2754d43835b76821b02d544743a0fbab
6ed13850b4e83ef3cd7c11fa15484638ef7e240a
113538 F20101113_AAEMKL waters_r_Page_077.jp2
2a633cf6e687a32063895ec512648eb7
4c14db01b3b6199007d0f328be613aa12155c528
53268 F20101113_AAENHE waters_r_Page_028.pro
f3b6e6c8e9366a5d7e23c485cb694a90
892fad799020580d214bb63c47baece8b162db33
108231 F20101113_AAEMXW waters_r_Page_218.jp2
205bffba0daefb0d9445cdef003b8806
724ed4ab5a566bef7a0eeea27307677da58df285
24359 F20101113_AAELNT waters_r_Page_225.QC.jpg
86f1c53fa5c68f873a037c60154c46c8
df25f02726591ad5668a324cedbb36f200255381
465598 F20101113_AAEMKM waters_r_Page_119.jp2
d23d2dd4d2fe4e1de61beaa4b6d5b629
217b74707e4b0f7e68bf586630a9ff3348b1a0e8
3029 F20101113_AAENHF waters_r_Page_031.pro
6bbb8814ed0c08d461b9cf2f211b6de8
43d6e4cae9c657011b82035fae56dd4cba74fd87
115028 F20101113_AAEMXX waters_r_Page_219.jp2
1a3633af39c57a58472bb242b65efe5e
5db95457270db372964c2ae346b9728310a9e196
F20101113_AAENUR waters_r_Page_208thm.jpg
5cda249f8ea98a8c414ec9281cea5af2
433c7b552cf495be3b929ba27232184ebac19075
16438 F20101113_AAELNU waters_r_Page_180.QC.jpg
faa977098b1076f8799633827d5c53c4
343744eda531857d6c1966b7ba2df897e724b1bf
2081 F20101113_AAEMKN waters_r_Page_029.txt
c617820b2fc9e84e4852e189c5a4f8eb
926bd557f84a72091190818c200577f609fe771f
51918 F20101113_AAENHG waters_r_Page_032.pro
237dab404d367c943c7e3e55db8d2e27
fda3861191cc5718676c6b22a6ae72ffadd0bd85
115819 F20101113_AAEMXY waters_r_Page_220.jp2
d830fb9752d96be51c1373a187d8e707
29b9f3e908ba23e2ef943b44af3d8b15b5a8e77d
24770 F20101113_AAEOEA waters_r_Page_124.QC.jpg
f323fe86aa955a135cfce6b2d996e866
e3a7fd6099acb82cc1e17e0e8409427f38b88e4a
23880 F20101113_AAENUS waters_r_Page_127.QC.jpg
85b581a40b4e4ec1b6f8ead18d16ac4d
3fa05d491838befefb1c640e289bfbc629090f14
51840 F20101113_AAELNV waters_r_Page_260.jpg
736bec9da9a849a9e7d23f9dde9b7f60
9af3283464f65ced6b57ab0553071dd87b19b18e
116436 F20101113_AAEMKO waters_r_Page_094.jp2
f05f4c102530d8b385b2be583306e482
b1c6a55c7041938749e55046cb5543b8f05bf766
52905 F20101113_AAENHH waters_r_Page_034.pro
59cb96bbc2fe171b1e793c5d211fc4f3
3ed37208b2118fa6935ebcd422cf454a43d94579
114030 F20101113_AAEMXZ waters_r_Page_222.jp2
9d9fe1be7104cb387abacbf1b5119b38
c8cdac040c2122c225c151eaa807c9d538c1a18c
24034 F20101113_AAEOEB waters_r_Page_061.QC.jpg
96a6521c695cc85076c69c7ef5033a62
0343b7de37e416bf86e7cfb78015d4b36736e052
6690 F20101113_AAENUT waters_r_Page_028thm.jpg
ec5d94c95171cc8f524fc2b11a862d46
e2a336eddc36a2d027e0b017aa0ae597bc50d7ac
14482 F20101113_AAELNW waters_r_Page_159.QC.jpg
354b2eaab2ed25bf76afd5bf8560619e
de60ed567f13fa00236d99141db5e45407889d33
120379 F20101113_AAEMKP waters_r_Page_020.jp2
72d61d6ed1a1eeac7d55df0c3bc8d2df
8cf05f9a692af7d5241a24a71ba18e9104f2f25b
55828 F20101113_AAENHI waters_r_Page_038.pro
f0d614a5f6553578e860fb9da457e624
608c597b57f59de4005dfeeab64525697d2c7f7a
6282 F20101113_AAEOEC waters_r_Page_145thm.jpg
f92e0a3706f2881ef34439b2e975a4ed
4f31aba39e4b2482d492bcb9aaa24a8aafa35863
22465 F20101113_AAENUU waters_r_Page_261.QC.jpg
78b6a1d14c43c0a46431b0f5bd6100f6
5bd19748baed4f37a295eb785d4ae14f99377d1f
87395 F20101113_AAELNX waters_r_Page_255.pro
eb14fa0130202666d3ddc72c78c54d75
c43549d790dc0fbae3a9e3b60e0f3117e7722604
2187 F20101113_AAEMKQ waters_r_Page_146.txt
1407a21ea46c9148d6ec3c1bae87ea0e
19445ac7d2aefcd7f8a5cf245d1d5cd3bbfc9a63
52581 F20101113_AAENHJ waters_r_Page_039.pro
58cb29f1e065621bb5e1c8973a277058
14e457d1de7bf0a84cdd2dcaf7689da4ef3507dc
7142 F20101113_AAEOED waters_r_Page_177.QC.jpg
63f223a634633a4badd833698b1d913b
02156b20f9d877a69d9019ab6a103ed0b7e233d7
6763 F20101113_AAENUV waters_r_Page_063thm.jpg
d8e5126a256da9b073181d905e716186
132419132b582f7a14af0b35b6394e96d4d81973
113293 F20101113_AAELNY waters_r_Page_026.jp2
127b5d06b22e25a286ad6599ade29a39
096c9dc735df8044a775a01b6c1b33bf2e03b569
114909 F20101113_AAEMKR waters_r_Page_241.jp2
26120990f8cfe2e4f6d980c56f283edd
6eccfc66673151e7f3f5f05c92f7d0626c640d08
51658 F20101113_AAENHK waters_r_Page_040.pro
d0abdc3f065ada0f0c373de62d5ce905
1674d5dc5b867eecefe0fc2a8054e6b55593a6c4
17041 F20101113_AAEOEE waters_r_Page_162.QC.jpg
b6c980dd57f076b86e9dfa48eb0cc45f
ffecb0c20cbaa7b3a5fbd65771f2620125fc4e61
4777 F20101113_AAENUW waters_r_Page_178thm.jpg
5bf7646b6072c173d5167f7e6ae27605
7894b0cb176ea9c03b027fbcb65ad127f00598dd
75614 F20101113_AAELNZ waters_r_Page_225.jpg
c4a2d664cb929bbb5e7c5257d8892919
db4746b1e9de5cc6ac3c9ffbd112264474837b08
110868 F20101113_AAEMKS waters_r_Page_071.jp2
bd55be858ef60dbd1eb1fe66cdfd6814
7b98f8a0335f369ee9908b8dc08cfc1656f61e66
52735 F20101113_AAENHL waters_r_Page_042.pro
cfcfaa24a59213c3cd5646cb2286cf85
864e53c9f16f7cbe8b22d4110ef1064c98dae0dd
5238 F20101113_AAEOEF waters_r_Page_174thm.jpg
71a701ca2d0526aea4955dd0b657b8db
b52140155197f315f150832e3f232ce964553045
25276 F20101113_AAENUX waters_r_Page_103.QC.jpg
04e1f6740e21a39aae82a5e90cc258ed
0482fe71cd50ec790b22284c385958a822033e0e
23043 F20101113_AAEMKT waters_r_Page_177.jpg
73181487bfb7fffb2f517ebb3840d025
a7664d6dcb5f4ebc11c0f342abee70c32f04318e
52244 F20101113_AAENHM waters_r_Page_044.pro
6243a990c677e377efff3988dcb660ea
88c56e08a73f74d62e435620eb974bcf2cc97383
F20101113_AAEOEG waters_r_Page_031thm.jpg
e5fe63c22d767bd49cd37d2b70964046
3b94cebe1fe956d2bede44819a461e1e55d11262
24745 F20101113_AAENUY waters_r_Page_253.QC.jpg
ed56baa0eed069213005ec36d1afadb6
1bdc84cc091ff347f5f8196842dbb6248d3560eb
25755 F20101113_AAEMKU waters_r_Page_019.QC.jpg
84826e5f882bec5153875fd0cc7c15db
0222b7da0f62365f0de13695c391be0ea74669e0
52318 F20101113_AAENHN waters_r_Page_046.pro
8ff038aeb092abe2b3c37728009024ca
0aba9733d1ef4c87aee36e27fa78a0b6dbcb7fd9
26100 F20101113_AAEOEH waters_r_Page_038.QC.jpg
381ae034f5278890eb351f623fb7f23c
0dd080acad55757399e2bdf99bf05fa9ff5f49a0
23750 F20101113_AAENUZ waters_r_Page_082.QC.jpg
4ddf2b28399241ce27c1e13980790e41
b92daf67a6b0f7155b6c1760ba25365b8d7064bf
41913 F20101113_AAEMKV waters_r_Page_193.jp2
62dfa8a995c94225e06e3a9a895525cd
8da16f9827c334518ff458d965b20f28374950f3
49176 F20101113_AAENHO waters_r_Page_047.pro
fe01e5c0e5dbfb4d92d34b211b8334f9
c94e2348b25d8be5c7731145873b543ae2489b21
6379 F20101113_AAEOEI waters_r_Page_036thm.jpg
d286108f4de35acc57aff87241a00a9e
e94f971a7015c07bbb893ab4729c1842c52e7433
F20101113_AAEMKW waters_r_Page_200.tif
f00c6015854f681c36545ab2d04f4b4b
892e2d3b2a806c6b66bd42feb3e85c5ce5ffc96f
51581 F20101113_AAENHP waters_r_Page_048.pro
f01ab874e68ac289a7ca24a12cc4838a
61f37b38e2c90ce6825e7c49daaee649ac598c2a
6617 F20101113_AAEOEJ waters_r_Page_006.QC.jpg
5f04872ecadfa79763b97a82f80966ba
c975dda2840c2f0ce61f44d6e75fabf095624282
F20101113_AAEMKX waters_r_Page_136.tif
f52c4f2f39c5a4381c70902dbd936037
ef21274fa076f32a5cdb6b3874c6dfd6976f583e
52267 F20101113_AAENHQ waters_r_Page_051.pro
a27cbf854fdf580cec6169bea2ccd283
de3be5ce004aff41f868dcf5c934bf3e50364dd4
5126 F20101113_AAEOEK waters_r_Page_012thm.jpg
ec0224ec94ba62c613ac2df1cef1d030
183f200121cb13b50be78de28ea3a122a2e05a51
52377 F20101113_AAEMKY waters_r_Page_244.pro
8d2613d9ce28b2f1ada57e15f0ba4dac
b567c6dff218203d1b119cb3f7763c523245fd61
56250 F20101113_AAENHR waters_r_Page_052.pro
d323b7f10d7df866193a9104547c7b5c
a6a4977fbadcdbd15a9bbcc43f99d86198b191ef
6862 F20101113_AAEOEL waters_r_Page_230thm.jpg
b9b7bd86dac496bec989dae62ea8c415
8981be22bdd6624d059cbf30089c1f1728a98a4f
57890 F20101113_AAEMKZ waters_r_Page_171.jp2
7310f1e84e63a605d4e9224edc99bc3f
5d4ccc3f13a927226463d3ce5e52d0be45c5bdaa
52891 F20101113_AAENHS waters_r_Page_054.pro
4319654b433760f4de75fbdd98de01b8
93d68941880fcde1d30e97c151c1aa1f427c6e7b
27949 F20101113_AAEOEM waters_r_Page_068.QC.jpg
ee93e7d6e26cd762ac3e863c47259d59
cb387072723d801359acf8fbfdffc38cd34ba46e
53619 F20101113_AAENHT waters_r_Page_058.pro
f4550bedafefb14959c0641c3db63c1a
a363e0a68660a928cd0ebf7b762c072a1f40eb22
23251 F20101113_AAEOEN waters_r_Page_223.QC.jpg
0349a2b54d0cb8730c2c8a2aa52ad078
abddc7da84587e721cfbcab0f41faf5e13a2bb8c
54177 F20101113_AAELTA waters_r_Page_216.pro
1e124adca7bb413893a7205bb78689c3
1a2e9af5c066993738ac36f2c9f197798db4c439
52054 F20101113_AAENHU waters_r_Page_059.pro
8c604cc65a9672b69b1c552d9dcc19ba
34cc7a63d70657cb45900c1bacf3c86c909bff97
22638 F20101113_AAEOEO waters_r_Page_008.QC.jpg
516c0ede0dad3732b9b2bcefc9736409
403ee54d6af1e36f957a08bfa908dc43d79a169f
F20101113_AAELTB waters_r_Page_252.tif
297dc37ff36bf86d17b66496a7cea158
dc2b422d46ac47a8b658dd4b14300d6864f12b47
56687 F20101113_AAENHV waters_r_Page_060.pro
2155369e504a8266a11d3b5b26dde664
ae7c6bbf18c2d5483e98aef520917f8f667434a3
21864 F20101113_AAEOEP waters_r_Page_064.QC.jpg
e9bb18c3b9987045013a28a2ab21ee19
e9a87fc7b89a2193c4b10c40160b81caabebc0bd
1051957 F20101113_AAELTC waters_r_Page_007.jp2
0ff69101a1e1c7b3c369d81cb87e6a4a
6d3f01a9689c62f7a784391ea43bcf8e118c64ae
52114 F20101113_AAENHW waters_r_Page_062.pro
b822ea8cb8abfc6dd028e72ed7968fa6
806dbeae34af3877a3ab7170a76942ee1652d594
17913 F20101113_AAEOEQ waters_r_Page_190.QC.jpg
04c7a393bcb86b9e4d405da5774d3b80
acdf79fb0230690f8d06d810fa8de531ac290cfb
24367 F20101113_AAELTD waters_r_Page_043.QC.jpg
c2994c248579c66b80d74ab2becd6a9b
8cb1a57d8bdc4b0e9dd8219614f7e00cf112f996
52025 F20101113_AAENHX waters_r_Page_063.pro
7ca9d700d96eef69f82c9a9ec4a47512
ea341ddaa94d4990d473c1cd0df8a6369da5a066
6991 F20101113_AAEOER waters_r_Page_060thm.jpg
aeecc786bea01232f86cde91fddbbe2b
c8b0e0244e7b0315b3d3b21161d18a144e453eae
23027 F20101113_AAELTE waters_r_Page_047.QC.jpg
51fac03f300643db2fd1c87e4e9e7944
9f2ed5f49d828bdcd9c060e1db3bfc46804b00fb
45740 F20101113_AAENHY waters_r_Page_064.pro
09c7573b616f9227fade49455dc44494
f108eb2819db83ea0bba6b93ca6efc12244e3648
1339 F20101113_AAEOES waters_r_Page_002thm.jpg
55045d6f8616eeb98a7a0b6d8bd36e0f
13adfa9d20997e760c5fe17defc82a9630052650
2055 F20101113_AAELTF waters_r_Page_096.txt
188001f6a871f9fa49b45183131ad481
708caa4a58eab46b14bbf70d24def5ff29e4e4f0
50192 F20101113_AAENHZ waters_r_Page_066.pro
f75cd1f9ad356237030a5dc25ebb30fd
93c0d8da4c703bef60755dc165db36f0b56be0fe
6623 F20101113_AAEOET waters_r_Page_093thm.jpg
c71db6b355952db97095756a217b6783
a1b54ca4335cace00406573e80a7943a6a122e61
107044 F20101113_AAELTG waters_r_Page_265.jpg
539ee955d6b5d914d8acf71c0b80eb81
30727a34e4d37ab65307a2dbf69da71e412f378e
25158 F20101113_AAEOEU waters_r_Page_122.QC.jpg
8faa76d4cf93c505eec41c9e70628b29
01d4400873fdb7a8108af9116490c50c5095c29c
4774 F20101113_AAELTH waters_r_Page_086thm.jpg
5f7e049943b65336cd2822798b2a5ff2
5e0a578e452ed73a0100a842c0cf6b83970b8579
85921 F20101113_AAEMQA waters_r_Page_167.jpg
553c17b5371cdbc3c901e410d51dad9d
4c91165a8202b02f282912cfe7f7c158b4ae2921
5286 F20101113_AAEOEV waters_r_Page_171thm.jpg
eb5066ba35df8887591302f971c0f8ef
21fd117fc15c5f92466bf5ebcffecf535186354a
50185 F20101113_AAELTI waters_r_Page_125.pro
05b2bcf05c16a3a65d4a8bc6e0411fb6
2d0f8551eefba214445eb7cbbddbbdb4292d9028
45827 F20101113_AAEMQB waters_r_Page_168.jpg
3105f7a94f1fe72f999335fd1f093183
5e54c4422bf1ab7ad7782fc1ee22f7324069af27
25977 F20101113_AAEOEW waters_r_Page_100.QC.jpg
950913a5a26de3960485d45e4134d5ea
8655c052926a05b9a201708c9e61a337af1b3804
24129 F20101113_AAELTJ waters_r_Page_046.QC.jpg
043ad866e5a3cd973cb9aaa59dc701eb
fe45fc26eb1562341eb9fc411fb3e8d8ff46ce2a
33974 F20101113_AAEMQC waters_r_Page_172.jpg
391908b64ac7ece1ebf5a9e82e631bc5
9c63841d3aadf12803637ee6862420b2e75991c2
3363 F20101113_AAEOEX waters_r_Page_201thm.jpg
938a9764d5190b2a37c3f048371b243a
13cec8088a257af721fae2942467c4b90d64ee3f
17845 F20101113_AAELTK waters_r_Page_192.pro
77a67afc6e862cd9d1fbc200c59846f9
f5d358a6e46ae9418803297d17988742c07bfc9c
69141 F20101113_AAEMQD waters_r_Page_173.jpg
0a601acd40f16fc8ff99ec76c71ed177
396a79678c6af5429286a0cec15560a5390a63a4
23908 F20101113_AAEOEY waters_r_Page_186.QC.jpg
76b047be302435ef5b4180ee97da74fa
a62904263645389f60663173598f1ad8d16d4237
F20101113_AAELTL waters_r_Page_224.tif
85b1f6cacfb2944a7a7c2a1bf52211b3
5ee36e0a65fb345e3dc59c6780edf5f919f7d242
64613 F20101113_AAEMQE waters_r_Page_174.jpg
c44c9ae7dcaf8a0411b915776188381a
d82137e851e9e490af9079dcabb287ca78b3ea2a
6537 F20101113_AAEOEZ waters_r_Page_056thm.jpg
17a1940089965c35d387e1bae4cc1bfc
b66068af01da0d5c385434eca1517eb25eb72a5b
56393 F20101113_AAELTM waters_r_Page_055.pro
2472235059bc7858e2443ad5c42def67
649c8acb6a3ae4e492ba80a8586d059365550a92
50586 F20101113_AAEMQF waters_r_Page_175.jpg
e365913e96d337537056ae37b931f4fd
3c58d1288d8874c50300afc6fe8cb58b72d70ad7
81236 F20101113_AAEMQG waters_r_Page_176.jpg
9f78d21ec0df2274fab6ac974c5ecc34
dc9a4877d80c9c635f57b01a29939697c5b459ae
53847 F20101113_AAELTN waters_r_Page_232.pro
613d5bdcc4fbd375bcc6a55ce59bc533
aaa762f8e56ee7bbc1bb7d0e328feeecadfe398f
51331 F20101113_AAEMQH waters_r_Page_178.jpg
0b37b9f2c8076fb493921d750b9752d0
7e36a87b36a19a53a16806c9c4728c808955640c
62714 F20101113_AAENNA waters_r_Page_264.pro
89d339197365ef6b595143d4b3c70abd
d10f7dd94b3ee7beb67fb5829d77600572838acc
6367 F20101113_AAELTO waters_r_Page_254thm.jpg
a9fd3d05c8b8f02914ca59759783acaa
4c2febcbdc38c402e770954982d4d897d6846eac
53974 F20101113_AAEMQI waters_r_Page_180.jpg
c89241e562aa2abf9d91bca94a860063
3ea4f1d65a95c51be277d5507678453bbcb9d869
67694 F20101113_AAENNB waters_r_Page_266.pro
7a4675818fb3d9c9894cf6172f343191
3e13c87f7da5135c6b1b4f6f9001441af45086ee
112186 F20101113_AAELTP waters_r_Page_096.jp2
ab84a40a9ef76d38020b0f98f589f451
2d2d16ccea495037fe148346e0060b5895e12f5e
23121 F20101113_AAEMQJ waters_r_Page_181.jpg
d6a3a34b1b8c257228e8970ae36ab6d8
2667acfb60c2a2dcc1b34a9044d270920dde7249
65122 F20101113_AAENNC waters_r_Page_268.pro
87cc94d2b979452500aeb56a562f6497
cd7784823b2d110243774fb462f67644e00e9647
6773 F20101113_AAELTQ waters_r_Page_062thm.jpg
f21cdda1b6e91aeb4585947d1494cf73
dcc746c9286a116f1519119ccd9658ddd2bb0f11
52043 F20101113_AAEMQK waters_r_Page_182.jpg
4bb97d96ed0b3b0b09fd5ea0ee072e49
0e7d2c1c0c6ab4d78ff26374d6c95b1b33f45fc4
70082 F20101113_AAENND waters_r_Page_269.pro
5171ff924f6673d6058379a257ca3f2e
09b201e0af8c4060b49fdb9a6041a0e4a6a2a88e
39398 F20101113_AAELTR waters_r_Page_087.jpg
742c76fe129b4dfdac4c9886ec5c1490
6ca75b2cbc3699f6af4c012340463e436be7e5f3
41273 F20101113_AAEMQL waters_r_Page_183.jpg
4de6269796a14c2963de2d7671608c05
486d31238126ff4bd46866886a98c149d745bf14
63190 F20101113_AAENNE waters_r_Page_270.pro
ca8a4690554d695df3a45fd6b92ae359
d571db2b5ec1e0b2ed068a639e9625bd61a2c32f
24221 F20101113_AAEMDA waters_r_Page_074.QC.jpg
4f90c0c5b9895ad771e56df11c971848
8d96c58d2bc3c49be32d6617ae3cea216f8387b9
46388 F20101113_AAEMQM waters_r_Page_184.jpg
3bbed2a38f6f284b853a46772dcc5543
df1c7986a53bb5aa5c7191b931bb069b357d1a49
68211 F20101113_AAENNF waters_r_Page_271.pro
d01ea4addc11088cd778d106dec6ab51
8aa0e455fe84a7019640f278e11d5a3d75103350
63060 F20101113_AAELTS waters_r_Page_088.pro
6c8b166fd892ce699790f6f5d1d00418
dc633e0a36af27ed768dd516d59aa1a11cfc144e
37726 F20101113_AAEMQN waters_r_Page_185.jpg
004ca5e91ad4d55c69b0c04f5670f165
e3ef42da209731d15a9be49140b91a327ac5bccf
67998 F20101113_AAENNG waters_r_Page_273.pro
07529539c3efa28dfad6532746dc42c9
3a8655828238b09542d14da44714b0ec949c6acb
26801 F20101113_AAEMDB waters_r_Page_184.pro
1d0d7d697bbf465f8c10dabf39ee67f5
d488055046e365666c96a498bf4e7d2c3ac968d8
31482 F20101113_AAELTT waters_r_Page_114.pro
07eaf6021e63127eac39c6ba94222ba0
efb463a9d739b168e453bfc3e03ff09f388aae7a
62915 F20101113_AAENNH waters_r_Page_274.pro
9ec93b6ba1cc937b815edc70954048ab
0e71282befead0cb2a2770324c5e56c5bb51c814
F20101113_AAEMDC waters_r_Page_118.tif
133730095098f8f4b929dbc542b04271
4fd856e7b20acedc5e3e0aa8b710198bdcadff52
53583 F20101113_AAELTU waters_r_Page_027.pro
b076c0e76703e0aeb4189fc9b5e0b135
d0aeb0eddab979a3b7477a7047e1a1eca598eb8c
23278 F20101113_AAEMQO waters_r_Page_187.jpg
6ca9180953ab610309e3161fcf879365
cfded77d6d89856afcb1bc0e9c6b05c1335a992e
64177 F20101113_AAENNI waters_r_Page_275.pro
c8f8a7c419621099110db621dc97d8b2
ad192ff612a1bd47b020261faac44fecd33bb1c9
2101 F20101113_AAEMDD waters_r_Page_143.txt
99bd9b62140f8bb079c00d23a5d2b1dc
185419fa8ea81ab5501fa49e6b45ba0fc3e04f39
130670 F20101113_AAELTV waters_r_Page_276.jp2
8b71e4b5b5248c8c6422922cd5a3e377
4c6e1e2352f18b873fa44323931ac773663b19e3
54391 F20101113_AAEMQP waters_r_Page_188.jpg
694af3addf488012cc730a4cc1ff726d
551dbc70d703d852f12d2e3955f3b8e7aa2fbd17
58535 F20101113_AAENNJ waters_r_Page_277.pro
e2a023255d1ba35a97eaeb464fd184cb
030f67c811bf745c2f9253a81c39bdbdd7c9f948
F20101113_AAEMDE waters_r_Page_236.tif
ddeeb4479639be593a02cd96181b640d
48b6be75bb51521bb7f6c11731b7cc7498b1269b
14922 F20101113_AAELTW waters_r_Page_085.QC.jpg
64a3b69222da350537d5eba3d0a3dae6
260328eec5bae6334f13c6b229d8a05ab9b6301d
60824 F20101113_AAEMQQ waters_r_Page_190.jpg
38c2334e865d989b4bf1da891fe6d4df
6cc65995d7b83c049e4a1d5bcb28517793e32b02
6925 F20101113_AAEMDF waters_r_Page_045thm.jpg
31a336754508bac91339773ecf6ec871
209bfe34f369278b53331866346df164c2d45d8d
20539 F20101113_AAELTX waters_r_Page_194.QC.jpg
66590cbf6da3185587fb67a55a63c706
11b136ae8693680dbaba373d24a7869bf031086a
23221 F20101113_AAEMQR waters_r_Page_191.jpg
f78c17ed4f49355b94c7023d02237387
d653392196f2cb3ca5901babc58223fb8871bebe
64160 F20101113_AAENNK waters_r_Page_278.pro
99a137809d574518babdeb2498309d6b
9b066ae6e7b03ff39c87b3deec067361af3e8a9d
2894 F20101113_AAEMDG waters_r_Page_164thm.jpg
8161dbaec7269ea09542362cc41b7a56
2bc58f6e6813b3b9efe08826ebb4ae65c6ed9ce5
F20101113_AAELTY waters_r_Page_124.txt
8670fd97eb2b1462e0f117e4b7a3c86e
c107f8f7a6838ef1b0654a68ab68df631c8bdceb
F20101113_AAENAA waters_r_Page_014.tif
3e8530d5ba925ab32ff3c3904f8d4bab
3c8099cd5984a7daf96e8ee1de89d5365e33b3f9
53787 F20101113_AAEMQS waters_r_Page_192.jpg
e7044c2661c9b4e43563ebdc4d2f1377
c084bcc17692f1a8f7716e42bda33aaa4621ecbd
116 F20101113_AAENNL waters_r_Page_003.txt
d562fd2d1b4402a73b00c767f3ef47d8
9b55fecd7b702756b7fb03848691e003fde96074
43951 F20101113_AAEMDH waters_r_Page_030.pro
f1eadd0bbb6db4541097b5a5a70e1885
995398eb84ec9bc7678d39da7c2ea60a584a5e3a
25190 F20101113_AAELTZ waters_r_Page_146.QC.jpg
aa8220b47a212439e3c04e0482602dd7
c7897ef82a5ba0ad4d9ff87b82b1c85078f0a122
F20101113_AAENAB waters_r_Page_016.tif
622fd1bfa5f0431761b485e7b5db9c89
766fd04df87b28f680f0fcae51599a106c08a6b2
39140 F20101113_AAEMQT waters_r_Page_193.jpg
df5985f140a23223750e9f2bae31a421
da327dc50fde320b7fb8ae0e551e03a5f788ebb6
3614 F20101113_AAENNM waters_r_Page_008.txt
f504e4e2be8ae9caafe88c6300dec590
3fc56c6c08ec1824f75ba685257d5a40b82922ff
77696 F20101113_AAEMDI waters_r_Page_024.jpg
a5c48bcf0c70bd87c464463b1db0bacf
8e9f416eed63e37645b1ac830b1682de420e7353
F20101113_AAENAC waters_r_Page_017.tif
4905b0a005f7e353702639c5fff3945b
aea3d1f0e653261c8b441d694bfca673150fee1e
69882 F20101113_AAEMQU waters_r_Page_194.jpg
d249b3053ee367a0470621d056102302
af32934de8d4dd6835d17cb459de20120ef16082
2649 F20101113_AAENNN waters_r_Page_010.txt
d0528c520ac9eff041195cb19e4f0bf4
39bcec5b70ca5ad571e7fe52adddddbc61155fde
114097 F20101113_AAEMDJ waters_r_Page_070.jp2
89b92a2a638de36dcccac102e52cd8e7
234efcc1da408992e0cdf6bd5c26d2f44a82ad9a
F20101113_AAENAD waters_r_Page_018.tif
40b00fa1b15bcdb2c9d59de74d85ffaf
fd9f76c488ae1d7fcac8a3728d84f4fb6276a3af
40002 F20101113_AAEMQV waters_r_Page_196.jpg
5c8b20c51844f619fe5072901e836422
4a1c1c498dd2259b93df7bde653740129c835672
F20101113_AAENNO waters_r_Page_011.txt
6d86f0defd759799efb3f9a51e7d4f65
e3050e31f7c205d308feb4a33503c65267f64d43
6914 F20101113_AAEMDK waters_r_Page_123thm.jpg
67540fa14d9ffb440e82e1174eea38d1
63b3322bc3086471f48d15d3189d522d861b9c55
F20101113_AAENAE waters_r_Page_022.tif
9654e91574a70fc4fecc92ec3937e98f
41eb70fda5ab825cbcb18d316cc832f79afc8877
39183 F20101113_AAEMQW waters_r_Page_199.jpg
0cc68106feb5f7b5dbc9a47593895906
1b2b716781caecb943eed48b23e09df702c25701
2177 F20101113_AAENNP waters_r_Page_015.txt
898498156d2fa5f30df461f84a239889
85207357ccd5f52c76a3a2d2eccb0a982c2bc0f7
110964 F20101113_AAEMDL waters_r_Page_221.jp2
e21e757871bf764834a11a92a95e4581
90225d39c7f35e2f03809811285f5f353e107cf0
F20101113_AAENAF waters_r_Page_023.tif
023d56a59938753e34bd575167291ad7
1929cd1cc85d1770588634f54685527d91b7b41f
39570 F20101113_AAEMQX waters_r_Page_200.jpg
1597294b8ec2af4001abfc21e3146789
b87fec45804a48e013a9b6d49fc7cf9981968416
2117 F20101113_AAENNQ waters_r_Page_016.txt
aea599699478b9e9d9e3b6393056edfd
86989c00815adec60aa6cf523a65a9618da0c90a
83831 F20101113_AAEMDM waters_r_Page_276.jpg
2300c1203325ee25721e724634933de0
355405d8b9a4890fd869dd3e99c71756243f59a8
F20101113_AAENAG waters_r_Page_025.tif
c1f252a728182ceb7bbaba668f010a6d
7b5d9532cf54c39eb822f0fd645cc307a79c213c
36379 F20101113_AAEMQY waters_r_Page_201.jpg
7e941a2245ed7a318c39330086dbbecb
c816bfe96bf72311f3e1f1cf0d393e5aba656044
2193 F20101113_AAENNR waters_r_Page_019.txt
997a566db7d6a328077a18aaeaa463d3
45a97b7483dcd1bd56ac23b9783fe530f982f1a3
F20101113_AAEMDN waters_r_Page_015.tif
31b097a990edd980213def757b3e332d
4e8f2d8b6806ccb02e047d4980ba0fbb9faf37ac
F20101113_AAENAH waters_r_Page_026.tif
6d89fc68c80b04ffb4e4badda1a60b96
79f52670a37fa3c462b86d22ae8545e47e71046f
73186 F20101113_AAEMQZ waters_r_Page_202.jpg
3b446e6ea175f3431f62c6e96209686b
ea507249c3ca94ee73a71e639d06543cd0d5ae76
2196 F20101113_AAENNS waters_r_Page_020.txt
d3b46b7e2d1aa165531da5a4407545cd
fca93d953eb503e8bab18febabcbe0168cd997a6
112425 F20101113_AAEMDO waters_r_Page_107.jp2
93a0507774c17d489e8385cd40d378ef
6d29463a6bc2b526c1e9b5716c70e6c797681c79
F20101113_AAENAI waters_r_Page_027.tif
bbeedb1fe20d7410f50087f877e8c23d
e48ccb50998aa554728e6dd6705430091120f94f
2129 F20101113_AAENNT waters_r_Page_021.txt
2bcca92ff78f19f9e1ef7dd916c68d6f
f2a2f94e42e8e323648f28daba7a3f8fd0feac4e
24253 F20101113_AAEMDP waters_r_Page_077.QC.jpg
2aefdfb9402e9a4fcd33db4fff26cb9b
d04d2bd9dff6fd7a5bae971c3019bbf5dd572b83
F20101113_AAENAJ waters_r_Page_029.tif
2140bfa479964055781b8a14d9f57256
324249757747a324d5c9cf5e16d6617088e26c9b
F20101113_AAENNU waters_r_Page_022.txt
3811ffb3a2ccc05a58130126e3a3283d
644be9100aed51ca7c2e2e9a3ad12f6e59e36f57
55831 F20101113_AAELZA waters_r_Page_019.pro
8684d52357d7c69334135aad758b9e72
55ef9e4791c052054ef5ac700b9beab6d92682e6
5644 F20101113_AAEMDQ waters_r_Page_084thm.jpg
1045101d5a660b03d445f7e0219ca4b5
5b5e1b5bd8e89d7a399acf22206abc23746cd6b6
F20101113_AAENAK waters_r_Page_030.tif
c4b2899977cc426d68dbd47744d0d9cf
8453d1e152eaec86681caa7b4234d22f502a8301
2205 F20101113_AAENNV waters_r_Page_024.txt
290279ab3d0ab5f5b59fdd739b705db3
583de0004a1780106703dd7342f89381ddae5ce8
2071 F20101113_AAELZB waters_r_Page_043.txt
5dde52d51e0a79d990970917164a2656
b4b06aa19e6671aa3e5647c91d3324b8f98f8b66
24603 F20101113_AAEMDR waters_r_Page_212.QC.jpg
969369695cfd8f4f0ff56e2143e54d7e
24233c955d5922396b41ee0fde3c0d281c7997f4
F20101113_AAENAL waters_r_Page_036.tif
97a4b9f786e24dfc3f4c3c12eb7db466
58f29c10ba0a3915f02dacbab3a1923d8a540cb3
2156 F20101113_AAENNW waters_r_Page_027.txt
7c59ed8521f25933708fc59876918b14
736de7abc1bd8f167e4b8736bd657dfdd8206c0e
7011 F20101113_AAELZC waters_r_Page_150thm.jpg
559d65f5ea83a9a4ffcf5627645c11e6
b3b680070539ed85c1978877e4b9992451ee3ef9
2221 F20101113_AAEMDS waters_r_Page_055.txt
ecf0176e5f475ca7c34d8f3095b5fecd
52921bdae711cd2ff14216f3efed882753bc98e4
F20101113_AAENAM waters_r_Page_037.tif
73679656cd7d4a4b4165d5bb9578cc09
bfcff68dd0b03132e1e2745760198ec9eebab430
F20101113_AAENNX waters_r_Page_028.txt
2aa566f141dc5add3bafc9df4b9cd45d
fbbe136d751e1119b869372c9ae341e8c116c5fa
9970 F20101113_AAELZD waters_r_Page_009.QC.jpg
865094320c6358d711667e359f080461
d57a18894cdfed533e3a1ac01a7af1e7e5791548
1845 F20101113_AAEMDT waters_r_Page_064.txt
5de45cfe992a57ac8915be676ffd606d
a713b293e25236651402b702156921d100a5ad0e
F20101113_AAENAN waters_r_Page_038.tif
c59bb9e8f296a41f304b2e02aaa50cf5
7180598c44ef85425444ac45f85ac580f09f842e
176 F20101113_AAENNY waters_r_Page_031.txt
49d8d018d73d1d9a5259d2a74c6ed860
dea2a958f584dc4ee705f2016cf302224b65a9e1
50183 F20101113_AAELZE waters_r_Page_258.pro
55046223ea3d23eba1cda70472b38d9c
53125312b6efb62aa1ed7645d5cd598b1e739e88
24948 F20101113_AAEMDU waters_r_Page_257.QC.jpg
b57ae61642e6bbc2bb89d7bfe1341729
55a22e4b71728fc04a569f9a2aa5c067c7da2897
F20101113_AAENAO waters_r_Page_039.tif
7bd3f497e025496cad1a4b65aff5f44c
f6180e37f0c97350aaca0f1efa9aec20b073418d
2144 F20101113_AAENNZ waters_r_Page_032.txt
d8317c0925636c937ed11a37fc42ff8b
7455cfa4149ad663430f8b0f7283e75318dff345
12558 F20101113_AAELZF waters_r_Page_185.QC.jpg
f52b0be9678ebb663af8eb61675b8c9e
44a753ceb2e35b971841d539c54a61a3a8db36a1
22121 F20101113_AAEMDV waters_r_Page_198.pro
5c8a6174d3d53887ab41388718ea56d3
e8a6d2013810c6efe1b2b1cab39fae7ea6513315
F20101113_AAENAP waters_r_Page_040.tif
56894b7cf97765252177ab363c4d0875
3d39c38c1ae37e8a9063ce6035648ab7c547b625
6737 F20101113_AAELZG waters_r_Page_218thm.jpg
fd8941cf68968b3f59592704f4cc3ca5
3bc38c349777a25477abe60e71f50ecb57a5bc06
6719 F20101113_AAEMDW waters_r_Page_074thm.jpg
4fe71a39b5e1f9b0ca24a4b2256c0415
91f18fc9a51d2168eac18397ce0f6fc6f331ed2b
110686 F20101113_AAEMWA waters_r_Page_140.jp2
2d85bceddf11bcc136e943039a2342b0
b2e66c73a9d007975a22d9225de13ede508db07a
F20101113_AAENAQ waters_r_Page_041.tif
af554ac010e1e4a58b7b69a80ee0fc34
ad0a556c46a1c97b7e0403e592e51c92b3ad9b3f
2373 F20101113_AAELZH waters_r_Page_277.txt
1226f0b858e133093710cdd6c3789222
57f11eec59ad2a10e40a967ea22e097c6cb7da5a
6725 F20101113_AAEMDX waters_r_Page_130thm.jpg
250051ffa915cc6137012db23fd184c2
c9f8ec4a516f5d891a0ae40ef58b6c95d824fb2d
103923 F20101113_AAEMWB waters_r_Page_141.jp2
d5a82af86565a07c870c922030b03242
e003f60df23a891939b0ba34b0234a527601b24e
F20101113_AAENAR waters_r_Page_044.tif
98457bbd2f65da18cbfaeece95d962ef
718b788e0ac9055be73c451d89e67f0000f5143a
4146 F20101113_AAELZI waters_r_Page_183thm.jpg
b57ca07aac0cdec780674fd51853cac1
56a5ce541416e83bda011c0d2bb7f5ed6dc61301
73867 F20101113_AAEMDY waters_r_Page_063.jpg
0dc96e074c6934afc4aa0a11855d7a1e
0500b1cb2de39cc4487e575a7b9b278146e2b443
110856 F20101113_AAEMWC waters_r_Page_143.jp2
6aef1d5221c037b7aebb602df0351cb6
85cc5e2e139a962eb7b613841e4da6e1c8144f30
F20101113_AAENAS waters_r_Page_045.tif
9cdb35ee467571b18c44627110be8af3
3b3a6152b502da941c6afbd164241650cf8a368a
23156 F20101113_AAELZJ waters_r_Page_071.QC.jpg
2af43ff461fc449118e453d757fa80c8
89bd424ac33f332cd665cf98a7050a7d39c35c9e
1051973 F20101113_AAEMDZ waters_r_Page_012.jp2
95bf007e4c9b38ed23802108d663a8ff
fd9fb243b168238e420e03cc85f46f16cb1ee214
115738 F20101113_AAEMWD waters_r_Page_144.jp2
3be53e20e2f68f354410308c4ccfd627
c7485e625a27c1d783ef15248e1ad855b829547d
F20101113_AAENAT waters_r_Page_046.tif
5a1290eacfc1a338b2e92959dbdcdaf5
b37a88f2c9645604ab7b03982a59f00751ceb2eb
13018 F20101113_AAELZK waters_r_Page_197.QC.jpg
3f7637ad1b76875750558392e28fbb20
3b36bd2eb2cbace5320f14c77d54da3e463ee86e
100985 F20101113_AAEMWE waters_r_Page_145.jp2
70164cc44800dda15cf0b6192afaa083
cfeda1b77cbc24f550d1eae3d6df474af94f1de5
F20101113_AAENAU waters_r_Page_048.tif
989596a6c766adeeb723416b6bbe2d4c
c95540fcdf03465233277c3b140ea6d8d84f6948
2003 F20101113_AAELMA waters_r_Page_217.txt
fbe3699b7556f1763dc6a194b7740479
aafdef1ce8639c29e10dbdd00936274bfe1e5788
12821 F20101113_AAELZL waters_r_Page_168.pro
099ab4b8cb0ad9095942dc40e50696ca
e258c1bc57534784105fe53cc194b57e398e10f0
112390 F20101113_AAEMWF waters_r_Page_147.jp2
eb8ec6afd6b97b4dc3850318df89a170
ba4d9b27bdf96cb338a517307eddd6c68a15dcfe
F20101113_AAENAV waters_r_Page_051.tif
48702b45e569727e55ab6c1376bf8b9c
a30fc3066471e3b1feffea234eebdfa26cd332c3
90883 F20101113_AAELMB waters_r_Page_274.jpg
e696fe0e5f37d5966af10f030be15f14
147005259bf4859caede471fe53a463d8645262c
F20101113_AAELZM waters_r_Page_204.tif
b5d7ca979920f56ed7a830d655ab1f62
88100395eba48a8ab953c9f93603c43eb640df84
109536 F20101113_AAEMWG waters_r_Page_148.jp2
f109fdf6376c4c50f34abc97632c9554
7da8dabf7b3fe0dd9cb8d92e1d8fc6eb316022d2
F20101113_AAENAW waters_r_Page_053.tif
ccc5eeabe2f27780f4f7332d28697033
632ba46ea97e36ed0ff81471da4811ace63c009f
2263 F20101113_AAELMC waters_r_Page_006thm.jpg
879a25749417a66a6a30515b7515db38
f4632a72f888ff61476d2aa96b5c443d0d218362
2161 F20101113_AAELZN waters_r_Page_072.txt
62bd5c88571bea9194ec834829c8688a
f7d2aa2b67add38ff6c152f0e5006308203bfcc7
120261 F20101113_AAEMWH waters_r_Page_150.jp2
46ec3c13c43343ad484ff6b38ad99b59
0058c5d92219cedf57035dcc8c4ddfb0727162c2
F20101113_AAENAX waters_r_Page_054.tif
764bb4293ccc9eab905a5a501a0e757e
5aa98d8694dd707955ec625fe458288e21d92de4
2131 F20101113_AAENTA waters_r_Page_229.txt
f5801c6ced9bad39852a5f8e95b4f94a
be676d41bd622912d34b7121913ef24a046ace16
26861 F20101113_AAELMD waters_r_Page_274.QC.jpg
2e8fbd122e0c3a4b897cf433cc6aedcd
9c0919773713a69859bcbd569d285aa220a94c12
F20101113_AAELZO waters_r_Page_144.tif
8d3586538e089ca367213acd5e059370
f0abc53b7a446303eb846b606206e01f9938eb49
108121 F20101113_AAEMWI waters_r_Page_151.jp2
5c4279e7c3f82abe8e848b0655ea3b04
40e79dec4cc1ebe00d703bf3382a3f19249cda11
F20101113_AAENAY waters_r_Page_055.tif
5abec5abb03baba0d738faec56d40cb0
a831cb5350e5e2416e7a5c29f0aaa60a5b007199
2010 F20101113_AAENTB waters_r_Page_231.txt
b531e69029ce89360417ffb3f7e4a8cb
cd5fd702c878cf211c08388728120f465c6ce8aa
41630 F20101113_AAELME waters_r_Page_174.pro
cfa1b332e513082d9778f8f3e6bf4ff2
1b9a236e4ea51e296f112d62ab0100f7762fe87a
F20101113_AAELZP waters_r_Page_186.tif
91288f8eff76948bbce78c79c1af315f
759a7d1aa0854551b7a43d0a7d5f2bb68f181179
115624 F20101113_AAEMWJ waters_r_Page_152.jp2
8d45a04cecf98af3b43dbdcf34a9e182
00bfb2da28e5ec957bedd872590afcc85d64819d
F20101113_AAENAZ waters_r_Page_056.tif
5531ce92fecb9324c5fe634ded535119
3dc67ae18c5f8a6e4ee675ebdd35bef379d54f2e
2209 F20101113_AAENTC waters_r_Page_234.txt
7be0de3da0923f95b98d116ba4a8ef01
3cc0a54bbcfbcee0b5b8de5aaeab786c912f03ee
54241 F20101113_AAELMF waters_r_Page_050.pro
e44097163f271d5f573aebdcb6d570b7
fa6f904fd19d53114ef21a9a50624e72cc5b0991
473 F20101113_AAELZQ waters_r_Page_001.txt
3a78391da997f4cadfdbc909766b71cf
22bf06785bd40350c6158898cf96022c163b0441
115275 F20101113_AAEMWK waters_r_Page_153.jp2
20b7ba0e2deac18d987778b1f9aac1c8
a5248c9fb0ac1b4118a62b65bd38885a64ce852d
2264 F20101113_AAENTD waters_r_Page_239.txt
e741b8e7784ccedbb1a1d20f4dbd0acf
e31a764239ff53b8d5c3b7d3c5d5fd919f2835fe
F20101113_AAELMG waters_r_Page_273.tif
148feba2bb28feed24628895ebbde6bb
3d95a7f8d72250df2c388b01f58d3d6eebb382a4
1712 F20101113_AAELZR waters_r_Page_166.txt
c981e68b6c1547eb05ce2286b958d7f1
0d60c94a9a9d5d234346514114d6a3644b8c54c0
115482 F20101113_AAEMWL waters_r_Page_154.jp2
ef7c6b6fa01e802f8f447e9f2d6f234e
957c26c43b694b7f42e55d83143bdcf0675e6b51
2170 F20101113_AAENTE waters_r_Page_240.txt
1a0a1f69343b254fe3a4b5c23d59ca6c
32a922dffde08fba49f6b03d4842fabaaa959c8e
2158 F20101113_AAELMH waters_r_Page_219.txt
3e81f7de6008fdea3163e66d31c70e6d
84a70a097fc5f4a199f29975b1432690d42f2e88
3672 F20101113_AAEMJA waters_r_Page_262thm.jpg
33fa3ddbf6d2433df4afae21eaf4803e
2243dd318c9b366f0f75d79f54389063870fb506
134010 F20101113_AAELZS waters_r_Page_068.jp2
a3c359bd1d6a96bec0ecade1858ba275
b40ce42a6fc3d110ee5beb84be94bcfb5ca707ea
115576 F20101113_AAEMWM waters_r_Page_157.jp2
bf423ccec6f913f643193852fe4b37d9
a77d35a8838128aa7f779089ff90e9e82371717c
2097 F20101113_AAENTF waters_r_Page_244.txt
acd1a96d44c093014cd4696c9609daaa
62f1722961a813706671443a483457cb23204cb8
24348 F20101113_AAELMI waters_r_Page_136.QC.jpg
0527c8fe06a5ac78524bf06c8974c82e
44be1ebdaabdd9ce1434104e722fa797ad9f615b
76111 F20101113_AAEMJB waters_r_Page_247.jpg
926e420a5bb388eeeb356452bcbe63b6
c5483b8d6c184b1a18644145791bb89682398c4f
44883 F20101113_AAELZT waters_r_Page_085.jpg
5d64f6bb812e4391af19caadd5218920
8890cb06c4ffb95a3bdd47468ef25e6241b5d01e
108685 F20101113_AAEMWN waters_r_Page_158.jp2
7de58f560ef2f6ac65e11cb4372da4cb
d7026f2370de95bf27f88bd6cfe2690065b0a70b
2256 F20101113_AAENTG waters_r_Page_246.txt
963f167c5a1f8f03c29ad3fb61d7ec7e
abf9490f2096a78ec17f47087e91542fbed254a7
1833 F20101113_AAELMJ waters_r_Page_194.txt
6645caca0f76bb6befd535b3ffab53ac
1ad18f114c7c5dee639ccd1bfd15418ce263afac
111543 F20101113_AAEMJC waters_r_Page_062.jp2
69359a0b8ba27d272a02f5604daa11c9
0b51b5f45be556c0b9c47877215f049a1d2db2f1
7144 F20101113_AAELZU waters_r_Page_055thm.jpg
55c7ee889b2747e3d3d819989bfdf048
1aa837d29444f56df52bc36b130901a7322b8457
63521 F20101113_AAEMWO waters_r_Page_159.jp2
e2513038ff0e7d98165daaa6a9e91fab
446b35334280b9274e37ae07435c65fd3530388c
2119 F20101113_AAENTH waters_r_Page_247.txt
9ca5c1b9644ca1ce3bf076e950b7b588
61ad33e52dd4da6d4252966b42d22a8ae18c2efd
6910 F20101113_AAELMK waters_r_Page_100thm.jpg
3f6654881ca236b89bb564c0bed289ff
6f29c9ae462e0a98407ecf6f82ac74fc89f9c310
1989 F20101113_AAEMJD waters_r_Page_066.txt
d4d23e94d5e3aebcbfc4650b3d00ecd6
bece27ab9532101a70e3e9e5d1be42d059802b33
1751 F20101113_AAELZV waters_r_Page_030.txt
7568abba38bd5d1aa194fa94c12e57c8
8feb4b3e63efb36369bcbf7b9f50dd104a56fce0
2148 F20101113_AAENTI waters_r_Page_248.txt
1be829891ced6c966ff66518e24ce7e0
043a18bfb8809d0b2b6c144ab14705490672fd64
52822 F20101113_AAEMJE waters_r_Page_029.pro
d3313b25f543604b91876c47600edba1
2eb362bd192e0b1e25363ef4f60a02fbf113be6b
2107 F20101113_AAELZW waters_r_Page_242.txt
b0231b76cb5d0eeec74c42bda6449e65
e511e737c9d3b882d900b58510e3dcad90156bad
90085 F20101113_AAEMWP waters_r_Page_161.jp2
4fc31d2db4ecae138534d14c1a81898f
015d6eee7747edb945e79c54c9574f5e9902de14
1404 F20101113_AAENTJ waters_r_Page_250.txt
c28c581083746b23b44a6d784767ef3e
743d90f606cdf21778fbb07694e8252c697948fb
F20101113_AAELML waters_r_Page_071.tif
b58fcba7d741a51849ebc232b73326b4
8f8c8ac8d37fa28babd4f6a447f1792871c3ac30
108653 F20101113_AAEMJF waters_r_Page_076.jp2
f484582ee9e2e8a89698c6e51b85d705
90870b4579186f54882b7cc0036c977c5d64dd8b
25275 F20101113_AAELZX waters_r_Page_152.QC.jpg
3b78e6c09a432f2e343e63a62569eeac
f593157f47435be09331cf02a52001a0d6f72601
68878 F20101113_AAEMWQ waters_r_Page_162.jp2
494773462621892a847f31bfb58fe8de
6a849b2c7087dc6051b52170957b3613fffab0d8
3682 F20101113_AAENTK waters_r_Page_252.txt
be8624b79e5b0a9cb39c0588ab9adbcf
908d437f6cca3e54ea903b18eb31daad1d6a28b3
21116 F20101113_AAELMM waters_r_Page_280.pro
09dd2950343a17e391eff84ccc0a9a35
80a15b5c31720248655b9f309760f0147d77f2f3
6957 F20101113_AAEMJG waters_r_Page_110thm.jpg
23b4d47b884ef6fcd74d15e0ae24ed19
9088ab08d84f4478f99a1ae186ac5fc6ab84635f
85009 F20101113_AAEMWR waters_r_Page_163.jp2
033ebcd1099eced18daffb48a19574be
7f5ac465fda567318916a32fa7afaea50ce09b4b
3130 F20101113_AAENTL waters_r_Page_253.txt
9305ef8be07841b1b03c96f11f7563b3
6fcf90353ed2b0a77bd136a071730096c1137693
56836 F20101113_AAELMN waters_r_Page_144.pro
bf0424d65ee6260e0ec7be1ce7a21134
a451ccdfe32871c010e0f04745d1fb6fcec1685d
1114 F20101113_AAELZY waters_r_Page_198.txt
454e7fdd61b12097c59dfa8b1f575e6e
3a27d59537d317d4e3964a560079c9596ae86eea
F20101113_AAENGA waters_r_Page_262.tif
b60f8536735b6298e13e38f95ca1d0e6
af3daf6ba12b77ac81bb9379bba766a9cc373fe4
37068 F20101113_AAEMWS waters_r_Page_164.jp2
e45de53f81d6afc9a7c6fcbec5bdc8ce
2d037816a7767bf00ca408ebb85b0d0ee2db2d35
2035 F20101113_AAENTM waters_r_Page_254.txt
34feec275947b7fb6b5e989cee4635a5
52fb586b0a38a9e61b2616ea1b4dc72e92bb27a4
62567 F20101113_AAELMO waters_r_Page_188.jp2
f2a86071df75b4a3babfa62ae3ed9ddd
7f69c8bc3aec0934c8c74d81b1ebcdde96689691
119250 F20101113_AAEMJH waters_r_Page_176.jp2
704e9b25e5f3ee2ecfe2726ca6da4bb5
5de7c929c9b9badf891da23c9c585c14de80c2e8
55639 F20101113_AAELZZ waters_r_Page_236.pro
adaede8e070606edff25197ff81f726f
b9a7a258798e54a54a0a1dfcd03278ba6ef2dd92
F20101113_AAENGB waters_r_Page_263.tif
29c68479ca275b8368f47063acbf3cc9
ceec7426574ab4654d6e63496f99b970ccebf31c
74399 F20101113_AAEMWT waters_r_Page_165.jp2
faf1b0e2a162e95fdc5a3af3514bb29a
03a549cd46148defd01c3a6fa3aa7deccd74aef8
4151 F20101113_AAENTN waters_r_Page_255.txt
1c8e3e399f2309e8f1da49363acf6fc3
85a7df4a74ffebaa3a331ce8bd831f9f0f08468d
24582 F20101113_AAELMP waters_r_Page_189.QC.jpg
d9d2c86d9d301afacae7ea16ade8b530
7d2a2422e26914ba5f3dea4bd8b22c25285497cf
71297 F20101113_AAEMJI waters_r_Page_218.jpg
76cd06b28ae6b61d9c9a868ee5a5009c
869074717cebaaae5ebe22ae6957b1143a116673
F20101113_AAENGC waters_r_Page_265.tif
470d61e19daa99d1863b9c1e50c2515d
3f117972c548d18a221cd207870d27db47451691
3531 F20101113_AAENTO waters_r_Page_256.txt
7559ddfed0333b7eb3ae778845324f3a
3ee2423e8617e4e24f55369f7866b29cf10d938f
18511 F20101113_AAELMQ waters_r_Page_166.QC.jpg
16e9c3e38bff94ca61a9d8b73725cfbf
836198c2dc8849addf985b52e026b3b979400314
F20101113_AAEMJJ waters_r_Page_021.tif
040610f06abf52145663a90887a72d08
2439bdfaf076f1184bfc3a80ca9c4f0f888cb75c
89148 F20101113_AAEMWU waters_r_Page_166.jp2
4513182cfdf9f3f2bed8f06595169a2d
d00c6a0bfcfc96857a1522249c40ee6d7abb0f46
3243 F20101113_AAENTP waters_r_Page_257.txt
5c4f8a5b0b9953e043c982d12d26e2d3
ff52445a7f12e4f536e7b06af92c4176b613e810
2152 F20101113_AAELMR waters_r_Page_249.txt
a4f714e75c8be9d46259723aba42b993
9c8e6e7fbac95b036b56da81e1df6bfd51cb06c4
118188 F20101113_AAEMJK waters_r_Page_139.jp2
f30056ac799265add000876a1f0ed323
9b0bc5a944f6c2bac19523cbdc6ffdb8814fe7ed
F20101113_AAENGD waters_r_Page_266.tif
3259083470ebf93e36cb939d2f5520bb
18504e0e3ca76659cc6404f53e678c2afcb36c6d
127797 F20101113_AAEMWV waters_r_Page_167.jp2
640769d9e95e697b8805081ec61e9dea
90c27295e30d3bef640baa5fb2fd04b64b10e889
24657 F20101113_AAELMS waters_r_Page_022.QC.jpg
33e15d0c1861ad38a8923e3a2ff191ad
19602e2ca31c77b0687e7b1d2878bd25cdd557fd
2195 F20101113_AAEMJL waters_r_Page_103.txt
4f15e91754f17715120a239fec82223b
9ded19cf08adcf5aaa0ae5c9cb7ae9d2e94a1e7f
F20101113_AAENGE waters_r_Page_268.tif
6aa79e8697b72379c6123c39f8aef726
ed2176830f9771a3b9200c08a0e38e7417a5bd26
132857 F20101113_AAEMWW waters_r_Page_169.jp2
9c22a2ba62d49053c7f284dd1267c992
857d7b24f5c7718c5aff258aca998f29a28c7403
2551 F20101113_AAENTQ waters_r_Page_259.txt
6d31fc543328561744a62c900d83df87
52d796b8b464d67da5876797053b8f9a06020952
50248 F20101113_AAELMT waters_r_Page_202.pro
5d19e660b37a7a37738d663eb5dcbfee
7a8ebd500520303c19c1d448b5392a3aec78cc84
76828 F20101113_AAEMJM waters_r_Page_053.jpg
ffaee73bf63c2d3c0e4122421421963f
fc76abb62f08fff72bd138266ac087719df09a5d
F20101113_AAENGF waters_r_Page_269.tif
9134f664b67b6f14c218bc9fc9cfd333
b187fd2033cf1ba2aa8e78a1a9097a7588467cf2
65008 F20101113_AAEMWX waters_r_Page_170.jp2
699a7eb29c5628ca0f2ff7a475a08f37
5261dd7204efb31d92259a23f9bd96b08e230919
1577 F20101113_AAENTR waters_r_Page_260.txt
4f4f1a55bc3fa820a43f32aea230418e
a6c13f76aec9d96329600d47de37f5347330eb67
1031 F20101113_AAELMU waters_r_Page_183.txt
54e9c03264a7b3e5bf1eb939581f1a02
15f74650070add6eb46f903992841bb731870a20
59660 F20101113_AAEMJN waters_r_Page_073.pro
00c96c1c6e630cb14ff9a4e22d9eaa1e
fcebcb3f208e047962be475a115f7ae3e63a6d40
F20101113_AAENGG waters_r_Page_271.tif
dc51e0308305572edfe8ad7434da9e32
2a6b0aa6e6c90896fbd9923fedb718f2a585c25e
36163 F20101113_AAEMWY waters_r_Page_172.jp2
ede31f3d311fadd66d4662fe92b7a61e
5f3e33bbe87ad1a45b35e012ee15a87196450bed
5541 F20101113_AAEODA waters_r_Page_008thm.jpg
b390e12bbb69a46298e383bf0efdabbf
7bf23ea5dcfc21d8ce60c625b1d23d5385032666
819 F20101113_AAENTS waters_r_Page_262.txt
9599e318cce59106bfb08a1a8a4f6bd6
9002fe61de95332783a90f74cefe334337d4e786
53167 F20101113_AAELMV waters_r_Page_195.jpg
82c2eaf09a74952dd67d43bbb4fc1e65
54e97bb900aeeb766ae299e3eb08aabb38cf3b39
F20101113_AAEMJO waters_r_Page_188.tif
62c0630d687dfcb690bc81b0a53a4a5d
58aa759dc4533ded3b36b248379cbce41a9dfe1a
25271604 F20101113_AAENGH waters_r_Page_272.tif
ee9156cac9904a7174875c1610e473c6
46215d34d4d144b9518ffdbb4a4aa59238764d52
97734 F20101113_AAEMWZ waters_r_Page_173.jp2
ca550b1df7ebafcd7e9a6d4ed6bdd6b2
2c68e30092407e2c74abd321c7774769d62844af
6874 F20101113_AAEODB waters_r_Page_226thm.jpg
d176ef60987b65602ad4dee65022d296
fdbb0ed36746f643b39ff7c865916436427482ef
1039 F20101113_AAENTT waters_r_Page_263.txt
1d9eaac00289c60ec1c0ead8766d917d
60854526d1bb972ecfc03d7c8be50e3d7ba1f2ea
72853 F20101113_AAELMW waters_r_Page_014.jpg
d2059438540ee86966d611db77163d33
15ba1f426e4be98ee3a6ced42b4102b1d557500b
54746 F20101113_AAEMJP waters_r_Page_219.pro
bafcb84d2b0a4d1e2249081aba9dfa04
10595a0d461182f86f3e4874c60d82691320964b
F20101113_AAENGI waters_r_Page_274.tif
82aa0bf01de231f341e67b6279d11d63
1ef6defac5b31f4d85a5ebaf565a83f2e7b0ca6f
6453 F20101113_AAEODC waters_r_Page_106thm.jpg
5c2f4db4ea10011339e400634a6b53b2
5a59c20d2ecee56d49ffcb0d62c440eec430cdc8
2523 F20101113_AAENTU waters_r_Page_264.txt
2e233f14b4e3c44c79b891cc6955f93f
5d11f606145f8a8631cb312fbe8d32f5e58c072f
53092 F20101113_AAELMX waters_r_Page_083.pro
e8d9065be73cbd651853c902d3df71be
747bb6f657621389e67ba3929111bccf07e23326
4697 F20101113_AAEMJQ waters_r_Page_118thm.jpg
62c67b6043233f2d12189586ca3c0c5f
a7ac26977de5cf5c5d4b111a08e72e68cbcbdc80
F20101113_AAENGJ waters_r_Page_276.tif
640f6431f27bd0f82d81ebc78fdee9de
8612e934e23481ed541a667b59f16fc2e209813f
6324 F20101113_AAEODD waters_r_Page_005thm.jpg
1f4f312ecc352c93052c60f438b69866
2aa0e654c28e8da36ec4e969901db06770048aa5
2725 F20101113_AAENTV waters_r_Page_266.txt
368dd8434edccb3baf0a3479245ae79d
5d9d70db46b18738c8b2861e61c597351810d9c7
80271 F20101113_AAELMY waters_r_Page_186.jpg
0bdd10bd2541e165e0e30c398dfbc504
29654f75f383cec4a5dba1aec5f01abe004f75c0
6508 F20101113_AAEMJR waters_r_Page_126thm.jpg
ff76153296ac5ad401757439f2f415c2
7ad52c3068774e01d942ada8f01b77ec685d3055
F20101113_AAENGK waters_r_Page_277.tif
93e0bec6cb0f92502d695c6535e84bc1
e3877079c684684f8944dc21ca12f4070bd02b90
6873 F20101113_AAEODE waters_r_Page_042thm.jpg
388a1a2346ceadf4dc7f8885ca2bda11
3d804802b12e5059505705bb5a3b02782ce590d0
2591 F20101113_AAENTW waters_r_Page_267.txt
33dfdec93cb74c2d02b25f9eb6fd8881
fa2e14374c966fba61dfc3cde838d23ae4be250f
70054 F20101113_AAELMZ waters_r_Page_265.pro
365aae095dae374c18918951591f835f
8d81befee62beee2382024c2c9554e1786360fb7
6871 F20101113_AAEMJS waters_r_Page_102thm.jpg
7e20a95a5ed10bc3c1d80b40790d392b
e421eda92be61b11cf8631bc288a0c2053cd68a3
F20101113_AAENGL waters_r_Page_279.tif
786e21eaebc6165b37a5928f2f7a64b0
5b9aa9b8f089447759c9f000892460c968146a4e
24942 F20101113_AAEODF waters_r_Page_091.QC.jpg
5cc208e993a4436589184af8af7a9ba7
b364dd15e5a595c13e2931b42982affb77b7197f
2828 F20101113_AAENTX waters_r_Page_269.txt
a20f6fadaed96701beb933b24fd5256c
9c2b78a854184ad2802a0f967329be5e5375ff77
115378 F20101113_AAEMJT waters_r_Page_074.jp2
a49d494346282792a57862dfe1440881
55e384d18e928b2719f008b00a110bdc63e3748e
F20101113_AAENGM waters_r_Page_280.tif
65e78b27706767b9982be2d141ebbe5a
13d5b7bc3cdb6b02d3bc740c1980d8837fddcd10
24038 F20101113_AAEODG waters_r_Page_203.QC.jpg
3f20c74906b7f9efad9f682db12161bb
816ecdfa0eea673beae3cf35671f32cb89f4c3f4
2543 F20101113_AAENTY waters_r_Page_270.txt
480a978b79f55599e3c13814b562e8af
cce5aa7d60b499547612663de4019aa15d3edc26
79665 F20101113_AAEMJU waters_r_Page_150.jpg
73e150c471145307527b47ac372b86a1
8de7ad50d4a833bfdabb32ef000279cc354df5a4
8684 F20101113_AAENGN waters_r_Page_001.pro
c2ec3c5427b0cd4ad4e5c4fccb90f8ea
5f87a76b41e3c9d6c93975990da19318aae0e9f7
24031 F20101113_AAEODH waters_r_Page_016.QC.jpg
4188ebe37f6e3f4f983b6656cea116fd
c5624ea49a747e34af9f38b134197542087abbf7
2756 F20101113_AAENTZ waters_r_Page_271.txt
79028e472bd9f3bd058c2a6848510a7e
d166933078f9297cb68a54a4251fa875dc265bb7
2178 F20101113_AAEMJV waters_r_Page_091.txt
1cdf4ff780e92bdffc8cd21320ff9ced
8cab2af5e60865e00922bfb127551042c14bb114
1610 F20101113_AAENGO waters_r_Page_003.pro
04cba79029f003cdb14d2fb79f74faa4
749df9a6ae1bc1b6aba75339755dda7a78886121
25666 F20101113_AAEODI waters_r_Page_018.QC.jpg
b3169f95dca7096ced301bb5995b0cc4
3953d282549a68c814367c7c6e1de77a69a5d735
F20101113_AAEMJW waters_r_Page_139.tif
d375faa1542f5b81f8043ce9fcef7f3b
ce29fab2069bfe9ee3e5c255e85eb603a5125510
52374 F20101113_AAENGP waters_r_Page_004.pro
645b12367de868065a4172e852a993f2
480acbb7ab6b7348e31b195d4b1095df93318a21
26591 F20101113_AAEODJ waters_r_Page_060.QC.jpg
890d32ad875ac938c3e07dce2fc57f0d
f4b4cc97920f2742f08006be1e86dc7e582045d0
65272 F20101113_AAEMJX waters_r_Page_272.pro
be5b6e9c98aa15299fdc38c916aa7719
0069f731039425d4a7c95e13d0c513c9aec69fd8
9247 F20101113_AAENGQ waters_r_Page_006.pro
95c3025e37e16fbb535a4d86ea7967d1
72415e3ca2d01e931f26c536cb667fb43654ddf7
6533 F20101113_AAEODK waters_r_Page_043thm.jpg
d9db8df85813dbaf9b6a6acbbb20baa3
4b91b9700b726afb6f975db7c3317b57b11408ca
78305 F20101113_AAEMJY waters_r_Page_020.jpg
0fc5029b476cf84b3497e662fba83b52
04aa43bf31217fc434e805140eb04cb5cf7330f2
78200 F20101113_AAENGR waters_r_Page_007.pro
3ee20f29af30c5e3fc0d7c5a1f955d72
0c16bccf89d25fd179e531dbde8398918b208a31
7181 F20101113_AAEODL waters_r_Page_187.QC.jpg
229a9fe34f9b0080700aa3f22306baaf
569a3d77e6f19d46505cc7443593950fa3ef810f
2067 F20101113_AAEMJZ waters_r_Page_131.txt
2139f83e2e84eb4c10f626c9011bf289
e669b6658e1db7e328aa36e2ebe8399d9d9e560a
88011 F20101113_AAENGS waters_r_Page_008.pro
e729a321c93decc9363a0b35acddf21f
6f1c752eabb38d626fb36db353f06843254086cc
4606 F20101113_AAEODM waters_r_Page_168thm.jpg
fa5b057b29f7b85a73424eff19cf49ce
bf2ba0591a6b24de469a59c8ab34628ba9834d97
68826 F20101113_AAENGT waters_r_Page_011.pro
562ceddab939c95cd7ea7c68503e9145
f77f64b5559f2a6a226f0e9261ecd8aa52f3d53a
24052 F20101113_AAEODN waters_r_Page_134.QC.jpg
7270d2bced97892ab8eb6cd827eebf39
037b068bc5b2ae9400117261ee7dacd92d7e6b8b
55349 F20101113_AAELSA waters_r_Page_226.pro
8921b0f67c7d2a4825a2f44d22a665ec
c98f628d0f25b60b52d19d3b03add1d9df0c9715
41583 F20101113_AAENGU waters_r_Page_012.pro
f1ca6e0c81f290a25e507b759761cffb
72c108220a3e151c1f9f64821656a0b5112b6e01
6831 F20101113_AAEODO waters_r_Page_081thm.jpg
26b74ff9a7f5ad2fe602c7cbbc64245d
a5b1799f0c96f5689f701711c26c0e929f9d969d
F20101113_AAELSB waters_r_Page_145.tif
5edf70e4c9839efe40fc7532e84b3aea
ce8d2f8f874ba1ecf0b8a6e7ccdbbf4d44392186
60918 F20101113_AAENGV waters_r_Page_013.pro
17fd8de4ce025e49b0cb1cb7e5c46610
656aa834f99b3a0970d06faf7dc7858c2e331e84
16658 F20101113_AAEODP waters_r_Page_175.QC.jpg
848e148a840b468c1f805fbd9c959654
84836f5ec4eeda42ec32f054b30727c59b2858b3
53705 F20101113_AAELSC waters_r_Page_041.pro
03cc24578e2aa7d6c44a538961a2ef53
772599ab4aa74b6c76a269792502648dde8965f7
49235 F20101113_AAENGW waters_r_Page_014.pro
6545f36a3d8066bfeb9310bf3b1a763e
3ed3288dc209f97995d3ceb22b2c2dc1557430b4
27150 F20101113_AAEODQ waters_r_Page_267.QC.jpg
ec8d78870a8174ebbb2cf050e090c309
91b4dabcd47ff0efbee3bd560bc30c56dff65c79
6900 F20101113_AAENZA waters_r_Page_058thm.jpg
2790137f710147c9ef03dc4682ee8a0e
62e32be46540d99f8037ee35420bf0d13ec5181a
131909 F20101113_AAELSD waters_r_Page_088.jp2
be30c4485c82b6036ad87553769855fe
58e0c36acffdf2978422ababa70c6332907386c0
55288 F20101113_AAENGX waters_r_Page_015.pro
c92b71015506d2ae4e200ec5c43ff6f5
1600bac4bc649caf8c12717fe97f2607aa0c529a
24340 F20101113_AAEODR waters_r_Page_140.QC.jpg
fc4ac4ebcd3e98aee5b0f6d22dd87f90
6efdad767efa385784909515445f224881c38144
19246 F20101113_AAENZB waters_r_Page_163.QC.jpg
e4810298ccda24973933cb9bd9f0a7b1
3fe0d0e72e84c5387a56d42a2e04cbfd8fa6bcd9
77535 F20101113_AAELSE waters_r_Page_226.jpg
1a5cfeb3472209d62f93c740dd2b7673
b42ca588d635471da159d63d9370c1ae074fc6a0
50993 F20101113_AAENGY waters_r_Page_016.pro
3a09ac868e2dd20dc9ad44e4d705896c
1fa83b0b78353712e14d18c6e5f3d3b25c380b0b
25758 F20101113_AAEODS waters_r_Page_139.QC.jpg
1d8fcca38d7782a99f44768a9421f0b8
be9467b5f47ab15392c19f7aad7c72e5ed317d30
24799 F20101113_AAENZC waters_r_Page_017.QC.jpg
4307055806bce0de96d81ef2d864c24e
1d71094bf38e1228937c0f20832a57dcbb6701b5
24684 F20101113_AAELSF waters_r_Page_004.QC.jpg
291c5e0e309d93509048ed8e011db892
6db58184c82eb80c669bafa217c52dbb1cd33b74
55251 F20101113_AAENGZ waters_r_Page_020.pro
fc94e41bb3f16cb22061cd0cfc2d1ff3
22a00b7ed9f7293246e522a8fd7284ab6ce904d4
9949 F20101113_AAEODT waters_r_Page_119.QC.jpg
35804d4c19a5bac71c9b6c8078967e07
bb68e10088c1085ea6f280838552f8d552730700
24116 F20101113_AAENZD waters_r_Page_131.QC.jpg
2b9469ff93b6f7eb6f678f633d20ab8a
73a26fa452357b98f345dc702dde7be9f0e3a78f
2180 F20101113_AAELSG waters_r_Page_233.txt
492f1faf395c5c4381f5737f7911fff2
ab079786d300fbca77088912c490ccbbbdd26d2d
6817 F20101113_AAEODU waters_r_Page_243thm.jpg
dcbbd3651ac7e80410a304b94f154ce0
7893bb3c983c0ba8855f3657beaa8bf8a2919821
23657 F20101113_AAENZE waters_r_Page_151.QC.jpg
a97b58f44ebab92acc28ba9d80b1b0cb
a0c94c9aa9067faafe778a2b26a4a48ce2139fd7
F20101113_AAELSH waters_r_Page_085.tif
8b0c776708ff2e62eab83b98f74870fe
9c4e28706bdc8ca555b78c9a7522da25c5df6486
72057 F20101113_AAEMPA waters_r_Page_127.jpg
3149e7cb2e328c1258c42717751a7f43
46cf9edd832d5ad75069898de4834132c6c17814
6415 F20101113_AAEODV waters_r_Page_076thm.jpg
7599f24fc01b63bb57e94512e15937d0
7116bc3f1a60c15477edaedafeeeaf752ff7d2ad
25532 F20101113_AAENZF waters_r_Page_050.QC.jpg
abd99a0829e1b4eec3a8fbfe1b50717c
70254fa2a64ab30eeb9592d8eb234ff4a8764a60
50708 F20101113_AAELSI waters_r_Page_061.pro
3439e9da73b074d3420dc581b8788907
944a494d125d1c94988d41e7ed1beee52c4c4eb0
78709 F20101113_AAEMPB waters_r_Page_128.jpg
70824f1575a6d6a855b8a99f7bb1e413
0d45ed8aa477e496fe22eafb1a3575bd254b7412
2238 F20101113_AAEODW waters_r_Page_120thm.jpg
7819b91e0af143a058b8127a6e95297e
bc16ec80b6d6064053a1e6f1fd04078033b1ed36
4891 F20101113_AAENZG waters_r_Page_175thm.jpg
de4a1055ae9b63e6fafe8b9597bc1686
6975d78a13562e42f867623e6f7358e1c61e6584
F20101113_AAELSJ waters_r_Page_150.tif
bab4319e2c19d2e51b9f5e9f70fb13db
9d40f8e0ed9014a209c9ec872a378e0e33c082cd
71806 F20101113_AAEMPC waters_r_Page_129.jpg
5e4dd1fa17c350a65f4c728ec7fd988c
ed44ae5f3c6fe61785983d3c5863fe747c38e0ca
7154 F20101113_AAEODX waters_r_Page_271thm.jpg
41bfc780abf707e28af9fec140564080
ccd6baba107a8e344711b99ba9878061d08aedb6
24985 F20101113_AAENZH waters_r_Page_067.QC.jpg
c1758efb314f9e54a2ed7d716428d90c
b5c3807c24937177b36db633874c6dd77455a06e
12631 F20101113_AAELSK waters_r_Page_199.QC.jpg
0cf263d7e84bb21b2f52bc7406fa0bdf
5b394118f50ec2bef7529d7356e5a47d69e62abd
70707 F20101113_AAEMPD waters_r_Page_130.jpg
030ed520df1da5b825e918147407fab4
4ef13ed8c72e48e22e185286f35094ad77716c27
24608 F20101113_AAEODY waters_r_Page_209.QC.jpg
01c3cbcf1406c5fb42e9362cb17f0af4
bd4d3fa1f135c6c0e6e26771508f27656f37d978
11497 F20101113_AAENZI waters_r_Page_262.QC.jpg
90e4eeada3899468b6f72eaa327cca43
3f348a0a698ca732ebe39cc59ead01e27cbbf164
F20101113_AAELSL waters_r_Page_261.tif
180587db8c679ad155209689f5710512
55370212db682ce09dfc29b1abdfeed616bb444f
73274 F20101113_AAEMPE waters_r_Page_131.jpg
9a917416723ba742eca30d86e14f70bf
72073110a34fd7ed01cc45561a251c8e078d67c5
6650 F20101113_AAEODZ waters_r_Page_080thm.jpg
e0eba6ab0a1be491d544774119512aeb
c14e0b0d2bee4ee9e8a84647b774a7813ba44af7
5272 F20101113_AAENZJ waters_r_Page_192thm.jpg
92e68c8385798cf07cc95077ce72d957
bffaa6a50fb8e0984551319aaa9b576fc30ca95c
24518 F20101113_AAELSM waters_r_Page_096.QC.jpg
c94e3bd28119cb5a4494bec23a46bd3b
87813fccce759603ef97c0d69a847b6dced05e56
74203 F20101113_AAEMPF waters_r_Page_132.jpg
acdaea35db4fb73f9e16e0fdd62de0e7
3443a995ef528ffbb43106a831ba5ff86e7aeebd
7063 F20101113_AAENZK waters_r_Page_278thm.jpg
b473bf10998909a5455b358129290868
95b1dd27109854edd00cae0af457f84eadb60320
F20101113_AAELSN waters_r_Page_013thm.jpg
887334659676d28aae8cfee5d87a71cb
3ed64179392e812cdb56224a3b6a04b9acb6b0be
73108 F20101113_AAEMPG waters_r_Page_133.jpg
a9d262e34ae052d0779b582377562e96
c199d5007c694d99b1f5bb9d4e1a312ef6b1291c
2227 F20101113_AAENZL waters_r_Page_187thm.jpg
37e8dce3d8fe6866c5d7823590c85116
4b2eaf999fdc836fc6998ba63d55ae8ecf7c9bb8
114875 F20101113_AAELSO waters_r_Page_093.jp2
10f55c6f811895124fd53bf489fcd275
a0bc31b2b0ce4591d064bf5c49d6dd61be84da24
77718 F20101113_AAEMPH waters_r_Page_139.jpg
09e64a9470cabde9db3604991f850bfd
af5eda34051983bac4ed81b2abe1f19fc13e6e15
52037 F20101113_AAENMA waters_r_Page_224.pro
df78cae07ba78ed7d272066e17294348
513815c286f32019c8e37b68f8db758ad2fbe111
F20101113_AAENZM waters_r_Page_210thm.jpg
64186fd88dd71c4a044d457bfd8ed798
a3f1828b970e902c1fe4621cbbd822b910ddf383
33292 F20101113_AAELSP waters_r_Page_237.jp2
47cc7dc685076e7f2990f497d998580a
d153d5b99f1ea24d6bdaa4dee3387ed9a1e2b51f
70726 F20101113_AAEMPI waters_r_Page_141.jpg
3854c2a6c12a995653cb1721ef2f7512
446a108bd02f538ed57811e9bfca75e9b67e2cb3
53301 F20101113_AAENMB waters_r_Page_227.pro
cddf9512b5a37cc3c7628dd7869c297d
5646d611b836a916687ff7fc0651e06f8fa9430b
3900 F20101113_AAENZN waters_r_Page_198thm.jpg
df2035414f485fca4389063168ded26a
12715621087982f085c0e412a070c8e285bc8f07
F20101113_AAELSQ waters_r_Page_046.txt
1c95e1ba9e953c9aff475cede0f818fc
a821447eb7edafc18358408a3168a668ff0d86f5
76959 F20101113_AAEMPJ waters_r_Page_142.jpg
aacb8c9e9c872b7aaa49459ceca211a4
8563317506af53ada06adf3cfaab88f1a09bbb60
53187 F20101113_AAENMC waters_r_Page_230.pro
4a89485d909fc1b9b62ebe3d2f33cf8c
d5a1212c52d882180e67fd26e08eadf0021fad6a
6427 F20101113_AAENZO waters_r_Page_075thm.jpg
80a253198473267265c939e26ec53a45
4e5670fb8ef456298ed7ac03edc8763569117b51
73424 F20101113_AAEMPK waters_r_Page_143.jpg
d853088ac55ae74641341647b86e1a81
fe46628e3196aeaa57082d55624f12f564adf915
51013 F20101113_AAENMD waters_r_Page_231.pro
6ac915ce1c95cbcdaf3b19a6952a0114
23707d769b8fc56ea778a09c008b0ef55c80c4a4
26747 F20101113_AAENZP waters_r_Page_278.QC.jpg
9a0dd9225316d848006482ff78a9bede
30835de5552f47771f4ff7d30c007b103f0f4bbe
109705 F20101113_AAELSR waters_r_Page_149.jp2
839a59c7193ced49c1aef42b8e95cc69
95a05621bd73faa2434853ac1daf18ba59d34218
67293 F20101113_AAEMPL waters_r_Page_145.jpg
52e589c84b2d9fed846449738c534f67
2719eaf9cbe2ec516108fde198734232645a7e30
55509 F20101113_AAENME waters_r_Page_233.pro
393a72b2d85936491325c6362bed820a
44e5e46d7d6a2c8150084a8ede561bcfe1c24b23
24862 F20101113_AAENZQ waters_r_Page_216.QC.jpg
96de0bf0edb0463ce54edd1312cab3a4
d118778cf77dd01dd66df91e461fa4d3f926c55e
F20101113_AAELSS waters_r_Page_255.tif
ef6d226124111b1a8930bc6f6a4f8887
cfcd6eb0f2cb0bd185ca075e19cbbf5b583c1553
77972 F20101113_AAEMPM waters_r_Page_146.jpg
8f3d60a0055635267a3849aa466a2a41
05c0a0fc8a3eeea8c358e2734e8e800a2ed12d71
52032 F20101113_AAENMF waters_r_Page_235.pro
39c95d571007a1287fdbad8e766bfb44
0257019914db34e8e433372efca7cb10806529c2
2060 F20101113_AAEMCA waters_r_Page_051.txt
22831618c6b1fbe83cbb74249c9a6be3
428fcd3a4ec22cb1c8aea2d4521e2d0055fcc295
7464 F20101113_AAENZR waters_r_Page_001.QC.jpg
d9db6f14cefb0d65e2b89289a2dc5286
1dd4a6d5b9f9f3ab3a7b43fe7644185931776293
77258 F20101113_AAELST waters_r_Page_112.jpg
28b96131326233bdfe5b70a3f1c023d5
b7bd16eab5de9dc1d4b1e6f388caa202c658871d
56772 F20101113_AAENMG waters_r_Page_239.pro
9f7f5c6c2ea3faf1d130106ee3832382
0709716b492a54dbc2387ffd47755a0d3e83f95a
53214 F20101113_AAEMCB waters_r_Page_209.pro
ef0a03a655e51cf72be9139ba046f344
e8d8b8125a4978d0164f79dc2f77f933ba784035
19330 F20101113_AAENZS waters_r_Page_161.QC.jpg
a8e001f1a5dbb5ae39d520abafe2fba5
5ef3f5e0578ca4b81cd0f0f4543a468a079c6d23
25842 F20101113_AAELSU waters_r_Page_169.QC.jpg
ad7b4b2be8bcfbb7fb1c962aa12e3d54
972ae26faae67fb474c510de8e3abe5850cfaaf2
73002 F20101113_AAEMPN waters_r_Page_149.jpg
8e2718d2aef722e6a6f0319a8f71120c
2e095b70c6c29f1da8590f0b09eb4107cf00b108
55193 F20101113_AAENMH waters_r_Page_240.pro
7555ae94830cad347865ebc9c8d37f35
a996c5a3ba1bb96f2e91439367f268d900f3d2ce
F20101113_AAEMCC waters_r_Page_060.tif
601ba150f3c3d66a67eb897f2610202c
206a4ff3cfe966135f747892c4b6821afa181c00
6760 F20101113_AAENZT waters_r_Page_054thm.jpg
d77d5c5d319a9b1cc601cde28e4493f8
3657106551c7a89ef18d4e222efa447b4ecbd81a
53039 F20101113_AAELSV waters_r_Page_228.pro
516079fa80da2ee91e646703bff71c47
7e560a3968de9168bfc7159032f9cf75c7e27003
71983 F20101113_AAEMPO waters_r_Page_151.jpg
20306348826668fcfae8888c78ac3e59
9395dbb612af5d57260713e05a7543bdd9d7c2cc
53896 F20101113_AAENMI waters_r_Page_241.pro
685902c750ceaf4d7e24780c2a14c2f7
ccfc8a2ff83fb0e1337862a3b44aa1ef434ff392
3116 F20101113_AAEMCD waters_r_Page_009thm.jpg
78b61a9adb357274ef1d8c23eeca302e
09d0fa42f52973b9231ef3d4a2ea5608da7bc064
3108 F20101113_AAENZU waters_r_Page_002.QC.jpg
c8f4a5110d33ca00a3bcb12dd6146c0e
5e3ce452ebadf4aaffd593f9554d2c835db4dc12
48029 F20101113_AAELSW waters_r_Page_115.jp2
ec053ffb68ed00ab2f5cd9c09a00917d
796cee5b7763b8b2207991b326443754d2b321a7
76401 F20101113_AAEMPP waters_r_Page_152.jpg
d13d72f61875f8e220bbf956c839e147
e7f26d151ca2605b8b8f4c7bedfee1519068c961
114171 F20101113_AAEMCE waters_r_Page_124.jp2
1f7b8f82f1f2d4a804e4fe23f0ebfd4f
f2c247272f856dd9dc4c7bd2936d8a3e1874a736
6678 F20101113_AAENZV waters_r_Page_206thm.jpg
712f6cf7fdac731db147794f425408ab
c8a71459421ec9b8ee572f2885103285f83c0ee9
53298 F20101113_AAELSX waters_r_Page_053.pro
cf319ee786e80380153151010d39da60
0e392dc978584105e7cdc55608cbbcb12acbcea1
76098 F20101113_AAEMPQ waters_r_Page_153.jpg
e0aebf3ec011150304279a16265ed2e4
0b5594762b6fee33ac1eb6d49189f12ee83128c4
53640 F20101113_AAENMJ waters_r_Page_242.pro
1b93914188eac87ff909cae27d79a72d
3638b830eda0cbe3083444f51c50491091127ef9
6787 F20101113_AAEMCF waters_r_Page_019thm.jpg
0ca25a46c22c7d5d04915f641087bd68
8fb4d3c8182b3d3aac216f8e6167dcd21395b5c3
76675 F20101113_AAEMPR waters_r_Page_155.jpg
c6afd40ffa7331732d15d42011f075d1
17f4f571de4cc6505f3b7e1c67c8425810cf0e27
52981 F20101113_AAENMK waters_r_Page_245.pro
1b01a764b1e4051d199f61b596063a5a
893b9c9d39cb6d60c2d85340f82d1e9300723e94
75458 F20101113_AAEMCG waters_r_Page_074.jpg
910d8ab1ce126f5ec62fdacaef525551
a1e4237470a6a2176716303d54012b3b598caba1
7014 F20101113_AAELSY waters_r_Page_023thm.jpg
936c7bf896eff9796011823fad4eb000
801b9b76095dfc247952911c8183a172a31cc664
6641 F20101113_AAENZW waters_r_Page_071thm.jpg
99b1883e3e2f5da57de3712e805873e7
1eb848253dfcfbcefbad37f4afbf25aaeb544168
71943 F20101113_AAEMPS waters_r_Page_156.jpg
d7971b6145c8eb8e1297c42ba8097a87
eef727d7147085e9829bb8894e5b30964eb0a63b
57486 F20101113_AAENML waters_r_Page_246.pro
caba1bbeb8aca05ce41663a17a57c344
bf531275a3d2cbe081182bf75ec3e4314a2b8d0c
24801 F20101113_AAEMCH waters_r_Page_028.QC.jpg
02fabfdc178e92a8c9bca1a2d39733f5
01bf7da5cdacd0663c6f9308386ceea17c29925a
53569 F20101113_AAELSZ waters_r_Page_225.pro
75becb5c5d22b2894da443acde2d0378
f2c2a7be98382817b1e5917bc31e72e5654b5feb
5513 F20101113_AAENZX waters_r_Page_089.QC.jpg
ab59565add8c1428bdd75e98f580d24e
892c089ea50f19e1a1c0bba522a9ea349d8893da
77621 F20101113_AAEMPT waters_r_Page_157.jpg
8eda8e1c91de98666c7344cb7bc78ea3
2dc32d117e87fa7e8228c8ecb25714f3dfb9b801
53711 F20101113_AAENMM waters_r_Page_247.pro
033a09a556eabe0ca49f3cb270586485
a42a2b589446fff6c7655eaeb906d444101d24f6
6926 F20101113_AAEMCI waters_r_Page_020thm.jpg
e308afc5ea2e2d101ae2445a8a492148
58ad200e5bfdbf85cfc129b25155dcf134eef28e
24973 F20101113_AAENZY waters_r_Page_222.QC.jpg
1e71a5ee1fb54c219c8f889d52b75b2e
1448cbad363ace5b5965617632c6fbd4ed9527ab
72489 F20101113_AAEMPU waters_r_Page_158.jpg
975c37a0fb45e0c8d32f58492763fda2
8b795a73f6fc650ece83f73325d0fb7c52e29704
54637 F20101113_AAENMN waters_r_Page_248.pro
0661e2afaf1a5b441504675910487457
c28571d8104141d8f9576fadc318a091a34c90c5
19337 F20101113_AAEMCJ waters_r_Page_174.QC.jpg
4217c3c190eda50bc68a9573b2ffbc16
cea35abaadefe973d2cdbf595f29ff67b1262ced
26422 F20101113_AAENZZ waters_r_Page_073.QC.jpg
f20a142e4587b934e49fe98803ba7afd
f7c528e981ea01a3cc620f68a308224a5506907b
63164 F20101113_AAEMPV waters_r_Page_161.jpg
54017c520642f57b0ef84ce2456520a3
44acb4f592c02b51574efbda1b9c16193d7c53b4
54776 F20101113_AAENMO waters_r_Page_249.pro
362594966cd0aa43f485bf943074638a
84d8ca60db3b92c11c19597958a77d32b46be04f
F20101113_AAEMCK waters_r_Page_028.tif
c4abd999c49a3f6bb85808f6d65de6c4
22c20cce5c427e2796c48f7e76b653d6d99d341a
51551 F20101113_AAEMPW waters_r_Page_162.jpg
7af793f112a1fe07d1331c64c0b804c6
3dc9f2a65926ebb94084ce877ca569daf20d1c8d
30307 F20101113_AAENMP waters_r_Page_250.pro
e1a7739a42b0d79122fcce38f78434f7
db4ad1e6ca81019ab07f190b87c8b4e05ec1b8c3
2192 F20101113_AAEMCL waters_r_Page_154.txt
16e6b514b067c3bac86dc79021291b00
3762406a16722f8d2cff2bd55583fedd59e77e2c
62286 F20101113_AAEMPX waters_r_Page_163.jpg
9b0eca0cd943194cee7586b20e89d0e3
10d6e119427b7e0285223ec7361a49e5570d48f7
88508 F20101113_AAENMQ waters_r_Page_251.pro
28bbf4519754a2ece9ef085876e17d84
b5833f7c35275278f4677491a8fca0ed3294ba8e
6946 F20101113_AAEMCM waters_r_Page_154thm.jpg
85417e60e693041dd29d19afb21ef2b8
0690330a501db10c11190300abd37c2e71a63ea2
30881 F20101113_AAEMPY waters_r_Page_164.jpg
561b56b2b77b0db1773c4fb7b69ab472
f879a3cae87c95b4b219bbc35e42bf78b43b6abe
65390 F20101113_AAENMR waters_r_Page_253.pro
9a8b4b9486cbf05ee5b1d3c65b734e39
7e334cfaad11dacceedf368d6fd11119861ffaa6
32840 F20101113_AAEMCN waters_r_Page_160.jpg
a107265f192cc89452963166f0c31bc4
1761483109cf7a68968eca3489cbfa9222934b66
53454 F20101113_AAEMPZ waters_r_Page_165.jpg
ab4f9e41528c616f421ecc3bef0c54f8
d9d0d14fe2e942385894d9deae2639e438d4cae6
50547 F20101113_AAENMS waters_r_Page_254.pro
d04482990cbae69206830793294343e0
a52007b6334612e8ce6eebb4ff13776d7dcc6f89
107776 F20101113_AAEMCO waters_r_Page_014.jp2
15fdfa892b14e1ccc381e269d4490872
e3f06b44cfbb7c2e57cb4aadea1992da002f62d8
71698 F20101113_AAENMT waters_r_Page_256.pro
456b738417d195119f193c54243566d7
7c4de0343da52b361988c43f2b7681a2810bd97b
6717 F20101113_AAEMCP waters_r_Page_104thm.jpg
71681ca8990bbddcef293599e887d925
670b6b782c1a9ded9d8c9da1a6634ddbe7fa94fa
64841 F20101113_AAENMU waters_r_Page_257.pro
6cd4d0b7a0a5e629d7973c0bf47ec11d
b423f9d450fec32e8cd098f89d5f71553dbeaca1
F20101113_AAELYA waters_r_Page_129.tif
8b6992e7e2e7700a84c9469446baa3d2
13e6e2224301780e3f9affcb92d9aef883845049
6899 F20101113_AAEMCQ waters_r_Page_099thm.jpg
a72b3695040912743eccc51dbd15a74a
21aec89c897c378e8c4456fc80c81f3389c9c49a
64020 F20101113_AAENMV waters_r_Page_259.pro
29551ad8dc52992595b71e758b951b01
ec6c5887d893a0c46cfa28be966cf5fcf9c47b4b
52408 F20101113_AAELYB waters_r_Page_065.pro
fc5d1792907dfa1212f4985fdfd560af
5d5630c57778076d6ce665de61f8e35ef72d9e5f
F20101113_AAEMCR waters_r_Page_169.txt
cab99ae041a880cf01ef5d1a19b98478
7fd9427a9d6f2b419a8bab1ddab72f251415d92c
31887 F20101113_AAENMW waters_r_Page_260.pro
6b779a9b13c36b221bac916b8251273d
1346fa7309f2cdd7e5bc0fd620ca9271efa43d53
F20101113_AAELYC waters_r_Page_232.txt
baba04cfed2485ae3eab93cb504c871f
7b9cd5393d83abb3ba201ca34163dd57293cd755
55120 F20101113_AAEMCS waters_r_Page_154.pro
e9f214983655e2b42060aa4005e930bf
ad03e5d861da9893671795763156794d136a5996
45184 F20101113_AAENMX waters_r_Page_261.pro
790f3c66def808088102cc4e67530426
4f821b2caf2b5e8313140ce40274b12b5c49e99a
1841 F20101113_AAELYD waters_r_Page_261.txt
b517d795c50b741e11b9e4e11735627b
0d9d64007269a13970e49cdcb0fbeb41f9499ce3
F20101113_AAEMCT waters_r_Page_022.jpg
099656a38b29275634c25e672a0cc7a9
ac26df54f1a2e23e86cf80b2eb290f5f12a89464
20302 F20101113_AAENMY waters_r_Page_262.pro
b13880f134c662f01928fbc5a17d9a78
21f78ae6f88dbe11c9b34d6c1c009ace8337204e
3550 F20101113_AAELYE waters_r_Page_200thm.jpg
a4926ab8ff468682ba1ee77a485b79cc
8794c2d2fee51efe2e19e4360e293356f0dedce1
2266 F20101113_AAEMCU waters_r_Page_067.txt
dc3fb5d352eebefc90fb921967d2c175
96ef0ec5305c6e2f04ccc18318e5e106a03b44ea
F20101113_AAENMZ waters_r_Page_263.pro
d43aa3205c31bb7c8c95ecf898a7adf0
2829e6e0ec247a5ff6aa904f3932740788ec69ca
16255 F20101113_AAELYF waters_r_Page_114.QC.jpg
2b6ddd5c21ad588ab90ac3253f63e2e6
40c95ac903e08acbe379adf2d2e79e0e3fc6888c
72682 F20101113_AAEMCV waters_r_Page_056.jpg
b89b046fb808ae37265c325e41947830
ffd58be7987872898d09a560f9421c99c334d1d7
72376 F20101113_AAELYG waters_r_Page_114.jp2
764310abfd6d135b39f97a6e37e2cb5a
b4a06ae059979a172d5d9232ac094f93e7632dd6
74614 F20101113_AAEMCW waters_r_Page_140.jpg
490a313f9b46923a38d648d504eaa69c
3e5f8fc880f5695132c9ee585d4f07fd981a23f2
109155 F20101113_AAEMVA waters_r_Page_095.jp2
8e07dbf50bf636aec1b8484c252ea687
0066fe64cf7b5e75665a47d02c650390e6790d31
F20101113_AAELYH waters_r_Page_149.tif
cbac6283f1297e68f1443f869722264b
05877b4d637765a292dc49adece753a5a39fd0c6
2488 F20101113_AAEMCX waters_r_Page_088.txt
2a439283413af68f44cbb363fa998765
aedf26fc48d7187e47f14001e813759d2a3b3c9b
111064 F20101113_AAEMVB waters_r_Page_097.jp2
ef56a30236725720ca02cf66df1923ca
030bb876276a904b92da9674fe851b6a6038bedb
F20101113_AAELYI waters_r_Page_020.tif
407abbe00445850ca3d288da600c7096
4d46d98c599437de720484f29f5379f3a6da8b0c
53138 F20101113_AAEMCY waters_r_Page_022.pro
2c351d1096ef0a223da05a8bfbae98c9
ea6812e987c4fc07c06f7dbc3bec53302b2f0ed4
114748 F20101113_AAEMVC waters_r_Page_098.jp2
fcec4da6f5e0e4239b0005e35e5fb3e4
99fcec4429c082f3a9d48fcef4bb94ea3355e808
3886 F20101113_AAELYJ waters_r_Page_184thm.jpg
a9f0ed9ad8512e414c9c6404d53b6a87
adf2026d800566c3113e6f0e0b4487957fa49569
113318 F20101113_AAEMCZ waters_r_Page_203.jp2
a1ed7723798fefa874fd040ded449e10
ea41c69caefe85a3dbf824e838afd4138da3aa82
117253 F20101113_AAEMVD waters_r_Page_099.jp2
e698feec1e655ab6999553dad3e2959c
bb2ff6cf1ec60f099d41149312884a9ef25385c0
134881 F20101113_AAELYK waters_r_Page_264.jp2
e32d0b73236450cc2b6118abd7379a45
2913ea832724d6e78a3eb324c75826cc42b238ae
116911 F20101113_AAEMVE waters_r_Page_102.jp2
a069771b563c73f58027e33d4688bbfc
9a1df28e3af7b806a7fcfae33c00f3a24015b8e4
124799 F20101113_AAELLA waters_r_Page_252.jp2
1b0eb5a89cac02cef36073a21f5c8354
1f44a135e66643e45fc195a2a183026b68ee90f0
59732 F20101113_AAELYL waters_r_Page_192.jp2
dba7852f1950e2f1079b166f695094bc
ad9e89f952dbffbff7f4db25599e22261df6ce37
115551 F20101113_AAEMVF waters_r_Page_104.jp2
d0ff94aefd65a897cbbd38d425789894
21e988ae44c86d51fee502208b52e715503fda8c
F20101113_AAELLB waters_r_Page_223thm.jpg
2ada8b569c5619a9800e1d51bfff2d36
c28f13132e9c0d75b1530badbf35ab148127a706
1856 F20101113_AAELYM waters_r_Page_163.txt
bf08a81707097dc7b5bea31156d9669a
4cd4f0b617854690bc978a7f89c5e623f60e5295
112952 F20101113_AAEMVG waters_r_Page_105.jp2
f8876b8e7a4635efd6835f459980ae5e
5e866c86ca72e67ce91247539a9206f844e50b1b
F20101113_AAELLC waters_r_Page_155.tif
6538e964fe442984272805b1b556e9a7
ca5b7d0b40ec27467e2b4b752833fdf0cc8e4eb3
F20101113_AAELYN waters_r_Page_064.tif
047f615bb0518fea7d43dbbe65b94758
37ae8f83764962714c9b69777b9cb08cd4251bc2
112266 F20101113_AAEMVH waters_r_Page_108.jp2
3345b695200839fa4919c74c0e043e6f
09ea9be46bd727a91fe407cdbfc1cf6a03fae61f
2248 F20101113_AAENSA waters_r_Page_189.txt
63ecfa2cf944e3fb0cfaf70cfea656c8
5fd040df6350bbac26470e3041be4a4986a90d5f
69517 F20101113_AAELLD waters_r_Page_005.jpg
153120b20018afed9d9d811564656920
9133390ce1a518e02e524bbc44dbd5e877134a87
F20101113_AAELYO waters_r_Page_131.tif
c0b0dbd1de3b40017c60fec08e02fe05
62dba89e5c05424f10ff60702b589ff40007f6a4
116101 F20101113_AAEMVI waters_r_Page_109.jp2
28f91f83931b17959c0b6e915c276026
bacc57dc1f10ca08ddd1adb8808624a0cb4ac88f
1608 F20101113_AAENSB waters_r_Page_190.txt
d07f118cfe5bd49d105f478d3b3bf7f4
5f40f77ab9a3d3c54275baa3256b9991863c2a79
6608 F20101113_AAELLE waters_r_Page_214thm.jpg
02557d8a31d2c47b830c98ab3851c81d
cc1ad8137f742995fb02024f3f9fb51d77e6195d
58060 F20101113_AAELYP waters_r_Page_186.pro
86d6a02c6fd40887e2ae9378ab1563cf
9e31be4184a93a94e31451dbcc21e0541dafd8ba
118302 F20101113_AAEMVJ waters_r_Page_110.jp2
4a06b15cbd2d3cf373e059a5b11c6a51
a329d4e5b511a844e1b200beec56660829f2c625
2331 F20101113_AAENSC waters_r_Page_192.txt
bcef9c5d1e4f5e7f5b917dd70ac7d00d
6dec52e2fef24648af3dbfb8b59d64adfad3a188
25022 F20101113_AAELLF waters_r_Page_204.QC.jpg
cfff373fcaf87c4ccee94201799a1dcd
82017a5d2f0745b15fc075e7d6431bf6c2194ac1
2241 F20101113_AAELYQ waters_r_Page_052.txt
391fc19b9bbc2840b70e794f45771658
52d588bd068faf0ebff085cd37da58a85805c408
112718 F20101113_AAEMVK waters_r_Page_111.jp2
4ddb7d8c2154ec79e33576a86200e23d
3894d9130d4b005b99917c48f6c116ad93ffcba3
1035 F20101113_AAENSD waters_r_Page_193.txt
03fe3c68015724778adfca3d23b66828
633b55bd3ce546ea5b64ce41b9d53ac2853e63a2
F20101113_AAELLG waters_r_Page_245.tif
2c3338e2c870c202d1983e0356d4a487
270a0c855a29388e6331b0de72462c24e59e2bbb
9916 F20101113_AAELYR waters_r_Page_237.QC.jpg
50d2ce3660443b75c78a8a14bb631f84
a9676d8ea9c8bfb04c5182a898808f83e3915d3c
118208 F20101113_AAEMVL waters_r_Page_112.jp2
9151ee4358c489c477d6cad01a4287bb
f52d3485866f23bc755df1f2fd32b71c9b3565b8
1174 F20101113_AAENSE waters_r_Page_197.txt
5265455335c3f1507c261c6547baaf29
add935c4eff70a999fbe5e1b1f842c7c225e014b
72254 F20101113_AAELLH waters_r_Page_217.jpg
d2cf7802597e7c724a150f21a3836600
bafa6a0b0d1e8391bd16ff25313e9d163fa872f2
F20101113_AAEMIA waters_r_Page_152.tif
7b031b3924b78bf06d21194577ca8ac4
de39694de9ae385152548add34fb91a69d01f634
6995 F20101113_AAELYS waters_r_Page_220thm.jpg
8b7b0ec3eea08fc8aed77dc1b647af49
fe617c4ae3978564550b4ee027b0ecb363191798
104306 F20101113_AAEMVM waters_r_Page_116.jp2
bea05b64fb2dd8e7650270dd595ae436
db144e6d337ed6f65c47487214420d4d3133c064
876 F20101113_AAENSF waters_r_Page_201.txt
d460c2445bc8485a2d0de8877fd797b3
d2c0948ff2dbb91b55ee59ddf5dcd775f74cddcb
F20101113_AAELLI waters_r_Page_098.tif
4bbee167e97a9a42a7f2604013e256ed
6509c9e3ffaa2a9ebe3aeca7941f68311bf60843
6937 F20101113_AAEMIB waters_r_Page_112thm.jpg
270a09334dc54c7990e9c986653cb6b8
e7de74e9df4d3d7570f4c81798e91ffc16caefc1
F20101113_AAELYT waters_r_Page_079.tif
0cde91e9121c12eb7e9141a858c27f25
855703e98b220865bb6c228eb0e37b9cac1c571b
124916 F20101113_AAEMVN waters_r_Page_117.jp2
1121fdc5e7a7d83570f18f2ae873c18f
44a2a13e2d25d8af15aa109339ecf5e3c42ad7d2
F20101113_AAENSG waters_r_Page_202.txt
4c325d7761fbe65498248a7606ee23c4
c99e050d7f3446aa113994fe357b9713b8e65feb
F20101113_AAELLJ waters_r_Page_180.tif
3b2586a32a0957adef3bb01b0c620d85
ced531014353e69681a693b64998bedb138441c7
20397 F20101113_AAEMIC waters_r_Page_116.QC.jpg
8b1311a4385320c5a4785c02ba2eb764
e2955c9683cbfe2ac8bafcdae0dc32ca329328fe
118809 F20101113_AAELYU waters_r_Page_072.jp2
513a97e0a501539063e4cd4811325000
7b905ae698abf66f58f02fb0ffbaffea9c087e2c
82004 F20101113_AAEMVO waters_r_Page_118.jp2
d6199427416db8ff485efd6c25eddf86
841b2765b5f564c74214845aeeaa4e10a1545464
2111 F20101113_AAENSH waters_r_Page_203.txt
7391b7876ca484f91846687f3e0ab2bf
e102fc4411fd2b92acdeecbd13ab333a21f53b09
F20101113_AAEMID waters_r_Page_156.tif
a1f2f5c18d81680d76889da0186a45a3
c237b9913283eaee116f63b258e98699e9ee6dbd
127197 F20101113_AAELYV waters_r_Page_073.jp2
99a8f8644f2aed358e1804121a9880dd
aeb4d24af53d22ff5b95b31e899a9b47b08f9370
113073 F20101113_AAEMVP waters_r_Page_121.jp2
69ea4a103d7e2aede86995ad79a0345f
aed63cbd86e6681032d0905e82512b4955af4765
2098 F20101113_AAENSI waters_r_Page_204.txt
a1626a71cb9668380d66d1dd90f34df1
9fa427601382d5353200bf6c31b509183f06d980
33701 F20101113_AAELLK waters_r_Page_165.pro
fbdb2a044ebdc770efe1a89d1d30056f
8299cbdf915d0dfb0b9848382369729239aa09a0
78316 F20101113_AAEMIE waters_r_Page_072.jpg
3427f501a30e730380b442117ab43698
76941b4ad3094e14457bb35aebe6b858b2ef1878
F20101113_AAELYW waters_r_Page_114.tif
6eb62730c658338440e4754cdb071b42
e7d1441c702fc97f7473f5b3b73543adfe41dd2d
115770 F20101113_AAEMVQ waters_r_Page_122.jp2
29ba82f51cb24866c55c28fe1a556d52
98a989277a7fe9d695244763e7fd6ec817985330
1999 F20101113_AAENSJ waters_r_Page_205.txt
e2873658f4e8f3f3d3dfbd67f1524fa6
7fa36e5f84b012fb1d9edf6cf2e7c6f69d085540
F20101113_AAELLL waters_r_Page_081.tif
4f9863132765fbc5d8d30c8bd2a68f5c
968e897337854a031c6e12bdf624e30168cd474d
25108 F20101113_AAEMIF waters_r_Page_153.QC.jpg
14c9c6e80c92417f27a9b5c0f470f3bd
e1e93e52a28d8ff3e92fb0adbdca791e503a6ca5
109393 F20101113_AAEMVR waters_r_Page_126.jp2
8815157260f669d6debef560257a851d
3ae6ce6225e37dba4bf31b4b8761d457142296f1
2064 F20101113_AAENSK waters_r_Page_207.txt
6ad642e49aa0b5238655cc78595bfda3
7ed68ff19ed7a2f285d46f4669ab931067cf0584
25514 F20101113_AAELLM waters_r_Page_101.QC.jpg
bc0b4324cc2fc306a973daedccaeb869
98e7f83d7a25e0614b28b633d87397d143e93781
112966 F20101113_AAELYX waters_r_Page_113.jp2
be04316776fe987044aaedc0e974a584
d7bb0bcc6b6c73b825a2e010789c3e38dc82c0a0
108128 F20101113_AAEMVS waters_r_Page_129.jp2
ffdf4804c10b4d1490b1b6e7c9e6bc16
04e2a3ad885cce3db4ec11f4f20990f82d88e4c8
2062 F20101113_AAENSL waters_r_Page_208.txt
42ae1110b5865634a1dc5856967fa360
90ff6a70ff318a8cfce6a791f545fb587f2e96dd
24351 F20101113_AAELLN waters_r_Page_032.QC.jpg
ceab579aad0fbabca08dfde034bfd014
46f496e599a3a44f6504b28cb58b5311f54396af
77768 F20101113_AAEMIG waters_r_Page_180.jp2
4bfa2643c0daa0b94d117ce6097b073d
29f041813a3afa292603db472fcb35d756879902
50992 F20101113_AAELYY waters_r_Page_148.pro
4d7c12f2a6b3097b7f1f5814939d499e
aaabc4ddc975351e090803762430e716073f1fdf
F20101113_AAENFA waters_r_Page_219.tif
a720dffe5e7d7b81656935ad53d17f3f
199de7e17d89473703a1841086f8c611e066780c
F20101113_AAENSM waters_r_Page_209.txt
659a87276c161e35e1ea523aad9ffe91
8dc92f312f8ebf5b70cae59e5471c24997f7fe52
75323 F20101113_AAELLO waters_r_Page_213.jpg
e8f4235f382901497afbd621d4c9be46
ae08d0536c37cb988ea71766b43a453d79f05356
F20101113_AAEMIH waters_r_Page_003.jp2
c9381f03627b92fc23af6e20ffe3b228
0a2ac5600f9a22096fd770ea754495371a686252
48520 F20101113_AAELYZ waters_r_Page_201.jp2
4b8ba97a24e8761ac089e8c932637d40
883b1306fb69c6e9d3b72057abb267ea982e8009
F20101113_AAENFB waters_r_Page_220.tif
39a2f500ffabc92163afc993ba3afb21
b31dde095155b213cb86292043714f1009c38f03
108400 F20101113_AAEMVT waters_r_Page_130.jp2
aee3424068af1ff2e447a5a76d556a9d
5922ec5b6f5a6d501756860e68402c20eaa4da3d
2153 F20101113_AAENSN waters_r_Page_210.txt
a78bb368831b930c504e87069bc19912
aa61a0fb52aa558a5c722aae3db0e0eae40cdec6
23993 F20101113_AAELLP waters_r_Page_243.QC.jpg
788bea9e8f46335768e2f068f1bd2402
dffc2564da86250b0141987b5ad83543f1fb658b
75218 F20101113_AAEMII waters_r_Page_206.jpg
1dbfee951c0faa50163d95d3548cb999
a8491b42c7d82e4b4b7f72be434cfcfdeff873e7
112251 F20101113_AAEMVU waters_r_Page_132.jp2
32f0b1cabc3340a6daca59222b6885e2
734c6babac7b6e6f2d3ac338e97946fb18e91cdc
2125 F20101113_AAENSO waters_r_Page_215.txt
9721546577a6769ce7995579b08759b0
2c4e2442d2f510465b9222dbe0f84ffc529fee6f
26135 F20101113_AAELLQ waters_r_Page_234.QC.jpg
f91584459aa42ae29dc9d065762b804a
94d300e4a076294a65159d8aaee487e7f198b494
4244 F20101113_AAEMIJ waters_r_Page_251.txt
ac97858260799000677f8456fc545c01
772a67328548f67b29ca838b286bf7e0613a0b20
F20101113_AAENFC waters_r_Page_221.tif
58e57a74e27c5ae10808c65890e8bece
bece81d333e0da407ff2420febfe497783279cb3
111553 F20101113_AAEMVV waters_r_Page_133.jp2
089db397b27cacc2f39b57caa15ed43f
5884e6a4025f93941140a53cb1cf62598a38dc95
53751 F20101113_AAELLR waters_r_Page_057.pro
9582f753ef7fbdd94b75ccf0a547a4b4
671f1f46bda9f7fdb917829f3d03f901ffc302e3
F20101113_AAEMIK waters_r_Page_050.tif
a207d5509f0c139ebe424e9dba48ea38
04895dbd16861f413bb634410992039822eaca71
F20101113_AAENFD waters_r_Page_222.tif
d9f6f5a00c335f78ca40b501eadfac46
c5ac80dfba9870a5cccc644377e2181d2752f99a
110141 F20101113_AAEMVW waters_r_Page_135.jp2
7662b479ed7a1d3e9ad9a93d8037532d
757acfd52ae99607bc64b75b22f88e9d6220a092
2134 F20101113_AAENSP waters_r_Page_216.txt
93623963825b439e08df58c0cfadb2e6
917a4923fdc4a627dc593aef72026d12ad86fd12
F20101113_AAELLS waters_r_Page_249.tif
f9ed123203f1640dfa0ff9f01cc6c4ae
91e98de5d02dfc453b6202e44066559a4afcac2f
F20101113_AAEMIL waters_r_Page_033.tif
3684538f7b68233f5a71d758e6fd27e6
000a7c0fbb44aa54991ad36c4c5de3cde277c96b
F20101113_AAENFE waters_r_Page_223.tif
1f9a5271033cedfcda7f8e096b8dbdee
61d25c6f725212ded29f271a532de426d1f10ab0
110328 F20101113_AAEMVX waters_r_Page_136.jp2
62a75e8aa7b7ae94bc08b0a9ec28dcbb
7092fb7478cfcff9515ff15aba8c65fbf1a899a7
1983 F20101113_AAENSQ waters_r_Page_218.txt
b87c98d4c8537bf5b39c39ee70494794
bdd330f5794b66970a62570429374e2da1bc9ea3
7188 F20101113_AAELLT waters_r_Page_270thm.jpg
bfa8076b00e0e60b2b185189eb5593c6
1ef1c6337ea3a4a450d61acfd84ac5f9630ea79b
2014 F20101113_AAEMIM waters_r_Page_056.txt
8c2ebfdd14d19b760eb77ced7fc1d3ca
f4ee1700cf26b1e9212ac97b22f8a515d79792a4
F20101113_AAENFF waters_r_Page_226.tif
5dfca035194e2cd5401be9a4f8e4292e
8022d0c8e7b493bdbb07bb6a17a5efbf24e93a0c
116307 F20101113_AAEMVY waters_r_Page_137.jp2
e44c5f28284c83288d28917b19d1cc4e
5e3b32bf0dfe81335ad8ee3d879ffd8b8f79b7d1
F20101113_AAENSR waters_r_Page_220.txt
7de9a7ba09d4727cd72953b76a373695
6c7f7b3488df75c7b6052ae12b9d95e6ca18812b
48762 F20101113_AAELLU waters_r_Page_049.pro
6414a681d8f3c790adff517f4e424d7e
50e7e9c9d59100b4a8d343c5f66529797e48817d
F20101113_AAEMIN waters_r_Page_140thm.jpg
7890421dfe81a1f45a6f6fcf49b4c52a
cae3559a276c589e2f87fc3596ca585e132da5cc
F20101113_AAENFG waters_r_Page_227.tif
f964c8f8a7214628023941016cfb5d22
deb7e4b3ee69c56c26af6e804066a4d899bdc8c9
7058 F20101113_AAEOCA waters_r_Page_179thm.jpg
e26d32f6a9d87411bd624bb81b36f9ff
19740e2beda1d9de239df33c484a7aba3e27f5af
115060 F20101113_AAEMVZ waters_r_Page_138.jp2
7140b8a86175e41822b72229fea2900b
417b6f2bb7842bfac95f55350e6a5fa54a777936
2036 F20101113_AAENSS waters_r_Page_221.txt
5708c62dcadacf9b11549a41693cee44
24122a4fe49ad3eb14e5145dd7138bacb5e96c89
6824 F20101113_AAELLV waters_r_Page_050thm.jpg
49c6dc6a3dd6e294c712cdafe6b7aad1
55ef63c219e51d1070dd47165b653e2cf2307789
75126 F20101113_AAEMIO waters_r_Page_091.jpg
149d4ba8b4fc67692febac1f98dbeabb
3b57602d3660ccbaa47a831445f5d9fcb5b2e1ad
F20101113_AAENFH waters_r_Page_229.tif
9787bad06b3781589be4d95ec44b1991
cd2612e00d268ef9d49650766ff1e399cce1d4a7
5532 F20101113_AAEOCB waters_r_Page_194thm.jpg
b090feb404f168d9ac73a899d9d0b1fb
c36c066cea49187c286e023c07f84c4b30052fe3
2090 F20101113_AAENST waters_r_Page_222.txt
b539b0b3a4e71a10d164d1ba03c2bb0d
8d1ea90c3eec21469b666a8321aa7e488f1fdd1c
74322 F20101113_AAELLW waters_r_Page_093.jpg
aaeb2764ef298829c3f54998cf19adc1
a68d0e0e19d0aa7c8a43638bc28d4b54b570224c
2366 F20101113_AAEMIP waters_r_Page_073.txt
78b93b1a335e7d15453bcdcea8e2b546
cd312404eb6344468f9c46f524a2efec55e6efee
F20101113_AAENFI waters_r_Page_230.tif
5ebd060cc62f32bbfd39cc5f2e0f1ccd
6b26fda19fbe0881df445e156997483dd9ae2bb0
6950 F20101113_AAEOCC waters_r_Page_034thm.jpg
944bf6f10ebf368ae103f700e277f333
133031eb0867622795322943ad3e540d9643a539
1978 F20101113_AAENSU waters_r_Page_223.txt
fb270399688096b59c0868b7f0f11bf2
4af42ba8f28cbfeb0428ef9f3c9809502f7ec635
F20101113_AAELLX waters_r_Page_217.tif
6f1ff2d8e7d239254b5ba15a2fb52342
96342076cdde71a8186ba72a42ef810d4e2cf856
19581 F20101113_AAEMIQ waters_r_Page_031.jp2
a1271805b0c7cf04f81bf33c7d6ff4c7
2965d304a52eb75a63a69776b028ac5bb5ae9a8f
F20101113_AAENFJ waters_r_Page_231.tif
890ce39268781741b1d0240369a28b1f
f1d64940f85e4673c3dbec5dc9d1b8234eb3d73c
6094 F20101113_AAEOCD waters_r_Page_238thm.jpg
7809bea8025a0a691cf8acadf501d912
ca2eb0e38c90cd5e02ef7f2707442bfab5e2e0c0
F20101113_AAENSV waters_r_Page_224.txt
5435b96af3b0e86b9db718cb8baa5766
5ec490bece2041922631f966af7e01de61dd8dee
64494 F20101113_AAELLY waters_r_Page_175.jp2
b89f106bd9c99e17e0773c443486771c
0b99eacf6a327a9ae9ff794b9b6024c8537f8d56
6752 F20101113_AAEMIR waters_r_Page_232thm.jpg
33e3953f593897fe49d4f595b0df7ce2
10e968c5ba4ff58a5d0f1a60dfed747fbe2dd83b
F20101113_AAENFK waters_r_Page_233.tif
5da7bd6144e35bfb3f253deffdc2be1e
45c5ecaa2b380bab5e319b898ed433bfa10d2d5b
6868 F20101113_AAEOCE waters_r_Page_070thm.jpg
7af807fac697676d61d73b90eaf3d101
91945228c28e2062d8ed8361eddae77535e0ef6f
F20101113_AAENSW waters_r_Page_225.txt
fdf2a1ed9ced173c69630dd129fffb27
2bec76966deb64c1c68b50e8083549e01f49dc18
6793 F20101113_AAELLZ waters_r_Page_022thm.jpg
fad6c7152cc56d865f9c5a21e1d8d2d7
d5d688272f446084763632f97703622262d81d36
F20101113_AAEMIS waters_r_Page_132.tif
875d97fb0f2722f6cc4db9f31aba98d5
17f85120a96d1332d3551c09855b98bbf2f921c4
F20101113_AAENFL waters_r_Page_235.tif
463abe1bb42b9b28119cf02acec527b4
9cf6cbbe479ac2a21b17b36dd54f13a3ac14cea1
6941 F20101113_AAEOCF waters_r_Page_029thm.jpg
d5d3ec779fccfd8bcf2c118b2d1080d3
dfed7b14b980bf604f9e1be317ea6d0f9942f832
F20101113_AAENSX waters_r_Page_226.txt
60333860d9879bbd05c60b918660e2cb
354a7051ce3ed4d3c3bc6731963e554d5c34a552
47453 F20101113_AAEMIT waters_r_Page_170.jpg
32fbc1687412981959cafaa277b2923b
1f2f26ce513d0b5cb9796b2c5be76133db1c10c6
F20101113_AAENFM waters_r_Page_237.tif
0ee72644ef357e27d70538677a473f9d
d56518724406b658f3a8802674a9fb15e455720c
F20101113_AAEOCG waters_r_Page_180thm.jpg
42c7a9e9d3e9488df551a71f1a08a44f
c8bd53d650ae9ed5fddd1df35ba62cdd1632b6cb
F20101113_AAENSY waters_r_Page_227.txt
c7b195a9e057b2b63f9eb53c981bad1a
5eb2817817169d6eaf8e665798ec0c1c0773bdcb
114395 F20101113_AAEMIU waters_r_Page_034.jp2
7f22a9dadbc6b209cf529d8676cfb5d4
c91e462f6064dc96bbf9a9b17cddaf3ef25b3471
F20101113_AAENFN waters_r_Page_238.tif
924f9f0f10d4803c90bb7a61ec3b6c42
bf2d8dda691d080c9a1b8ed77f567c4b5b6a2d19
12874 F20101113_AAEOCH waters_r_Page_200.QC.jpg
083ba775021e43d0a33876145120758f
e5ce3b2f78c5e0d117a32d5f296dacd6b22dfb10
F20101113_AAENSZ waters_r_Page_228.txt
d3fd1bb68e6b22fce8e90685e1b4f305
eb2cb47ec27cb1520857079ab23e1d59ffe72597
114887 F20101113_AAEMIV waters_r_Page_245.jp2
2ea526be367a1d1213ea49f3ac0ff0ff
1a8fc20fd5a6406158711a7e514cced3ce420d25
F20101113_AAENFO waters_r_Page_240.tif
85d2a928f8aa02d35240dcaa045c5e1c
e8ce35aae4a1495dc94270db96a62d30a422f596
23934 F20101113_AAEOCI waters_r_Page_205.QC.jpg
2d5aeac05f4f96e04abca5ae4ac65e45
5ebfbfb7afe24f53438841c0301214d73b0eea6c
F20101113_AAEMIW waters_r_Page_109.txt
a48aa01e2107d5afd56ce4560041c044
48341e36e96a1085944c51626dd36fbefea199ee
F20101113_AAENFP waters_r_Page_243.tif
e0fd89f8c5a843702b08380f749f992f
738fa0ff3136e0ef11bbf0586572d89a759b7309
23851 F20101113_AAEOCJ waters_r_Page_105.QC.jpg
a072582aee545ebc1ed12916e6221876
ffabcce65d87e0e47d9ab75cc21031a45266cf2b
24915 F20101113_AAEMIX waters_r_Page_020.QC.jpg
bc79d9dcfcd4189c7009b67f41e873dc
674c69aaadaee954bd2230ab90e79778db3652ec
F20101113_AAENFQ waters_r_Page_247.tif
f86be8c0f42cb12b34221d605d519347
f213cec570d63a134b1c7ab2ea0b23035be76db4
23705 F20101113_AAEOCK waters_r_Page_143.QC.jpg
4bd0b5e9f684dc55188cfd337d6dccb7
3a65b241dd2f09a3a6d6f7ca95e090e96503d150
6802 F20101113_AAEMIY waters_r_Page_132thm.jpg
480a1df916375f821f2d5174b71976ee
e4b0731888327dea322fece686a48e0bd8516308
F20101113_AAENFR waters_r_Page_248.tif
6bb8b7587d4ae636907ed477640e5263
572462335283ffa303b79fdc0e12f403a9938077
24668 F20101113_AAEOCL waters_r_Page_227.QC.jpg
689af3aebf027b357dd09dac9d4b8cc3
a0489f13e37fe9c5b52f3a2326de12d0d9149425
2000 F20101113_AAEMIZ waters_r_Page_151.txt
4cb22998cdbecc7277f4afb1748df9cc
42e7f665eaec684a7d28b4fbc0eb07e4007f2234
F20101113_AAENFS waters_r_Page_250.tif
eb6bac212c9935b16393f55ef2b29f02
5504194cc3a12fd782dd1f71c5eddda847707c0d
24815 F20101113_AAEOCM waters_r_Page_142.QC.jpg
2cab1049df6701afb6335bea8c9d2be5
1f09e28ee775ac670bf2eae8bcbc32de3f077cef
F20101113_AAENFT waters_r_Page_251.tif
4c6f32555346947c0d35ff978b3b8613
cc6e5d9ff943cd63a70f06d58d7d03b6683ae6f1
24291 F20101113_AAEOCN waters_r_Page_093.QC.jpg
4cddef623959e99ac9e2adfe0b0f5a6b
ccf6b78893c325eb18d5f0161508af2ad6d572e1
140138 F20101113_AAELRA waters_r_Page_268.jp2
1c708684c5f106ba0133240f7f624a4c
8c30bc0c072ebc95b61ab1bc4f84909404950f7f
F20101113_AAENFU waters_r_Page_253.tif
8c75758a9b10abfe527e14a08f74bae9
543ecad293072bfc9e4f7ee358c9278ed1aaf901
24446 F20101113_AAEOCO waters_r_Page_113.QC.jpg
861a41197699aeb9efe8e559b9719ba6
d7b2835df42cf7dc73a69f7af0c8171dc633cf08
F20101113_AAELRB waters_r_Page_240thm.jpg
bee5a024d833b5b586ad84db4edf690c
704d0c7dcefdb9c267fa40b4058b13fe5a5251aa
F20101113_AAENFV waters_r_Page_254.tif
090c1d3ec9edbfe0b45a26d049269f36
11dcdd1ef6dc2321d206661b971180ec1b7dde6d
6786 F20101113_AAEOCP waters_r_Page_004thm.jpg
ead1ced68fdc55ee971493c6012c97b6
d7e2012bf94edac8b68df28bcfddbe75b4a6fa74
F20101113_AAELRC waters_r_Page_130.tif
c5cfc3dab0e50b0564e02b020122dd68
da19f8ecbf272b37006c5d36b935695bf2a7298d
F20101113_AAENFW waters_r_Page_256.tif
ce0f26bab60b31960fa035ec8b1903f4
9112d03ea79848d04e4c5f6eab04e90315f69314
6861 F20101113_AAEOCQ waters_r_Page_204thm.jpg
53499afce99ca1f770f30b2b381a926e
58cae56d044017782fe886cc02fd21fa731bb6a3
10101 F20101113_AAENYA waters_r_Page_164.QC.jpg
04b77fdd56b83896ba997af639633a6b
38c45cee453f025dbde832a91fec81123a148809
108003 F20101113_AAELRD waters_r_Page_127.jp2
376d4b2e2da8a592dc6a89ed760ba549
5c11fac24770e4794172724bafbc61c904db554d
F20101113_AAENFX waters_r_Page_258.tif
11e720506e2305d7836bdec9758dd432
2d7141be48bda6c88a3278f1a4970a85b40a9018
3904 F20101113_AAEOCR waters_r_Page_170thm.jpg
60091e270f52eb43ba009f10b367f590
cb2045f13364e5e9d696033c78b6c029f332b56e
23337 F20101113_AAENYB waters_r_Page_218.QC.jpg
36c0c166dd63da162d5d8f3b2a3633a1
d066980d23e81718e5b805ede372563c464aa770
6561 F20101113_AAELRE waters_r_Page_235thm.jpg
71615ed46e54344d96f19c59a8f4639e
2cfd284a88909452fad0ef63c81480bdd7a7cc73
F20101113_AAENFY waters_r_Page_259.tif
49588f0f539cb96a2791f1d9189045a8
664b9030c3801548eb68e64166e294bff97eef0c
6885 F20101113_AAEOCS waters_r_Page_094thm.jpg
7e54b5333400905d8b0cb692654d488e
e6da8f6a23b211d1f46756ba92d6c398d582a57d
F20101113_AAENYC waters_r_Page_133thm.jpg
ca3f6c123740d59c334061689ab84309
9c4147a58829b1c52dc6d5ba56cea37ed3912b7a
74055 F20101113_AAELRF waters_r_Page_215.jpg
601775b692da77cc2c1c2625f73a097a
edd197e2641e9cdfca033797ca637428e2a501bf
F20101113_AAENFZ waters_r_Page_260.tif
8d20764fecbb8d207663367253a33314
76cf83e5a3f51c27b4cd24c7e57e07cefdc0b1fa
6266 F20101113_AAEOCT waters_r_Page_258thm.jpg
82557ffef940bbf1099b3d2165e8bd71
712cb961e2b2ed315b71adbb47ebc787c079fe40
24294 F20101113_AAENYD waters_r_Page_176.QC.jpg
4ebd0bae4690ebf5b9daa7eb2ed059f4
ffb6451fbb1c339a16a3145ebf55e5915165a42b
52393 F20101113_AAELRG waters_r_Page_069.pro
7d100fe963d3fdf95ca42045731a9f68
80898c314dd90b7c8086a2dd5878d5f726756f34
4974 F20101113_AAEOCU waters_r_Page_190thm.jpg
2760aa0581fbba43a2e009438cd74ecb
fcdd9c54214f5797502c7cfa6810b7b98977675f
6528 F20101113_AAENYE waters_r_Page_096thm.jpg
b109f0c3d906d5c84a6d4e19d24ab77b
9dc2790ec2556c438a030380449460e091394107
3296 F20101113_AAELRH waters_r_Page_003.QC.jpg
2dd3058e935463c4063c878eaebfcba4
a66b9a1ec74524e1a7f67fe909dc3cf2ef5595b0
79720 F20101113_AAEMOA waters_r_Page_090.jpg
32ca1101a3cd82081c637bc078415363
034281a3e47de80fc6db49135b820bf63015c767
6653 F20101113_AAEOCV waters_r_Page_215thm.jpg
02b32b0114d2b56e9b502622a25df75a
49f50c044e834407cddfe11cfdb2c0866beea1b9
6790 F20101113_AAENYF waters_r_Page_032thm.jpg
967eec5083d8205d4d39dc0eb9253706
a7645daf178ebe472a5d9070a2b2111b911029c9
75393 F20101113_AAELRI waters_r_Page_058.jpg
36e91de27031e7503f16bf16bd652064
0bef4bf141af7379ee470cf6bb82881ced11026a
77029 F20101113_AAEMOB waters_r_Page_094.jpg
c9664089c1c4cd161144f69048b05c5f
dae7fff8d164b41678aa41f2a9adf21bf3ee0043
6628 F20101113_AAEOCW waters_r_Page_158thm.jpg
6bcfdfc4bc45f962b975bbc4c52ecbb6
d3bd192745efcb4c63b7f7534b3ef9483b329d60
6699 F20101113_AAENYG waters_r_Page_217thm.jpg
6f11bdf1a172f1b08862537d5e1e6f3a
836e26d753a81135f15186315a519937494ae91a
24573 F20101113_AAELRJ waters_r_Page_059.QC.jpg
9e375f5ea8f7df8782553fb68147522d
e66344e17e19ed39eccab628ff4e882e37d5b65f
73590 F20101113_AAEMOC waters_r_Page_095.jpg
49fdfbd6f10e15f9f7f5fc764a0296f2
28dad2a4bd2c6af371fc6d23b10968dd9f15f972
23905 F20101113_AAEOCX waters_r_Page_040.QC.jpg
150cbf3c11bb2d77e22de441809a2af1
31555ee0bc99c45bd07059e9adb8698871149aea
13435 F20101113_AAENYH waters_r_Page_183.QC.jpg
ec3d764547861abb374b236b0f809849
280ae3434e3138199c9ae56f98420af8b4c036d5
6376 F20101113_AAELRK waters_r_Page_117thm.jpg
b6733b44056f2ad02adaf0129a5ba8e1
f57e022f0be19ec2cf16e44a712f5925a16003f5
73935 F20101113_AAEMOD waters_r_Page_096.jpg
2c274cbe6bc01c03ea634f0323f165cc
2b4889bdaef607e3881ec3c2804e13e5b713aaec
5979 F20101113_AAEOCY waters_r_Page_186thm.jpg
d06266ec43ecc69a6a5d525a39e5769b
c55a45f62ac5f8bf95ce3a3c4ced100bdb9960d7
17302 F20101113_AAENYI waters_r_Page_182.QC.jpg
829e0611b0a230a4f0d4f8b5ec7f5bf5
92f21a1f9ad340f7b514dff13d57e9a6a803f63a
7005 F20101113_AAELRL waters_r_Page_052thm.jpg
d74f4d39280602dccd04a1dd990544ee
71c0b9543cf567f818028fb9727af995cee999fe
72573 F20101113_AAEMOE waters_r_Page_097.jpg
077b25475243c265cfbf464ccf5e1b15
7051c9f3ec07e7fd473a4e993b5f35e6d0f8fe4b
F20101113_AAEOCZ waters_r_Page_191thm.jpg
9f1db10a6c93c2fdbd254501de549847
dcd38267e099ad51f42953b61c79483b1353333e
27775 F20101113_AAENYJ waters_r_Page_269.QC.jpg
48442f1fb170102b3672dc4552d43f91
100ad3537075510fc0cd6ce915a75a25c65f946b
6723 F20101113_AAELRM waters_r_Page_067thm.jpg
431137f6ad2cb6fd4ed13a53a7606884
eed36ca94b7cae27432bc6ea48e19b25a8f29087
76976 F20101113_AAEMOF waters_r_Page_099.jpg
821902fe3bfee7ad5aa15338bdd48aef
81a5b0b5c6bb5c0041c956f3b8db3e8fb3db8907
6891 F20101113_AAENYK waters_r_Page_233thm.jpg
a7c09696a5524f104a4b03bc9aa5ac17
b35231f5ac70eed6ecf02ed79625712969c8568c
110515 F20101113_AAELRN waters_r_Page_134.jp2
31e5abb667088e11086da5968c306529
e83d7a1e01c06081eeed15ae619c79e421282f50
77780 F20101113_AAEMOG waters_r_Page_100.jpg
f3dc23be4c5a9e88f9fdd415b997576e
fa09edad11c96c07bda0032167b23fb08a53e160
6588 F20101113_AAENYL waters_r_Page_111thm.jpg
f2fd0ca997881fdae0f57649ec43db12
31cf4a3c9cd9f2430f61658d2aa17ae0d64e6a78
76359 F20101113_AAELRO waters_r_Page_017.jpg
8bf7fc0bc71703e37a931665b3fac42f
b2e0b616f17c7ae224be3f0fe1ed2dfe38e70705
77177 F20101113_AAEMOH waters_r_Page_101.jpg
97133b574b7630f86cf6aa97e5f1b85b
d85dcdd58ba83ecd99895219d0e490b00a5b8023
10112 F20101113_AAENLA waters_r_Page_181.pro
b7c5a90e177bfdc440ca1aade559c5bf
1bd74da1790ba1f624b0ee63dcddf23960fb80ac
6908 F20101113_AAENYM waters_r_Page_169thm.jpg
8e16cfc22ab09ce7b623847c4267b505
15b06ee5a9cdb4e51098a53be219df42f26ea9a9
47104 F20101113_AAELRP waters_r_Page_238.pro
c22102456fdb082a5685479f018f1a76
f0c411431f612dd5c24ad16bf032b210c66b12a2
76593 F20101113_AAEMOI waters_r_Page_102.jpg
3aa5750533a50f2a2d6f3302fab14daa
7e5f15d5b27dfec3c0fdaaee903a724c513eb5e5
17288 F20101113_AAENLB waters_r_Page_182.pro
5246d9dcebb60aa35bc509020532fd63
cb4568cafc85c7e30d5d15f41c3da18d67654c64
23639 F20101113_AAENYN waters_r_Page_221.QC.jpg
97864ec113c570fd132458309094b70a
95f726245c632b1a5c82ddfabe3c13850097c2d5
76891 F20101113_AAEMOJ waters_r_Page_103.jpg
8713ce56d95cdf7763ec2a74bd291cfb
04fde93437a12693d49abf401eea6149fe20e0ae
10613 F20101113_AAENLC waters_r_Page_183.pro
20cab16c7b16ebfefdf9b15bf03d2fc7
7d559a360db378629d64d2bd86b55cfe16ff4191
25133 F20101113_AAENYO waters_r_Page_053.QC.jpg
9a392f344e24cb773b1e03efc798dede
3625baec5288bbefe2ea96bd051fa0a94224d9c0
409 F20101113_AAELRQ waters_r_Page_177.txt
6bb1bd5fc35b08db853f3479a0bd5ede
5e4d7ef82faaf74aa4f084bd50ef35eb4ced607a
74669 F20101113_AAEMOK waters_r_Page_108.jpg
1a633ddc208bc4a541c2de4419c3c3af
4136b630e17385d163d4d685d33c53ed1c4ec3e5
4563 F20101113_AAENLD waters_r_Page_185.pro
794bc857da3fa7ca58bc55e46d3841ae
b6a090c53185f016d68729c19cdbdbbfe25870dc
6606 F20101113_AAENYP waters_r_Page_209thm.jpg
5d882d8e8d5d8c03487bacb0203dd297
fc5af2d1aa943156969d59d9f8d8d0928611f94f
67185 F20101113_AAELRR waters_r_Page_254.jpg
5568ca419cb34f15d43024a9f00dbb48
6f7f310f9d7aae8823f84c2dd127624e9c57e288
75247 F20101113_AAEMOL waters_r_Page_109.jpg
e48d316c5a3ce63c0f4ec5dcadd864d4
f90c0d012e463f9d04cf8b24e20388e963644e6f
9978 F20101113_AAENLE waters_r_Page_187.pro
dde5a85ac0aa79bcf52e5ab1d37bb5d4
83e46eb47c38b5edc2c2ce14dff4b4546578b8f2
3336 F20101113_AAENYQ waters_r_Page_115thm.jpg
d807ba33617e9577308e601b155f4012
3f15a66fa37e9b75a0f1271f6091f5f015b1baa4
75184 F20101113_AAELRS waters_r_Page_028.jpg
de481803d663257c8e18ee2b88750562
1ff04da054c75a61effc93ea2313deee8a512bc6
17329 F20101113_AAENLF waters_r_Page_188.pro
a61080d3276f53cf4f9df1cd224242a8
e6028ce1542a78192241a799da97a4ad70b958bd
1051968 F20101113_AAEMBA waters_r_Page_265.jp2
4d713a8724d429dc5699a10f7ec0f8b1
96c876877de1b2d7f8fbc5b54acbfaf32f6f8d81
24377 F20101113_AAENYR waters_r_Page_244.QC.jpg
76b9e4c26595bac78dc54062d9a9cc36
880d787768443255df1992400a80f6e1ce613d22
2245 F20101113_AAELRT waters_r_Page_176.txt
77f7f3aaf92a5d2b3bdeffaccbc027b4
5b596fafac81c02e81fbc17910506ec8117f700f
77841 F20101113_AAEMOM waters_r_Page_110.jpg
09f17757ffb498225a65572e6b965f7c
4cca7892b36ecb20d90a1f3d25386b43bcf5a8ba
41349 F20101113_AAENLG waters_r_Page_190.pro
199c2dd2600636c0ba3b10d3861bfaf2
f785717bf355a5a9bfd75d6c0b5088014f31fa1d
75656 F20101113_AAEMBB waters_r_Page_232.jpg
84c51a310c490b3e52f13414f72c39f9
3b051590ddd80d567f798dc3318b553c806f1cc0
5855 F20101113_AAEOIA waters_r_Page_279thm.jpg
3d7c32e820b661072dfec414191e1700
600fbce898ed3037da3dc904d1b4b91ae8c36c34
29322 F20101113_AAENYS waters_r_Page_265.QC.jpg
36fa68e50e2239949cd0b14f86fce58a
61b7e919762e6af55212c0670c1a92cab76a1b5b
417 F20101113_AAELRU waters_r_Page_191.txt
44f96ba76d4e797a46daa303a7751a44
c610fcb49478ad2c7a372a7cd251c03b92a39e13
74018 F20101113_AAEMON waters_r_Page_111.jpg
66cb1095ee4581e60bfd43d09697ac41
5919d8bb4305c1fd5c0d94b23a3de9f5c474fec7
10164 F20101113_AAENLH waters_r_Page_191.pro
f4d70dd0edfc0037a003c9d5f9741ffa
3fbd018cab596c615f87331791b4f4c6c04d9b3b
35092 F20101113_AAEMBC waters_r_Page_009.jpg
b8ee55f4575a7464c18c67fc79670522
7429cb70066febc40635d8198f265afd1656e715
F20101113_AAENYT waters_r_Page_080.QC.jpg
acddb6e5ca1c2c955b2fca2ed89ed01f
1c1f3f23f3c10d9b5f407a7c41830a6cbcea2acc
72683 F20101113_AAELRV waters_r_Page_016.jpg
3a5fd2552792ee511716c278843d7e0b
177e4be7e82394011f6e45b811aa653d1fbe0370
75166 F20101113_AAEMOO waters_r_Page_113.jpg
0e91ef6a2bb008ffe738350b90965130
8b056163721bf992f3972b5be8826f78a153d436
25277 F20101113_AAEMBD waters_r_Page_098.QC.jpg
a1f39b8c3b36b2c456529d306c095fbb
0d096022b894c19420bf1bf98207b17b92f84d5a
F20101113_AAENYU waters_r_Page_146thm.jpg
347dfd1065e876492b57069cbe445a65
bcc77ee2402abf6922c028abaefdd04f051d7ce9
23648 F20101113_AAELRW waters_r_Page_231.QC.jpg
bfb2b3cc9a90d94c71a9908c828679bf
dc995c5be4fa896cd1b20885e59d3704fee8fec7
49173 F20101113_AAEMOP waters_r_Page_114.jpg
7bd0927ec24416591e7ecd405d8bb572
5e5cd405ead16a9477de146a1ecf59f048e4b60e
8431 F20101113_AAENLI waters_r_Page_193.pro
0c360c4f67fbab494f1d9580efdd69f4
266cb35ddca01b324883678e58204302ef9354c4
51382 F20101113_AAEMBE waters_r_Page_126.pro
f1c72568b13f89fd11b5e7800bdb8282
517bfeaac7e91d5227d8097257febed1c1bae3ac
6459 F20101113_AAELRX waters_r_Page_082thm.jpg
d48354327acc1775a0448bf6e1c1041b
c69a3bdeec2ea97c886081429130620b94fceba8
37524 F20101113_AAEMOQ waters_r_Page_115.jpg
337febfde1883b7faf5b4de2f73fe25b
01163c6c1ce7bc5a8c2aea8e04805e25fa24e3f0
46027 F20101113_AAENLJ waters_r_Page_194.pro
ac8c2684fcbfb68ee903e823a1d14f57
277af22c59b7ead83a5f1c7a177a9ccc872be3dd
F20101113_AAEMBF waters_r_Page_092.tif
88fbea848c57348e0e97c8291ebb666a
5b0606322040c27c02c2df6ad84c3e6070e6ae97
6859 F20101113_AAENYV waters_r_Page_035thm.jpg
087bfdebef577ddf329109cf17d4308e
24a63528e1225612e67c4bbc70487516a9dd7799
25896 F20101113_AAELRY waters_r_Page_110.QC.jpg
a07c3a016ec0c1bf346ecf1f3824bb5b
b87d4fbb155e5b28de244ef3a60a3f78d487c081
71332 F20101113_AAEMOR waters_r_Page_116.jpg
4bb9aa78528f10c8b248ccb12e7a532f
cb1b302127cfc893fa3f463087ad706801d45413
4769 F20101113_AAENLK waters_r_Page_195.pro
f67b588bfda39005d0caa3a618ce5a89
3c080fa3c001dee10d39f91df2a92f11c1fc3895
25273 F20101113_AAEMBG waters_r_Page_248.QC.jpg
b0ca5b13c0548bd1f2a26533bba0c074
5d2e4c0dcba7f184a6a78154ff9a44df4b3c9775
21975 F20101113_AAENYW waters_r_Page_238.QC.jpg
0448ad9c76e9d82529deaf7afad423c5
9a97b10af538c129125428f76d24ab6e4ca1c8b6
5896 F20101113_AAELRZ waters_r_Page_173thm.jpg
478f474a31614b657a9b280e67c4abc5
5b6d2c77462ad2ed8f9ca4cd0cdb6c9305fd233b
57625 F20101113_AAEMOS waters_r_Page_118.jpg
6a061b5f2bd71206ad39bfd96637a63b
d75757315237b39b19d56a9fc94e9014022fe83c
22472 F20101113_AAENLL waters_r_Page_196.pro
72f6fa396fb78fd7fcc0b9b559f7a510
d391b76ae8ce1fff8212da61ed1bff99b4113949
F20101113_AAEMBH waters_r_Page_017.txt
b31096eb425a0fa9d58e44e68e52048a
af633e81df069f7bb0c0de7491ef85228f70d3cf
26750 F20101113_AAENYX waters_r_Page_270.QC.jpg
c55ea47fcb83e0189e19e07d6ab34f90
830b691837a3029cfc0cc584928b4d897007ef1a
30036 F20101113_AAEMOT waters_r_Page_119.jpg
39efa27682cc553b5ec726191ebc8ff9
91f7bfe11389458bd63ee5e62750f4bf801a186b
25105 F20101113_AAENLM waters_r_Page_197.pro
56be2d2c34d78c3ea81fd08813c821be
b0e0389ec0fbedaedbcb3ea69d872e0037dce6c1
2079 F20101113_AAEMBI waters_r_Page_105.txt
cbec2e97f8a6de390a5d22b83377d4f0
051687c33c7cc7daa1aef2b45355035ce17647b4
10953 F20101113_AAENYY waters_r_Page_172.QC.jpg
7a19c6daea4d60212800c2d9a5aa22d6
2c28b9a9e115aea0941491b423e99e8b8afc53d4
22475 F20101113_AAEMOU waters_r_Page_120.jpg
3223695f538563339912129d6bcbfcb6
47918597719d7ec2cb8827f66da395df167cfa56
19713 F20101113_AAENLN waters_r_Page_201.pro
074e451938c90c190840ee72f8e2ac71
1c1e123734a7c68bc133c0ba9212d9d144343a32
F20101113_AAEMBJ waters_r_Page_033.txt
cb65f11f1a3b6427615fdb40b7362b30
487eba746e225d000b9fba32ba08bcb709d837e7
24458 F20101113_AAENYZ waters_r_Page_215.QC.jpg
3c5e1f01d23f08b1670d15e34b1eb824
6c7b23a8905932d0661554e213d110cc16de5164
74858 F20101113_AAEMOV waters_r_Page_121.jpg
177a75899d9bef3e2289302cb2761525
ed9070308e163ebc198aa93e98727b3e957b1ca6
52912 F20101113_AAENLO waters_r_Page_203.pro
bb54d221ea28dc2e306932555457399c
d1f1c191a75f8b0709ff2f5e79dd5eb278a992e1
56267 F20101113_AAEMBK waters_r_Page_045.pro
2a76abf4ca8efc0b26bfab99521e504d
bf90f490d51cc4ddd8f54e681ac80ffd18405496
75839 F20101113_AAEMOW waters_r_Page_122.jpg
01e10b8cc7b854eb41f33eb23b3ca6e2
5bd66c2166694cd0b0cb932e479114ec90fab8f0
50502 F20101113_AAENLP waters_r_Page_205.pro
17d032d291f37f2f301247c636fd0635
d7066e01edbe25a1e0c2da31f1aee7a64941d912
17883 F20101113_AAEMBL waters_r_Page_089.jpg
4e947a6bb105eacec3bc592eb31695d2
e409374d0c387077f45a7fe4e70f460e2ea232ec
78192 F20101113_AAEMOX waters_r_Page_123.jpg
0494b66788a822365fa8ab9e40344d39
854266694a937dad819e5aaff65039366eb759ba
51633 F20101113_AAENLQ waters_r_Page_206.pro
1f0429822ac86740a22edf8a37951bf6
1a4691ec7ebdada56cb92bb8c264eee547355c4c
119211 F20101113_AAEMBM waters_r_Page_100.jp2
f75a192a2abd8f97c43302e715165eba
2a668a845789ae6912c181f6e6152437445e33be
75248 F20101113_AAEMOY waters_r_Page_124.jpg
3e9263d87bd6756ddda48af9b0e40257
b3d69eef8dd53b7953f510421d818a8c759136b9
51988 F20101113_AAENLR waters_r_Page_207.pro
af696bbcbdda4f161947d86ba5ff3b30
4ae9509d9d3352f5b20c6e944e9bd49410a92e76
25238 F20101113_AAEMBN waters_r_Page_138.QC.jpg
672a6ebecc11a639a9353cb8649a0486
d8971d04650879fc41c4d6a0412de5f8093132e5
72930 F20101113_AAEMOZ waters_r_Page_125.jpg
b242bd489ade38e9e0c8224714cd3e39
92cc4da600a3a089df67e2755b34c7f408ac3c97
52343 F20101113_AAENLS waters_r_Page_208.pro
aeb2f11e9b41c7791478f651e08df2a6
8602e55e5c3d7a315bb4274e4f9ac19538728087
124340 F20101113_AAEMBO waters_r_Page_256.jp2
9fe88ad23c3cb072d4f74bcee5362a0d
b32667ae2e9b96ae282e128070c01387a47d8cb9
53739 F20101113_AAENLT waters_r_Page_213.pro
f72253ae53c5832098848746d6c6ab2d
1b30fb7d52d2c95bb9422f26f1c79002d01cfeaf
6554 F20101113_AAEMBP waters_r_Page_065thm.jpg
5bf7a61c45d3ff365625592b8547f55d
62c8fe34c1dc137a3fd0766ce9351de4ebe88e21
51347 F20101113_AAENLU waters_r_Page_214.pro
9fb17cbc3f9cc920103480aaab0ac475
5179382aea2986697c9f6e99e0ca945bc47acd33
7151 F20101113_AAELXA waters_r_Page_181.QC.jpg
cde1c126d6d05b5d296292cb6045bd43
de840b045fe255c09feb9fb277c5d85cd1784cc9
25487 F20101113_AAEMBQ waters_r_Page_021.QC.jpg
e7ae1cc63dc1e2a95af2f04ba12dcf00
71b097536a6099a41083dc337f884ca44916cd8d
50131 F20101113_AAENLV waters_r_Page_218.pro
0c8848227762194162ee3bc74accffb2
70e0ca9838880b78c6e13215e6c9c44b6dacdb7b
2044 F20101113_AAELXB waters_r_Page_129.txt
a26f6bd7107168c5c7fbefa3ca19ac7f
29e5fcbf940dc584b35c9be56f75c4311d28c9ed
F20101113_AAEMBR waters_r_Page_235.txt
3dfc78aaa8c23b59d6ba16ec3bacce6c
63b36a0cb66100fe368d214af0fd445755dd2395
54587 F20101113_AAENLW waters_r_Page_220.pro
4d17c1be3be0dde9419302ee5c6721f1
274adb76b3e4c068e133e471662ce66bc208e0e3
24431 F20101113_AAELXC waters_r_Page_277.QC.jpg
e7cafad6a3c13c3bd120473d9b08dff6
2813006719f82ea7e2dad2094f2511619813f71c
2037 F20101113_AAEMBS waters_r_Page_206.txt
22eb83cab73e8331cbe367882ce70c73
3658543b4de446da8b8c2384b1d61120ef61f4cd
51629 F20101113_AAENLX waters_r_Page_221.pro
d32291c332472fd807b3b9d597c8a771
1edae7e5d4b799d6cec5945c2ee1f4e94d839678
108818 F20101113_AAELXD waters_r_Page_205.jp2
bf6d27e1e6493ef155ad793c542b790e
7cf101ea06d4614d92ac13d3b13a8b5dfaf62a77
120309 F20101113_AAEMBT waters_r_Page_186.jp2
797556235e266062e52dcadf53c70e98
95a3d3f5f8e5500f2b772981ee4e275b3647b642
52841 F20101113_AAENLY waters_r_Page_222.pro
7e35e3fad2fbe6c1ef3ef308280aef03
579ebd67c7b731cb1458c3788853c948ed116447
F20101113_AAELXE waters_r_Page_213.tif
2a0f799542edfd291ef28c28f160ce04
f5c4f7f159dc94358554d531e5b7f5a3090aa25d
54157 F20101113_AAEMBU waters_r_Page_091.pro
898b2e5b7742bbe508cd3e83b86f0735
fa4442b47b1a389b213e1b34fb8ce082cf4cde44
49387 F20101113_AAENLZ waters_r_Page_223.pro
65fec78893cc245e3e064b3bcc398e3a
9d5035df8c0bd667b26e085e20657d3177e0ecfd
F20101113_AAELXF waters_r_Page_079.txt
49b61de285960588c4725d2a8fd7aed4
f887f717c41ad33ca7c01f32ef027f279616ca2f
25664 F20101113_AAEMBV waters_r_Page_045.QC.jpg
f9dc0f8e09eee3fcf7247537fc7c6d68
13605e1842660d027d58ea7e5eb364226a96587a
2066 F20101113_AAELXG waters_r_Page_071.txt
4e10ca269d604ee27f2b793fc7de4970
03c2ae2c6d03a5a11e73661850b1138140173b45
14633 F20101113_AAEMBW waters_r_Page_085.pro
47ce79d19b19f5dc615743ec1315adf5
b8cf232a31a6cda31f388e58f6e12ed5b73607ef
106793 F20101113_AAEMUA waters_r_Page_049.jp2
89a32a60e50d7c4114ca09958881387b
4f90617a49c4040f3a09ffb0cca0570ee6d96c3a
F20101113_AAELXH waters_r_Page_278.tif
80be6f4b1370783b37aafaa9a539bc79
7030a81e8664a3456bbba47206e36617a75ed2cd
17165 F20101113_AAEMBX waters_r_Page_195.QC.jpg
5b59aeeaea7a0f1cde65705577e96c27
d7554c6360ae51c3134e62a59d2f3b6b571c1c0e
117693 F20101113_AAEMUB waters_r_Page_050.jp2
55c14a5d691873461ee10126b07e2351
a31d529d759efa212e84a399dc133d98e87fac9a
54611 F20101113_AAELXI waters_r_Page_035.pro
ca6ac180e116adfbcfb374966444fa00
2072e9c72d20e349944ab10c25f32a341e1db2d7
71975 F20101113_AAEMBY waters_r_Page_135.jpg
2ddfeb2c41e260f73279c13cf46ba5b6
0fa9b7a878c2eeb7d14fb5e1e6cde8cf0dabda40
112865 F20101113_AAEMUC waters_r_Page_051.jp2
13891cebabd91fa21737e3b26778a867
726bb5d5a622f5f5af584217b329ace80f9918c7
119648 F20101113_AAELXJ waters_r_Page_123.jp2
2f8ba9169c687bba6a5f1b1c80fe05fe
b4b04e8d7a444fc67c3f93c474ee24ecc15235da
107841 F20101113_AAEMBZ waters_r_Page_217.jp2
ab9d347a2463291565e796f642bfce92
1f6c7327fceecb8e76e720b375503dff111f06fa
119537 F20101113_AAEMUD waters_r_Page_052.jp2
30b982f47a7f209a7e7ffd4a3eefaf26
a6c3d0e1ef8cbcef3d0504cd8bab5ea31fee5d8f
12411 F20101113_AAELXK waters_r_Page_198.QC.jpg
925448c66f87da9313b6afb098d3b914
8da8b48e092961ffc1b36fe79a4e373e2104712b
115792 F20101113_AAEMUE waters_r_Page_053.jp2
cbe527fc0664b20ade0cffe3bd5c48a9
675a5c50aaf1181f62c31d0335a7ae8427bbc2de
F20101113_AAELXL waters_r_Page_214.txt
eca122314d7e09e87e4f543ac05905dd
c0b3da8783b4e278ffeb422cb3e01bdd72df8a9d
114856 F20101113_AAEMUF waters_r_Page_054.jp2
df6b6a325b94e85e7069dec96f04017a
28f735f286df2317a072896c896b14561a17d705
F20101113_AAELXM waters_r_Page_241.txt
4cdd6c32c5cfd6e3d79e11bc90641151
a80bfc908e376b673363f8319b48d143fcae8933
109220 F20101113_AAEMUG waters_r_Page_056.jp2
336f050c48db1b3767213cd0d5c4490c
5992f4c36325289b15a6b500c6a9c28d8776b75b
2184 F20101113_AAELXN waters_r_Page_236.txt
8d8ff82c08f2b973e058b1bdffc4c629
702cf69d43052367f2eb3cb6f489679b5ea44add
116097 F20101113_AAEMUH waters_r_Page_057.jp2
f4177e0da94b605c06e5dd93b7b7abf4
47ce82c8bcac4e6124e5adf09237a4a75c0df3cc
2233 F20101113_AAENRA waters_r_Page_150.txt
0258276677ab0b226b7091ac17b83a13
2f940e2dbd7e78b2b10cce2f34ab57df80547eae
117698 F20101113_AAELXO waters_r_Page_146.jp2
893a509aa002f4c51272f1a264201eae
25ad7c35f77a71d58f7991b8d80e4691bc6ac34e
121025 F20101113_AAEMUI waters_r_Page_060.jp2
c973d3a7667d3469aa30838794c6caa3
f3433baa7c1d93d5e7a3bf49f297203bb857bf89
F20101113_AAENRB waters_r_Page_152.txt
760b6334da1929fc0646f35b0537607f
e0748feee6140a37649869d0fb6eb83b2585f7e8
24080 F20101113_AAELXP waters_r_Page_199.pro
b238a9dfa26d52fce59ef90672298560
e0994ea761291d2b11606a3182e8a2b1d40fd61a
113344 F20101113_AAEMUJ waters_r_Page_063.jp2
a34353d58ca95c775858e388227e7656
1b98d0d666de30f46fc25aebe4d045de28e1db44
2168 F20101113_AAENRC waters_r_Page_153.txt
16714a4befa4d75c24ecdd8c2783075d
50361f66f0f306b9a45ba396e48f31bff57c17f7
59652 F20101113_AAELXQ waters_r_Page_276.pro
4dfb40931a3bea0cfef5ee6c92a3cd0d
8cf35473ee6174536284b04e3f55f4971c3aefbf
100744 F20101113_AAEMUK waters_r_Page_064.jp2
51ab9feafc9930c8b3b67f029ed398ca
307889dce5cef8f2288d516ce22213d1a01faa51
2202 F20101113_AAENRD waters_r_Page_155.txt
726ef7b33629b1f70712e18a96e60d7b
4f7d9517eda2baa46792db5aa58d419d9f27bc66
24794 F20101113_AAELXR waters_r_Page_042.QC.jpg
2a8fc43e6b64047dd8e96668748267a0
d973660507a6d1c0086740ea9e91d9ac27c40b2d
109398 F20101113_AAEMUL waters_r_Page_066.jp2
b2c1f43aecfc2ec72fda6f8b5bed07a7
48cb3961e14788f5d6e9ed38580e11b9c37ab2d3
F20101113_AAENRE waters_r_Page_156.txt
2cec990415b41a10f15062595cf8c80b
0b6a525d75141e4f95013eaed23d0be5251a473a
73747 F20101113_AAEMHA waters_r_Page_092.jpg
f66f3a689c7784e1171f3f86a5c5daff
10da8317f237039eb8519cd4b34918b310f57dd3
75286 F20101113_AAELXS waters_r_Page_054.jpg
9abcec528e0457e2d00afd589988bb4c
f00d4ffc2467df5f317a1efb55088caa204a511c
122187 F20101113_AAEMUM waters_r_Page_067.jp2
de2427cac3481dbc95c97133a2ae1ed3
a3985c93c7f1e6f4adf9d390eefdf145d171a693
2251 F20101113_AAENRF waters_r_Page_157.txt
a37481a8fa21192fc6f6cf961756a199
73b3e0d1b218a148fff54a0a60e05b9caf540316
109318 F20101113_AAEMHB waters_r_Page_061.jp2
8bc3843af5a9122d5d7588836bf18321
30eb396ad16bc83d469ab74d9bddd3e0452efbf6
F20101113_AAELXT waters_r_Page_241.tif
4fb3de5f61106261127b81bf03e59846
cfd27cc4cec3b51e7d2b6747fd30713093dd0d80
113786 F20101113_AAEMUN waters_r_Page_069.jp2
de2641eda43b82ea22ff33ae74d2dd14
ed11a3b1bec76abcabd56b6de648e44c36325629
2047 F20101113_AAENRG waters_r_Page_158.txt
d639a7c6c7e38cf6759c968e8fab4308
5d9111d9035ce350879b4536b1d01526bfac6fec
23777 F20101113_AAEMHC waters_r_Page_092.QC.jpg
5419e45c39944d118d58d1878b299b1d
a166843d26719ea77b4b3e6591743b2b38ac63ce
40158 F20101113_AAELXU waters_r_Page_197.jpg
bd2b955ea9a3444d18e535dd4a6bb6e5
2eb64f7a01e1c2c04fb3046e74abe0032d63c79b
109125 F20101113_AAEMUO waters_r_Page_075.jp2
4842f61f2258e7d051e59bfdbcd5f440
83fe0f0029000a68c8de083136dbd8a7a3749dc1
1160 F20101113_AAENRH waters_r_Page_159.txt
a0c51b442730af814a8602ce97e459f2
f43339efd2740b7bfbe1c1fae916c78e1a4c19c7
26838 F20101113_AAEMHD waters_r_Page_055.QC.jpg
359559d58225b01f8ef9cf959bc62e3d
816ab6f770374fb3c64369b84a01c453ee8ccba0
73906 F20101113_AAELXV waters_r_Page_107.jpg
32ff9555569f52968d4164befd281150
f655f7077230dea1555177f563e1079cd0fa01dd
101649 F20101113_AAEMUP waters_r_Page_078.jp2
5dd71beed1b4a6c449d295c80e616a42
ced60162147e70ece1144728b1dd0556a6b5985c
796 F20101113_AAENRI waters_r_Page_160.txt
7da882937627f82241982243cf3c499c
33a8154b360488262958ad70f6f0254077c31107
F20101113_AAEMHE waters_r_Page_006.tif
3f5d4fff24e9cf5b310994a2fb39a83d
3879d6dbd01fa1e62cd9af57ccac3f1377efb3c0
112840 F20101113_AAEMUQ waters_r_Page_079.jp2
70ccee2be5b00f00433a890e2a75c318
d9a8e440adb869d9374d680e84b8563013f78b67
666 F20101113_AAENRJ waters_r_Page_164.txt
9653873db3b33d646b691f78c955f9ab
1b5b02cc718d06ab95b47daa0955637f8751980c
19332 F20101113_AAELXW waters_r_Page_084.QC.jpg
c6d9a70bc31eb8b94ef184bbc7127e5c
8c599223889611118baa548516937e5975c99dc6
117155 F20101113_AAEMUR waters_r_Page_080.jp2
ad5a480297df760a0a0a001a870032e7
331d17ac045ec038da9fbe1fc755529bf39c32f5
1455 F20101113_AAENRK waters_r_Page_165.txt
f8622bb54b57886cd9bd31466718d450
33dab2b10b3d97a07aac606f2ae9b70ca1a9eabb
111954 F20101113_AAELKM waters_r_Page_092.jp2
5535129050f28424b735c09cd49e99ff
de200ecb7ee870b84991fb2e84cda5aa5ff7dd89
102213 F20101113_AAEMHF waters_r_Page_011.jpg
5a6f2fc6c3d6de468a223a236030fe70
e6d49fff7aec68a974b926ec4dbd626f95ab9fd2
6593 F20101113_AAELXX waters_r_Page_031.QC.jpg
24c43d2d7145f8ec24c15146895c20d4
945c8ab1d42938bf51ef74ab48257ce7882b06c6
2375 F20101113_AAENRL waters_r_Page_167.txt
92081805d45ba83de620dabf81603f44
f1694a854cbcb47bd8bedd3695d2340d5311b028
2621 F20101113_AAELKN waters_r_Page_268.txt
933ac542c5fa333821a5932b8d4fc0c0
b57457ce544e832d564feca9e926809245c4240c
F20101113_AAEMHG waters_r_Page_052.tif
00362a946e1b74c46a3457606d76e2af
7824d0e73a1b285e65ffc7adff3089a280af2e7c
50828 F20101113_AAELXY waters_r_Page_056.pro
5aa573f5c30d847c4840254ad37b987d
32ffc6ed381f97d6a689ba10bf6853741ca833f8
F20101113_AAENEA waters_r_Page_177.tif
e245c5b0f141b3d1b62f855c135c3327
4333370f5488eda1f76f53811fd75b10255d19b7
112730 F20101113_AAEMUS waters_r_Page_082.jp2
c1ca8e94cee5050d45cb576d222d3d02
b39c87767540aec0738f49ad703292a02124eef5
1227 F20101113_AAENRM waters_r_Page_168.txt
9ea7cf0cda9844e69d6f977b79851fe3
b0f0486437639cffdeb7f162a943116a3c5f2f34
24602 F20101113_AAELKO waters_r_Page_232.QC.jpg
f87fff4e20daa0c30b79096ed8e767ad
cdf5d288ce422e0589d2a80e1c53d930b9453bb3
53971 F20101113_AAEMHH waters_r_Page_109.pro
0e95afa794973a619b31be4d52d4299d
600b17d5e03f7fc561db402230dce632271f2e8c
2240 F20101113_AAELXZ waters_r_Page_060.txt
01e0813130f512bda06a14b915ce935b
afd018a36cb7b5f119b7071f22a2b42f76a4ce96
115066 F20101113_AAEMUT waters_r_Page_083.jp2
608f68c321c4a0292a911364f046d01b
9f1dfdff7eef8873871a127d745cdeb37569894d
1165 F20101113_AAENRN waters_r_Page_170.txt
72207d34d17d4ff8513fca0e385f360b
7691bfa05d85489cb02fd2be5deeb8f32a9c6915
47578 F20101113_AAELKP waters_r_Page_005.pro
837b2ff3c99a4f7f8eaf62b11ee5cfd6
2be70249a4121b6ac2fafd3d55711fb09eab5295
9956 F20101113_AAEMHI waters_r_Page_177.pro
aec13e72662a29b143ff134b5a55e463
d9a5f40cb93de86f62ff987da3e8e0e6428bb4c5
F20101113_AAENEB waters_r_Page_178.tif
e2c9c7d3db3fe7c30812dd300838c194
505c2e65d042d136f375eb2f23f1a434c0d5195c
89989 F20101113_AAEMUU waters_r_Page_084.jp2
160db4cd8062d053fe801751b2d5adbd
7ee8c327645c7300de073b2b62408c5052b27c93
F20101113_AAELKQ waters_r_Page_024.tif
3deeb423634be1dcc6289d1136ddfb26
5c23306b1a03ed63b28ca08c857b189a8e3f525e
6704 F20101113_AAEMHJ waters_r_Page_033thm.jpg
3acb5dc73198d78f8d02cebd4146ae8f
aa705d1a6222be7965fb7aa5741cc5820201756e
F20101113_AAENEC waters_r_Page_179.tif
2716c7557beae9e4d69957261ddb431c
b0107e02e757881e9ef87f419115fe2003a4c5fc
80629 F20101113_AAEMUV waters_r_Page_086.jp2
ceceee4a7a75425652bb29066627e07d
f1df7c235ddb636fb1e249ce656b97007a509e08
1371 F20101113_AAENRO waters_r_Page_171.txt
33ad3132a3a4007ed672ca79c8f9af8f
adf98988f0078a04cce073aae0e77d6e5ad434e9
F20101113_AAELKR waters_r_Page_218.tif
670e5b59fff1d0b53a468d67fbab3820
20967163fcb0f139bbb9aac9fb3b0f71fe3d6494
F20101113_AAEMHK waters_r_Page_112.QC.jpg
c97a32d907eed1154b57d5bd89b88775
07102db042d485188f366dc736a1bfa180afb02f
F20101113_AAENED waters_r_Page_181.tif
efbed29d947db7fff31dac76616aadab
24791c38a732b6d95b9c3a622d29ca56cd5b2b16
475115 F20101113_AAEMUW waters_r_Page_087.jp2
5f87a8a17dfddfbd8642670316dff10e
eebb4475b70f2c599b15e67b3ca2c9b4d319df2d
529 F20101113_AAENRP waters_r_Page_173.txt
d8f45884226a631bbd12e14a15c545d7
c3bd85e932b2d23a39f8d5bb7d18ac04631e4946
6682 F20101113_AAELKS waters_r_Page_124thm.jpg
fc919460f159c5d17f834251eefc835f
5d26474ac3cee10ff2d90f856bff9beb49eabe57
81328 F20101113_AAEMHL waters_r_Page_189.jpg
4bb04beebadd18a442dc3d46d75f6a38
c429b2424aa4910f5df1393f8b8eccaabee2d1d2
F20101113_AAENEE waters_r_Page_182.tif
22bbff708480222c34b940d39d9a9a56
0011996da6b0911143d04a619b31ee53758d944e
16192 F20101113_AAEMUX waters_r_Page_089.jp2
7ba55d7e2f5dbda4ef8387e9ada1a87b
8bd06bf9d8d2bfa1178e7406ec3031e093a5d9a0
246 F20101113_AAENRQ waters_r_Page_175.txt
341dae7b326cf588fa2c9a6312913b87
9da7872021bc07701ee427efb5be3697ac826a54
53147 F20101113_AAELKT waters_r_Page_204.pro
00fbdf30c0c6a50355db1f83547e9c77
b416112ed9d8c12740f8921917aee3b4c389d1ec
72444 F20101113_AAEMHM waters_r_Page_126.jpg
fa25ae6baef1ba12809d929c989b4a44
feca5fbc1d3091094693fa595fd7569fa8311cd3
F20101113_AAENEF waters_r_Page_183.tif
1660f4f2fb8b0f31f8492e7e17aadbdf
06b4e9a0147887634e74e51eb63473f10c4a5c92
118912 F20101113_AAEMUY waters_r_Page_090.jp2
8869f5c49aca79766397d1e5062458f6
da76b19c779908d137a4935c002bac5dba0ce5a7
2428 F20101113_AAENRR waters_r_Page_179.txt
cb3825c9720cada3876ff81318aa8f05
428a6506229e812785a9d40ba9210556583fffdf
77863 F20101113_AAELKU waters_r_Page_018.jpg
7a53f2d2c25de460ac1fbe63b2b54e69
a3ddee1baad4db8c5ba6255fddab490d51e03f43
115335 F20101113_AAEMHN waters_r_Page_041.jp2
dd5b1f35d0b03a489776b3df02886fe5
18d82dc4328b133958d26c370f189fedbf1e8bbf
F20101113_AAENEG waters_r_Page_184.tif
55f8f248f2894bd8a7c49200f6334b7f
779151a3950dfc7c0bee20de54c883e5a5205913
23502 F20101113_AAEOBA waters_r_Page_066.QC.jpg
08255eb78626d397d377b108604463ba
a347134c93cfa3dd1148e3bf372ed3ab89d5ef68
116249 F20101113_AAEMUZ waters_r_Page_091.jp2
ea99a4f8b0c346e38c07822c90d9dde1
4f263087837c2a2a83a5b71f9291a95d5d2b65d2
1408 F20101113_AAENRS waters_r_Page_180.txt
4c948b4eaea32a2613f49e9876c75173
415560c4826331f1b508e96e31fc7b1d02e590f1
374 F20101113_AAELKV waters_r_Page_006.txt
7093110fe9c433ddcc363de422fe3093
23f6d30c9a416c897522b762e3f267de626e9170
111484 F20101113_AAEMHO waters_r_Page_131.jp2
3beb7d46337bcc54d27bda7b6649ad44
7fd14406557636eefc7c8a6b9927e75e0d377e2a
F20101113_AAENEH waters_r_Page_185.tif
9d4b8f90885e6cd0684bbb6e15d8d342
205eb923f72061a38b7694d46989eb3f81baa72b
6972 F20101113_AAEOBB waters_r_Page_144thm.jpg
132f54add909ef8ceef58f9d16ff1d32
f1e5f3b17a63e9dc0f0bf63188a348d39acc41eb
415 F20101113_AAENRT waters_r_Page_181.txt
a9823f7066b29806b9a072a17412aed0
431ba279600d42fc4517be23fee1b491bd38e17a
3866 F20101113_AAELKW waters_r_Page_193thm.jpg
cdb1c75c5d4997657f4e10c971735843
8d3ce2f35177ca25c77848b77c5a75011a5f4f89
25228 F20101113_AAEMHP waters_r_Page_109.QC.jpg
ef9ec5cb02eb29637e2e38c7ec19bd85
4eda0780409bba1d3ab81a29e690892bfbf95425
F20101113_AAENEI waters_r_Page_187.tif
f8bc6dbc572bf152803f957c90fc8476
e06f67e68719da44ca6939691f206cd2ca980888
F20101113_AAEOBC waters_r_Page_024thm.jpg
beb92a3ef499d1307f6fc7dec87de618
2eb15acebaaa7d38c376f8b400a05ab25a9ac5c9
1478 F20101113_AAENRU waters_r_Page_182.txt
23b3957cfb63e6c38c1c71bfdff5be00
2a0bf9fd00d057fee5ce7aadc1516b14e2096e8c
27720 F20101113_AAELKX waters_r_Page_237.jpg
11d3d3b5fd0f4f8f307ad3842ca715cc
2a36d1999ea3ce6bb065870d9eb72b7711d58c75
24187 F20101113_AAEMHQ waters_r_Page_097.QC.jpg
d543b8339eb0b2ee06479832cbcf91eb
b75fde6d26b0ef6c060a22cfa31e0fc52630f4fd
F20101113_AAENEJ waters_r_Page_189.tif
a3a7a1394d13196b3749c19354fce6c5
8271b38c244e1467559ffefdd9656db36645ecb2
24509 F20101113_AAEOBD waters_r_Page_213.QC.jpg
e9b81b053ff6f1b31462076be1fbe975
9e5f0379b10b15d1ace451727832961ec770e3ff
1152 F20101113_AAENRV waters_r_Page_184.txt
6e4d2ac9ca860550d9886cd42b866e3e
4a84b5bdf6185fa9538aefa2e5ffcc4f9e8e5540
53798 F20101113_AAELKY waters_r_Page_200.jp2
62388b3b0752dab5feb27abc05717de4
7eef1bb8c6b90f034e166a4014568a4eeec52ecc
80301 F20101113_AAEMHR waters_r_Page_246.jpg
1585b0bf810c4b18a84c310e9962023d
18ebe403404e22d057530b0955fd847b3bf8befe
F20101113_AAENEK waters_r_Page_191.tif
1edc1c3a2352d2ef9cf5c33eb1260e1c
901307160abcd3ef68a6ddbbbcae1f3353063976
3793 F20101113_AAEOBE waters_r_Page_087thm.jpg
1779f3a80767f5e67665d7609a22b07b
848f4bc4434f684b580027a4214f82f7d4f87ebd
265 F20101113_AAENRW waters_r_Page_185.txt
9842ecde7868c153d71a29b9590f782a
e9f047832743dd2329d4a2cc9753a8472d888127
F20101113_AAELKZ waters_r_Page_167.tif
704223b024c793edb813670973e9b2c0
b14b9c2d4e36c7c53cef3e9ac620f91076e559ea
F20101113_AAEMHS waters_r_Page_234.tif
6c84d612fce0ee28feb51f9bde9ec182
bb11c4522c05bc77c3b9d36501b0da257c487d9a
F20101113_AAENEL waters_r_Page_193.tif
fa759ffee1dfc26c30e7d0da42b3f3b9
ec61fd9251b3d6271c83077208f152443d6b835a
24364 F20101113_AAEOBF waters_r_Page_208.QC.jpg
94a4f09ce41e7a914c8e5aac3c4be241
90c65da4037096e932a1d14e31831c576a0c0489
2271 F20101113_AAENRX waters_r_Page_186.txt
77a2dc5b16817bbdab67ed06b8cd7e98
fb0c69d56f537292c73739e7ae7a0915e7aabaf4
105364 F20101113_AAEMHT waters_r_Page_272.jpg
202d25d44d50888ca7ede94320a2b3dd
e68816b95273afc2530b553c566421bf1904a2f1
F20101113_AAENEM waters_r_Page_195.tif
754408966177665f0030321f93bf3a24
76078d68cc57d31ca62282db4aec7221fcfe73a7
24010 F20101113_AAEOBG waters_r_Page_135.QC.jpg
a6d0fa66de76fe9ba499a63ea8668e6d
ce3b9221e0d5d4f5c7001120123268f3334319c1
402 F20101113_AAENRY waters_r_Page_187.txt
afe0ab6cf788337e2738ca0c1ea87c2a
c78d84c6a637dc786d199986f77e01a85848a261
F20101113_AAEMHU waters_r_Page_192.tif
96e8eee1e0f9e022ff6f1c4a88013862
845aeb1dafbf328fae83eea5bfda1a0a67ca68df
F20101113_AAENEN waters_r_Page_196.tif
abe911bee19e3491c39f424d56aeca00
3fb7137c04a51131b57b94cd4bff001c6acfdd86
25523 F20101113_AAEOBH waters_r_Page_034.QC.jpg
eba7f29b365004bf64d238a76c6d2b27
d9b2ed84b37d99071f029762ef5254ae92595317
2154 F20101113_AAENRZ waters_r_Page_188.txt
ab5bd6e98dd8dfec29556751245ad6fa
9e623100006b4a4b3eac457573d05a42acf5f791
112284 F20101113_AAEMHV waters_r_Page_032.jp2
e81f254a85058df7dae8d796c799fe7d
dd60be0d05b279652a5c067ff45180122342dd21
F20101113_AAENEO waters_r_Page_197.tif
719ac4240ede02f50e0fac7f941eead4
5e2fd115f822cb1f3fad6e20b2a34d2538ea92d4
21492 F20101113_AAEOBI waters_r_Page_173.QC.jpg
2611acb5650f0629ab49ec470f8dd9fb
0cb29063865d2f2bb794707d338c1c05fdda3322
F20101113_AAEMHW waters_r_Page_242.tif
be5534a60072c2ddebecef338a3c5877
29a52f7a0362b139202a96e8912419eb02f45197
F20101113_AAENEP waters_r_Page_198.tif
a591476526cfcbac9f9452e075856d74
b48482d8b779e6652c0a020cd1d8fd1ad03fd2ed
24251 F20101113_AAEOBJ waters_r_Page_108.QC.jpg
4ff209815f0e52def0e4500babadde95
6a5b54957252d9f04cb0dad294e45fb6a94d41a6
F20101113_AAEMHX waters_r_Page_142.tif
e73f82f9451626344241d7a0800c76ea
0e71564a84d18d9b178d5bb1d5cb1d3ece72a56a
F20101113_AAENEQ waters_r_Page_199.tif
e527b6c2efdd00518b276588d39cd0fc
23b30c51f85aed0e5c70eef8aa2051270581d4ae
25708 F20101113_AAEOBK waters_r_Page_037.QC.jpg
ead6afdd086c115a6d7d7dde08411b13
c7ce3a4eefc12a81a473117159c8540f8e037111
11657 F20101113_AAEMHY waters_r_Page_201.QC.jpg
7e796e595aa4cb64c9718323eff7e0c6
a950dd96e708c3f9dd5146d1a7c0d6ba24cecb4d
F20101113_AAENER waters_r_Page_201.tif
feebc772c537b41cf0a05ee6acfc7308
70f1240a5937ce6c9d5def6b4eefa916d301ec4f
25509 F20101113_AAEOBL waters_r_Page_226.QC.jpg
ac1a395fb9724f21917dbdba7c0a3320
307e55ed5fd086df4db09b448218b7ab7b005011
82642 F20101113_AAEMHZ waters_r_Page_117.jpg
776890af1f76cb158b0d3e8ef3b007c4
bd3b184df16f2faabac38a9d8b91bed52e093592
F20101113_AAENES waters_r_Page_202.tif
b477ea99f4166457f45602f307698b61
d6197a2acfd838110c7deefc4ab345aaf1325b5e
6574 F20101113_AAEOBM waters_r_Page_061thm.jpg
cdd58407493d9511d735b72e69595163
4936c8987f424b448b75b9cd07084d6c2700d39d
F20101113_AAENET waters_r_Page_205.tif
e0cf39272fae4b56be4cce14898904ab
8964d3ce9e5b3399317b2a74109c6b3db3b749d9
6417 F20101113_AAEOBN waters_r_Page_252thm.jpg
a654f292699e9eb5e4f130cb9696912a
1f7d5e03bf6e92f6820442d5cc7e3dd336642f83
4493 F20101113_AAELQA waters_r_Page_260thm.jpg
c1f6c6dcb693b7101938672d1d679f89
8cae97759330121c50b1fb77c48a097052094dcb
F20101113_AAENEU waters_r_Page_206.tif
83b439cdeffa5843324f0ed2435a625f
cc7c9da8006d5aa90a92325dc58d46ac7d60fd0e
6898 F20101113_AAEOBO waters_r_Page_018thm.jpg
cf39cbc440289ff1ecc8cb2a8323a746
7ebaf525de94e03c2f7cc9a94164e61397ff41cc
72912 F20101113_AAELQB waters_r_Page_252.pro
b9228bc9bc534f8939ab4aa37347668b
93ccadf34e8132fa2e1363a5c36a3601acb8d0a5
F20101113_AAENEV waters_r_Page_208.tif
5d99e356c8ad4716947385a881b0cae2
ea47dab4abe0af682aae8053c6c5f54cc4e9c9da
7015 F20101113_AAEOBP waters_r_Page_239thm.jpg
fc24f51f04df18c54e0f32e5b2d89b32
f556c13c43f05eee522227426d40c74e22b07c6b
96 F20101113_AAELQC waters_r_Page_002.txt
ce8df4aa448c0ded2ea05d21b3da27c1
aaa627889d60598959e83a36d7c893726657078b
F20101113_AAENEW waters_r_Page_210.tif
f8f897b50a19b54422d548f15d9bf36d
bf13cfa64a8aab239638ceb8f6bcf17d6db14729
25803 F20101113_AAEOBQ waters_r_Page_233.QC.jpg
2e330ce8fc2c9593a933d508db45a890
8712e7a37ea299807d2ffff0995e74505a708f12
6210 F20101113_AAENXA waters_r_Page_078thm.jpg
7b8399a7cb8a5cd8a2a803974b6ac3af
44c8f46a984c85160b43c12173e1316d568e97e1
50162 F20101113_AAELQD waters_r_Page_036.pro
8d008ee40f7c45c8454d9d7401f20bc7
3d3ce159245c47647fb25f893157f9898054075e
F20101113_AAENEX waters_r_Page_211.tif
9fda1ce5c45283391648aca37e446283
9ae8481a98569c2a9e99625594c147b7f2338dfa
25327 F20101113_AAEOBR waters_r_Page_249.QC.jpg
d380954bfe714e219beba7a4a135f20b
4a741344124199339166887ec7beb30205158d06
6792 F20101113_AAENXB waters_r_Page_121thm.jpg
8ff8022c2c5c9ec57663d531faa1466b
926e7aa0aaf5b2e9e728e312c52c3003fdbce87f
1682 F20101113_AAELQE waters_r_Page_161.txt
e3bbc90532a47ff292de884b9fa54fbc
c4a90cfdc7e37711fe51b176face5f2820c7fe84
F20101113_AAENEY waters_r_Page_214.tif
c5676841bc11a4b549f61a56a5d89bd8
ccbdd1a20461de88002b9e38b10ea97511b75841
5094 F20101113_AAEOBS waters_r_Page_166thm.jpg
2825682dc5094b1d585496f39f2e637f
453f0fa75bbb08136895a6e5864490ebe80c6150
23728 F20101113_AAENXC waters_r_Page_156.QC.jpg
af65bf888219994f45ecf3b15dda1b7b
289a4f0f075a5bbe08d0c97b526786b5fb136dc2
44349 F20101113_AAELQF waters_r_Page_159.jpg
6b2fe188d8a428c0348f1c390c47a059
9ad296cfc30188393a9c0285cd1cb19efa7f38fd
F20101113_AAENEZ waters_r_Page_215.tif
48cf9338d1a4c0e739783fc295bd224f
6a27517260935a6541a47b7b9bd50921a1f9fe99
26171 F20101113_AAEOBT waters_r_Page_179.QC.jpg
f80b419b1035f67a9edc3c80ffd40a14
46af2636d88da39c5a87628eaaee8b61f452973d
6480 F20101113_AAENXD waters_r_Page_125thm.jpg
7ffcb836050b4ddb72fa29439f7b2f88
6421e9a9e516081a2ec8f0ee487182370a0cb017
F20101113_AAELQG waters_r_Page_130.txt
55bc3ae81bc4440f10e3ce9cd870ece2
8a4208b3bd9c5ae49162ebebaf6e6ffccf889eeb
23631 F20101113_AAEOBU waters_r_Page_076.QC.jpg
3e2411a7963fd3b9a9810a5bfc2545ea
2164b0ef5c9056a7efe8c9c82b33e0dcf4022815
26302 F20101113_AAENXE waters_r_Page_052.QC.jpg
9d29a79e0439f846c548ce4a40841fcc
a1593f26bfb5f3ad2def2ac3548a763867de726d
6819 F20101113_AAELQH waters_r_Page_225thm.jpg
6471700114a721b10ccb92eda6a04fb9
fbf9a333ce02f2d3c9f135da3ef5de1addc5896b
76972 F20101113_AAEMNA waters_r_Page_050.jpg
b703d2f8ade8b811ce43efa21e39b338
320686c2145042b7070bc5497758d0ff9c5e6140
23796 F20101113_AAEOBV waters_r_Page_051.QC.jpg
b92ca35f4cb74979c80235d79cc1eea0
14aaf5249fe1843f73564cd49256da80003cba0c
25674 F20101113_AAENXF waters_r_Page_167.QC.jpg
0ce3247c2ecc9f822f4db3bc55e1f446
4297b4bd771766c01e70672f20eba106febb564a
F20101113_AAELQI waters_r_Page_207.tif
6d903dd8a6122fb4fbbcf84f13a324ca
5225cd6d980a3c599545ce700ae0b418b5f001f1
74037 F20101113_AAEMNB waters_r_Page_051.jpg
e1ae8d4d98195f6d0f8533f14d773fd9
0e96a3b5bb64722c8f1eb68a8dfbc11ed9a1cc21
23778 F20101113_AAEOBW waters_r_Page_224.QC.jpg
bf9ceed2567106a44244f7dfefa3e36a
babad3e43e5d8d664a65b387c69f32f11524e2ab
25633 F20101113_AAENXG waters_r_Page_035.QC.jpg
a425d24c5c78f8af25f2b4b352ad0f13
5ab8308c3253322200b02cec00d8633148f61e15
138709 F20101113_AAELQJ waters_r_Page_278.jp2
248b74cf73e278c48d847e81f66bfb60
039360ef7f4c8c3c15d97c2323a29e1c348acc5d
79650 F20101113_AAEMNC waters_r_Page_052.jpg
c23a785ad15895e47a0557c013f3694a
4ae255e0263b437b46638c1b8dd9a181d3b0c3c0
23845 F20101113_AAEOBX waters_r_Page_147.QC.jpg
0580341cdf431fdd70ad3140d0890a0a
c81c441a32b8ac6816a62635d4412c56bd7a003e
6772 F20101113_AAENXH waters_r_Page_010thm.jpg
8a0e7f7f3789cbb0c1f5839d8635d682
86ce09fe328ec031feda76297e86b1e5c43a0f7d
122802 F20101113_AAELQK waters_r_Page_189.jp2
aadcd96ed2f81dc07a8df5e777dff060
8d8189d611fb054f5099b57e4e46f5870b469cb8
81113 F20101113_AAEMND waters_r_Page_055.jpg
d497c59198544170c9d6dcf951ac864f
5cf78d6e8596c81d94d1a62ddc7cf705a423de1f
13890 F20101113_AAEOBY waters_r_Page_170.QC.jpg
708e09c5008fbf20e04e67ac835e8b1c
a5dbd05a8ade34b894233f47eadcf8ee8e4ee20c
25661 F20101113_AAENXI waters_r_Page_099.QC.jpg
663ea0a177393dfa5294f03fdb6105b1
170059e4b8961bd053c136a7fdca2d77c4c4ed8d
3454 F20101113_AAELQL waters_r_Page_172thm.jpg
711def5f04918b63afe35434c17f962b
af16294924182510575812eeb71f34147d137a5b
76057 F20101113_AAEMNE waters_r_Page_057.jpg
53e057fc0f8c7d1d6840826dea964eaf
9c57b4904427455b7ce2e4f698e7a99c2bf53a47
6423 F20101113_AAEOBZ waters_r_Page_047thm.jpg
917952c46e4377f2c83e838f9f64186b
d4d557dd2d66aee2a04dce184aad81fadf3b717d
21179 F20101113_AAENXJ waters_r_Page_258.QC.jpg
819e068bf5d2af6733878f0346ada9b9
6e17a160cb110a9e4ab2f4e32627677f3fe8605d
2843 F20101113_AAELQM waters_r_Page_265.txt
aa6264029de451ed17635d4156001765
1b5de230ca02746e2c2489c97eae84d78485fea8
74378 F20101113_AAEMNF waters_r_Page_059.jpg
8ae485d3466be6e139003febcbc6aef8
942fbfae8121f16f41c79d31c68165dc76357db1
F20101113_AAENXK waters_r_Page_236thm.jpg
562ed14a12d7cc08ad1cc95bfa7ea2d9
66b2fab9b6fd28750fa702c3cfd933d9fafa2e1d
52273 F20101113_AAELQN waters_r_Page_113.pro
c17631b09838c3b85e2a1c26f2218a50
8fac561916ee4601b0e8b1f86a1181289eef61ed
80054 F20101113_AAEMNG waters_r_Page_060.jpg
9ed2fb70554d10fa54f0737288b76d96
038d7579a170301ef7ace23c9022c0ff831ce276
25960 F20101113_AAENXL waters_r_Page_239.QC.jpg
2c0a3748bb4716beb49d02a199070d82
4ad95bb031e583a03d55feeb127a334902d8f401
113949 F20101113_AAELQO waters_r_Page_048.jp2
be8283f2219d2e32f092db8b3bfa6821
31ae2facaf3c52e84a21bab6e20aa6337fee7ead
73977 F20101113_AAEMNH waters_r_Page_062.jpg
7e66c2f9997092796147e357a9e3066a
a62321bccbbfcf22367c358c2cd7e20ae1c954ea
46839 F20101113_AAENKA waters_r_Page_145.pro
4cd9a9c04ea461108bebba6bb2d3a513
d1b433cd0e8856af5b9c63c96578728a830dd92d
6112 F20101113_AAENXM waters_r_Page_257thm.jpg
0c81671087503e8ba97723c55cb68497
66b50c430e50c38da42c681b0342f4b2e8e38d90
66872 F20101113_AAEMNI waters_r_Page_064.jpg
7078013198dae1a1c18b91448e76ee2d
3d1627081e907587fff0e090a686dd3ffe2d6fc6
52686 F20101113_AAENKB waters_r_Page_147.pro
18c2d8468d78d9a8884c1339602574b8
101b2896eacae20b0f0ea5e0b019bbd30c603aa6
22698 F20101113_AAENXN waters_r_Page_014.QC.jpg
e1b48e7ffced5e850acdc3979d2d0311
b71b52d2d4193f35379e51fd957ce02141152282
F20101113_AAELQP waters_r_Page_270.tif
4750256cef73349297bdd8a415804564
f8d85a1c14958b45d9a6b0ff99b7fbc857c218a9
74388 F20101113_AAEMNJ waters_r_Page_065.jpg
751dd94c45cf7b3d198e09b81fd14faf
f706a6aa20e85930bdb2daf49976f86fa28af6bc
51314 F20101113_AAENKC waters_r_Page_149.pro
bb0e80a9b1d89c1bcd7d940d964173a7
45e22fe5a367080eaff5795069d0ff18d88f4a0d
7051 F20101113_AAENXO waters_r_Page_069thm.jpg
d8651d874b0e3b15daa31dcb2b41507a
fe3f072f797965b305c45bc79781b9b7a4df2436
76256 F20101113_AAELQQ waters_r_Page_227.jpg
7dfa32c1117c79fbd0ae0f9a4e699d0a
957edd36d7de5134f3bd7037c1d6bb616337a2cc
70434 F20101113_AAEMNK waters_r_Page_066.jpg
baf1a5ea9b5ccde2eeac7b4e851417cd
dc54553f4baaf4a8ac961eca18558a1b1770797e
56754 F20101113_AAENKD waters_r_Page_150.pro
fed4038e046e6b804521bee1f21cd551
f54e9f5adec6a93a464722a1c065d2eef28c67fe
24637 F20101113_AAENXP waters_r_Page_126.QC.jpg
ddfd13dcd46c4a27b4802c0912d7b5a5
b492cc7e5a2105ca4ea0da63b7d4db14c371d2ef
26069 F20101113_AAELQR waters_r_Page_010.QC.jpg
c581afa855fd9a4d3801eaf488033bbf
f3ec19fed2870ef7a37974f06fff26cdbc17161d
50494 F20101113_AAENKE waters_r_Page_151.pro
c88af5ef9e485b95a1bb257eb4809049
5bbd69b4d904a9d8ae88b64812a52847a19defbf
F20101113_AAENXQ waters_r_Page_264.QC.jpg
8fb4c4c31bcc1334ff4936520ccfeeff
2c316dd95e91b9f50034e5bf1e6383cba678ae63
76067 F20101113_AAELQS waters_r_Page_098.jpg
332db8cb8a41cb7871079897bdec0b8f
74c07326aa121902034af702aa80053a251c0cd0
75129 F20101113_AAEMNL waters_r_Page_069.jpg
f19d3102ae5132204e9bcb6819d28f9d
d1139eda2e0c5d68f28f9f25b99ba0183807ad71
54381 F20101113_AAENKF waters_r_Page_152.pro
23a82b589bfa89af0b0d21320b9fe2b7
bfc13d2d882112856f7ffe065b7dad8a0f29672f
88442 F20101113_AAEMAA waters_r_Page_169.jpg
65c0bdae95eac5d8872a18566ad44f59
612b2ed27d76c59de8426700b2d9e30456fd3b7d
6578 F20101113_AAENXR waters_r_Page_025thm.jpg
61086911179f381da029ae04f15cfb8c
e8ac363d91326fb12455e57bb2027e475d5deb49
24961 F20101113_AAELQT waters_r_Page_200.pro
933a4a215891291cfea6e8ef4177354e
eb0fe4053ed1d5dcc6f4eb5d92f9bc9d14246017
73649 F20101113_AAEMNM waters_r_Page_070.jpg
de54bb7a19fe2c27525c865185aeb8f5
c4329b50f027daf34f71acf1d54951cdc5861830
55030 F20101113_AAENKG waters_r_Page_153.pro
904c739eb6ddee8227609192c5c1ad62
363d360f9b358a4946bed48fe50f2f904303d625
2132 F20101113_AAEMAB waters_r_Page_014.txt
492fced48ede13dd4a12be5efe6c2cb7
73e1fb5c39e2b173397828dc7dd1f64f86533c90
6823 F20101113_AAEOHA waters_r_Page_122thm.jpg
c57af5a19698e63e17d3dcc4616cd632
59fcb085d277700e3592f7ca6c417851ddbb96f7
6769 F20101113_AAENXS waters_r_Page_041thm.jpg
d0ad7ba305c81a89c043318e49a70ef3
08d9367c779f28180dcfb0e0f27bc405e04976bb
56848 F20101113_AAELQU waters_r_Page_067.pro
eaaf0f311e8333b8307cead007556bda
a8fa329801878e6cca1a077c8c88f14dcb46a58b
72341 F20101113_AAEMNN waters_r_Page_071.jpg
580a829aa22f8ceb80d9c6ff9e26c570
a119db38a16010cfbf5d67b27f72815c81c19386
54850 F20101113_AAEMAC waters_r_Page_103.pro
3b3d7e3ad44cb5c19f3ba22f89bcd05a
4049b2891f4959e3ea58c600fcb8b6e2d20da689
6829 F20101113_AAEOHB waters_r_Page_157thm.jpg
bbd58ff43dd417ca44606842a9ec25d7
108718aa762179c45c0d1cc0e2aa094cb2b8966c
24409 F20101113_AAENXT waters_r_Page_206.QC.jpg
8a6c059e2fc771e601688208ac44a52f
1a23c9477f0a40c089c61a9ca4b9f5e8c9ef1b08
50943 F20101113_AAELQV waters_r_Page_168.jp2
4f54506fdacf8973faf4c55270f8ed30
babb469b3998953b772a110b1be94c419b04a0e7
82958 F20101113_AAEMNO waters_r_Page_073.jpg
6191acbcbbc122d8cf9abe2f41c74d95
28781193788b03e18b65b2422c4ce6380c4edcd2
55879 F20101113_AAENKH waters_r_Page_155.pro
86147d892be474f4a6c8408a47f82f2d
257a8d132b47fce55249365c573197db8de6d8a4
113229 F20101113_AAEMAD waters_r_Page_106.jp2
046e863853a05e34d87a12f2db5e8fc6
7f21ded0bdffe6248731b0c85556a26b1fa79504
10414 F20101113_AAEOHC waters_r_Page_160.QC.jpg
676dce8d856c3b3d11903aaadd4f7537
3038942b32f2355819e240ff9acbfc97eaeeab31
74319 F20101113_AAELQW waters_r_Page_046.jpg
5d80795cb368abe35b735046e006a9e8
543653f0214fb94ed387679c380872d2d7639360
71177 F20101113_AAEMNP waters_r_Page_075.jpg
656e1644ed2acc9a8a1e8e5a171740fc
e2bd680a01401a276232989277460170c5677585
51190 F20101113_AAENKI waters_r_Page_156.pro
50424b5ed629d758f61a1323a942315d
7d5bf963b806c716af6e506b58de8d7a076acdbc
F20101113_AAEMAE waters_r_Page_078.tif
eef54eff0a34faa1a412a965befef45d
f881cc67d178f4e1c7bce08895c0f511d0db6926
29370 F20101113_AAENXU waters_r_Page_272.QC.jpg
0230b4418d5d6948a6ae2a52f9b2942a
e0c86872222792036f8fd050ab6a09c200e2860a
6921 F20101113_AAELQX waters_r_Page_153thm.jpg
8d58cc4e0c14226f1109e9785df9dbf2
117180be907cbd8dbbb81c9301897c85d4738cae
72824 F20101113_AAEMNQ waters_r_Page_076.jpg
131e9ae66ab3b1fbaaf04033b24455fb
12e04f574bf19f37b9fe7f6dac9d71ac12be2ea0
57302 F20101113_AAENKJ waters_r_Page_157.pro
af215434b11b51ed9ddae71dc5b0861b
907068231f50b8afe3d2606f692eb3addff3a0a1
2102 F20101113_AAEMAF waters_r_Page_230.txt
b0f5645899749a080e229c03e06b781d
99d80bda82382462ca76c57c9c9b3d707698622e
6179 F20101113_AAEOHD waters_r_Page_176thm.jpg
d49882bcb16ebc3eb25083a443e42832
b7e3b92900bbfff88aa500f62bcbd0e3e4a18ffb
25699 F20101113_AAENXV waters_r_Page_094.QC.jpg
ddde6069c4c62eaec6ac6be7a5ba3822
6acf656e390d4d0e72f99b9c3c0677db41202c82
60960 F20101113_AAELQY waters_r_Page_167.pro
676211d015e4d7e4123a178e189c96c3
4bb9037b45bf53107a61f663e38df47de7859449
74442 F20101113_AAEMNR waters_r_Page_077.jpg
6373da81527eef85b9081151d83d3d0e
7294ca795f9c2ab37ac45b4479f8a92594d0d487
28179 F20101113_AAENKK waters_r_Page_159.pro
a28ea5d37fb7f931af22abba8f98311c
4c794c6cd0e348ef52cc65703b23739f92072279
77691 F20101113_AAEMAG waters_r_Page_144.jpg
7a59b7c8d12d11a50e03a4fadb9739d2
96899f28778740d2971516cbdc925a3cdfc15d31
F20101113_AAEOHE waters_r_Page_177thm.jpg
c85e339502789d50acd8905cd3bdd380
ea7f3fc1a5b0f00735390f7f6a4fab02596b4b8b
6546 F20101113_AAENXW waters_r_Page_026thm.jpg
29b11cdf450b888838e79ce33bc6d8a0
06ee50f05e4032331edba66904d909b085358cfa
75803 F20101113_AAELQZ waters_r_Page_219.jpg
1f691bc0e3b04f3eca0cd19d8bc4d378
7e92fbf51ee1718895d48d3290d6621c128887c3
66628 F20101113_AAEMNS waters_r_Page_078.jpg
ddee658b7a42f1fc3cc2a896fb81df14
33b541d8b07bf4553e0ecad4a9443bdb9a24edf3
18068 F20101113_AAENKL waters_r_Page_160.pro
b5e7de3d4d9b90253f39b50833a92d6f
c2017f96fa980f71ffa683b4e510248ab7cd0528
3657 F20101113_AAEMAH waters_r_Page_197thm.jpg
8983f9e6bffd1202d60ef8fc65642c5a
92fbd7ef07dfe71e766eba3f45eddf59b1b9996e
13766 F20101113_AAEOHF waters_r_Page_184.QC.jpg
40c06905d2a348f2e0c3d3085839a864
7449299bcbefb4aeae2fec1ace5653ff4278f0f4
6803 F20101113_AAENXX waters_r_Page_152thm.jpg
41e893ba161aff6c5053dcdc76174601
5e2c91d5042c9a450372a39f754f5444cb1b6f9b
75750 F20101113_AAEMNT waters_r_Page_080.jpg
7372056ab7e068c184b748a3c7a0e2c4
4f9903820362ced86e0c18cc43616acf50f1ebf0
38900 F20101113_AAENKM waters_r_Page_161.pro
8731041c81b76e761d5914879ec04f2f
82bcbbf266685d10852901c39858b0056e0da132
76475 F20101113_AAEMAI waters_r_Page_154.jpg
e2ab5136a5377c5ce857263345ea8d1e
060f7c8e3078a0b7d0709f0126c19d56292c880c
12459 F20101113_AAEOHG waters_r_Page_196.QC.jpg
0299566e3c2d4564ec0467271a27a5b6
85b89bcbc415346412333e86431bb63515bcd778
7781 F20101113_AAENXY waters_r_Page_272thm.jpg
fd4044cff291531a71c17d2c72b7c435
a05aee08275fce9a4358bdf879c918fd6dc04ee1
74639 F20101113_AAEMNU waters_r_Page_081.jpg
d1014592171ffdc6a3f3f77ba409b318
58070561716ea308eb9cd92dc8cbe853f7754e06
31016 F20101113_AAENKN waters_r_Page_162.pro
f4e42d4490d07ceca0c9ea20ad2522e9
65cc07610a3fbf7ab8ea1fe37b4721be50d1da66
2114 F20101113_AAEMAJ waters_r_Page_041.txt
fe161191d4f8c4a768ee3f7c1c735bed
caa55abd6c4c3861f069402a2b7301693c45b573
6668 F20101113_AAEOHH waters_r_Page_203thm.jpg
9d20cd1e19bbb8077b3529a73fdb1c6b
04dff2d5976452b526073a4ed88c9d5afe04be1a
6775 F20101113_AAENXZ waters_r_Page_021thm.jpg
c7aa3f7b524ed4698150e959251b1258
351327ffcb7a6cd4ed6801398e7f44040010bacd
73636 F20101113_AAEMNV waters_r_Page_082.jpg
4b3b543b6a3beb6c096ea61b658dfa18
6ed409ae3c146bb39b7f1820c82be518c92e5888
39117 F20101113_AAENKO waters_r_Page_163.pro
64d755d01bb33e1f27d3fb4d67c48aa3
007dc32129117e0e3857353b9757c8e9bc44e37e
F20101113_AAEMAK waters_r_Page_140.tif
120c95d8e3a6521f3161614044ba70d8
14089ffe39362223f208940b4d08a5d2ffa7ae11
24484 F20101113_AAEOHI waters_r_Page_211.QC.jpg
9e042a280eda687f01e85dc51f33118f
69326d06d9ac2800b77c8356e31caf35b7ca7b01
74387 F20101113_AAEMNW waters_r_Page_083.jpg
e10b0a55ae96256c2d19e5c857a5444d
ac448b848985def9d887c099d68b3c1f197d4a74
15824 F20101113_AAENKP waters_r_Page_164.pro
977e3ac906e7c14fcf0ab8ebd4cc44de
e283f90feb70511574538b1bd066a2bf107dbd28
1414 F20101113_AAEMAL waters_r_Page_003thm.jpg
2504db0153e9b46132e9a464b1bd1b81
00a5a098fe0b251d8dd0753d423705e83712f955
6721 F20101113_AAEOHJ waters_r_Page_213thm.jpg
f139cc6858136ddd915e859fd4bc8667
566066212c64b17b10905a3e7a6192461f6c5b5a
59426 F20101113_AAEMNX waters_r_Page_084.jpg
b18615fe4b91bd423341cc28ff430a1f
4f3bea830305e3dd042d0969c45899ca82d1fad8
38837 F20101113_AAENKQ waters_r_Page_166.pro
916cd43ff4d2139f991c6d28621ce926
392e51cee314f941eebabd7e60dd131308f202e1
6958 F20101113_AAEMAM waters_r_Page_017thm.jpg
98899ecfce9afed98690404c3057bed8
887b662fedc0f01bc46029231cc68e74b71568d5
6943 F20101113_AAEOHK waters_r_Page_216thm.jpg
8bedc2cfb84b60cc4f5053793323538f
8937203ab32fc414144758efcc5fd5c02539eb55
62292 F20101113_AAEMNY waters_r_Page_086.jpg
904ddc82fb0fa48fd06a1dd278d9e92d
5f81a4e7c76734c6a07dd399cbf7c4be228fa50f
63219 F20101113_AAENKR waters_r_Page_169.pro
7e2330710c6e30d0615326048efe3f05
8a00e45e1ad62ef3ea4a52a541eefc1a3a7523c6
76615 F20101113_AAEMAN waters_r_Page_041.jpg
9bb059dcb651db4e02b413ce2d5c61af
9d1bca9691028cf20eba6aa890f8d9c6049ae0d0
6887 F20101113_AAEOHL waters_r_Page_229thm.jpg
44dbcbe96160ece8e3a8e7457c5b390d
781c5ccbb3add4b44380fd01b133f80f33c74b56
86306 F20101113_AAEMNZ waters_r_Page_088.jpg
d209e2f4e260e8a3dc6facd80db34c5b
891ff8520dad1e4bccc0d27e5109e9f82c3d400f
29910 F20101113_AAENKS waters_r_Page_170.pro
9613d61adaedc8ce2b4adb73a3ef69ba
b65c0875cff9c224d40aa75cc6b1d8b2786bef51
6833 F20101113_AAEMAO waters_r_Page_015thm.jpg
bf5b0b778a4b96bd2457e2cabf72a0e7
e4757bd98580ab0d74eb38cb70b8dc5f790a1179
7197 F20101113_AAEOHM waters_r_Page_234thm.jpg
85d0d8b794e3d97b7662b8070c1cc4a7
09f9491472d12720475ac62404bad73abc7b8966
15834 F20101113_AAENKT waters_r_Page_171.pro
c4e81bce554f7c304d154830e83565c1
4cc0e82081d577f3f461a7b2044a2884657bd219
6865 F20101113_AAEMAP waters_r_Page_092thm.jpg
e4aff8cfc7ea64b459b7025636ae2939
e86c0e326d0abfae98965c34ecd215a8eba0c48d
6750 F20101113_AAEOHN waters_r_Page_241thm.jpg
e161a78d26c303973c5a0f88967d640d
45e5f10b51e421d61220d6593e55a1e68bc673f8
13277 F20101113_AAENKU waters_r_Page_173.pro
f36a9c1bc1be482c0c1ed53f794931d1
a5c6d796bba55399221176b8fe1ce00a6b756dec
74131 F20101113_AAELWA waters_r_Page_207.jpg
54602d6c7e85075148b5c69f2cefaa06
fad94e864e043d9164246a98e721dbea4f96735f
3996 F20101113_AAEMAQ waters_r_Page_185thm.jpg
15f8255f3564945beb36e36acc7c323b
722dac4800b9c4bf3a0f8c4ba09d42d8e5eb40ca
7031 F20101113_AAEOHO waters_r_Page_242thm.jpg
f4e09f71ce13a407d8efbb8b5c2392ff
3184d094206b15a638e7b20dcb58c54827d465c2
4355 F20101113_AAENKV waters_r_Page_175.pro
2680dcf803b5ef93dcbf2c73f6130d98
78c6c962a55f2f2a107695784381027a68ed9982
8658 F20101113_AAELWB waters_r_Page_237.pro
fd08b9e96936a29e2fe0225e02b55ab0
50180277594083c394d1fbaec356cb2ccb8a23b0
52452 F20101113_AAEMAR waters_r_Page_111.pro
abcb036fcbd3b34ba21d44c2a1266972
026fbc39c098275f666f22c49f9f568f8859772d
6402 F20101113_AAEOHP waters_r_Page_244thm.jpg
b959d57834297c90a207336d62e1e016
c91c38578ae2ec1e7e7d0837b341fea0769b0c6a
57813 F20101113_AAENKW waters_r_Page_176.pro
c3fba3289de3d9be34651739edf2f8d7
8a11ab54b8d03de5fe0c57c4d9c093811b61fdf4
131627 F20101113_AAELWC waters_r_Page_277.jp2
4622a245f95f9a6dea133b4110f05944
5db5aa34e712fab430f8bd0f2b79ca8d8c2c6a3e
5028 F20101113_AAEMAS waters_r_Page_182thm.jpg
396f7ada0335f5fc1f8996a449b5e6d3
c930fdeb9750e36ba0baaf45de0d132bfe8fca1d
24635 F20101113_AAEOHQ waters_r_Page_245.QC.jpg
3125fa75acf0899171258362867a9214
a4e73bf449b08e71d92155903a9bb19fd109577c
7523 F20101113_AAENKX waters_r_Page_178.pro
ac6c7dfdc73a39de399015ca447b8214
cc3bf63d38f96fa8356ef25af5300e59d947d118
54642 F20101113_AAELWD waters_r_Page_210.pro
8d62e2a10b5ec8fb88d6ac4d9e306861
0aaa1515d359f1bd8fa4bede480e1380b00c7ec3
143868 F20101113_AAEMAT waters_r_Page_273.jp2
e3303b6e3c7c4c938f5b760514130027
7ef77cae0ce5437a6ab31388d92942572185b807
F20101113_AAEOHR waters_r_Page_245thm.jpg
9dbbf2de5420fba8ef1eac356d70f1cb
7c9cee60c99b36826b681bdfccfadb9b22bcb35e
63019 F20101113_AAENKY waters_r_Page_179.pro
b2d72bfe93185df876c46db70beb42ad
d6a436ad91790888e9346c70d212b928806b280c
114906 F20101113_AAELWE waters_r_Page_155.jp2
a8d88de4573fdf05fc093abcca58b523
be0a89f7052f7c05768dded30dea8dcd2a5d2ad7
51808 F20101113_AAEMAU waters_r_Page_211.pro
390d031a4bf95d1c43b5e134f67cbb44
274a634eaf8a2baf59513ce9df7b505b862a770a
7146 F20101113_AAEOHS waters_r_Page_246thm.jpg
a4dd8c1b5f87a01760b572d125a594c6
fe6365563a140f60672ac9a382a07d92173abcce
36183 F20101113_AAENKZ waters_r_Page_180.pro
769989609d1bc27a1844023c6a889ae4
dca89c6dd5993b841d86ea865c733243e6806658
F20101113_AAELWF waters_r_Page_138.tif
062a32d2f1ee3f5a7c2433569834e278
ea4bdf17214d36f08911bdd10fba4362ac5d6d3e
6626 F20101113_AAEMAV waters_r_Page_228thm.jpg
5d8121a5551f34b01ce0f60c68518d61
2deafecf2b3398507d039cdf2718e94b7ccfeb6f
6778 F20101113_AAEOHT waters_r_Page_248thm.jpg
d95d8a36fffeafce3168a85bdf431b49
5a8c736a028294a9ad0176b149bd37f4f303fd6f
53639 F20101113_AAELWG waters_r_Page_171.jpg
542c5a5219fc9f4229e6019e992c8a06
8dbe46715f57f172770b5adfcf88c6d9e58855c4
2218 F20101113_AAEMAW waters_r_Page_110.txt
34763c368ccb509b77a0a130c0c28e76
95a077dbada96d88cb4895ce24470558398d47db
21723 F20101113_AAEOHU waters_r_Page_254.QC.jpg
a2f7b1c2efadfabcfb1b6da96516b5ae
b4403fb3c7721ad32388b22b34e8c83da0d129b3
103931 F20101113_AAEMTA waters_r_Page_005.jp2
6141aad6f0149a212faa1fbc8c4f6023
46de220b6e3445bd156d3105763fd20c046953b8
70996 F20101113_AAELWH waters_r_Page_223.jpg
8e033d1ced077c324671cff0855801fd
106507fbe48f646cc78359ac5b15d5eb97589409
73659 F20101113_AAEMAX waters_r_Page_105.jpg
4235cea772fe5cb3566c1cbd8d0b5a6d
a97d302bef197b5e3e0bc7980c79e94c5ee665ac
6391 F20101113_AAEOHV waters_r_Page_261thm.jpg
9e94078b0162b1c8ec6db2b3bec40cc3
d35a0c4dfce2aa9f2f891826316a832021d9021b
22664 F20101113_AAEMTB waters_r_Page_006.jp2
4bd334ed2800f76adc51b7f31e5f54af
f765a22b17cffc40a87d909565ba67f44344fa18
F20101113_AAELWI waters_r_Page_216.tif
23e1815cfc15ee1faafce8128c216d46
7b22bdeb4feb4b41eb83c40644e8af0b23e5f95e
6552 F20101113_AAEMAY waters_r_Page_129thm.jpg
31196dbc58c6d0f2a828838e902b80b5
b4a51ddc4535d9e921f276642fd512f0f0108dd2
27219 F20101113_AAEOHW waters_r_Page_271.QC.jpg
92094b904ec40f70186dbe0e3c44e78b
e8c712b4a075e4477c919b44b56021b07dece4a4
1051983 F20101113_AAEMTC waters_r_Page_008.jp2
bd5be4e9824de933327d0a90cb60e98e
3d885cb31962f52edffa1c62c66312ba4a006d52
97810 F20101113_AAELWJ waters_r_Page_030.jp2
6bcb0752e6535a56fbe6aa8453545735
2ee0f08ad5ac736a6cbb946442fc191f26ace5f1
2532 F20101113_AAEMAZ waters_r_Page_013.txt
ffb3978752da77710a9ed3c96c7e65b9
83610d123a89dbbc8538dae9247da3d1bb633e10
7067 F20101113_AAEOHX waters_r_Page_273thm.jpg
8b97d086de5a193931bc65074f6df666
d4d4ebb2a810bc2155e07ac7ce5688bac01b491b
1051977 F20101113_AAEMTD waters_r_Page_010.jp2
ee5d48e4f475464d3b1165f44b6f8a9f
2caf425e33b653cadb2dc692ecff84648afc3122
F20101113_AAELWK waters_r_Page_035.tif
362eb24286c5c0e9f7796285bebd9b08
c2b72b55c8a838536cb4101358740611a8b8f5b3
7084 F20101113_AAEOHY waters_r_Page_274thm.jpg
e85748e7d9d7ecd4146e2cc05f877196
35e111ea9cb69b5abd8b752f226838d8c3605949
1051979 F20101113_AAEMTE waters_r_Page_011.jp2
d225042a47e88d485eda8b476ef5508b
4be7ce626f59c2aa962dbc056736f36b4fcb705e
F20101113_AAELWL waters_r_Page_148.tif
807b8fa6df895411457061dfe766589e
f019970933df972afbe8ef839e0c8b16d93ca4b7
22088 F20101113_AAEOHZ waters_r_Page_279.QC.jpg
9efa9ed7e013ae910e5d6e5eaf642daf
f7b831ea050143116bf7b903700bcd716c7b8ccb
1051926 F20101113_AAEMTF waters_r_Page_013.jp2
c45b1feefbcf96b7d64c5f770c19dec4
b68641bc7b0f4f050fd91e419b710551bffc8623
1425 F20101113_AAELWM waters_r_Page_162.txt
9aa28fae24d5edd4e4442d1f440583db
7073badbd602f0a01d0b3c39551f29e7ce6de42f
118422 F20101113_AAEMTG waters_r_Page_015.jp2
9130abe8c893342a3f731a7feb555e8c
3a200a820e411f1934934fe6e8fcbdf1e2e95f92
F20101113_AAELWN waters_r_Page_136.pro
38d4df28c233c798a90d7cc25911a905
a0f6fe9950e6a1523faafd1b5631200e26cb36bb
109733 F20101113_AAEMTH waters_r_Page_016.jp2
d517af078739bb7080462aab9b6016e4
8da5968005f78733651b77ac064ac844620b505b
2478 F20101113_AAENQA waters_r_Page_117.txt
3944a5b63add447f794f860e1c558249
f1984e7d470e39736472061dc7cf4cdb4c16eca4
112162 F20101113_AAELWO waters_r_Page_059.jp2
ed5f1b5f03bf3ce58decf5da1551f627
f14da6be6b71c036fcf2d49119e0979ea39a5e32
119567 F20101113_AAEMTI waters_r_Page_018.jp2
25a1ead633752f65de411f9350d54272
d66dbd7cb266f38680504be6089bd08d825207cb
1526 F20101113_AAENQB waters_r_Page_118.txt
ef26ce17e8df43a6e7595a9559b37d31
feed917341190e731a216b1a2429ceda01c1d6eb
F20101113_AAELWP waters_r_Page_049.tif
1e6d46e8e83019c3c6c9e37364095f9a
3a070844279e73faa5ef1e546704efadb0167926
119039 F20101113_AAEMTJ waters_r_Page_019.jp2
cd2b210ecc581fdae07b97ef985e5182
83660f021d1004c1a6a51cf6e042ac5159901d64
472 F20101113_AAENQC waters_r_Page_119.txt
55fe04a5f0f14441090853429facbb7e
01e1cc4aa3bd31beda487d8e23beee237487b7bd
75714 F20101113_AAELWQ waters_r_Page_241.jpg
13ed16b8984c63bd5f4c084f1911a86d
de0c81b17fd89797aff25aa4817c2f662c480a3f
116315 F20101113_AAEMTK waters_r_Page_021.jp2
98bd3f5dc80d4a050def9046fcdefecb
853c5f02d1db38a561880f447773c9f934ec2559
F20101113_AAENQD waters_r_Page_120.txt
fa77b665794c8665be01810b7a8985d2
75d0620b23f0c4a5e2080b651a03803ffec439c8
7360 F20101113_AAELWR waters_r_Page_266thm.jpg
1da429216d4eafa3fed80228009cd042
fa5732f2b9128a7ebdabb34948a01016f1fbe127
115765 F20101113_AAEMTL waters_r_Page_022.jp2
68cc56b258adaa93c046e359777eebfd
528c14c1941ab96da4ba135aaa00607615abceb6
2226 F20101113_AAENQE waters_r_Page_121.txt
cc48923ca540cfe41d02423956bf45a9
14375a305c35543bcbe8b156d7fdedf6da30079f
F20101113_AAEMGA waters_r_Page_169.tif
8f9fbf7529d35df4e17aec3e5dd79396
4d4b31755da7f3400254fcc764af44a62cb82d27
2059 F20101113_AAELWS waters_r_Page_059.txt
9f33589b5b9eec735e46c89b9baca365
2705c7652b134539662d013291bd0c6742eca453
118001 F20101113_AAEMTM waters_r_Page_024.jp2
4ab9f3432b45eec7cf95aea5a1c38024
17bc3c93d7a12dfcdc81aec8ca444fa2301c1417
2166 F20101113_AAENQF waters_r_Page_123.txt
51cc5eec82012bc8d85c92be49fe5b09
1752e4733c0adf9901c15f7e977475fb041f552a
2022 F20101113_AAEMGB waters_r_Page_258.txt
c28c3165781d75c6c8fc653d32523dcc
b9834470cd20fae9305577a1de4e13e635194755
114989 F20101113_AAELWT waters_r_Page_017.jp2
17a114c3c0c043ab60fdde365da76236
3cb871afd8b3e5cf8813976a7234c1e30bb6f127
111601 F20101113_AAEMTN waters_r_Page_025.jp2
447853b190be586373438e3b12a6f108
ceb110776a4a5d52efc260fe94b96cd3fb1554a1
2011 F20101113_AAENQG waters_r_Page_125.txt
d19f8dcb46d384be7c09e3bfd29a3495
a4ea052d2bfb75aee6fe9ae47a32f00fb5bc8c19
F20101113_AAEMGC waters_r_Page_229.pro
e2a1979c0fa47bd6762f8bf6f8a375c4
568f6a6bb97911245c7e2b6b3a37fd53a23962a6
80990 F20101113_AAELWU waters_r_Page_067.jpg
13d06902cacc10c1f6b789dedc0d3236
66923a01ce47fe23feb5045e582ad72acd11261d
114849 F20101113_AAEMTO waters_r_Page_027.jp2
f454a77111e78d041f19a528db7c9f94
d1695b30f73c611c526a558b5006f46c9b115db4
2069 F20101113_AAENQH waters_r_Page_126.txt
a54708401b5d8a87969290a655286638
af902758ad4eb3a9873f95f4ca5f51b806e7db94
89478 F20101113_AAEMGD waters_r_Page_068.jpg
84b40f833973ea6d4513afaabba915e8
82f047dfe21b50f0b5fafd49af9a70b0507aa88d
112340 F20101113_AAEMTP waters_r_Page_028.jp2
f186a80f7979d0c951f965e5ee792b5e
b7ca8f55aec358a73342047f794cee365d70a3f6
2041 F20101113_AAENQI waters_r_Page_127.txt
a2d659c8a6c88e375dd497745d859f1e
1ed128b709078f6f909617dad8caa05d7bbf3481
6443 F20101113_AAELWV waters_r_Page_040thm.jpg
a4a35321e534fb2a56e422834b1f0e44
428da6b902234ffd439f6339785698d9e19a8017
114833 F20101113_AAEMTQ waters_r_Page_029.jp2
9eda77eb345e76f08994c2cfc412ba02
3703a88c44460268790ca302daa9ec7e69bf769c
2254 F20101113_AAENQJ waters_r_Page_128.txt
ef16818f8d491251f1d659771a608e49
a828d67fb361cf50bb31848c1d1d2377f3ba47d0
112356 F20101113_AAEMGE waters_r_Page_043.jp2
6197e3e861eae1cd6a1dc096e36d8097
48d694f651a40238c564bc9c8b6c242ae57ad836
F20101113_AAELWW waters_r_Page_034.tif
32dd1a4b0abad62a633e352bf0c0e362
255cacbee585744f214e22efad309926e8eb09a6
F20101113_AAENQK waters_r_Page_132.txt
e1cc3af92a7e1daf6cce7161e9c6c7a4
c1330c7528e593d042e0fa2dd0a1460aabae36a4
1893 F20101113_AAEMGF waters_r_Page_005.txt
394bb611a542f0280a31f5c75acb4e76
ff87469d7cb290445729ae5f175d5a2339717a54
56587 F20101113_AAELWX waters_r_Page_085.jp2
6226e4e8d6b63de1e852b0da796d12d2
1850be151f14fba61011ff05081a753ed1b32f61
110017 F20101113_AAEMTR waters_r_Page_036.jp2
2319ebc618ec6baa09b960b2b9831417
355aba941adb0c1cfa50ab3bd6533a7d203895cd
2076 F20101113_AAENQL waters_r_Page_133.txt
ceb4cd0a0c6a645322dc50997ffa094c
1cb4c35bbada25546edc2978943bf9962daf968f
74000 F20101113_AAEMGG waters_r_Page_079.jpg
ab653240dab005bf13eca7674447dddc
27c75e40ce659f4190e7f4e91c81bbe2a4717290
118136 F20101113_AAELWY waters_r_Page_101.jp2
99aed8291b094c3017135434f1eeaa83
e3388f5ad0926dbcea77b2f4a53f1151ff106e28
119811 F20101113_AAEMTS waters_r_Page_038.jp2
29579ad934bba121c11729166d61d21c
cee9aa396564223f048093b9bfebbe8523eb3e18
2143 F20101113_AAENQM waters_r_Page_134.txt
49cf41d2660b967201dd47da3eb2785d
4238fc8ee1d8fa0a1ea9d9e68b2d52178fa2cae6
1678 F20101113_AAEMGH waters_r_Page_174.txt
d925c5741c31a50bad5a2e86a05a6759
4098e63b57aa6870ed626546b31f74e2a35643a2
23727 F20101113_AAELWZ waters_r_Page_062.QC.jpg
fede2d640a5600e3b5b9f5bcbfaa3fe0
56546ad0e95f252940fc1a30617b5545ef05aaa5
F20101113_AAENDA waters_r_Page_125.tif
29d2f5240ee2bd7a20d8bcec5a973967
926591345bba375410c64315cfaf318b3aa84467
112939 F20101113_AAEMTT waters_r_Page_039.jp2
1091c16b2f69e75f882e3e2316539b2a
0c0c49711ec572c3fd5470f8bef6891badf754c5
24306 F20101113_AAEMGI waters_r_Page_207.QC.jpg
59a5c1ed9a867c36ffbe89f510f40116
1c37aa7bb0819a93a9db5a4ced8abbca891221a3
F20101113_AAENDB waters_r_Page_127.tif
6e60a221be811f1caa3b84ae14856ae3
01537aa716927922d21901c2c651237eb4f3c163
112240 F20101113_AAEMTU waters_r_Page_040.jp2
e399acd24047d5dc439475902921a628
65ad2abd8afb2142bbecff8472fb7f4bb888d675
2105 F20101113_AAENQN waters_r_Page_135.txt
f0a9290bd4d0ff651dde5cacab1762fe
7399d54a56db3402473a5d9fb7ae7d83a1ffdf9b
75477 F20101113_AAEMGJ waters_r_Page_033.jpg
fd0a534c8938070be26773078e585052
27ae06db4a2625bd8589e94ddfefd90cf420ac6f
F20101113_AAENDC waters_r_Page_128.tif
17dd76246b8e887461227e9d20f96a13
634c309bf9a3d5244f8b9b2451c8315c4351277b
115718 F20101113_AAEMTV waters_r_Page_042.jp2
6031f31e7c514438bf061a8839caec34
746c269ba49915c943eec19043314540314d9245
2127 F20101113_AAENQO waters_r_Page_136.txt
94663c7bab603cbb60ae4fb95ad7b350
7f8e89880eba6578ad6aac6b0e47f588387e09a2
52097 F20101113_AAEMGK waters_r_Page_092.pro
52e891e375049d988401db9bab5672d7
a1a1b412970956d88aff320542857694965c054d
F20101113_AAENDD waters_r_Page_134.tif
6325930d640dd12d19136456e64be24f
4ca6d70df6190bf8142555a3f923ad65353e9ab8
112519 F20101113_AAEMTW waters_r_Page_044.jp2
e30b566a0d20b29e509c3f59810eb346
0db00b02755e4da8487e9fc9c17980275fb2dc97
F20101113_AAENQP waters_r_Page_137.txt
4d709ec467f9b0ee3df64e0d9cb74a21
53ff16a2d160957431a2708824e1c86699ef0219
1168 F20101113_AAEMGL waters_r_Page_200.txt
72c606fbb3b6d55d60ff677ebe4f5d75
0c65f01227b34aa28d5bd9d10c66b96e8f1129d2
F20101113_AAENDE waters_r_Page_135.tif
ecf786643bad77e36e87e1b3af4b1b56
8da9c2d4f63987184bb45101f9638cc6761da4a3
119417 F20101113_AAEMTX waters_r_Page_045.jp2
6b24137d4403a365c711be9179af96f6
250e87fe5a4db77c015184449fcae7d8b468bf18
2165 F20101113_AAENQQ waters_r_Page_138.txt
cc4fcb2d9b73261f6f1e0575e9fceb46
03053ddac1eb3c8fedf2785ea465a213a0265314
2211 F20101113_AAEMGM waters_r_Page_023.txt
8e37034f3a2bdfe853aaa0ab99b3a327
bfcc0495e96e0513db52c3946dcef4db2ec926b9
F20101113_AAENDF waters_r_Page_137.tif
d2be5bf417d5ee929ff7d46fd149033f
93b57487025e6ec593bc3acc28023d58480acb83
112483 F20101113_AAEMTY waters_r_Page_046.jp2
bd4c7f21601ebae12902ce624f117649
7a2885f0bb2a46ba5b4409a2e19e52870362ba9b
F20101113_AAENQR waters_r_Page_139.txt
1deccf810711970e4576c65d9769f144
c3867ba8a11696f30283272a905264a33f4fbe97
352 F20101113_AAEMGN waters_r_Page_195.txt
220254639b2068457f3a8e8f99d0f154
8620926c154366412eca7a2b3fa58250df302a96
F20101113_AAENDG waters_r_Page_141.tif
64510caf5d7de9970855a0b3be7fdcd2
84a5ce4704a3658f3f3779a10b292cd9879f1af7
23839 F20101113_AAEOAA waters_r_Page_158.QC.jpg
fdac73df394ee0bf451742fc65cfa7c1
90db012a00dfcf1d9a6b300d1957199baec85231
106796 F20101113_AAEMTZ waters_r_Page_047.jp2
b2efbe3f99cb866083ad1e250cdb0879
e239215fa81370caefea04fbc543bbfbf56c3336
2028 F20101113_AAENQS waters_r_Page_140.txt
91ca2d1aa59e3f930c8240a04d8de8f0
26d431888c97d2a02c380a4686f2537783876622
25260 F20101113_AAEMGO waters_r_Page_029.QC.jpg
9b57c370f01fe04f82309a500366579f
8dacb8197e5d41492015ab705137a96a8e5b6749
F20101113_AAENDH waters_r_Page_143.tif
73f6a9aea2bb931f258a9f4c1f4793ab
2edc06e3cb344191debc38929a37e6a01ddf41b7
11939 F20101113_AAEOAB waters_r_Page_280.QC.jpg
0fb7360c7ca572714e37af0f6799761a
2b69df07dc1a0bdd44c6ac60b86d13aee7dbc240
1936 F20101113_AAENQT waters_r_Page_141.txt
b8cb0fae9884b55d5d0954d54f714211
d75172c4d7869b82196b2c70b7fe7ad8beea0424
6569 F20101113_AAEMGP waters_r_Page_256thm.jpg
21d35c2e5ced197dbac411e1a4f69304
3b4869b33c1e481c9e819d787d9dafd0c6d87377
F20101113_AAENDI waters_r_Page_146.tif
6be0875e1ef99532cb935d2a51e08dbe
afa8675a56be5946122f1d9bf163abc29e51a907
6820 F20101113_AAEOAC waters_r_Page_227thm.jpg
7feac9c8de8532abe677afd3abad5964
734aafbe92ced365736b1802f5eaeba61e4036aa
F20101113_AAENQU waters_r_Page_142.txt
1e602cb4029ac130d0fa55c26275aa6e
6987af21252379b9414047a396c961bcf2fe4523
938 F20101113_AAEMGQ waters_r_Page_196.txt
ac75cd39d91efbb299183b2eb41f1d7c
f5d1f11ae31e9380381d0dfc63e45c482578c34d
F20101113_AAENDJ waters_r_Page_147.tif
c4e2064efc8004fb02393ed06b62352b
b44f1f8d7e3800828d410270f8147f3e3dc969a3
26267 F20101113_AAEOAD waters_r_Page_259.QC.jpg
a45db6e467f2d496482f3f7f674f663a
9a08ecc28a75da1d44f89988880c4351ee4f96ab
2236 F20101113_AAENQV waters_r_Page_144.txt
138800c0e76f406373c585917764f040
d8b6fa981acd7a9185c04695abc884a8a6335b50
6601 F20101113_AAEMGR waters_r_Page_231thm.jpg
78b49ed1d7b222e00aa0c523209528db
7d417159752242902e42ac6e3d5d26a80532af36
F20101113_AAENDK waters_r_Page_151.tif
d3ee2f6bfa96a5da72f93df9941c0488
9a1a2462e360291c79297bae68d23740ac92f6b4
24593 F20101113_AAEOAE waters_r_Page_048.QC.jpg
9e57124eafb9e3a49ec780c401b6564a
5e90fe07824f4f95ba9a4440ce8e6eb3ab740d2e
1894 F20101113_AAENQW waters_r_Page_145.txt
0f489966d97605455815cd69657d74f1
c570acbf579a41ecc645c304784806e89c1ca1af
24009 F20101113_AAEMGS waters_r_Page_121.QC.jpg
201e35742b5dfaa21497fddece05f1f0
d59fa36e3f507c94933185456444bbf4a5326438
F20101113_AAENDL waters_r_Page_153.tif
9a44ed5cbd495ae1524b982d0dc831eb
984b9fdaae3e07661ff44fb9dc34e5f13dc184a4
F20101113_AAEOAF waters_r_Page_149thm.jpg
b2a3b40a1a47ad70c137cc4b1d5b99b8
2bd92c3242b1ada221b9de7ad4ef2c188f534860
2083 F20101113_AAENQX waters_r_Page_147.txt
8c1ffe63bcdcd4b93af991f6dfd32ef0
5ed6a9f08d17776c01ad9935e7bf0a4b432bfbed
F20101113_AAEMGT waters_r_Page_019.tif
7a084afbf6ed23fbaae5c4329fe93a67
148719f2057a6c178ae5af548c29c72dc72d69b3
F20101113_AAENDM waters_r_Page_154.tif
67c14b6e5af9578e79521d7764bdf310
82436fb62a13c9ce68e914dc74b0016ee1e02040
3191 F20101113_AAEOAG waters_r_Page_237thm.jpg
9eaea1c0dbf02cdbb7ad1bbcc77251dc
391fd27b1d4622a8b8fe773a669e293b36dabcde
F20101113_AAENQY waters_r_Page_148.txt
2608306e6f6aa1a48faa3a606be39468
41c68ba65b6bce4ef4c3c955412e16fd34c3029e
118832 F20101113_AAEMGU waters_r_Page_035.jp2
08bafc29c52a312f51dfd680f1deb11c
9c05cf057cb165b4877f6e5b4e67dff671a7f0b9
F20101113_AAENDN waters_r_Page_157.tif
f6866b2ad292917c406040773c0e6a02
bb2f25be2a63145e60939dd208f525c1bac5a194
24504 F20101113_AAEOAH waters_r_Page_235.QC.jpg
7659712ddbb3b1c42e50b11e0a6d1381
148d025e72054a957749074c8afd28440fa9df63
2030 F20101113_AAENQZ waters_r_Page_149.txt
44b726ef2f16fd0455a861d82761e3c1
482d371c8e914a9bdb76ff46371eceb283e58bd2
91343 F20101113_AAEMGV waters_r_Page_010.jpg
24dcb5b3511cc51918e612668260cb82
b29ce595593970e980217820274cb0e7d7ccb270
F20101113_AAENDO waters_r_Page_158.tif
a42bb0174c5e38605af0391b2914d1b2
c0ce5dfe72eb3a469f3326203dd12798314cc08c
25284 F20101113_AAEOAI waters_r_Page_069.QC.jpg
e0a66f5f0a78b79c53c417574e0c3314
2d09f22c6556e7aa59c9869d6edca48a7f8fc4c8
51377 F20101113_AAEMGW waters_r_Page_243.pro
ecb8a181b9f235c6b6854d53e954fe88
3faa8122b9a94308d29d0cf02eea584e9bb9de2b
F20101113_AAENDP waters_r_Page_159.tif
851ef0c986e9e970cfaf1142b571e68e
b351f325379cf9453dff3cb0db420c5774715870
24143 F20101113_AAEOAJ waters_r_Page_117.QC.jpg
5ffdb5d6aa60c5602e5ec6f45a69e2ed
9ccd87dfb911a18f5b719df2cbf962c494020a8f
112243 F20101113_AAEMGX waters_r_Page_065.jp2
d66b91efe84865a1eda4ece2dcd1c3bb
3195dc5460f5c3a01d2a900d9752f495f8a565c5
131826 F20101113_AAEMZA waters_r_Page_255.jp2
68cb4d6a53d5eff3258c640e82766a18
ae35454a863e8ad081150cc113457faadd5dbe9f
F20101113_AAENDQ waters_r_Page_161.tif
fc7775e8d31eeec0f9be0881329999f6
eb9eb321f7df0a527cccf19065b33c020fb985b9
6474 F20101113_AAEOAK waters_r_Page_156thm.jpg
356d5fe491b6cf56668334711cc5ed83
77ee9a64166807f156cf86d664163e1f9c7dfb2c
64373 F20101113_AAEMGY waters_r_Page_010.pro
c321945f778848c237a0c9cbec4a5803
01dfd5c2d160f4fbd566db25c5187191d9076725
112837 F20101113_AAEMZB waters_r_Page_257.jp2
511a405e1d6d9ea43b036890b0b8bce3
a4d2cf6903f0fbe98cd572594911f70577308e25
F20101113_AAENDR waters_r_Page_163.tif
9170c775aefd1e01fe0feb29ce8bc495
3969c20b7a5e85f0b9def17f6444a17895f8c882
6818 F20101113_AAEOAL waters_r_Page_136thm.jpg
fc7089e3f6c6d8d1743e4cd1ea43f39d
5405ba03dfc60df25dc27960494d9e2c5c491af9
109432 F20101113_AAEMGZ waters_r_Page_156.jp2
4dfd639b237939b4fc3165b0863fe044
e774a0ac69d67b012651de7dbfddb57f2d883aa2
95520 F20101113_AAEMZC waters_r_Page_258.jp2
bb177a2e8afd3e2c7adf77d56977cf45
2a873cdaa8b0161c7d1f4c50f0d1693b7c331e66
F20101113_AAENDS waters_r_Page_164.tif
d79952cfcc573c787f3389825459db6b
b8f0e937166b9ac3a07d4e9eddc745a9431cb678
25137 F20101113_AAEOAM waters_r_Page_228.QC.jpg
82430a529e5d028a6992f8d60d304b42
6ba7fc4ae0adcef6ec45442762004f325f6bf5f6
135622 F20101113_AAEMZD waters_r_Page_259.jp2
222d8c2bdce29d6e362a6e4e4d4dd028
507e9c7899bdefb7b498b65fd9721f581bad06b9
F20101113_AAENDT waters_r_Page_165.tif
37177c7ef0c7cdb128dd0a6861797ade
cf38a54238105a89fcd8e5290f45d2278b92729a
6779 F20101113_AAEOAN waters_r_Page_219thm.jpg
caf2d4636a59a0ef0bd563abd6fd2415
ace4047ee432f3e73921780c52610f9438719e7d
26484 F20101113_AAELPA waters_r_Page_252.QC.jpg
0fa40e76e688cde8e8b39d5575a0e616
599257b79c1ad163a35a7796a36b5d02a34f23f7
70931 F20101113_AAEMZE waters_r_Page_260.jp2
b0a1d245366e27db881d725e26eb8d71
7fb585bd687779c74d18e0e953491e44432077bb
F20101113_AAENDU waters_r_Page_166.tif
ca8656259c96b204f99d3f04c57208ac
fd8fe1106d1660feff54ef05004f4e7ba8e50cc1
24545 F20101113_AAEOAO waters_r_Page_133.QC.jpg
375675fa2eed0d4b010e10c08e4a58bd
c116e13026156b7206b04820ef05aead87f3fc89
F20101113_AAELPB waters_r_Page_214.QC.jpg
5c5cc9d105af1fe0b566d86f180c910b
d410c38af30074ab944ec432d859931dbd8b8320
99399 F20101113_AAEMZF waters_r_Page_261.jp2
d33f295247e403b1f48dd04979e49d50
c53a48d24017ba53ce4e245ff2c7ca69166636e6
F20101113_AAENDV waters_r_Page_168.tif
59bfeab53c9b2236f5dda5b89b7bfc38
359d072a26391813f62dc289570f06e66a5ac2a8
24892 F20101113_AAEOAP waters_r_Page_013.QC.jpg
f7cc0a7422741f3e3a78c93d34254915
19ee804fbe58ac4b8e73ba45a8c2e12fc04fe42b
6186 F20101113_AAELPC waters_r_Page_253thm.jpg
492a9e5fcb6f317563487b0070476646
ab1db34350aed37e00364198444af1201f810e7f
144208 F20101113_AAEMZG waters_r_Page_266.jp2
864306784354c3680d0d0611245d6f34
662d3ab67d147e35bc0bd86bd45398adc00873e7
F20101113_AAENDW waters_r_Page_170.tif
4582f803c2aed9049d6676c765faca34
f3fac9ca4bca56c8b8928cfeab42f8d874ca3573
27204 F20101113_AAEOAQ waters_r_Page_273.QC.jpg
57b3e608da0b71f01a469ebc2216692f
bb5bc2aebbf26c82cc6af33c36da67fbf6ed4545
25231 F20101113_AAENWA waters_r_Page_024.QC.jpg
f0e376076022534ffdc5c3e2e291e61f
f562608dd170d2d4eeafd980650b8bdb31d50cb2
38806 F20101113_AAELPD waters_r_Page_198.jpg
f1394a5b4230ddc53bb0d4c0b2399ed2
f7f95d0a256daf3bb483b4539f206e373df095ec
138747 F20101113_AAEMZH waters_r_Page_270.jp2
b4ef64b63218d16ee79242d3ac29d3ba
70d1c9eb9c3c0797351e73aab55c341bd0f3347e
F20101113_AAENDX waters_r_Page_171.tif
e1b783da85da44e244bed6d00ef2d1a5
f3317c19f14c81a2e747224d2ab12d9e80d60ae6
25821 F20101113_AAEOAR waters_r_Page_128.QC.jpg
436852fe9171316b20023a890b94d4f1
5ee2ef349cf4a352a13512429682ad87f2f51951
6978 F20101113_AAENWB waters_r_Page_088thm.jpg
e6f60e3d9b29b8ab89fa2bd0b7aa733a
350804230200ddb44198a895ca46685eeca5def3
28473 F20101113_AAELPE waters_r_Page_255.QC.jpg
219b46939fb6d14e4c5bcdbd64fb6cd9
8ede1ad2ce9743db1891e802458febcb8d1b8399
147000 F20101113_AAEMZI waters_r_Page_271.jp2
22dd02e678b9e67bbaae723066b9ff73
47f221dff043f0bad54634c8d33b6e85f52e86d0
F20101113_AAENDY waters_r_Page_174.tif
0089cf24b9cba6f70d7f3d6651b2d3d7
77e000918e69cac5b0c9f485ccaab91159dc039c
23344 F20101113_AAEOAS waters_r_Page_130.QC.jpg
7687254e21333681a5641b2b9e6e9ceb
46e23dcf9cf26d76d349583a2e2c5f2058f59265
23081 F20101113_AAENWC waters_r_Page_005.QC.jpg
b6ff137db3b0fc492eeaec3ec741d609
b7f4efaddbe5fd69d1ddedaf996eeaf76933a1f3
121495 F20101113_AAELPF waters_r_Page_055.jp2
fad432ea9ded7237b8b6542c0318487d
c9f1e63fb2a7d0f4b27ce69ef68bf6e3c0fced91
1051913 F20101113_AAEMZJ waters_r_Page_272.jp2
33fe5584f2eecbd95b69ebc3c1dada9f
3bd72348011c3ec52e38c5fed1e05112782a07f4
F20101113_AAENDZ waters_r_Page_175.tif
45b5f93fdaeee94cd466cb5445621d52
d259ec1ea45716902a5068b6d1cb005a7cfa6903
24595 F20101113_AAEOAT waters_r_Page_026.QC.jpg
5687f9da5a7479c54d44ca97476bac5f
8adb8c14aea2f7337ca36cf91c8eb06c4bf0be80
F20101113_AAENWD waters_r_Page_065.QC.jpg
f239cef2a7562eada874da7188dc3dd0
8c894c700f2dbaa42520de90a5fadd0ad174a67d
F20101113_AAELPG waters_r_Page_212.tif
ba99272f1cf5ca7a299196ef0f3a639a
d847f7de35a037a274227827c51383687adc1a82
137819 F20101113_AAEMZK waters_r_Page_274.jp2
aeef46ed610988951c0e54c1069aab33
e07197c098d15ba6e23b0969cfc0e1e124460d37
7286 F20101113_AAEOAU waters_r_Page_265thm.jpg
41dc68e8da2f95c140a8ceac70d1ee53
303c0252011f530879560d1b253747210b07d5fc
6610 F20101113_AAENWE waters_r_Page_202thm.jpg
463d8c04a45341273f8ec94a8efd81e3
5a6a41610f7eb6b5270259a8c879cfe755bb6496
2043 F20101113_AAELPH waters_r_Page_211.txt
83082b2aa97e27c83b4287e13ef73d4f
6ddd4cff618eef82fe6bf391325d2d8ad768b999
89166 F20101113_AAEMMA waters_r_Page_008.jpg
746ffe4cfc2c6d6968fdbf31533fa25e
9e95f05a003895d72d573f7d3d830a63aef64b48
140039 F20101113_AAEMZL waters_r_Page_275.jp2
9d9b081d28bc81c6cada68beae151efd
c7d7db94988a3e9e8bc5192cdccca29f69273832
F20101113_AAEOAV waters_r_Page_057thm.jpg
8912076ef1c1d44a3d68a8316dae878b
528cc26be868053a333df3f1f697359fc4ad787d
4835 F20101113_AAENWF waters_r_Page_165thm.jpg
dca71f6643783ff91fb6e0e22f06b920
e0a57be2a6a005514e6805ca4e21cee2c9608692
75386 F20101113_AAELPI waters_r_Page_104.jpg
51d1f50bae9ec87e586189896d4fb86b
280b406fb7b3573b7401e0e87a90c829f41b583b
65284 F20101113_AAEMMB waters_r_Page_012.jpg
f879467c57fb0a1fb6005753a51e3e35
adf40ce7358bb3a0d7bd599ab23d7ee9fd223c9c
114988 F20101113_AAEMZM waters_r_Page_279.jp2
0fc8eacaa5682e1969ab8d1b666c9e2b
f68eeb1b34c5d71fadaa6bc515ede7856cc2f610
6495 F20101113_AAEOAW waters_r_Page_039thm.jpg
aefeef56a140b7f65b2db0752c1016e0
b87b1222c6f022ad94f21c22361361d9eb436fcf
6515 F20101113_AAENWG waters_r_Page_207thm.jpg
85cd8ec98d64e65adb107b3b9bf47e20
09220dbf9e4acaf2c1290751f6458a8f2b55cdfb
25380 F20101113_AAELPJ waters_r_Page_137.QC.jpg
8ea1d75d519c04ef48d59b02fa1caf76
c6dc47e1e76f9418dbd1d6c85fa4c09f877031b5
85902 F20101113_AAEMMC waters_r_Page_013.jpg
e35f5405605895a30b9a78bd30b39874
0a0fd6c1384e9fe678ecddc12b16ef87fc9f7e2b
49290 F20101113_AAEMZN waters_r_Page_280.jp2
0fcaf3a1625fba7c67ab085ed1d37702
8a8f5af5681a36ecbbd6def865f778c53851a781
6539 F20101113_AAEOAX waters_r_Page_014thm.jpg
ae2f035a123d04ff2ea952c42d00b653
30a057635cbca9fbe1a00bffc8fd92effb8098f1
6560 F20101113_AAENWH waters_r_Page_222thm.jpg
168fd0da6f5af485347b57f947e81c03
786be2a5305001756fe34d7622c1b9e0dd24baef
923 F20101113_AAELPK waters_r_Page_172.txt
831caf88aff27f22b1cfd0d032e5d6b2
e3e43423e09389c8906f2932444be49f18b244e4
77054 F20101113_AAEMMD waters_r_Page_015.jpg
27e3be271b25b751be5e75f67e8c2735
563721f79db36e62721ab819a69ae83e9ec8dc67
F20101113_AAEMZO waters_r_Page_001.tif
47b5fe3cb477f7dad6955327aff37128
fdcbf7cdfb9514a63fb0d8ad992ce243cf465341
6842 F20101113_AAEOAY waters_r_Page_139thm.jpg
3c76e6d17306a88770b8290ecc0a6370
8171a56bf657bf3095ea385978211ab9a7136aed
6980 F20101113_AAENWI waters_r_Page_090thm.jpg
8d8392692d26e091cccaaffa139be97a
4309a182a0fc646d030a2897cee185bbcd1866ed
F20101113_AAELPL waters_r_Page_190.tif
6416f8e161a700fdab7cbac0a9c1b304
2ad4d7623689e48e1c5df713ed7dfd27ccd68159
77846 F20101113_AAEMME waters_r_Page_019.jpg
6a6cbe8e34a8619fa621993f4a02b941
13b379ee7952f2e0a08f382bb246d940e7f0f910
F20101113_AAEMZP waters_r_Page_002.tif
3de4775fd25dd0bdafea913d8d3b6094
05510fbd5eb3b6c6e09fbbcf9f8165f4ab6b1c7d
23904 F20101113_AAEOAZ waters_r_Page_107.QC.jpg
69b485c964804a314774375bdb0f0a82
fbf727703707a8da1c026da90b1e12ab01741c10
24888 F20101113_AAENWJ waters_r_Page_247.QC.jpg
07d5a64916ea4f6b57356bb460894cf7
8ce2a236db1fff4b86ed07053fb2683b56366f54
2104 F20101113_AAELPM waters_r_Page_122.txt
0404d9915b768abcab529eb552d102db
e638ab3dd11daf82b1e9467c6a7fa9b6d3fb9ec0
76776 F20101113_AAEMMF waters_r_Page_021.jpg
d8d98610bbb81b8454eaf7a833fa0109
a85defb510a051c6064e104d9d3649686fda4c13
F20101113_AAEMZQ waters_r_Page_003.tif
4dd8d6d0452930ba138d35bc560a19a0
b7a898e70237f389494161edfdd5275829ef1347
3911 F20101113_AAENWK waters_r_Page_263thm.jpg
697c0e98e372638d48665dbbb25f5787
ac38a90edfffb195a85bd836636b45aed116781b
53322 F20101113_AAELPN waters_r_Page_033.pro
0cc92a3ca41478e19168e8a3dfd81ada
c6621098b4a39363b6176f0e40d1b94f8e5b57b8
79694 F20101113_AAEMMG waters_r_Page_023.jpg
0b3398f312ab8c97de4cb68ef7362359
504b29d2b268b6130111de754fae62d2d074d8dc
F20101113_AAEMZR waters_r_Page_004.tif
0ff05434ab048c047ec33c088bed35fb
a0cfcc1f95727c3d58f34a08b76ed7078df0d6bc
6836 F20101113_AAENWL waters_r_Page_151thm.jpg
d7227cb1eb044d60b5e76eafad8462f3
8cfefa24c76231efae9b2ebe6d05a9afe922b56a
73429 F20101113_AAEMMH waters_r_Page_025.jpg
0c2e02601ce1cdb93bca511166a1f96d
4c9a1422a352486a6c5b5e2abc82994cb3aff352
52190 F20101113_AAENJA waters_r_Page_107.pro
c8ff0181823b1167b9a20779ed4aeb2e
3581680e32fe73524b3de2b4a580440ced9a3658
F20101113_AAEMZS waters_r_Page_005.tif
edf39a243d4e38c74fa3e3b3a9560e50
b5fd2329f5ffe180473042a9a341b52776a9b1b9
17323 F20101113_AAENWM waters_r_Page_118.QC.jpg
a667df820b63dd4e3a9d3c89b84d74a5
3ea7359b0d4ff885be1e630dc73c20f9de32b602
122100 F20101113_AAELPO waters_r_Page_023.jp2
93c40ebd45894558d4ddfd99007cc10a
e8a3c9bd55e4828467bf697fce28ac1f5dfbcd15
75217 F20101113_AAEMMI waters_r_Page_026.jpg
44c235f68f731cd1df2285698bc0376e
47b49394b535498602b88ddac1713c0e5b9151b2
51708 F20101113_AAENJB waters_r_Page_108.pro
a766912a8e392bf4b81f40e9facc3340
e3f64ef91e534ce4855f83314f85afc5720c770c
F20101113_AAEMZT waters_r_Page_007.tif
d9a6c41f22073eb3ca8dc646a473e6b5
2eb17cd48bd013363c8ee84ca9c3d918b3002549
25637 F20101113_AAENWN waters_r_Page_154.QC.jpg
8c8308f70330dd4e34c86910608cf498
8d866740cc312523252b68ce5817f86408cd1d28
F20101113_AAELPP waters_r_Page_209.tif
dcfc8452ee80effa5ac6424bebb0abf5
953da880e86f7cbdbc75f234a77153b06c21930d
75344 F20101113_AAEMMJ waters_r_Page_027.jpg
f53530f3829c0fd31af6be886dd4bf11
1b8575cf2b3e81a7ad8ed68508f3c676b18a6615
55590 F20101113_AAENJC waters_r_Page_110.pro
8499f942770f9b970376a9df7ea4bc9c
742ff9054f1b999650d13f934beaa8799c881292
F20101113_AAEMZU waters_r_Page_008.tif
89e041b7f2446b0a743886023f6c7e26
18731c79e3c44a9e1ca806c16c6cd3d598f612c8
F20101113_AAENWO waters_r_Page_039.QC.jpg
b989754d9bf5c148d73578c8c9ae2c3e
6a7e434327df2804c19c9910243419bce93d6228
803584 F20101113_AAELPQ waters_r_Page_009.jp2
d65afd66533efe8f111311ff9ca0864a
37af131d753d01a95fed8037cb3913627cb4a1da
54979 F20101113_AAENJD waters_r_Page_112.pro
f237eb96f591fe25c2d8d8bfc7297830
d1b67645bf24ea74ddb4f9a993a3b2d6fa5b4b88
F20101113_AAEMZV waters_r_Page_009.tif
e0217c57d7ff247c7c45130b757991c9
f8a932f474b8ced899d98049202457ee56b0b84e
6565 F20101113_AAENWP waters_r_Page_131thm.jpg
388ff1ea5e08e8f60f4c54cf79062d37
98cac047414a368be7e3dc96acb541bd58b56b94
53356 F20101113_AAELPR waters_r_Page_212.pro
897f66f2202b8520b7b2fadea8b9d4dd
a59393411627d260248513e9128a6a77a594b905
74845 F20101113_AAEMMK waters_r_Page_029.jpg
2207e2fd44e60bf4d5f11a3e9612ea31
e68e3dc17ac66967dd5c62297b56c1cf65e6c4c1
20150 F20101113_AAENJE waters_r_Page_115.pro
89af3754f6d87d6820eefffa2437f695
f6cb6dd3789305a92038ee8b32e114f8995abc1c
F20101113_AAEMZW waters_r_Page_010.tif
9b9114f6a0f07c8bf70c36c367522810
06bc4a44c597ee6d66930cdfab561a5cc1a32a93
24284 F20101113_AAENWQ waters_r_Page_036.QC.jpg
8605e07a1ad462b7fddc0c119738d745
b3157f15012828a50637f2116058f5db14ddef1b
F20101113_AAELPS waters_r_Page_120.QC.jpg
2968e4a9d3e7a275e4e1da0b22f5d730
d310fb24cd8b23dc1efabd86e7fc8dddb476214f
65566 F20101113_AAEMML waters_r_Page_030.jpg
10bd9970e5423af1bd155f11259747c4
3d18a9603d8e78d32be5702f7e00bfab001aa3d6
50277 F20101113_AAENJF waters_r_Page_116.pro
f6f7f75fc04fdfd0a6f1683211d48fe9
55758f837f65d40fe9d689c514a08b5b6359ddc7
7274 F20101113_AAENWR waters_r_Page_267thm.jpg
36999f7fe023ea3b2c1d7cb376c60a51
0b8a950615b4f58304da99ad2b9f7a7967d14b4e
12310 F20101113_AAELPT waters_r_Page_087.QC.jpg
5327eb7af20918f4328be4dc7dc2c59e
ee8b668263c71b1ff04f1436b94fd2d6079c14b6
20212 F20101113_AAEMMM waters_r_Page_031.jpg
0561d2e9d807cbf7953b1c9c046b92f2
79cbb7ae97fed866cc114ae3490666c94d0c8a85
F20101113_AAEMZX waters_r_Page_011.tif
2f73d68090b1d463a0f30643b49ff92b
f797f18113bbde6f35edc761f58f8aa8bfed21f9
6761 F20101113_AAEOGA waters_r_Page_105thm.jpg
5a426c751099d39be5ae1c59bc73db3f
d2eed78b9cfe2b530df211e67a024e50af4285b4
25503 F20101113_AAENWS waters_r_Page_144.QC.jpg
13000ebb1351e452ae0f66e86d973d1f
358dcb509d2a1194d49e81c4117ef062488a9e24
F20101113_AAELPU waters_r_Page_176.tif
ac1ce49485049497f283d0835f49f2f4
736716cfae5971252396a5ff6c5b19c00b3a860f
74794 F20101113_AAEMMN waters_r_Page_032.jpg
beeabc750d915d0c3c94f393529fcb9b
f76aee3b8cdece1244ed7ae10db1d07e071c390e
59522 F20101113_AAENJG waters_r_Page_117.pro
27b312192b821c44504e61f04322e382
11d6a472ff963135127546246e449735b9abdd0d
F20101113_AAEMZY waters_r_Page_012.tif
6eae696c2309de67ef65b67de8376971
9233cacb38bcbdf20c10d96b601bdc1e2d2aa6ec
F20101113_AAEOGB waters_r_Page_109thm.jpg
30356e7c03b827f385ac76504f42ded3
a54d957ae90e08d50ba929f5e8f39acffab7eccc
115085 F20101113_AAELPV waters_r_Page_142.jp2
528f998494c59b43a4ff80a4ee4008a8
c473b9d6bf5e06f5533955301b3744fb06987537
75497 F20101113_AAEMMO waters_r_Page_034.jpg
c704cf1d6449389d7ebbb751edd597c2
d98ec004c1f051cca5788f497fc94df23032e9bf
37780 F20101113_AAENJH waters_r_Page_118.pro
58899abc954bed705866818d561fdda5
f95fd2cac7419522b9bc8663deefc829add114ce
F20101113_AAEMZZ waters_r_Page_013.tif
5d8f0e08711bb7e410e05502d424d0a2
cb7294284b5b92e6f3a45304efa217f458db75fd
23829 F20101113_AAENWT waters_r_Page_095.QC.jpg
e8cc4f4c8d7f4f1155dd8af8e329b37b
1a6a55aafadbfc837560426a6a42da78af119137
115098 F20101113_AAELPW waters_r_Page_058.jp2
b78097000aab63dcb72711bfd15b2e11
7f4fb5fa801e716579b68a4ebccbe90a8f36e480
77633 F20101113_AAEMMP waters_r_Page_035.jpg
6c2b774d478200d7319206f2f74b12f8
fcf698e60613c41048a9ce8f44f83c2f38dd1dec
10278 F20101113_AAENJI waters_r_Page_119.pro
4e8d59e70d7f345252cdf8226e4bbed4
428546aef07a6902c64df54a70718f4d963ccc94
415331 F20101113_AAEOGC UFE0021051_00001.xml FULL
04d0b59ff7fc85e7dd583a509faf77c3
bc24da4f010102d2b0a83e94bfac9b09d6619864
24522 F20101113_AAENWU waters_r_Page_132.QC.jpg
730d8145818f028048887aa77a82cf10
60f16f148f1e758a496c890a440c79271506c2d2
F20101113_AAELPX waters_r_Page_244.tif
fee8f2cc49a36d5c2535552e4b267060
0ad09d58349563fff6244049774bea7b397e43fc
72438 F20101113_AAEMMQ waters_r_Page_036.jpg
3df39a485acd324ad8b772bc18cc875e
2d1d56768be629649e2e47fa18f096a28e40c634
10416 F20101113_AAENJJ waters_r_Page_120.pro
0db25dd25c16d3758bba8d5775026d83
0fc9b74335f4920e30636d7685925318dcd0f618
25461 F20101113_AAEOGD waters_r_Page_015.QC.jpg
1eaa8e53d40f080d4fed13a477b7a9e3
56f28971e1ab932cbe2578336ef3ec697019e9af
25817 F20101113_AAENWV waters_r_Page_090.QC.jpg
0e10c2cd56a6419ea55808e5a9d13aba
a1ecd5b12e18005167d5b57705aef3ef3330f7c6
5548 F20101113_AAELPY waters_r_Page_163thm.jpg
e0c1da31ecaf2913b5898b13fb880239
d3bf59f4f56abe651cd6f0c82ffbb5094784df90
78797 F20101113_AAEMMR waters_r_Page_037.jpg
305f52c4ca6a529ea4ea72d94f15593f
5cd0ebb264d9491ff370d3ea68ed4febff7c4edb
53476 F20101113_AAENJK waters_r_Page_121.pro
d711f595e3e785cb837bc8c194727893
fd1029f60d3b23568ded225185b7ab5e50d7e199
24690 F20101113_AAEOGE waters_r_Page_033.QC.jpg
4dcad6841a48b86bd93e7eb2a7c9f412
9fc0629fd89f2df47bfe667ae89226ed737a7f04
6976 F20101113_AAENWW waters_r_Page_249thm.jpg
c99c483d17e2f02e16a62d566ac9407a
f739a3bc3b77822374c50856af88c5bbd911d6f3
55585 F20101113_AAELPZ waters_r_Page_146.pro
172ea506172ff580830a720bc2f37d77
09bca7885ad5ea1f40b43804951a1147ec7c3cbb
78296 F20101113_AAEMMS waters_r_Page_038.jpg
6bd766fa9712963fbb274d239bc6c8a0
87a501ec4d6e492355e9eb22795bdc138a5372de
53278 F20101113_AAENJL waters_r_Page_122.pro
007b174eeb99c9a6d729a8d1eb8487c0
c7583e700124064f3a63b434318aff1217fb9a60
6962 F20101113_AAEOGF waters_r_Page_037thm.jpg
f5ffd933bfd833b9278e9e90b9ddfb13
9a8d743972a453dd0d6fa82c4e24e69b833e83ce
6316 F20101113_AAENWX waters_r_Page_064thm.jpg
defd2fa5b41ae93ebae095287069da60
6c1c1148ad199b0209fb4d7e6202425ac34dc4c1
73993 F20101113_AAEMMT waters_r_Page_039.jpg
ff1f3e7dffc197d947d37856d487ddd2
23c5f218ad72792340290b36217d57f4d19b207f
55185 F20101113_AAENJM waters_r_Page_123.pro
1660e53d871f0c91f56be6dcdb05c91e
278f7092bcb0af7a4903335602509ca1faa6b4e5
6703 F20101113_AAEOGG waters_r_Page_046thm.jpg
0d3e530908a3f50dd90f6d2484266ee8
e5edde385a448750532209d6f003b6e7bb465345
7297 F20101113_AAENWY waters_r_Page_011thm.jpg
939f07609894093a80bddbeaf2940063
c715098ea6cea75de8e8a451595d3c490338b4ca
75956 F20101113_AAEMMU waters_r_Page_042.jpg
dab493eea20fbfd2b752a5fdc351eab4
a7ab484415153fcdab7e2760762576304a7bf696
52621 F20101113_AAENJN waters_r_Page_124.pro
fabc0e7c4163d763a0b4e3f8451232d0
2cecb87720635a90c6cc1902e7ba7ff0c89f0ba7
6751 F20101113_AAEOGH waters_r_Page_048thm.jpg
70d086b0fd60013655ffff92af1f1da9
c843b6e6ea380e5e8a481e8c2d3b068246c01e86
6620 F20101113_AAENWZ waters_r_Page_143thm.jpg
35d26ea49254a4074c8adff95d6ddc9f
d20c97f2ebaf5f7b1ce75882d4286b8028cc0492
73861 F20101113_AAEMMV waters_r_Page_043.jpg
56aeeea6b6a7416c8bb183148a5d49d0
bd0b0abdc71669e3d24ede78d733b66cbfc91121
50721 F20101113_AAENJO waters_r_Page_127.pro
c9e4ae5c0dd9a1430921b3809165caf8
9059c924b8cd24559ee2e889fd63dd55536f73dd
6567 F20101113_AAEOGI waters_r_Page_049thm.jpg
4ca53b26ca48ef6a02fe082b854c4322
a5b4f5e4eb1b1143aedbd3aeb51809bc0cb4b611
73983 F20101113_AAEMMW waters_r_Page_044.jpg
7a0c3b32033fa2f20fa0deb4c6467f95
04bcccb5402203edec713a81d5cf839e0cdb618d
51896 F20101113_AAENJP waters_r_Page_130.pro
3520a6a5210e216da5832f9d67d8614a
4bfc59969fbcea261191d2ef98b124884ac95056
6685 F20101113_AAEOGJ waters_r_Page_053thm.jpg
6591e85408fa1af4bff794be84b0a5b0
43dc51e0dcce429a918f3ae16a6f51ab8ba80f0a
70486 F20101113_AAEMMX waters_r_Page_047.jpg
39cfdf79ece5c8502234e60ef8d9a625
ec508d99cc127575a16d4f7ce880d5b804d71c6b
51540 F20101113_AAENJQ waters_r_Page_133.pro
2c4981c1cbb5be4dcc94061a9824c91b
03b1b34c190c73289d9bfa1db08659c3dd84cb9f
25062 F20101113_AAEOGK waters_r_Page_054.QC.jpg
965e7d03456f39d0eff58ac7808fbc53
7b1b77171019eb4a2ea170f763f5bdd9ce601f98
75762 F20101113_AAEMMY waters_r_Page_048.jpg
0678ca345e0e2f882ac3571fb1be5372
3578e05ce5720c0d438d3e14821e2ec438aac8d9
53474 F20101113_AAENJR waters_r_Page_134.pro
31915e49514491d1606698baf25c6c43
c50675d73050637ecadb647d786f718939d3db7f
6354 F20101113_AAEOGL waters_r_Page_066thm.jpg
50e624d237450e238a24464396c7a47d
04345f829893ec634d34e7bb45efe954ac838977
69699 F20101113_AAEMMZ waters_r_Page_049.jpg
6bf91664691f502e4b064bf1acdc94ed
978f696e708f452c9f135c1562c2b85e165bd623
53072 F20101113_AAENJS waters_r_Page_135.pro
59d87913ab39044d98b44ec3123f2656
5783e8dd3c1ca6f80e2b513d98c594214de38f0a
7300 F20101113_AAEOGM waters_r_Page_068thm.jpg
232720908129bed13a8b3f74eeaace4b
57c80f11e4b4b4de247d7d2f68844cd5488cc56a
53866 F20101113_AAENJT waters_r_Page_137.pro
e007995a10af1b6c3c7c7f20a816b8d1
1d41a8fc89dce67bc4f39dde8c0b37baf83a78f1
25610 F20101113_AAEOGN waters_r_Page_072.QC.jpg
339a5e9e4e8d707b32ec62c31990f5c0
d518cdd161b2292793845f25be6a31659219bd0a
54204 F20101113_AAENJU waters_r_Page_138.pro
d83a3f85566d273df8308ea440175686
83d9056dfce033189ae33654e7cfb2c9c7430b8b
25889 F20101113_AAELVA waters_r_Page_088.QC.jpg
5a952cec8ccdc4784b4de3f92d0080a0
eec4f47ff2c63061eaded5ab12261e5f4628036c
6987 F20101113_AAEOGO waters_r_Page_072thm.jpg
8970c7df88e80fe7f23d6e59b483e48c
a9190f120a603d7a606961a3dd5a40b1adb2bf7c
54983 F20101113_AAENJV waters_r_Page_139.pro
6409829f4201fa75a8624c2999882c28
d62d1e81a524a6c359c37e2ab63871a9bb345d9b
F20101113_AAELVB waters_r_Page_232.tif
3d6fee955d8651824cc3301f0743fa97
7ca5facb500eb898967f4f07021ddea228b23694
6707 F20101113_AAEOGP waters_r_Page_077thm.jpg
0ba632c858f4775b416e4262ac4cd9bd
f380b4ac5fa00bd3fc7215d845b0598a4329ab02
51438 F20101113_AAENJW waters_r_Page_140.pro
48ae429bfb15b02d43bced901dabd40e
b4f6b1804b2a917b618c307da48cd1a6dcf749fb
55044 F20101113_AAELVC waters_r_Page_037.pro
61acb32906f5698b521dd0e8d431fffd
7704e9c642acfa2a249bfebb5b711da4abfce5c5
24880 F20101113_AAEOGQ waters_r_Page_079.QC.jpg
305a064f9e34a36ddfdb323dbfa219a5
9b280f8a0215760161e6740eaede662a24fa9aad
48760 F20101113_AAENJX waters_r_Page_141.pro
5add1b728aae6d9081ab1c351693f8e3
efc8c3e2339348842ee140ca5a05370d81362c3b
6894 F20101113_AAELVD waters_r_Page_138thm.jpg
5593f94602aaad82767e659c656ba832
a018e71361e72e7dd9d74ec2b56031de013c3bfc
6866 F20101113_AAEOGR waters_r_Page_079thm.jpg
c2c5775cbdaedb7d6e00d287a9d225d2
8cd87dcc1d08355fc3dc9ffc80c009c6994e9d1f
53816 F20101113_AAENJY waters_r_Page_142.pro
11c1d8b75e5d232b8bb022fcacb46822
296d3a5896e5f06e247b69d7f61e1cb7f3a75836
1823 F20101113_AAELVE waters_r_Page_089thm.jpg
8371801a60f32598ad88e72d1b4199cd
22c5eeba1a874efd34eac38a208afe065bc21717
24538 F20101113_AAEOGS waters_r_Page_083.QC.jpg
375e6d37291302ea09924932b1f18c81
0550079b46bf185ef7f386289e8074a5dbe99caf
53293 F20101113_AAENJZ waters_r_Page_143.pro
718e50cc40f95b3b3dfe4c8d5589fdf0
63693ba0d1d325d33c0e1c65573faec253d2079b
25176 F20101113_AAELVF waters_r_Page_210.QC.jpg
9e05f2c13806b344bf417d7d0177e247
5111ea96a7a9e72f914c0d58c1566d723c241c67
6557 F20101113_AAEOGT waters_r_Page_097thm.jpg
4efaace16dfd9efede6ead30e9301031
c3d5e4e5372f93a309d2fb312f47ddad702c0422
74873 F20101113_AAELVG waters_r_Page_147.jpg
3c1c75bac456fbe22beb13e8362fb0b4
eb6969e710a712db35e14bf5cf458aaabc85b10b
25019 F20101113_AAEOGU waters_r_Page_102.QC.jpg
3f21e8aa7d64d95c3ccae298eda27efc
ccd30202599a1196cbadbd039de0fee830026652
75176 F20101113_AAEMSA waters_r_Page_245.jpg
bd4b539271dab2f1a820ceb905493f48
d6661e72d586ec973c9540ae1001e36fc91c4fbf
118192 F20101113_AAELVH waters_r_Page_128.jp2
4b9ff6fd0b2a63850246fd7a0139c8ef
31629ab3e4beeccca98d11b8aa8cced9225376d7
6959 F20101113_AAEOGV waters_r_Page_103thm.jpg
61540365b35a90453264871b57878899
7acab9384e844961e9e87ded067f2e062404a64f
76874 F20101113_AAEMSB waters_r_Page_248.jpg
fced88ba20f2119292c676e9fa7c48fd
29d4e3587c0fecb55985dbe739f82bd95ebe5270
57433 F20101113_AAELVI waters_r_Page_178.jp2
08fd3b2bc29a2b4f78da3979a83955d9
ff1d500a950617700f80b9d73a85a94ce7936ab8
24350 F20101113_AAEOGW waters_r_Page_106.QC.jpg
b2a78d5173a439cfe54f64a0526974ac
ae2897a7d15b782a661ea7cf838c261b36153e7a
77494 F20101113_AAEMSC waters_r_Page_249.jpg
b7dfed4b043ef01e2d5c8b906a077a0c
dba7baecc1e7b731e740967cbf533011bcd2fc6b
F20101113_AAELVJ waters_r_Page_032.tif
6d76ef73f3a43fa299163c071db48c0e
bf1d22d0f3e36dc3f284162aff2edd7989acf2c1
4545 F20101113_AAEOGX waters_r_Page_114thm.jpg
b657feef60de94d4e6a70cbd8dc1e534
73f49ef71f7f54527750a7f8bebedc9b9ab1ce5a
48662 F20101113_AAEMSD waters_r_Page_250.jpg
1a7a16ac735f86bc28a06121872aabb6
b41749239c60d0720f735a5969fdbf7367b89b96
3707 F20101113_AAELVK waters_r_Page_199thm.jpg
b46c20e9556710b667e633e8eb6687cb
37bc43a254c564d8509f153516fe883452b8b111
11112 F20101113_AAEOGY waters_r_Page_115.QC.jpg
242589351fc8a987cb45044fadf5ce01
55c748724cbf53a6108d7e099f69dceeaef1234f
94901 F20101113_AAEMSE waters_r_Page_252.jpg
5256127d7c36e24f82d0577572a5c54c
c348455dfa9b1d7aec70ba52e3ec4ebfc8aab4dd
26461 F20101113_AAELVL waters_r_Page_120.jp2
4afe2dfab317ef6b16baabaf18c9103a
5eaf38afeef194f93181060b3180e94a65950b10
3117 F20101113_AAEOGZ waters_r_Page_119thm.jpg
b06fdd4adc25f81edd565cf6b18d9390
ec9f1a88eb09ec242e9a705f29e9b8f1510db4d2
86931 F20101113_AAEMSF waters_r_Page_253.jpg
44d6d4743eccb029a75fc8b86f13caf9
90eca430640ce41256e2f3e3debc75fd3dfa3be6
102687 F20101113_AAELVM waters_r_Page_238.jp2
ce7534c4285b6fd0f56d6773c04aaa39
e28970f3a42673b6ce6bb2bb69780ba1a37d9438
95632 F20101113_AAEMSG waters_r_Page_256.jpg
5bb08a083b727049109af83759317773
60647e1a65fcc1f0f7de641eca8e2b524b0ec203
150532 F20101113_AAELVN waters_r_Page_269.jp2
fe694ce5fb8b1af7c9251904c2e8c3ab
40012d54b61a230ea29b12ec25381e6f9f9cbd27
86838 F20101113_AAEMSH waters_r_Page_257.jpg
2661e8603ac1b88f8f77b1ebda711bee
22872a4a35cabe3aefb34451199b7a509fe73a12
F20101113_AAENPA waters_r_Page_077.txt
6b948f941cb621388457db582cc2c2ad
608348d99489594c29fb43b1da4bf4aa03009a3e
15160 F20101113_AAELVO waters_r_Page_168.QC.jpg
b6af273482c356d01f0a6ea83dfdf53a
603364c0ec90780bbb7f24bc5411461ead2368a6
69628 F20101113_AAEMSI waters_r_Page_258.jpg
5cc015665f8fda29ee9d475799cf827b
145583ac07cb2c4e2f7b969c954c1a118587daba
1878 F20101113_AAENPB waters_r_Page_078.txt
962f27f8bcc7dc0e8ee092d239faa2f1
d283192dff1c0f9ed6c177faba55ceb0a0552986
72962 F20101113_AAELVP waters_r_Page_061.jpg
c74ebfe50d8ef94854e1460489c8b926
5dd6c178322a9212428b1ad822e62f444f7daee8
91979 F20101113_AAEMSJ waters_r_Page_259.jpg
c69315d0a59c8c2d5b0da95ef74e9852
75a2a3adf4ad29dcdc3fd6a6b959e536c9affc41
2150 F20101113_AAENPC waters_r_Page_080.txt
f8cd71879006a9c0474f25f36a98edd8
2a348d338247650d0eaa4b99238976cedef3c0dc
51580 F20101113_AAELVQ waters_r_Page_131.pro
841642cf91afce5815c6ed050b3ee8b0
248621c0919b119d974fc9cc8a9bcf52477400cd
35182 F20101113_AAEMSK waters_r_Page_262.jpg
756eeca96a327a95179852748d0e84e3
296e04f8c03adcbaf16ea5296b185bb1fbcf56c2
F20101113_AAENPD waters_r_Page_081.txt
1ab1ac38be729c43f2fbaee833f05dc2
33edf6b93769e1d4bd200290f9a5dad3b79d7a7a
F20101113_AAELVR waters_r_Page_246.tif
e48c9eead349b5c58706fbe30e5c0923
ad6888fdd1c338e670ddf8cf36ab28c450ecaf36
41023 F20101113_AAEMSL waters_r_Page_263.jpg
ba18cf58b1f6a7db19eeefda592724c4
3135f61e76ee3d4a3b97168fef5ba553c3e4fd20
F20101113_AAENPE waters_r_Page_082.txt
7b02e644f473a2b892a260d711bc1383
23ddb8b53faba822ea7a6d5cb12d25388c42239b
6310 F20101113_AAEMFA waters_r_Page_141thm.jpg
876161b3873ca8b5a4fd41f5d624fa8b
8db7c09b18655cebfd35943ed758609f09e37b65
91197 F20101113_AAELVS waters_r_Page_268.jpg
63fb0dee4de15721329a6db55f1e8b48
aac1061311aa594521c50cc7bb006391d2f1cb0f
87087 F20101113_AAEMSM waters_r_Page_264.jpg
2a3dd5b2a97e7a1534e9dd2530b090a3
5486b09b600a4cf745d62397720f0a8a25ab9c98
1651 F20101113_AAENPF waters_r_Page_084.txt
c9cf0523af43fe3f2650cd547b34ff41
980e66b716432bb446f18276499ad2d62d9ec494
F20101113_AAEMFB waters_r_Page_083.txt
8a34adfcf4bd9d555bdc763dfb44c17a
cb0571901c709e81f041b93ca25687f147a98b9f
F20101113_AAELVT waters_r_Page_239.tif
eb1c59289e3192e22e667f35f507ad98
0ea63b95d41bb8e76c73176a408de73d899f9397
91618 F20101113_AAEMSN waters_r_Page_267.jpg
f73b07e0e1780467640534d8d7c8d159
abc64429953dea3ec0aaac92e7120a3ecd3a4b4c
1389 F20101113_AAENPG waters_r_Page_086.txt
8d88bfaaf9c8e40ae363652878c5f9b1
9e319f9ee46c9a8b99fe763b39df50db733b7968
23571 F20101113_AAEMFC waters_r_Page_149.QC.jpg
849df2d0c7c2b55139eaecd780547cac
e799c733eabcbcde1ee583d167218c582b380c99
97019 F20101113_AAEMSO waters_r_Page_269.jpg
87b070fd23acff8058ad45b7a313bb9e
0b62e877a50bc19c2a0756ae9bed6f91df39a9be
920 F20101113_AAENPH waters_r_Page_087.txt
9f28aa81a53d1ed7343588f7b2a24ae5
3efd1ec9ded2ac57a50a81ff635239117be6a0cf
4628 F20101113_AAELVU waters_r_Page_162thm.jpg
8e48215ff0ea4ace076d09f5542e5a09
e8381506d5d1e512dcf26f2509a1afac636cbf69
93343 F20101113_AAEMSP waters_r_Page_270.jpg
ebb2eb9941a9f2fc19f9b85b120d3f57
154016fa1e783e1bf8e6a51e3755f36a14469cf3
F20101113_AAENPI waters_r_Page_090.txt
12193555f09f0027618eaec1eeac3d0c
b772fc3cef098ab51311826c3646a6bbde14602e
73352 F20101113_AAEMFD waters_r_Page_221.jpg
d7e5d8da0325769c2504dec91944e718
e6805ba214b9a9e89558c2ac51e81a8b589ddb23
F20101113_AAELVV waters_r_Page_133.tif
a95faa839e1e32fefe3c1889d7a42975
b22013f652ee25f01196e412ff5dc66d5ee1cfd9
F20101113_AAENPJ waters_r_Page_092.txt
ba5481fa60ab9fd120d6e15b26f0e200
620d5732d8dd1a3c3e6d1586bd74b7706ea499eb
25650 F20101113_AAEMFE waters_r_Page_236.QC.jpg
85829ebc5719a693bcd439dcdc2643e0
53f5b4903b137abaeba2cecf83474bba8ceaa819
986 F20101113_AAELVW waters_r_Page_002.pro
09c10916a058917d82e78e36b0b407ab
70dd12096654f95bf65c277657ed127be8b10cf2
89936 F20101113_AAEMSQ waters_r_Page_271.jpg
0587930a63cd3ba73fcbfba182174052
f51da011aec86ce68b6edbdf6eb89b701a3fdfd1
F20101113_AAENPK waters_r_Page_093.txt
9a60900ad7e084f01e26a60a7f494676
0442f41babb22540c3dca0b64ca4e79d6eef5d2e
7301 F20101113_AAEMFF waters_r_Page_269thm.jpg
28d01594355dacdb66779ebe8c7b6e22
e9fb344610637a4102772bd9eeb1a69edbd8a853
346 F20101113_AAELVX waters_r_Page_237.txt
37def3addb6c072b31924df1e1963690
7e2f1fd2a4249676471f75dc5339e438745a0697
98684 F20101113_AAEMSR waters_r_Page_273.jpg
d1e19cf1a4aa8950a497cd77745a7c0f
bbb27527bb2bc333d6778bc368152cf0ddfe16b2
2147 F20101113_AAENPL waters_r_Page_094.txt
4f5181e28e3e04061e78fecd5b02e39f
925f0e8112be87eea09f700de2a02b790d5700f1
50705 F20101113_AAEMFG waters_r_Page_129.pro
d675850e05670e89224527d9c95fb757
48213eadffec24d96f91678b1b467ff50374d0dd
F20101113_AAELVY waters_r_Page_102.tif
b0e1cbaf602844e0f7918941ad8face0
2a58f80fec38b1e617667ef9d1452f4875d81cef
F20101113_AAENCA waters_r_Page_093.tif
137a3e5659f0ad7befbcfa998f1704f4
518731bacc50f468d0cefa2870fd01e68c779a83
92024 F20101113_AAEMSS waters_r_Page_275.jpg
dbe5df766beb5eb5bf28911d28dd7c0f
80b2ea260d3741dee536f8a8eabad496d17afecc
73876 F20101113_AAEMFH waters_r_Page_040.jpg
36455b9895faeb326ef7395531d4aa07
82d9421d40201de5214b492627bf309e15241342
68273 F20101113_AAELVZ waters_r_Page_261.jpg
ae24833afd62cac33f39eba394133a41
4ca56c938d81f44f2617da5529426a1397261194
F20101113_AAENCB waters_r_Page_094.tif
4918c12a831d722001e1713673dbee4e
2a9120dd16843a0586464ed7422ed2f0fec0043f
81866 F20101113_AAEMST waters_r_Page_277.jpg
3094bcb0b41d3c0123d9ac5fa0413fc3
fcf6cca5fe57af9da184235b3cb539a16e93a80e
2024 F20101113_AAENPM waters_r_Page_097.txt
0432d57d4f95c0e6404cabfcdcb0c0d9
dff2c58ec9faa8952f256944c4d2e0ad98a8725c
23613 F20101113_AAEMFI waters_r_Page_217.QC.jpg
c04c8dbb8c60e4434efd7a10e562bc73
304a4b765d4dbbeab3774f28d6c5d55ef448e900
F20101113_AAENCC waters_r_Page_095.tif
98f1fd67da2f51c9857a60a96cd7ecb8
40841350edd3520d9ffdd1d9364a66aacf443569
88253 F20101113_AAEMSU waters_r_Page_278.jpg
d48308f1a7e8c011259ded212af7c1aa
6e8a7d5323038b340b1bca0e5b65ae9446cffaa6
2141 F20101113_AAENPN waters_r_Page_099.txt
bc0b90f1a87016724b257256299ffe49
730d16792b71cbb243a0bf1291c253eb754a76ac
56019 F20101113_AAEMFJ waters_r_Page_234.pro
51605cc0e3033f5b9aa45858ff633aa9
d6526dc99367df8fc2773e42f08deb397df18244
F20101113_AAENCD waters_r_Page_096.tif
22afd4feaead7965df7ad00b5ffc9785
608deb081a1e049be78e80bd94336a0447004a0e
76456 F20101113_AAEMSV waters_r_Page_279.jpg
26197c5e828c7dd9825ca29ef1fd0076
0415cbb7f301a76518735ef33be9e2fb4d850d9b
F20101113_AAENPO waters_r_Page_100.txt
a749f79254a0d73b9bd66a21620e9257
f328b805a6ac0f26a2900612af895d07c12624b4
64896 F20101113_AAEMFK waters_r_Page_068.pro
538288ece68b60530b806774497a734c
f1409d42872e39a09ff9ee4a9f80a3a1b0378c0f
F20101113_AAENCE waters_r_Page_099.tif
17176fc9325450d3bf5c6fa62d82f502
b83336e4f12d6dc5c71b9e663fda4e5e17ea4562
36681 F20101113_AAEMSW waters_r_Page_280.jpg
c4ab40cd6a00ad2f1faec5df21b0d1ea
7666e4d20e7d0b59a9ad0a79071702914bc5968e
2159 F20101113_AAENPP waters_r_Page_101.txt
ca964e2b4ba36982e549a12e3d8c2c76
7d6a0770691c40fe74109b0605f213a7f4e99c8c
78454 F20101113_AAEMFL waters_r_Page_045.jpg
c5ea919f7d4fb748902a626fc976e763
ffde65fda52de2edda00a3493be0fab49f81b953
F20101113_AAENCF waters_r_Page_100.tif
05af0c6ce252df3f18e96d07b77e83e4
a224fb2329f1b936bb12eb3de9611e4a870d3912
26166 F20101113_AAEMSX waters_r_Page_001.jp2
e34e0df1aa3cd6961e8abc31b0957ff2
0c054e5f4ba3c4ce57504d939381469d61af8bef
F20101113_AAENPQ waters_r_Page_102.txt
6ff4768b5c83d0b0e565527a80220079
ef10d518a982f20233b8744180a3b6e25d0da47d
6756 F20101113_AAEMFM waters_r_Page_137thm.jpg
5f6e297fee9eb7aa1e00cee9ec209ec9
b2e14aced74391fcbd4bc7c946fc6e4505333a80
F20101113_AAENCG waters_r_Page_101.tif
d0caaedd63c5700a6fdd6fca9a552961
d06e8c34ba2bbcc79ed6e2baa4a0245934627695
5783 F20101113_AAEMSY waters_r_Page_002.jp2
66e5f64a2604f8db2d45220619a25e5b
12e46855f6b43b2cf676882948a777524a5972ee
2110 F20101113_AAENPR waters_r_Page_104.txt
141686990559ddc732a149cf7c3aa2f4
19d555e1fbf295f5f4a15fb3cc83734db1b63873
22442 F20101113_AAEMFN waters_r_Page_049.QC.jpg
b2eccb8cc32458e142c2b71548891eeb
2974131393bd128415661bce69c72e9e1a44ef57
F20101113_AAENCH waters_r_Page_103.tif
ecc783ea18183e0aef6abb7a1e8be4b6
475c40e66bf9c6942d36e9b7ce067ca17d547211
111538 F20101113_AAEMSZ waters_r_Page_004.jp2
84ffc3cdb1a3ab5ebd0ed65185a1ebd2
3e7f1cf4a380edefe88e81ec3a9fe694fb76dc64
F20101113_AAENPS waters_r_Page_106.txt
008dbb4aaddfe46ad1375d1e81e0b9a8
e261af9eddf59cced4287396759d05f0ebfc72c7
115476 F20101113_AAEMFO waters_r_Page_033.jp2
8118bff9f0384efb67c1eac8a7d9dd5c
5490bc7798b367c660bc223fe1d37f071bad0505
F20101113_AAENCI waters_r_Page_104.tif
41ab544088084aa4532a6c0248d3bc94
953e8c2d9f5257aeb31306057300976719e25125
F20101113_AAENPT waters_r_Page_108.txt
7d5b58366b871b18f0c6228dd67a2d5a
73441ba7f71c530b1f2d22af2f0775d89aa9343f
71364 F20101113_AAEMFP waters_r_Page_148.jpg
3bb34f37bfb0c2be314bfb39db46ace2
e77299f49c5f1e50de91ec9c16b2cb0474108b58
2068 F20101113_AAENPU waters_r_Page_111.txt
04e54a5fb183a44cb4c2a4dcb5b1fb78
51c30168324b4a2a522f43759a1c70fe647e1685
55659 F20101113_AAEMFQ waters_r_Page_100.pro
a9001e2f4c66124fa6dfa6dfc3ff5969
f9fa05b88b109673671ddab38da92c16dc487f9e
F20101113_AAENCJ waters_r_Page_105.tif
f94ebc111c15fdd39fbf5812a3e15380
f71ae26f48d84ebe84d9c17236f117db389c301d
F20101113_AAENPV waters_r_Page_112.txt
14635ffe837087d9a0c7c24f6f57443b
e8c3d4ee4542c63297090a24d88c62be689c8198
23379 F20101113_AAEMFR waters_r_Page_075.QC.jpg
d1edec806486a0a7ad327b8fb8d291fa
36104ac9a9871b377c0004c98d1d68f090b6e9d3
F20101113_AAENCK waters_r_Page_106.tif
c6556b17458d2658bc6de0236b87f372
88b961320fa7a9a98f7c7d9312c321b43d365146
2061 F20101113_AAENPW waters_r_Page_113.txt
a471203466e3a70d84978cdd19b3f5b7
fb017a405a6de80f297d0f157c0ba735e7f8b91a
26043 F20101113_AAEMFS waters_r_Page_123.QC.jpg
3a228e4d70ffdbf9d72da85c6871fa3d
27479ed398c94c54fb32b37b0bd3877018976eb0
F20101113_AAENCL waters_r_Page_107.tif
8c050a161f501b1b1be6aff6165525e4
d354c3b36a376370440553f276c91c43d0bf2a7f
1252 F20101113_AAENPX waters_r_Page_114.txt
56770700d703089423517d43ed5b6097
9f6352fad15b278765d15e85ea61b48f2e20ea50
F20101113_AAEMFT waters_r_Page_275.tif
ec05e7281af1cf5f167b1597967726a2
65d1389afc715b4ebe9be613c71a232402f9f718
F20101113_AAENCM waters_r_Page_108.tif
6de638837ff428e12db2180670f1cae5
b62ea93930ce9d4de74fae2476b700fdd3dd9ab9
835 F20101113_AAENPY waters_r_Page_115.txt
8fe1d23ed7b87eb3b2d84696b9aaa3ec
4b191a65fe7a2f117d08159176f4049f3745ff2f
F20101113_AAEMFU waters_r_Page_098.txt
ffe452add747f4eb443d512120a2f63a
cc0c4d5e877ba1cb3421095433394e6539f4b37c
F20101113_AAENCN waters_r_Page_109.tif
5c91ce60b9fffd832a6fd160efd065d9
fa439515fab58c12837d606321bf8dca1e959303
1957 F20101113_AAENPZ waters_r_Page_116.txt
7caae27645d874779b33aa57b9682e17
9b08ff6d4959b5cc1bf80c5a300362052ef0dd9a
55228 F20101113_AAEMFV waters_r_Page_018.pro
3b8c0b77e6cc46cac35b8a907f92aef9
a285e6c7b2380140a98623af736c0278843988dd
F20101113_AAENCO waters_r_Page_110.tif
80745ec30071d4bad8845cf153644217
7cb4b3a3a6b238ee5f86cf62124d6ca198750e67
76875 F20101113_AAEMFW waters_r_Page_137.jpg
2f18a560e0fe3202efa09a5cba02d5ea
70c3c14c9322698fca7c3df82b7fbfe8981ebc72
F20101113_AAENCP waters_r_Page_111.tif
a87aae76b65771affc8971e424231a32
2c27e2e6c2df9ee5ea469f3157006aa4a9094c94
57175 F20101113_AAEMFX waters_r_Page_128.pro
062ac6163898f22e5d03f563ac4ea484
e117929bc3d7e8bf3b024275322c4b825537fa50
106785 F20101113_AAEMYA waters_r_Page_223.jp2
2359815e392ebf481322cb46b9366612
4cc79e1bf4133ef2d6bf833175801ccdf33cb8b6
F20101113_AAENCQ waters_r_Page_112.tif
9777ea772c63298a946dedc6226e2577
92431b165fd2d5703b626e357104214a9a1f3291
F20101113_AAEMFY waters_r_Page_042.tif
4abf2c4f00b92dee6d3f625c03844b13
37ead1f3066681be0ba1249fdcff263a99721f52
108984 F20101113_AAEMYB waters_r_Page_224.jp2
a47a4fbbae16be02956b22ef1e5e08dc
b07426d2e7969e6e63cc86e7518b2739b76e729b
F20101113_AAENCR waters_r_Page_113.tif
11b336ab5de331f2fc2f3f8916dfc943
b5fb773c0c3b465cf7b1c8d9e500db13238d6669
55968 F20101113_AAEMFZ waters_r_Page_263.jp2
285ce05ff91d7e1f172f48185bc664ea
ce011dcb7d1583ef2b410912b29ac121f16c8106
112432 F20101113_AAEMYC waters_r_Page_225.jp2
45ba2c5052457d52f7ccb6447dce523e
219550b3431367540c7c1ce5d5679e635abebb13
F20101113_AAENCS waters_r_Page_115.tif
f1641b8652ea49d0955f33c4c8eec471
0a5329275f268e67d9f8716560987f843d6c57b5
118822 F20101113_AAEMYD waters_r_Page_226.jp2
a48d3d654cee9ddae5e4591abc920ae1
46103bb8df7a1a8a4d621c096b7dcafc83f7e226
F20101113_AAENCT waters_r_Page_116.tif
1bf44a83768b0c808a75912880969f55
cadb8aa98264f608b46c9f3262ea1e3e82f59406
47832 F20101113_AAELOA waters_r_Page_262.jp2
04f38133e83e842632d92ec31800cb12
f5935719baa4f9b14bcf1937f688bfe147e58e61
115174 F20101113_AAEMYE waters_r_Page_227.jp2
906c69f6882a06b00f28f678f675d2cb
72e9486a2200d8e622b32cf909a6451baa7b6c03
F20101113_AAENCU waters_r_Page_117.tif
21bca3fb1a1716e7410d3e3ed12672d4
dd1dd4d582e8d2417571e991d88d5a7627c26566
F20101113_AAELOB waters_r_Page_043.tif
a31fa50b2e3bacb626de1f608b4e0c21
aadb2c4abacb4ec96ee50fbe66ffc702d6095cd7
117097 F20101113_AAEMYF waters_r_Page_228.jp2
b035b04fbe253cb4f3235f8f89ee7d42
a8f0d18a0e45847d915898fa4b784b91c10feeb5
F20101113_AAENCV waters_r_Page_119.tif
ace7cffc15973d026cd251367c202334
ab03e34e2dcff7dc7083a5e6895417623378419a
116984 F20101113_AAELOC waters_r_Page_103.jp2
e215bddd801d89d19a46fd2503f995a7
374f47db289d09b2969b3f8cf640b6e0039fd1ba
115751 F20101113_AAEMYG waters_r_Page_229.jp2
adc6c073eed6c63eec4c105d036ea0bc
bb1165fe6e651fa8c854bed5a9a391875d6c3ede
F20101113_AAENCW waters_r_Page_120.tif
d28edfbe468b19db6869d4839e012806
f215ae485f7b65b7bfb785006f82ad9021b570c9
F20101113_AAENVA waters_r_Page_189thm.jpg
0958259501756696bec934bb28d2da71
6fc3610a9c6af37b72a29ff71f606973942e1976
6662 F20101113_AAELOD waters_r_Page_095thm.jpg
3d9ea27265101914056b4cf2fbdfad91
e37b929d29b8e47f0dcb1c5086f38dd0cea7dcb6
F20101113_AAEMYH waters_r_Page_230.jp2
4f621d0dbfc2dee378d60ded58f7ea04
28947c826ccfde7e76957b9a6f59383cf29143cb
F20101113_AAENCX waters_r_Page_122.tif
bd4755e4e66d42217a68c4be2fb29b13
c2ffa8f5c05ceb03551b57613fc4fb9dd431a6aa
3403 F20101113_AAENVB waters_r_Page_160thm.jpg
2132109006aed4bbd74855f3edb8f588
d1555f8899c03b877445cd1a1326905bfbb0c9dd
26101 F20101113_AAELOE waters_r_Page_150.QC.jpg
0de122633d6a5ef740b3bfd33c873dc4
d936d8909f39ab7e10859cf8973c1956180a2271
109930 F20101113_AAEMYI waters_r_Page_231.jp2
a10fb6b48760e19c3aca6b9a7b780caa
5a134c6408936510fd1c62ae72cf793dae78f6fe
F20101113_AAENCY waters_r_Page_123.tif
8b57cab4e2a4d9ea1cb980e773e9a563
96b3d4a91b94eccd4415a74351c0078b068e181d
3528 F20101113_AAENVC waters_r_Page_280thm.jpg
7a767794f012fa3f4759c78b3de7485b
4322f7bde7b236271aa27892b68ef9863d0ef4d3
111777 F20101113_AAELOF waters_r_Page_208.jp2
940693bfab3a3c481da56bd408e9f9e4
c9ffeb97cf741918d5be9b3fbebc86f1f0416cc3
116476 F20101113_AAEMYJ waters_r_Page_232.jp2
2534dc02492c13f71d6863f07d7517a9
6e32a832bacb178699e41f5cc92b1d427194426e
F20101113_AAENCZ waters_r_Page_124.tif
87bfa44937ff22ed857718bc64873d75
a3f262a87682fceeca1c4e187c77f8624ebaf68e
F20101113_AAENVD waters_r_Page_167thm.jpg
703a850acac04aadd873632a3ab7458d
474d31c6e366f223bfef2d368a79ae41ee5c74fd
F20101113_AAELOG waters_r_Page_080.tif
11741678a631601237bfb732b90ce398
60554dc03c611e3a8a322d3b63c459e786bdd3e8
119640 F20101113_AAEMYK waters_r_Page_234.jp2
d1f1a51f85fd466b99d0b6ae24f2e161
cd093f5cd0c50a2593506dc30efcc45892f7d6c1
17851 F20101113_AAENVE waters_r_Page_188.QC.jpg
f6133dda702511faa0ec53d00cea8a45
fcd4ad970175ab99098ee06f750a749be26e4bf6
111366 F20101113_AAELOH waters_r_Page_207.jp2
ed9310b40e03f5cb861566fe22e03ca2
d8ab2052c88edc019eebb186684aabeaa1a9ed98
21681 F20101113_AAEMLA waters_r_Page_078.QC.jpg
c0bfc16b5b152c66c6aac6edbb830687
db01157d99972e92742294115e8ac2166b1ba994
113957 F20101113_AAEMYL waters_r_Page_235.jp2
a35065463347a8e8378bf59f6d1c77ed
47fcd51cb6faa13956d6239bde735595555c4de1
17986 F20101113_AAENVF waters_r_Page_086.QC.jpg
6882947cf3c07135faa00686d2624ff3
3d84a3665c7338ecb47cb7c38295e11e96faecaa
639 F20101113_AAELOI waters_r_Page_085.txt
fbc46335a08a289579ad4af9f1f2b70d
e21ba5a233a09b13a0e3187082d5b9b2058a7ae2
25197 F20101113_AAEMLB waters_r_Page_058.QC.jpg
6f5de48f8ccfcdeb41e1a1ddc35c45ef
b1deb7723c18b5bc6a9ce178b9608f696e4c95a1
117668 F20101113_AAEMYM waters_r_Page_236.jp2
a96a8e4b06ba6a0d80fe366bcd3aa600
02fb7cdc906ba55460b5a822bce2e80c76afb308
25128 F20101113_AAENVG waters_r_Page_276.QC.jpg
d803caf75126a68d5ed08cb5ce3caae7
fd3d7effae9cb79cab392d293d4721a885be2da1
53832 F20101113_AAELOJ waters_r_Page_215.pro
fa8e2c7ac77da9cfade275839eccfd8c
4e46c25ea0aee3fff347406c71e9591ebe2f25e5
51769 F20101113_AAEMLC waters_r_Page_158.pro
4e0399cf69655094cc52dd2fdf70e3c4
f9e816ebf9c42f5d207f3bcab85db58b9352483f
121426 F20101113_AAEMYN waters_r_Page_239.jp2
5f97b26acc47be2ee9b0044addf931d7
6d4e43c581d45ece2d0467a916a2b39bbf27b520
28263 F20101113_AAENVH waters_r_Page_251.QC.jpg
4dfd008a2bb55427e6e543cd8ff8ca2b
a059ac25a4202a6817fb600e06d7e34ee779876d
F20101113_AAELOK waters_r_Page_194.tif
18a9fe0a1a44fd350eefb56b61487524
f427c179d4a39988eb89d7cbad68aebc61e9b53d
6839 F20101113_AAEMLD waters_r_Page_276thm.jpg
705cad4cf113b8861d4e507c1db8a385
661da7e126f2596ad2fd7de5bde5b01435a597eb
117651 F20101113_AAEMYO waters_r_Page_240.jp2
aecb33625c63248ab2e36a986383c1e8
1237e81e6a7b3fde053ca569e4dab6e59546e041
28190 F20101113_AAENVI waters_r_Page_011.QC.jpg
ab7e4def3553a91ad48ca758d1445e79
b18c2c3eca809927b38015faaf065b6283c37d6a
1985 F20101113_AAELOL waters_r_Page_075.txt
a29009e1921b9f0b941e42296a7859c6
0bc8eafafc02fbd9197688923fa93db3c7205559
26925 F20101113_AAEMLE waters_r_Page_268.QC.jpg
f1aacc22752dc9c56898a68e1d473c6e
f0a595a15b0478c4d7c9fb36aab793bc4ad39cb4
115104 F20101113_AAEMYP waters_r_Page_242.jp2
5cffb387c358405db147221f44f32512
4e573267fb62d6503618b3788b8177cad0eb060e
6850 F20101113_AAENVJ waters_r_Page_147thm.jpg
9a59021eccb2e1c6653ea4f65713f30d
4045bfc636558dd651775a52fb1595f3addeeb7a
24667 F20101113_AAELOM waters_r_Page_081.QC.jpg
4a7a90211ed47bd1bf71a66ba92a2428
7d6e2b5fa46323f729ae861eba50a406dd10c66a
72275 F20101113_AAEMLF waters_r_Page_136.jpg
ee8cbcfceef56635b893fe627c3f8500
bebbc3396b765198a24033868daae8f38f95f910
110799 F20101113_AAEMYQ waters_r_Page_243.jp2
50bf915379222b82e8a19f1a690d1c9a
4931e15618698faeb94f759c076a70737d58a57b
F20101113_AAENVK waters_r_Page_127thm.jpg
a6eef5eed49d68cded5121c23e7ab0b5
724e6329cf7a2b9f6a90015a98e68b1990b4a244
63340 F20101113_AAEMLG waters_r_Page_166.jpg
a52146907895e27b19f37e1ef0283d7d
9b87e8ed58b405de51f16bfcb510452eb668f1be
112830 F20101113_AAEMYR waters_r_Page_244.jp2
7480d946aeebc851d490974eeac88cec
2e82d60cbad80ce98d7c68b21b98cc42acd0d3c8
F20101113_AAENVL waters_r_Page_264thm.jpg
2db2e31b655e2a4fdae24ffdf97cffb0
9334e418892dce44332f37b189fee2331d575344
115461 F20101113_AAELON waters_r_Page_081.jp2
e574c5f59b32b81b78da9ffa99ccf199
8244b045778f869f8167118f684dee92beb755d4
24447 F20101113_AAEMLH waters_r_Page_125.QC.jpg
9d6bb4e4a0fd68ab99c25a51dc65a0b9
65aeffdd5a6bc61f1fe2d47b088999d6ea0b8d4e
51660 F20101113_AAENIA waters_r_Page_070.pro
aa75cf90d6abb90f5e210fd48b508f50
7af1dda8c38820d997f7df231eb51baea894fff3
121739 F20101113_AAEMYS waters_r_Page_246.jp2
128b331e4bf0daf3767df4ed659b819f
f2c7f15efc845f0cad51a06098b6fe18d86aea42
F20101113_AAENVM waters_r_Page_044.QC.jpg
bfc673cf630ab288f2decca2869bff9d
084094251435e67be6c04159e3d472990c976e32
F20101113_AAELOO waters_r_Page_160.tif
283635aa807e52acea499dd0cf33e4b0
b6d710813418506ae66c606f36eba003f108839c
2082 F20101113_AAEMLI waters_r_Page_245.txt
be37dc9bb3018bad0c2057fd7a699d0f
ff4d2d914636859abe1d64bd001963d5a5cb8dba
51770 F20101113_AAENIB waters_r_Page_071.pro
8c79915c9f6aee3803faec2e55c72ba9
5bd21aef0ac5e20a2206bdc69d47795e2ad84aed
115847 F20101113_AAEMYT waters_r_Page_247.jp2
fe2015b66fe4bdb4157a5e794736de7b
44f266c79ba83b536472631ea5c7eaf3a9c10b2b
F20101113_AAENVN waters_r_Page_242.QC.jpg
0f19455ae6a67f87dc2ea414d691e9a6
96c776c9bee660e83aaf4e16fff6b4ae3bc97eaf
102260 F20101113_AAELOP waters_r_Page_251.jpg
f18aa22e3093285402bc2a7a88535a99
e5fe7bfdaed91e191efa00f19a9d4c9fc3eb0846
54639 F20101113_AAENIC waters_r_Page_072.pro
ffb8de4d8a434f594705f1863c7a0a70
66cbc27f99a4569db52eb2f7c852c513b3fc03f9
117191 F20101113_AAEMYU waters_r_Page_248.jp2
d3022882c67db85b82dda07205d14b3f
ef041fef1deb54c4afa9bca3d550ee6ce2818f2e
22363 F20101113_AAENVO waters_r_Page_007.QC.jpg
5831b8b3176722a21fda69b6aefcfb94
c6c094ce9e0e8769174e0047afe1e2c35827a53a
4464 F20101113_AAELOQ waters_r_Page_085thm.jpg
fc0638c0f738913b56a11290855c6f3b
e0ffe1d035a86d88a272f1cdba677804dc0a5e4e
53337 F20101113_AAEMLJ waters_r_Page_017.pro
e3d25d8c2f652e868bd8ddd5e839ece7
a7c09bd298a8327fc36f010c40ab583512dd7738
53041 F20101113_AAENID waters_r_Page_074.pro
cc8d5cf4c8c65dca56d2c8c57e902c14
f708e8745b3866d47c33cec4a0990955f57475d2
117532 F20101113_AAEMYV waters_r_Page_249.jp2
9198bf39f057df17c27ad7a915aac87e
f7834d1d280aa9f280f52947fe8d326ce1ededcd
F20101113_AAENVP waters_r_Page_098thm.jpg
81ede9aea2882d8d0e13589e59876305
0f1d8059fea2e8f3636c1dafd8e9b26b5781c4ee
23797 F20101113_AAELOR waters_r_Page_025.QC.jpg
37700186e5b838f975572bc90846b292
85df48f168aa67ee8b4eac3be526a91313a26908
25168 F20101113_AAEMLK waters_r_Page_181.jp2
e80d24279259c126a73f0a8d056eff00
6f14396024f25c6e3d65f2222fd09eb71ccb3f8f
50220 F20101113_AAENIE waters_r_Page_076.pro
9f7a641446d07e11168cc593de32f9f2
1d02a90eb9f7ca80683b07c289d3ee9fc24c9c63
6767 F20101113_AAENVQ waters_r_Page_211thm.jpg
28fcd31223b2bfcee4b076e00e00444d
b17153eb545d8a5e63c6b373842dd8314e716caa
73627 F20101113_AAELOS waters_r_Page_106.jpg
c72296abed7913862b94887d7e09e2c7
abbc5a07244ecf1a9f637614e53f288be1ffe5f8
F20101113_AAEMLL waters_r_Page_107.txt
4006e4a2deb4299fa8f26a7d8768da35
aaf1f63fa0359c1f17417c3c17e00a0013fcd8ff
70686 F20101113_AAEMYW waters_r_Page_250.jp2
965d1888592a9f182c5e2d1f420276f2
783981974af6687ffa20f81274ffe6460b730103
7131 F20101113_AAENVR waters_r_Page_275thm.jpg
b7977404f7dcbf1a064bd0c2ac914769
d10371b8a40a159a7f0a96cbf0e1fd5a6b65d9cf
88185 F20101113_AAELOT waters_r_Page_179.jpg
fb6c47911e75f13994cea26d59686c9c
49b68aa5547fbcd9883e85cb36b83a717f55f35c
109323 F20101113_AAEMLM waters_r_Page_125.jp2
23adbb9eab6b32c18cdfc2b51d2e4dc8
560c44b172b9b95a2d0542fcb512b6c2b258534a
53096 F20101113_AAENIF waters_r_Page_077.pro
973f80711f999cdcd1d5e4aef9a36a57
1ad6c5b1620ab36ef3de522d873ab79edb6d93c4
131377 F20101113_AAEMYX waters_r_Page_251.jp2
cc030684350d46163a1643edf8ee1bf4
6183f49650b7ceb2756bad23f7fa7d77202fa066
6577 F20101113_AAEOFA waters_r_Page_044thm.jpg
cb5802f3ae3420974a627d7949e4d33d
d3a3c03125872f9989c638eb487022c02dbacec5
57884 F20101113_AAELOU waters_r_Page_189.pro
fa3d1054dc116856e906415f8b642f68
09545b11326d82efa1d5d63115356116af2a63cf
26947 F20101113_AAEMLN waters_r_Page_266.QC.jpg
d8b1fd60a0de4c4a1b0cb7022a8747f9
ad30324e72778c2452db4bf6d1b7b3927a4620db
46917 F20101113_AAENIG waters_r_Page_078.pro
b86f9cee87e8effe7964529197b93f11
2a00752e6b90e93e053af9b0d6115bfb85cc0a2c
113781 F20101113_AAEMYY waters_r_Page_253.jp2
d4e43c141d6cc3ced015d03e3a95a064
363da231d5776972727a70734e46fa84ebd6a936
5608 F20101113_AAENVS waters_r_Page_007thm.jpg
186292a9d27102b1ee920f77b3013e4e
db0fe6b5c41609feb69997482fbfa690b83da769
10810 F20101113_AAELOV waters_r_Page_172.pro
f37faf9c0ede0f5641e26c77feee41f4
d0858351951f915203013365d22f8b9336ed29ee
F20101113_AAEMLO waters_r_Page_121.tif
ad08cc7fda16cf2b2d0eda4335182be2
d690986af2fda30f2110b4808cb3d3f3d6c54283
52752 F20101113_AAENIH waters_r_Page_079.pro
8956e7c2406f5edd88f7d203d70ccb86
2087344de681bca0b792d97c5395cc601ae8b2a7
96145 F20101113_AAEMYZ waters_r_Page_254.jp2
dbbacabaef1892484b9a65ed6746b649
4454023ac7638a246aae64440bab24ab75c5ca64
F20101113_AAEOFB waters_r_Page_101thm.jpg
71f5b9c6662276ca1906cc68379039ad
f93352814366d32610e4dd4d22a94bf95e6b173b
23706 F20101113_AAENVT waters_r_Page_129.QC.jpg
c1950a8da37ea7e37a990d8a2f2fe6d0
f9ad3f6ef6739fc81ca554169e3dde68fe040e8e
24620 F20101113_AAELOW waters_r_Page_241.QC.jpg
fccdd35f097885f12cb97d29a4393d25
f7d92bced9118d14642ef863ab1e2e49ef520935
F20101113_AAEMLP waters_r_Page_264.tif
120fe2f4db6c6d4f84d0eb4f12c03750
e76febcc00973f278182cceb760f569d0ca47ae7
53941 F20101113_AAENII waters_r_Page_080.pro
160da39e22ca61fa8a0c7894396c3ba4
e4c50306312734a14dc7d498ba3b849e6d5f43be
6789 F20101113_AAEOFC waters_r_Page_212thm.jpg
8b36e357dc8af0956b62d5cefba33ee2
e64736d8ed0db1980ee3a819ab90d56b81dd6fa9
15676 F20101113_AAENVU waters_r_Page_250.QC.jpg
1a4456247259466605bab6f7c92626d6
908ec53c0480a91fa0194b2360290e28e1789118
25475 F20101113_AAELOX waters_r_Page_240.QC.jpg
45a76ac02616df434d99801dbdedc4f8
77b665d240730f1bc349c83720439f7d895725c8
52003 F20101113_AAEMLQ waters_r_Page_081.pro
72db36fdc12f7c53f9236fb9aa9073bd
35b1e07656df16eef6a6a791ac0783f470550a61
52635 F20101113_AAENIJ waters_r_Page_082.pro
8cd74c8b6a79c2269589636f0c341832
07a3e6bb29270c44b8c5fb2491c666a1d8d4ca56
6488 F20101113_AAEOFD waters_r_Page_135thm.jpg
a556a8dc66ba39aa9675e708f0518d9d
e652267ecddb075745f8c028cf503658b2f357ef
12822 F20101113_AAENVV waters_r_Page_193.QC.jpg
617c0162c409381209aa7f10a6a6e1f2
32be76705ba19d6e48162f85b57e72ca2bba1492
4836 F20101113_AAELOY waters_r_Page_250thm.jpg
f7e143f2331e2a32503b2880c22adf2f
545e6c7d9456910bc554bcf34abac3c522e1e8b8
3543 F20101113_AAEMLR waters_r_Page_007.txt
0f72d8788f82f77f32b7c462c761a2d7
84cbcee3fcc44715f5413b389f059c1b0c2daff7
34136 F20101113_AAENIK waters_r_Page_086.pro
3e763527292718e55ec17aa6ee237467
b8882fe211e3adfcb1d213e6469cc00068633e64
6924 F20101113_AAEOFE waters_r_Page_142thm.jpg
9883fc5090e9f56f060160344b7cbff1
f80db072f1782931bbf016ede4f4195c9fbb134d
15931 F20101113_AAENVW waters_r_Page_260.QC.jpg
baf4f63ce0039809037d3e14806fced0
05c23b079b38d60c252d406546d92cf0a1fe8721
26599 F20101113_AAELOZ waters_r_Page_256.QC.jpg
b98247a2143d4e36e23fc6d8c05b4a1c
ae53f12476e27c53f221b3ef435779f7bc504d40
320459 F20101113_AAEMLS UFE0021051_00001.mets
d37f3f5a0f40e0ee7fad15e19278b951
b9c372810eb7170eff8817daf0cce1ada66403ea
19924 F20101113_AAENIL waters_r_Page_087.pro
69ab2de96a72a755d9e6f2f876ab688b
8c54eb93e3620234cbbd9bebf4c763c8fa70702a
6631 F20101113_AAEOFF waters_r_Page_108thm.jpg
11bfa6962a0da78f4fd13dbbfb667877
a59524f44164827de81bb51322eea151ec254a6b
24988 F20101113_AAENVX waters_r_Page_104.QC.jpg
10d96424adc39ce5a7f5101eaed62bcf
6bc32fd561f204c9fd91f159a95bb6425b610008
5580 F20101113_AAENIM waters_r_Page_089.pro
f10ba44a82424613e69e12acc0cea7cf
757498da558638852fa9b712521027c354c1af2c
24797 F20101113_AAEOFG waters_r_Page_027.QC.jpg
52cd09e5cda92b26ac5bd29265f42996
a2c5161b422704938c424dc775fbff06cb97a1ac
F20101113_AAENVY waters_r_Page_255thm.jpg
fa988228c6deb7651fa08bebf2c6b5bd
671c5af303ef38e8ccac1d944ae5f1c6acd94e7a
54965 F20101113_AAENIN waters_r_Page_090.pro
e5fbbeaf46025d8dda2349381b534ab3
f7e80c2c12269d2d6f01d7f84ce3392519bab90a
6716 F20101113_AAEOFH waters_r_Page_221thm.jpg
350a2c81c9a09de189cf5e2d59ae2545
a303d545cd830eee4c831de94a332fa5a908b693
F20101113_AAENVZ waters_r_Page_251thm.jpg
cf8e55ea00f1711a0ccb6975cddfe6c9
7cf9a4f531b1b276d6a8c0ea43e89497c0affed8
F20101113_AAEMLV waters_r_Page_001.jpg
b6477af11734e7e3176b77ac265a3a80
36bb9c50756b9f359e52021292f9537de827a88a
51889 F20101113_AAENIO waters_r_Page_093.pro
9b6b97d3586f4b138a891a2576c10084
30ca1ae31989de0a66a92091c4faba8899a5480a
23628 F20101113_AAEOFI waters_r_Page_148.QC.jpg
7c2f41b6ccf0aa74efdd695c4e12ccf4
a304ad13085a81f56b49d7bb0cd9ae774a06e91e
10074 F20101113_AAEMLW waters_r_Page_002.jpg
a31bc43db5cbc9e60395a45fa763052d
fd554ef11b6bc3c5ce4d20b31c1e64222d5e27c2
54365 F20101113_AAENIP waters_r_Page_094.pro
d84313ced8572f05903ab19322a8fd1f
05a40192b48084db196140583158f30ca7c234a2
23848 F20101113_AAEOFJ waters_r_Page_111.QC.jpg
ce41dd6698173d510a96ecabb5ff181f
21bfca9944b4b94f48db666569402393d33f07a8
10900 F20101113_AAEMLX waters_r_Page_003.jpg
dbad7875b6c0855ba9e796992069d15e
b0ef093b65d7cec9382b93d7b4642a9149debba7
50207 F20101113_AAENIQ waters_r_Page_095.pro
8068de49d38a2c10967a942a7cf6b43c
f7d700da4ebdd01a541f7b6bda69b3f659837689
16886 F20101113_AAEOFK waters_r_Page_178.QC.jpg
f1357cc7f6f315771cf804f4e05536c6
694635203848cb60710f22e80cd4cc6c90c2d4e5
20003 F20101113_AAEMLY waters_r_Page_006.jpg
e4f1afbe6775c5a1d97a17b3d79f6ab4
e52129b659f2c43dc55ee0614bc712966603616c
F20101113_AAENIR waters_r_Page_096.pro
846b1f6fc1481003ad43f172730eb4ff
e9f062423ce031393d7526d562c09bf3c64102e0
6292 F20101113_AAEOFL waters_r_Page_148thm.jpg
683631c07535fe1fb41e71bf49a92256
8c0d7737ec91965fa7871c89208ea1654bb81426
84234 F20101113_AAEMLZ waters_r_Page_007.jpg
3432019194c3b254dcd085fc8727a489
019323ceb57b8cf6184df8fd654e00cd3f0ffaa1
51342 F20101113_AAENIS waters_r_Page_097.pro
fb9c692f58d084505f627469ab3537e5
497830e0594091034175982dddf91612372f1f68







ADVANCINTG RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THEORY:
COORIENTATION AND THE NONPROFIT-DONOR RELATIONSHIP




















By

RICHARD DAVID WATERS


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007



































O 2007 Richard David Waters

































To Oscar and Joey for helping me get through it all









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank several people for helping me accomplish my goal. First, I thank Dr.

Lynne Sallot. Although I have had a desire to get my doctoral degree since my senior year in

high school, I would not have found my niche in academia if she had not offered the "Public

Relations and Fundraising" course. That class led me to a career in fundraising and also helped

shape my research interests. For that, I am truly grateful.

I also thank my supervisory committee: Dr. Kathleen Kelly, Chair, Dr. Linda Hon, Dr.

Jennifer Robinson, and Dr. Elizabeth Bolton. A very special note of gratitude belongs to Dr.

Kelly for her continuing counsel and enlightened guidance. When I first spoke with Dr. Kelly

over the telephone in 1998 when I was writing my undergraduate honors thesis on fundraising

ethics, I never would have guessed that almost 10 years later I would be finishing my doctorate

under her guidance. I consider her to be the greatest mentor a graduate student could ask for, and

I also consider her a close friend and confidant. I also thank Dr. Hon for helping shape my

research and public relations interests. Having studied under one of the leading scholars in

public relations is something for which I will be forever grateful. Her encouragement and advice

on my dissertation topic and additional research proj ects have been valuable beyond belief.

I owe special appreciation to Dr. Robinson. I cannot imagine how differently the last 2

years would have been if I remained in one of the graduate student offices in the basement. Dr.

Robinson inspires me to succeed with my research and in the classroom. Her advice has helped

me connect with students in ways I would never have thought. It will feel odd next year at North

Carolina State not having Dr. Robinson down the hall. She has served as a sounding board for

various research proj ects and also as a mentor to whom I can turn for advice on how to survive

as an assistant professor.









Dr. Elizabeth Bolton helped make my time at the University of Florida one of the most

unique experiences that a graduate student could have. Not only did she provide me with great

insights into nonprofit management, she also opened doors to allow me to pursue my greatest

interests. From working on independent study research proj ects to teaching a fundraising course

in the Family, Youth, and Community Sciences department, Dr. Bolton gave me the opportunity

to reach out to others on campus and educate them about the nonprofit sector and fundraising.

Even though it was additional work, it really made my time at UF enj oyable.

I also owe notes of thanks to the many professors from whom I have taken courses over the

years. At Syracuse, Dr. Elizabeth Toth and Dr. Carol Liebler helped shape my theoretical

understanding of public relations and mass communication, and they both encouraged me to

pursue my academic interests. At Florida, Dr. Lisa Duke-Cornell, Dr. Margarete Hall, and Dr.

Spiro Kiousis also challenged me to produce original research that helped advance our

understanding of public relations.

My parents, Edward and Martha Waters, have always been supportive of my various

endeavors, but they have been particularly helpful these past three years as they tolerated my

phone calls from the bus stop and constantly working during my "vacations." I would also like

to thank my colleagues for their constant support. Jennifer Lemanski, Dani Burrows, Alex

Laskin, Seth Over, Hyung-Seok Lee, Dave Deeley, and Cristina Popescu helped make my years

at Florida memorable and enj oyable.

Amy Sanders and Courtney Barclay deserve a special word of thanks. Our lunches will be

missed next year. I consider them both great friends, and I am glad I had the opportunity to work

with you.









Finally, I thank all of the students I have taught over the past 3 years. From teaching

undergraduates how to write to teaching graduate students how to research, they all have helped

me improve as a teacher. I hope I have taught them as much as they have taught me. I hope to

stay in touch in the future and hear about their career successes.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................ ...............10........... ....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............13....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 14...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............16.......... ......


The State of Nonprofit America .............. ... .. ......... ...............16.....
Fundraising and the Relationship Management Paradigm ................... ...............2
Purpose of the Study ................. ...............24.......... .....
Si gnificance of the Study ................. ...............27.......... .....

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............32................


Nonprofit Sector in the United States ................. ...............32...............
Fundraising in the United States ................. ...............34...............
Defining Fundraising ............... ... ........ ........ .. ...............38.....
Fundraising as a Specialization of Public Relations ................. ......... ................39
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship ................. ........... ...............43.......
Defining the Organization-Public Relationships ................. ...............50................
Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship............... ..............5
Dimensions of the Organization-Public Relationship ................ ..........................55
Trust .............. ...............56....
Commitment ................. ...............56.................
S ati sfacti on ................. ...............57................
Control m utuality ................. .. .... ............ ..... .......5
Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships ............... ...............60
Impact of Relationship Cultivation Strategies ................. ...............64........... ...
Relationship Cultivation Strategies Defined .............. ...............65....
Access............... ...............66.
Positivity ................. ...............67.................
Openness .............. ...............69....
Assurances ................. ...............70.................
Networking ................. ...............71.................
Sharing of tasks ................. ...............72................
Keeping promises ................. ...............74.................
Stew hardship .................. ....... .. ..... ... .. ...............7
New Approach to Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship .............. ...................79












3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............90....


Study Design............... .... ..............9
Population and Sampling............... ...............94
Instrument Design .............. ...............99....
Relationship dimensions .............. ...............100....
Relationship cultivation strategies .............. ...............101....
Scale Development ................. ...............103................
Data Collection Procedures .............. ...............106....
Data Analysis Procedures ................ ...............110................

4 RE SULT S ................. ...............121......... ......


Participants .............. ...............121....
Research Question 1 .............. ...............125....
Hypothesis 1 .............. ...............126....
Hypothesis 2 .............. ...............127....
Research Question 2 .............. ...............13 1...
Research Question 3 .............. ...............133....
Research Question 4 .............. ...............136....
Hypothesis 3 .............. ...............136....
Research Question 5 .............. ...............138....
Research Question 6 .............. ...............145....
Maj or Gift Donors ................. ................. 146........ ...
Annual Giving Donors .............. ...............148....
Research Question 7 .............. ...............152....
Research Question 8 .............. ...............154....
Research Question 9 .............. ...............156....
Research Question 10 .............. ...............159...


5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............202................


The Nonprofit-Donor Relationship ................. ...............203................
Relationship Quality and Dimensions ................ ...............205...............
Relationship Cultivation Strategies .............. ...............213....
Implications for the Practice............... ...............22
Impact on Public Relations Theory ................. .... ...............223
Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship .............. ...............224....
Relationship Cultivation Strategies .............. ..... .......... ........ ........3
Symmetrical Measurement of the Organization-Public Relationship ................... .234

6 CONCLUSION............... ...............23


Limitations of the Study .............. ...............239....
Suggestions for Future Research .............. ...............244....











APPENDIX

A SURVEY FOR HO SPITAL DONORS ................. ...............251..............

B SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING TEAM MEMBERS .............. ..................255

C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED
CON SENT APPROVAL ................. ...............259................

D LETTER MAILED TO DONORS BY THE NONPROFIT HOSPITALS ................... .......261

E POSTCARD REMINDER MAILED TO DONORS BY NONPROFIT HOSPITALS.......263

REFERENCE LIST .............. ...............264....

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............280....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Symmetry Orientation of Relationship Cultivation Strategies Proposed in
Interpersonal and Public Relations Literature............... ...............8

2-2 Summary of the Current Study's Three Hypotheses and 10 Research Questions. ............88

3-1 Comparison of Survey Data Collection Methods. ................ .............................115

3-2 Indices of Relationship Dimension Measures ................. ...............116..............

3-3 Indices of Relationship Cultivation Strategies as adapted by Ki ................. ................1 17

3-4 Indices of Stewardship Strategies. ................ ...............118........... ...

3-5 Cronbach' s alpha values of the study's indices. ................ ....___ ............... ...2

4-1 Relationship Dimensions Means across Three Organizations. ................. ............._..160

4-2 Relationship Cultivation Strategies' Means across Three Organizations........................161

4-3 Donors' Evaluation of Relationship with Nonprofits based on Donor Type. .................161

4-4 One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the Donors Relationship with the Nonprofit
Organization ................. ...............162................

4-5 Pearson' s r Correlation of Giving History and Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor
Relationship. ............. ...............162....

4-6 Multiple Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with the Number of Years
Donating to the Organization ................. ...............162...............

4-7 Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices for Number of Years of
Donating to the Organization ................. ...............163...............

4-8 Discriminant Function Analysis of Relationship Dimensions with Participation in the
Most Recent Fundraising Campaign ................. ...............163...............

4-9 Classification Matrix of Discriminant Analysis Function. ................ ......................164

4-10 Multiple Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship
Score. ............. ...............164....

4-11 Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship
Score. ............. ...............165....

4-12 Donor Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategy Indices............_._. ........._.__.....165











4-13 Maj or Gift and Annual Giving Donors' Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategies
Indices. .............. ...............166....

4-14 One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the 10 Relationship Cultivation Strategies by
Donor Type. ............. ...............166....

4-15 Model Fit Criteria for Structural Equation Modeling. .................. ...............16

4-16 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for
All Donors............... ...............167

4-17 Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
M odel. ............. ...............167....

4-18 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies. ................... ..169

4-19 Fit Measures for the Relationship Cultivation Strategies Measurement Model. .............173

4-20 Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions. ............. ...............174....

4-21 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions. .......__ ......... ___ .........__ ......174

4-22 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for
Maj or Gift Donors ................. ...............176__ __ .....

4-23 Fit Measures for Maj or Gift Donors' Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions
M easurement M odel .............. ...............176....

4-24 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Maj or
Gift Donors. ............. ...............179....

4-25 Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Maj or Gift Donors. ................ ...............181....... ....

4-26 Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions for Maj or Gift Donors ................. ................. ....__ 184

4-27 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Maj or Gift Donors. ................... .......184

4-28 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for
Annual Giving Donors. ..........._ ..... ..__ ...............186...

4-29 Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Annual Giving Donors. ..........._ .....___ ...............187.










4-30 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Annual
Giving Donors ................. ...............189................

4-31 Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Annual Giving Donors ................. ...............191........... ...

4-32 Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors ......... ................. ...............194

4-33 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors. ...................194

4-34 Agreement between Donors and the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship ................. ...............196................

4-3 5 Donors' Perceived Agreement with the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship ................. ...............197................

4-36 The Fundraising Team' s Perceived Agreement with Donors on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship ................. ...............198................

4-37 Donors' Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor
Relationship. ............. ...............199....

4-3 8 The Fundraising Team' s Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-
Donor Relationship. ............. ...............200....

4-39 Coorientation States on Key Variables of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. ...............201










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 The organization-public relationship as described by public relations scholarship,
198 4-2006. ............. ...............3 1....

2-1 Evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship .........__ ....... ___ ......__ .........8

2-2 Visual depiction of the coorientation methodology examining relationship evaluation
between nonprofit organizations and their donors .........._.._ ......_..._ ............... ...87

3-1 Graphic representation of the scale development process. ..........._.._ .........__ ........1 19

4.1 Measurement model of the organization-public relationship dimensions. ..........._...........168

4-2 Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies. ..........._.._ ..........._..__...171

4-3 Initial model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions. ............. ...............173....

4-4 Final path model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions for all donors............... ..................7

4-5 Measurement model of the organization-public relationship dimensions for maj or
gift donors. ............. ...............178....

4-6 Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies for maj or gift donors......182

4-7 Final path model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions for maj or gift donors ................. ...............185

4-8 Measurement model of the organization-public relationship dimensions for annual
giving donors. ............. ...............188....

4-9 Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies for annual giving
donors ................. ...............192................

4-10 Final path model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions for annual giving donors. ................... .......195

5-1 Revised model of the organization-public relationship. ................ ................. ...._237

6-1 Conflict resolution diagram applied to the fundraising profession............... ................5









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

ADVANCING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THEORY: COORIENTATION AND THE
NONPROFIT-DONOR RELATIONSHIP

By

Richard David Waters

August 2007

Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly
Major: Mass Communication

By providing programs and services, nonprofit organizations address problems that the

government and business sectors have ignored, making them a crucial part of the social, political,

and economic landscape of America. Recently, scandals in the charitable nonprofit sector have

resulted in decreased levels of public confidence that nonprofits carry out their missions

effectively and manage themselves efficiently. With individuals providing roughly 80% of the

fundraising revenue to charitable nonprofits, it is vital that these organizations cultivate strong

relationships with their donors to survive nonprofit controversies. Public relations theory

provides a theoretical framework to assess the nonprofit-donor relationship. The purpose of this

study was to explore the role of cultivation strategies and their influence on how donors and

fundraisers evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The study breaks new ground in public

relations scholarship by refining previous relationship dimensions, adding new cultivation

strategies, measuring both sides of the organization-public relationship using coorientation

methodology, and measuring the organization-public relationship across multiple organizations.

Through a stratified random sample of donors (n = 1706) to three nonprofit hospitals and a

census of the fundraising team members at the participating hospitals (n = 124), mailed surveys

explored the relationship between the donors and the appropriate nonprofit hospital by









examining the relationship dimensions of control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and trust,

and the following cultivation strategies used to build and maintain relationships: access,

assurances, networking, openness, positivity, reciprocity, relationship nurturing, reporting,

responsibility, and sharing of tasks.

The relationship dimensions were found to be valuable in predicting past involvement with

the charitable nonprofits' fundraising efforts; however, they only do an adequate j ob of

representing the overall nonprofit-donor relationship. The relationship cultivation strategies

impacted annual giving donors, those who contribute less than $10,000, and maj or gift donors,

those who donate $10,000 or more, differently. Whereas the annual giving donors for whom

there was a statistically strong influence of all 10 strategies on the dimension evaluation, maj or

gift donors' evaluations were only impacted by six of the 10 strategies. Of those six, all four of

Kelly's stewardship strategies had an influence, while only two of the six strategies derived from

interpersonal communication theory impacted evaluation of the relationship dimensions.

Turning to the coorientation methodology, measuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor

relationship revealed that they each viewed the relationship dimensions and the relationship

cultivation strategies positively. However, there were differences in their levels of agreement,

perceived agreement, and accuracy. Overall, the fundraising team members evaluated the

relationship dimensions and the cultivation strategies more favorably than the donors did,

indicating that increased communication between the sides is necessary to resolve differences.

This study shows that nonprofit organizations can use relationship cultivation strategies

effectively to produce strong relationships with their donors that withstand the trickle down

effect of national scandals. Strong nonprofit-donor relationships allow charitable nonprofits to

raise the funds necessary to address the nation' s societal and cultural problems.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the purpose of the study and its significance in public relations scholarship

and nonprofit management are discussed. However, before detailing what the study aims to

accomplish, it is necessary to discuss the importance of relationship cultivation within the

confines of the nonprofit sector. Insight into the challenges facing nonprofit organizations

allows for greater understanding of this study's impact on theory building and the fundraising

practice.

The State of Nonprofit America

Nonprofit organizations are a crucial part of the social, political, and economic landscape

of contemporary America. Nonprofit organizations provide a way for individuals to connect to

their community, effectively participate in the democratic process and ultimately to "make a

difference" in our world. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (2006), there

are currently more than 1.42 million nonprofit organizations that are registered with the Internal

Revenue Service. Though it is difficult to generalize about what nonprofit organizations are or

what they do, these organizations share similar experiences.

In describing why America' s nonprofit sector emerged, Lohmann (1992) stated there were

several traits that helped distinguish nonprofit organizations from government and the for-profit

sector. Nonprofit organizations are voluntary associations among people who are neither forced

to relate nor enticed by the prospect of personal profit or gain. These associations are facilitated

by an endowment of resources, which allows them to pursue shared missions or goals. Through

such mission-oriented work, nonprofits produce social capital--the attitude and willingness of

people to engage in collective activity addressing common problems. This action is built upon

shared values that reinforce trust, confidence, and commitment of the participants.









These characteristics help explain why the nonprofit sector has become such an important

part of the United States. Rather than relying on government agencies or the for-profit sector to

address communal problems, individuals have the ability to rally together to address health

crises, environmental concerns, and education, among other causes. Although these efforts may

not benefit everyone, they are available to those who seek them. For example, a health clinic

may offer free services to community residents, but people wanting medical treatment must seek

out the assistance. Others in the community who have health insurance or a preferred healthcare

provider may choose not to use the clinic's service, but it is available to them if they need it.

Because nonprofit organizations serve such diverse interests, including healthcare,

economic development, religion, and political and social issues, P. Hall (2005) claims,

"Nonprofits .. are the most rapidly growing types of organizations in the world" (p. 3). These

organizations vary enormously in scope and scale, ranging from informal grassroots

organizations with no assets and no employees to multibillion-dollar foundations, universities,

and healthcare complexes. Despite the differences, legally recognized nonprofit organizations,

which are described in more detail in chapter 2, all seek to address specific missions that speak to

needs that have been identified by community members.

To develop programs and services to address these issues, nonprofit organizations must

generate appropriate resources. Resource development is the practice of identifying, cultivating,

and securing financial and human support (Courtney, 2002). Although the human support helps

the organizations carry out their programs and services, the financial support arguably is the

most important form of resource development because it is needed not only for programs and

services but also for the governance and management of the organization. Many scholars have









claimed the most effective and efficient way of developing these resources is through the

establishment of relationships with like-minded stakeholders (Fogal, 2005).

The management of these relationships is central to Kelly's (1998) definition of

fundraising: the management of relationships between a charitable organization and its donor

publics" (p. 8). When these relationships are cultivated and managed properly, nonprofit

organizations are more likely to experience fundraising success with their donors. Even though

no 2 donors have the same charitable giving needs or goals, donors fall into 3 distinct groups:

annual giving, major gift, or planned giving donors.

Generally speaking, annual giving donors provide donations that keep the charitable

nonprofit operating day-to-day by paying for the organization's administration, fundraising, and

programs and service delivery. Annual giving fundraising programs typically consist of several

solicitation vehicles, such as direct mail, phone-a-thons, and telethons. Gifts made to annual

giving campaigns vary in their size, ranging from spare change given to the Salvation Army's

"Red Kettle" campaign during the holiday season to gifts of several thousand dollars given to

universities and healthcare institutions. By cultivating relationships with annual gift donors,

organizations can secure future gifts from their donor database. Kelly (1998) claims that it is

easier for charitable nonprofits to obtain gifts from past donors than new ones. In a practitioner

workbook, Greenfield (1996) estimates that charitable nonprofits will spend $1.50 for every $1

raised from new donors, while only spending $0.25 for every $1 raised in renewals.

Once the organization' s staff fundraisers have conducted research and identified donors

who have the potential to make a large gift, the organization can pursue maj or gifts. Maj or gifts

vary in their size, but Kelly (1998) says that major gifts typically are $10,000 or more. These

gifts are important for organizations to pursue because every $1 raised from maj or gift










campaigns only costs the organization $0.10 $0.20 (Greenfield, 1996). The importance of

relationships to the fundraising process is particularly highlighted by maj or gift solicitations. In

a guide for nonprofit organizations' board members, Howe (2001) details that maj or gift

fundraising involves personalized communication, such as handwritten letters and cards, and

face-to-face meetings, which may either serve as updates on the organization's efforts or a

solicitation. Major gift solicitations are more effective if the charitable nonprofit has dedicated

resources to developing the relationship so that staff fundraisers personally know the donor and

his or her interests.

While relationship management helps lead to donations during annual giving and maj or

gift fundraising efforts, cultivation strategies also can help nonprofits with their planned giving

programs. Planned gifts are "made in the present but whose value to the organization is usually

realized at a later time, generally at the death of the donor or a surviving beneficiary" (Seiler,

2003, pp. 62-63). These gifts are donated through wills and bequests, charitable gift annuities,

charitable trusts, estates, and insurance. Most charitable nonprofits provide information about

their planned giving programs to interested donors; however, these gifts are usually initiated by

the donor--unlike annual and major gifts, which are pursued by the organization. Regardless of

the donors' classification, charitable nonprofits should invest in relationship cultivation with all

of their donors to ensure that their missions will be addressed in perpetuity.

However, cultivation cannot prevent the inevitable ups and downs of the nonprofit-donor

relationship. As the number of Congressional hearings (e.g., 2005's "Charities and Charitable

Giving: Proposals for Reform") and public scrutiny intensifies, nonprofit organizations have to

work harder to demonstrate their social and fiscal accountability. In 1999, Independent Sector, a

coalition of corporations, foundations, and nonprofit organizations that work together to









strengthen America' s nonprofit sector, conducted research and found that public confidence

ranged from 28 percent to 72 percent for different types of nonprofit organizations (Saxon-

Harrold, 1999). A Gallup Poll from May 2005 found that only 15 percent of the American

public has a great deal of confidence in charitable organizations (Light, 2005). This confidence

rating is only slightly higher than television news, Congress, and big business--entities that are

frequently targets of public analysis.

The falling levels of confidence were due to the increasing number of scandals in the

sector. In reviewing his research on public support of the nonprofit sector, Light (2005) said:

Americans displayed consistent support for what nonprofit organizations did to help the
needy and strengthen their communities, but they had growing doubts about how
organizations spent their money and delivered services. Donors and volunteers were not
saying 'show us the mission' but 'show us the impact.' (para 2)

These doubts were brought on by scandals that received a significant amount of media attention

during the past 15 years.

One of the first high profile scandals involving the nonprofit sector surrounded the United

Way and William Aramony, who headed the agency for 22 years before allegations of financial

impropriety forced him to resign in 1992 (Glaser, 1993). During a three-week federal trial, U.S.

Attorney Randy Bellows portrayed the nonprofit director as "a corrupt womanizer who spent

hundreds of thousands of dollars of the charity's money to finance flings with young women and

trips" (Moss, 1995, para 12) around the world. Aramony was found guilty of federal fraud and

conspiracy charges, and Bellows estimated the amount Aramony defrauded the nation's United

Way chapters was $1.2 million, including trips and gifts. In response to the conviction, United

Ways across the country worked to change their image from fundraising organizations to

community-impact agencies. However, the relationships that the United Ways had with their

donors were already damaged.









In 2001, the American Red Cross caused the public' s confidence in the nonprofit sector to

continue to fall. In January, the San Diego, California, chapter of the American Red Cross began

raising funds for disaster response to a wildfire that destroyed the homes of more than 250

families. Disgruntled residents of San Diego County complained that funds raised for disaster

response were not spent on the local community but were directed to national reserve funds for

future disasters. Local and national media, including CBS' "60 Minutes," charged the

organization with deceiving donors by failing to disclose the organization's "this and other

disaster policy" (Daley, 2002).

Despite the controversy over events in Southern California, the American Red Cross

experienced a similar outcry from the public after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on

the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In response to the disasters, a record number of

donors turned to the Intemet to make donations to aid in the emergency response. Combined

with more traditional forms of giving and a celebrity-sponsored telethon, the American Red

Cross received more than $1.2 billion from the American public. Facing criticism from news

outlets over how donations were being allocated, Dr. Bernadine Healy, then chief executive

officer of the American Red Cross, announced that the "Liberty Fund" had been created so that

all donations made to the September 11 relief efforts would be used exclusively for those

affected by the attacks rather than being placed in a reserve fund for emergency response to

future disasters. During the announcement press conference, Healy also said that donors who

felt misled could request a refund of their donation (DiPema, 2003).

Light (2003) documented the falling levels of public confidence in the nation's nonprofit

sector following the American Red Cross scandals. The percentage of the general public who

expressed "a lot" of confidence in the sector fell from 25 percent in July 2001 to only 18 percent









in September 2002; meanwhile, there was a 6 point increase--from 9 to 15--in the percentage of

the public who expressed no confidence in the sector.

Public suspicions of the nonprofit sector only grew after the Wa~shington Post published an

expose on a series of controversial actions by the Nature Conservancy in 2003. A weeklong

series argued strongly that the governing board of the United States largest environmental

organization had permitted illegal land transactions using donors' charitable gifts as loans to

individual chapter board members, the agency had lost sight of its environmental mission for

corporate contributions and cause-related marketing partnerships, and the agency wasted many

thousands of dollars on community-based proj ects that ultimately exploited the environment

(Stephenson, Jr., & Chaves, 2006).

These national scandals resulted in damaged relationships between the United Way, the

American Red Cross, the Nature Conservancy, and their stakeholders. However, there was a

trickle effect that was felt by many nonprofits as the public grew leery about the management of

the sector. Light (2005) found that only 19 percent of the public thought that charitable

nonprofits do a very good j ob of conducting their programs and services and only 11 percent

thought that the organizations wisely used their money. Additionally, roughly half of those

sampled said that the leaders of charitable nonprofits were paid too much, and 2 out of every 3

people said the nonprofits waste a great deal of money (Light, 2005).

Facing growing concerns over their day-to-day operations even today, nonprofit

organizations voluntarily started adopting the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

which was passed by Congress to eliminate fraud within the for-profit sector. These actions

alone, however, are not enough. Charitable nonprofits have to incorporate relationship

cultivation strategies into their interactions with all stakeholder groups, including consumers,










government regulators, volunteers, and donors. These cultivation strategies, which are detailed

in chapter 2, reveal different organizational behaviors that nonprofits can use to recover from the

sectors' scandals and help increase the levels of confidence in the nonprofit-donor relationship.

Fundraising and the Relationship Management Paradigm

Considerable anecdotal evidence has been written regarding the role of relationship

management in fundraising literature. Though most of the work is oriented towards

practitioners, research has been conducted that looks at relationship management from a

scholarly perspective. Both Waters (2006) and O'Neil (2007) found that the longer a donor was

involved with a nonprofit organization, the greater the likelihood that they evaluated the

relationship more positively. Advancements in public relations scholarship are making it

possible to evaluate the relationship in terms of its dimensions and effective relationship

cultivation and maintenance strategies.

Though Ferguson (1984) suggested that relationship management might provide a

theoretical grounding for public relations, the profession and its studies have mostly concentrated

on strategic communication. Nearly 15 years after the idea was first presented at an Association

for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference, scholars began exploring the

relationship management approach to public relations. Currently, there are 2 very active groups

of relationship management scholars: those extending the work created by Hon and J. Grunig

(1999) and those following the works of Bruning and Ledingham (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham,

1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning & Galloway, 2003).

These groups of scholars are both working to address a problem that has plagued public

relations for many years: How do you measure the contributions of the public relations

function? In recent years, scholars have sought to provide answers to that question by focusing

on the measurement of relationships between organizations and key stakeholders on whom the










organization depends for success and survival. At times, the 2 groups of relationship scholars

have measured similar concepts. However, more often than not, they have used very different

approaches to measure the relationships between organizations and their stakeholders and the

principal dimensions of those relationships. The main difference rests in what variables are

measured to capture the relationship.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) first proposed a set of indices that measured dimensions of

relationships an individual may experience with an organization. Grounded in interpersonal

communication literature, these indices measured how well individuals trusted an organization,

how committed they were to the relationship, how satisfied they were with the relationship, and

how well power was distributed in the relationship.

This current study seeks to continue these efforts by focusing on the nonprofit-donor

relationship. Though Waters (2006) and O'Neil (2007) have provided some initial results to

show that there indeed are differences between types of donors, more research needs to be done

to test theoretical constructs and provide sound advice to fundraising practitioners for ways they

can improve their fundraising programs. This study, however, seeks to provide more than just

scholarly insight into the fundraising process and the impact of the process on staff fundraisers.

The study also examines new aspects of the organization-public relationship and their impact on

the overall public relations function. Thus, this study seeks to build theory as well as test it.

Purpose of the Study

Overall, the purpose of this study is to explore the role of cultivation strategies and their

influence on how donors and fundraisers evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. However,

this study aims to accomplish more than simply examining the relationship. As just discussed,

there have been 2 groups seeking to develop relationship measurement guidelines. Both

approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. However, one stands up to the rigor of









social scientific research methods better than the other. For that reason, this study uses the

indices developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999).

That being said, the current approach used by scholars testing Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999)

indices is not free of design flaws. First, with the exception of Ki (2006), the studies have

primarily focused on the measurement of relationship dimensions. Drawing on the works of

Plowman (1996), J. Grunig (2001), and others, Huang (2005) proposed a classification system of

various cultivation strategies. However, Ki (2006) was the first scholar to investigate how

different types of strategies resulted in the varying levels of relationship dimensions and

behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. This study seeks to provide further testing of the cultivation

strategies in the context of fundraising.

Secondly, all of the previous relationship management studies have examined the

relationship by looking at 1 organization and its relationship with 1 stakeholder group. For

example, Ki and Hon (2005) looked at the relationship between students at the University of

Florida and the university's administration while Waters (2006) examined the relationship

between Operation Access and its donors. Though these studies provided significant results, one

has to question whether they truly captured the nature of the university-student or nonprofit-

donor relationship. Did either of these organizations have "excellent" public relations programs

in place that influenced the dimensions, or did they accurately reflect the nature of the

relationships tested?

To ensure that the relationship is measured and not simply the impact of 1 organization's

programming, this study uses a research design that will test the relationship in multiple

organizations at one time. For this study, the relationships between 3 nonprofit hospitals in

Northern California and their unique donors were measured. An organization will have many









more annual giving donors who provide gifts at lower donation levels than the minority of maj or

gift donors. As dictated by the principles of fundraising, fundraisers will need to cultivate these

relationships with donors differently depending on their commitment to the organization and

their potential for a major or planned gift (Rosso, 1991). Therefore, the study of relationships

among the individuals that make up the nonprofit-donor relationship is especially important for

practitioners in addition to the increased theoretical understanding of the relationship

management paradigm.

There are no universal guidelines that establish what gifts are considered to be a maj or gift

because they vary considerably depending on the organizations. For this reason, this study will

consider any gift equal to or greater than $10,000 to be a maj or gift. This amount was chosen

because it is a significant amount that is not likely to be donated during phone-a-thons, direct

mailings, or other annual gift techniques (Kelly, 1998).

The Einal flaw of previous research that will be addressed in this study concerns the

practical implications of measuring the relationship. One of the most widely accepted definitions

of public relations centers on the profession being a "management function" (Cutlip, Center, and

Broom, 1994, p. 2). Previous public relations studies have only measured the stakeholder side of

the relationship. However, it seems to reason that the relationship dimensions are greatly

influenced by the opinions and decisions made by the organization's management. These

evaluations must be taken into account.

Fortunately, public relations scholars Broom and Dozier (1990) identified a research

framework that is ideal for measuring the 2 sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. The

coorientation research design consists of 4 separate measures: (a) the organization's views on an

issue, represented by the beliefs of individuals who participate in decision making; (b) the










public' s views on the issue; (c) the organization' s estimate of the public' s views (i.e.,

perception); and (d) the public's estimate of the organization's views. With data collected on all

4 measures, one is able to determine if both sides agree on an issue, if one side perceives

agreement when it does not exist, or if both sides are accurate in their estimations of the other.

Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) note that the coorientation model is a powerful but

underutilized approach to public relations research and that few practitioners apply it to problems

in the field. Yet organizations' action and communication may be completely inappropriate and

ineffective if inaccurate perceptions exit on either side.

As nonprofit organizations face growing pressure to keep fundraising costs down while

remaining fiscally and socially accountable to their various stakeholders, fundraisers and the

nonprofit dominant coalitions that do not take their donors' interests and attitudes into account

when making organizational decisions can invite financial disaster when making future

solicitations. Indeed, Dozier and Ehling (1992) warned, "Misperceptions can lead to

catastrophic actions whenever the dominant coalition sees agreement or disagreement when none

actually exists" (p. 181).

Although public relations scholars embrace symmetry as a core concept in theory building,

research on organization-public relationships is usually one-sided. Most often, these studies fail

to account for the views and perceptions of organizational decision makers. In other words,

scholars supporting symmetry conduct asymmetrical research. This study aims to provide

evidence that collecting data from both sides of the relationship is desirable and discusses the

implications of the results in chapter 5.

Significance of the Study

This study expands the body of knowledge for public relations scholars and practitioners in

several ways. First, this study brings a much needed symmetrical research design to the study of









relationships. By using the coorientation model as the guide to the research, it is possible to

evaluate the relationship in terms of both parties involved, in this case the donors and the

fundraising decision makers in 3 nonprofit hospitals.

Additionally, the coorientation methodology--when used--has typically only been used to

look at 1 organization at a time. By selecting 3 hospitals that have similar characteristics to one

another, it is possible to allow the coorientation design to be used in more than a case study of a

particular organization.

Second, this study provides further opportunity to test Ki's (2006) indices for relationship

cultivation strategies. Not only does it test their reliability and validity in a different

organization-public setting, but the results also help to determine which strategies are most

important in the nonprofit-donor relationship. The study also proposes new scales to test Kelly's

(2000) stewardship strategies. Hopefully these scales will be used in the future to test

relationship cultivation in other settings.

Finally, and most importantly, this study proposes to add another dimension into the

field' s understanding of the organization-public relationship model by having members of the

organization evaluate the relationship with the publics. The model shown in Figure 1-1

highlights the scholarship that has advanced the understanding of stakeholders' relationships

with organizations. Quite simply, this model shows that the organization-public relationship is

first created by antecedents that bring an individual or stakeholder group into contact with the

organization. For fundraising, this may be receiving printed materials about the organization or

participating in the organization's services or programs. During the interaction with the

organization, various cultivation strategies are used in their communication and actions with key

stakeholders to foster relationship development. These cultivation strategies produce varying









levels of evaluation of the 4 main relationship dimensions (trust, satisfaction, commitment, and

control mutuality), which have recently been shown to connect to relationship outcomes, such as

attitudes or behavior that promote a healthy relationship for both sides of the organization-public

relationship (Ki & Hon, 2007).

Scholarship has shown that different publics evaluate the relationship differently

depending on the focus of the public relations programming and the strategies that the

programming incorporated. Although these different strategies have been discussed in public

relations literature, Ki (2006) is the first to make attempts to measure these strategies and their

impact.

Though it is helpful for future scholarship to develop indices measuring the public

relations strategies, a disconnect remains between academia and the profession. Public relations

scholars are attempting to develop measures that help practitioners demonstrate their

contributions to the organization, yet practitioners often fail to read the latest scholarship. Even

though significant work has been done to demonstrate how practitioners' behavior and the

strategies they incorporate can produce desired attitude and behavior among an organization's

publics, this work has gone unread by the people that could most benefit from the work.

Unlike public relations, the connection between marketing and marketers is stronger

(Cornelissen & Lock, 2005). Marketing scholarship also demonstrates the power of relationship.

For example, Gordon, McKeage, and Fox (1998) found that individuals who perceived that they

were more involved in a company's marketing efforts were more likely to have positive attitudes

toward the company and more likely to purchase the product being marketed to them. Marketing

scholars have begun advocating for practitioners to take a more enlightened approach to the

practice by putting the customer first and shifting the role from manipulating to communicating










and educating (McKenna, 1991; Parvatiyar & Sheth, 1999), and marketing firms began

incorporating that focus into their efforts. The profession became even more symmetrical after

Gruen, Summers, and Acito (2000) suggested that an association's marketing and

communication efforts can be tailored to be more symmetrical to enhance the relationship with

association members.

Ki (2006) helped demonstrate how the public relations profession can benefit from reading

and understanding public relations scholarship. By examining the influence different

relationship cultivation strategies have on how the organization-public relationship is evaluated,

practitioners can design programming that has the most impact on an organization's

constituencies. Ki (2006) tested the impact these strategies had in the nonprofit association-

member relationship; however, it was just a single organization that was examined. This study

explores the relationship cultivation strategies across multiple nonprofit organizations and their

donors.

Therefore, this study not only advances theoretical understanding of relationship

management and cultivation, it also makes practical suggestions on how nonprofit organizations

can improve their relationships with donors. Based on these statistically grounded suggestions,

this study hopes to bring public relations scholarship and its practitioners closer together.

Perhaps through working together on this goal, the profession can transform its image from

being viewed as a spin machine or an occupation of hucksters to a profession of relationship-

oriented practitioners working to bring organizations and their stakeholders together.






























Figure 1-1. The organization-public relationship as described by public relations scholarship,
1984-2006.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the central concepts of fundraising and relationship management are

explained. Before exploring the relationship management paradigm in public relations, a general

overview of the nonprofit sector and the importance of fundraising for charitable nonprofits will

be discussed, as well as the evolution of the study within the public relations context from

relationship dimensions to specific strategies on how to develop and maintain relationships with

an organization's key stakeholders. Finally, this chapter will explore how these concepts have

been measured in previous studies and details how this study's research questions and

hypotheses will further test relationship management within the bounds of the nonprofit-donor

relationship.

Nonprofit Sector in the United States

In 2005, more than $260 billion was given to the nation's charitable nonprofit

organizations (Giving USA Foundation, 2006). Giving to charitable nonprofit organizations has

increased steadily over the years just as the number of legally registered nonprofit organizations

has rapidly increased (Nonprofit Congress, 2006). Currently, there are an estimated 1.42 million

nonprofit organizations that are registered with the United States' Internal Revenue Service

according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (2006). These organizations represent

an array of missions and serve an equally diverse segment of the American population.

Although the federal government has given these 1.42 million organizations tax-exempt

status, only 60 percent of these organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible gifts from the

donating public. The federal government recognizes more than 27 distinct types of nonprofit

organizations according to the Internal Revenue Service's tax code; however, those organizations

with the 501I3 status are the ones with the ability to offer individuals a tax deduction for their









gifts. Organizations bearing the 501I3 classification are public charities that support the arts,

education, healthcare, human services, and community service organizations among other

causes, and private foundations, which typically are grant-making entities that provide funds to

other 501I3 organizations. The remaining 26 types of nonprofit organizations serve other needs

of the American public that are not philanthropic by nature, such as chambers of commerce

(501I6s), social/recreation clubs (501I7s), and funeral homes (501Il3s). The federal government

has recognized the value these remaining 26 types of nonprofit organizations bring to the

community, but they are not entitled to the being able to raise funds by offering tax deductions

for those donations.

As described above, charitable nonprofits, or 501I3 organizations, represent a variety of

missions. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities created and housed at the Urban Institute

arranges the diversity of the charitable nonprofit sector into clear divisions: (1) Arts, culture, and

Humanities; (2) Education; (3) Environment and animals; (4) Health; (5) Human Services; (6)

International and foreign affairs; (7) Public/society benefit; (8) Religion; (9) Miscellaneous

membership benefit organizations; and (10) Non-classifiable organizations (National Center for

Charitable Statistics, 2007). This breakdown is slightly more complex than the classification

schema that the Association for Fundraising Professionals created: (1) Arts, culture, and

humanities; (2) Education; (3) Health; (4) Human services; (5) Public/society benefit; and (6)

Religion.

Regardless of how the charitable nonprofit sector is dissected, the distribution of donations

does not fall evenly across the different subsectors. Of all the types of charitable nonprofit

organizations, Americans are more likely to donate to religious organizations. Of the $260

billion donated in 2005, more than $93 billion or 36 percent was given to organizations with










religious organizations (Giving USA Foundation, 2006). The remainder was divided among the

other types of charitable nonprofits; however, 2 subsectors earned more than the rest. Education

received almost $39 billion, while the healthcare organizations received approximately $23

billion in donations.

The success of these 2 types of charitable nonprofit organizations is not surprising given

the sophistication of their fundraising efforts. Education and healthcare employ the most full-

time fundraisers, and the Chronicle ofPhilan2thropy reports that individuals who hold the

"Certified Fund-Raising Executive" credential are more likely to work in these 2 sub-sectors as

well (Whelan, 2002). Because of the large number of fundraisers employed in these sectors,

professional associations were created to focus on their professional needs. Council for

Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and the Association for Healthcare

Philanthropy (AHP) both work to advance the profession and offer workshops to fundraisers in

their respective fields.

After evaluating the current level of research on fundraising, Kelly (2002) concluded that

most research takes place within the arena of educational fundraising. To advance the overall

understanding of nonprofit organizations and their fundraising efforts, more studies need to focus

on nonprofits with missions other than education. For this reason, this study examines the

nonprofit-donor relationship within the healthcare sector. The participating organizations, which

are described more fully in chapter 3, are all nonprofit hospitals with foundations that raise

money to underwrite future organizational success.

Fundraising in the United States

In the United States, the concept of giving to help a neighbor can be traced back to colonial

times when people worked together to provide food and shelter for everyone in their community

during harsh New England winters (P. Hall, 2005). As the population grew, so did their needs










and problems. What started as concerned individuals working to solve community problems

soon evolved into organizational efforts to resolve community concerns. As people struggled to

access education, receive adequate healthcare, and provide for their basic necessities, the

nonprofit sector emerged to provide these goods and services (P. Hall, 2005).

Just as individuals came together to support one another during colonial times, they

continued to do so throughout the history of nonprofit organizations in the United States. In

1640, Henry Dunster became the first President of Harvard College. Desiring to model Harvard

after English universities (e.g., Eton University or Cambridge), Dunster launched the nation's

first fundraising campaign to raise resources for Harvard's College Hall with the assistance of 3

clergymen sent by Massachusetts Bay Colony to England (Cutlip, 1990). This first campaign

was a success as Harvard was able to complete the construction of buildings and raise funds to

support educating its first graduating class in 1642 (Harvard University Library, 2006). The

culture of giving that enabled the first fundraising campaign to succeed has permeated

throughout our society and has become an essential component of our nation. Indeed,

philanthropy observers have even declared that fundraising is an essential component to

American democracy (Payton, Rosso, & Tempel, 1991).

Despite the importance of giving in our society, there was no formal fundraising function

until the early 1900s. Kelly (1998) described early fundraising efforts, during "the Era of

Nonspecialists," as solicitations by members of an organization even though they did not

specifically have fundraising responsibilities. These members may have been employees

working in other aspects of the organizations, or they may have been volunteers and like-minded

individuals who valued the work of the organization (Cutlip, 1990). These early fundraising

solicitations evolved as the fundraising function matured in a manner that reflects the evolution










of public relations, advancing from publicity and propaganda to a more enlightened symmetrical

approach involving the organization and its stakeholder groups.

Between 1913 and 1919, fundraising during "the Era of Nonspecialists" was largely a

function designed to publicize a cause using emotional manipulation and one-way

communication. This approach to fundraising was used by Charles Sumner Ward and Lyman

Pierce to raise significant amounts of money for the YMCA and other organizations in several of

America' s largest cities (Kelly, 1998).

One of Ward' s associates who worked on several campaigns quickly mastered this

approach to fundraising and started his own fundraising firm. However, one of his own

employees retrospectively called him "a man of great inherent ability, but with absolutely no

self-control and very few principles" (Cutlip, 1990, p. 87). The use of spectacle to draw

attention to the fundraising needs left many feeling uneasy and wanting to use a more honest

approach to fundraising.

Cutlip (1990) noted that the fundraising process turned to a more truthful approach when

Bishop William Lawrence, under the advice of Ivy Ledbetter Lee, began raising funds for the

Episcopal Church Pension Fund and Princeton University, respectively. Basing their campaigns

on factual information, these practitioners felt that people, "if they are given complete and

accurate information, would make the right decisions" (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p.34). Though

these practitioners sought to enlighten their fundraising prospects, they continued to use a one-

way approach to communication.

While the fundraising process was becoming more direct and honest in solicitations, the

profession' s history entered a new period, "the Era of Fundraising Consultants" from 1919-1949.

Just as Ward and Lawrence often traveled around the nation helping organizations raise funds,









firms began appearing throughout the country and sought to offer fundraising assistance to

charitable nonprofits. These firms used a variety of methods, including publicity and public

information, to raise awareness and donations for various causes (Kelly, 1998).

However, a few years later John Price Jones recognized that the campaigns produced by

fundraising firms were not reaching their potential for success. Jones began using conversations

with donors and prospects to conduct some basic research that could be used to organize future

fundraising campaigns that would appeal to segments of their donors based on persuasion. This

two-way asymmetrical approach to fundraising allowed Jones to create a fundraising firm that

was based on using scientific research to persuade individuals to give by using the concerns and

words of donors as a catalyst to create the campaigns. These conversations resulted in very

successful campaigns for Harvard and other academic institutions.

As Jones and other fundraising firms traveled around the country helping nonprofit

organizations, individuals at the charitable nonprofits began understanding more about the

fundraising function and how to develop and implement campaign plans. From 1949-1964, "the

Era of Transition" saw organizations slowly turning away from using fundraising firms. The

widespread use of fundraising firms in the early 20th century helped charitable nonprofits realize

that they were capable of producing their own campaigns. The nonprofits just needed the

exposure to different methods of campaign planning and implementation (Kelly, 1998).

As organizations began developing expertise about fundraising and creating their own

programs, many sought to distance themselves even further from fundraising firms. "The Era of

Staff Fundraisers," from 1964 to the present, brought about the maturation of the profession.

Organizations recognized the value of researching donors and keeping records to document the

history donors have with the nonprofit. Communication became increasingly symmetrical as









fundraising evolved into a process that is built on open communication that is designed to reach a

mutual understand ng b between a nonprofit organize ati on and its donors. Practiti oner- ori ented

fundraising literature is full of anecdotes of the value of cultivating relationships with donors.

Defining Fundraising

Many scholars and practitioners have discussed fundraising in relation to the context of

philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in general. Tempel (2003) called fundraising a "servant to

philanthropy" (p. 19). In his award-winning book, Achieving Excellence in FundRaising, the

late practitioner Henry Rosso failed to define the fundraising process; instead he focused on the

role it plays in philanthropy in general. In his description of the process, Rosso question that

fundraising is not easy but that "much of fund raising's form is made of common sense" (1991,

p. 9). Rosso and his colleagues discussed fundraising in terms of how to best approach various

types of donors.

Similarly, former president of the American Association of Fund Raising Counsel John

Schwartz (2001) defined fundraising by listing several key ingredients, including a charitable

cause, potential donors (individuals, foundations, and corporations), a communications program,

and the voluntary spirit. Schwartz's perspective on fundraising is rooted in the tactical approach

to the profession. His focus on "face-to-face solicitation .. direct mail, phone mail,

telemarketing, planned giving, and the burgeoning Internet" (p. 3) portrays fundraising as

methods to support a charitable organization's programs and services.

Other fundraising literature takes a more managerial approach to fundraising. Though he

does not provide a formal definition of fundraising, Stanley Weinstein (2002), former member of

the Association of Fundraising Professionals' board of directors, placed fundraising in the

context of strategic partnerships between an organization and its individual donors and corporate

and foundation supporters. Weinstein discussed the importance of collaborative efforts between









an individual and a nonprofit organization; however, he fails to provide a full definition that truly

captures the function.

Even though each of the previously referenced books discusses the relationship between a

nonprofit organization and its donors, they fail to define fundraising in that context. However,

Kelly (1998) provided a definition of fundraising that brings the strategic management and

relationship cultivation perspective together. She defined fundraising as "the management of

relationships between a charitable organization and its donor publics" (p. 8).

This definition parallels that of public relations. Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1994) defined

public relations as "the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial

relationships between an organization and the public on whom its success or failure depends" (p.

4). Though J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) originally conceptualized public relations as the

management of communications between an organization and its publics, most academic and

practitioner literature has come to include relationship management in the definition.

Fundraising as a Specialization of Public Relations

Kelly (1991) argues "that a lack of understanding about fund raising and narrow

definitions of public relations .. have misled scholars and practitioners into believing that fund

raising is a separate or superior function as compared to public relations" (p. 337). Her first

book critically examined the fundraising process by tracing the history of the function and noting

its similarities to the public relations process.

Drawing on her own career experiences as well as those of other fundraising practitioners,

Kelly (1991) noted the similarities between the 2 professions. Indeed, fundraising literature

frequently highlights public relations concepts, including dialogic communication, relationship

cultivation, and programmatic and donor research. The Public Relations Society of America' s










Body of Knowledge added donor relations, or fundraising, to its list of public relations

specializations in 1988.

Several of the leading fundraising firms in the United States incorporate public relations

strategies and tactics into their efforts to help charitable organizations. With offices in Pittsburg

and Dallas, Ketchum is "America's oldest and most successful fundraising firm [that] has been

helping not-for-profit organizations meet their philanthropic goals since 1919" (Viscern.com,

2006). Ketchum was founded by Carlton Ketchum, who also founded Ketchum

Communications, one of the nation's top public relations firms. The Ketchum fundraising firm

was recently purchased by Viscern, a fundraising firm that describes itself as setting the standard

for successful capital campaigns, fundraising, and stewardship. Viscern has 2 divisions,

Ketchum, which focuses on philanthropic, nonprofit, and humanities organizations, and RSI,

which works with faith-based organizations and ministries.

In describing its' services on its Web site, the Ketchum fundraising firm offers many of the

services that its public relations counterpart offers, including research, strategic planning,

communication assistance, campaign evaluation and counsel, and donor relations/stewardship.

This process closely parallels the R-O-P-E-S process that many academics encourage students to

follow when planning public relations campaigns. As Kelly (2001) suggested, the R-O-P-E-S

process is suitable for both public relations and fundraising because of the parallels between the

2 fields.

This campaign process involves conducting research (R) on the organizations, present and

future opportunities and problems the organization face, and involved stakeholders. Based on

the initial research, practitioners create measurable obj ectives (0) when creating the campaign.

When it comes to implementing the programming (P), public relations and fundraising










practitioners cultivate relationships while carrying out the planned campaigns, which includes

solicitations by fundraising personnel. Throughout the campaign and at its conclusion,

evaluative research (E) is carried out to determine the success or failure of the campaign.

Finally, practitioners use stewardship (S) as a method to further develop relationships with key

stakeholders.

Kelly (2000, 2001) maintains that stewardship is the second most important step in both

the public relations and fundraising process. Focusing on fundraising, she advocates that

practitioners incorporate 4 elements of stewardship into the organization's official fundraising

plan: reciprocity, which requires the organization to demonstrate its gratitude for the gift;

responsibility, which means the organization must use the gift responsibly and act in a socially-

responsible manner; reporting, which includes the basic principles of demonstrating transparency

and accountability; and relationship nurturing, which includes regular communication and

cultivation activities. These principles help the organization and its fundraisers maintain ethical

standards as well as ensure continued fundraising success (Worley & Little, 2002).

Given the similarities between fundraising and public relations, it is not surprising that

there has been considerable academic research done to demonstrate how fundraising and public

relations are intertwined. Practitioner literature discusses how the inclusion of strategic

communication can produce positive results in fundraising campaigns (Rosso, 1991; Matheny,

1999; Kelly, 2001; Jordan & Quynn, 2001). Rosso's (1991) "Linkage-Ability-Interest" formula

discusses a strategic approach to communicating with potential donors that nonpofits can use to

maximize their impact; this approach is very similar to the situational theory of publics, which

consists of the 3 predictor variables of problem recognition, involvement, and constraint

recognition (J. Grunig, 1966; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984).









In addition to the linkages between public relations and fundraising in the applied setting,

there has been considerable work done to advance fundraising as a public relations specialty on

the scholarly front. Because of the evolution into an organizational and management function, it

makes sense that fundraising is intertwined with public relations. Fundraising was first proposed

as a specialization of public relations in the early 1990s. Kelly (1991, 1995, 1998) provided the

framework for future academic studies examining the field. However, in the 15 years since Fund

Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis (Kelly, 1991) was published, scholars have

been slowly warming up to the idea that fundraising is a specialization of public relations. Even

after offering multiple suggestions for future studies in E~ffective Fund-Raising Management

(Kelly, 1998), few public relations scholars have heeded the call for additional inquiry.

Nevertheless, a handful of individuals have been using existing public relations theory to

explore the fundraising process. Worley and Little (2002) examined the role of stewardship in

the fundraising process, and a handful of other studies have looked at the nature of

communication in fundraising (Waters, 2000; M. Hall, 2002; Tindall, 2004; Waters & Hendren,

2005). One area of inquiry that has resulted in several conference papers involves role theory

and the details of fundraising practitioners' daily tasks (Walker, 1999; Waters, Kelly, & Walker,

2005; Tindall, 2006).

A new stream of research has expanded the traditional domain of fundraising by looking at

how new media are shaping the future of fundraising practices. In a content analysis of the Web

sites of the nonprofit organizations on the Chronicle ofPhilan2thropy's "Philanthropy 400" list,

Waters (2005) explored how nonprofit organizations use the Internet to communicate

specifically with donors and fundraising prospects. Additionally, Waters (2007) outlined how










nonprofit organizations can use the Internet to develop relationships with key stakeholders,

including donors, volunteers, foundations, and community leaders.

Of all the different public relations perspectives that have been explored, the proposed

topic for this study may bring more scholarly interest for fundraising. Two early works (Waters,

2006; O'Neil, 2007) have provided benchmark numbers to show that relationships can be

measured in the donor-nonprofit relationship. O'Neil (2007) found significant differences in

how donors and non-donors evaluate their relationships with a Houston-based social welfare

organization in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction and the balance of power and control.

Using the same scales, Waters (2006) found similar differences between one-time donors and

repeat donors and between maj or gift donors and annual giving donors for a San Francisco-based

healthcare organization. These 2 studies have helped connect fundraising to a recent paradigm

shift in the nature of public relations.

Nonprofit-Donor Relationship

The number of nonprofit organizations has grown exponentially in the United States in the

last decade (Salamon, 2002). Relatedly, the competition for donors has multiplied. In the next

20 years, fundraising practitioners estimate that an estimated $340 trillion will transfer from the

Baby Boom generation to their heirs. A significant portion of this wealth will be transferred to

nonprofit organizations as Baby Boomers use estate planning, charitable trusts, and gift annuities

to reduce their tax burdens. Given this intergenerational transfer of wealth, nonprofit

organizations have been pouring more resources into their fundraising and development

programs in preparation for this transference (Grace & Wendroff, 2001). Basing their plans on

their own experience with donors, organizations are putting more resources into cultivating

existing donors and finding new prospects.









Fundraisers traditionally have recognized the value that relationships play in securing

major gifts and donor participation in planned giving programs. However, organizations

increasingly are realizing the importance of stewardship and donor cultivation for annual giving

donors, especially those who may have the potential to make significant donations to the

organization. Increasingly, fundraising practitioner literature is focusing on the growing

importance of relationship cultivation with all donors rather than devoting resources to marketing

the organization to donor publics.

Countless practitioner books and workshops tout the value of relationships in fundraising

(Burlingame & Hulse, 1991; Matheny, 1999; Prince & File, 1994; Rosso, 1991; Worth, 2002).

Rather than simply focusing on the cultivation of maj or gift donors, practitioners have

recognized that the same principles can be applied to all donors. By dedicating more time to

donor relations and stewardship, Worth (2002) says that these principles can result in increased

donor loyalty to the organization.

But, it is important to note that the maj ority of interpersonal cultivation strategies, such as

face-to-face meetings and personalized reporting, is restricted to maj or gift donors. Following

Pareto' s principle, 80 percent of the total amount donated typically comes from only 20 percent

of the donors. Weinstein (2002) notes that in many capital campaigns and mature fundraising

programs, "the top 10 percent now donate 90 percent of the amount raised" (p. 6). With the

success of fundraising campaigns resting heavily on the shoulders of maj or gift donors, it is not

surprising that more personalized cultivation strategies are directed to those with the resources to

make significant gifts.

Rosso (1991) and Nudd (1991) make it clear that if an organization wants to ensure its

longevity then it should be prepared to dedicate time to developing relationships with its donors.









As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the relationship management approach to fundraising can help result

in significant gifts from donors. In the typical nonprofit-donor relationship, an individual first

makes a small gift to an organization, typically as a result of a direct mail or telephone

solicitation. Over time, fundraising practitioners work to demonstrate the organization's

effectiveness and responsible management of donations in order to grow the relationship.

During subsequent solicitations, practitioners aim to increase the individual's level of

giving. Nonprofit organizations should not attempt to elevate the donors' gifts too quickly or

they risk damaging the trust and accountability that they had worked to demonstrate (Ritzenhein,

2000). Conducting research on a donor will help the organization determine how quickly they

should pursue elevating the gift. Nudd (1991) insisted that organizations that conduct research

on donors are in the best situation to cultivate relationships because of their understanding of

their donors. Indeed most nonprofit organizations with staff dedicated to the fundraising

function keep detailed research files on their donors that accurately reflect donors' giving

histories, their personal lives and interests, and estimates on potential gift amounts.

The fundraising staff pursues larger donations from donors with and without the potential

to make maj or gifts as the relationship between the nonprofit organization and the donor grows.

For donors that cannot make maj or gift contributions, fundraisers may use suggestions in written

direct mail pieces or verbal cues with telephone solicitations to suggest specific donation

amounts to help the organization; these donations are increased not only to advance the

relationship to the next level, but also to maintain the same amount of giving when inflation is

considered. Face-to-face meetings and solicitations may be conducted.

A donor, when solicited, may propose to make a maj or gift contribution to a specific

program or service. However, an organization's fundraising representatives may take an active









role in seeking out significant gifts from donors that they believe have specific interests in

different programs. These maj or gift solicitations typically occur only after significant time and

resources have been invested into the nonprofit-donor relationship.

Figure 2-1 illustrates that the relationship likely will continue to grow to the point where

planned giving is pursued by the donor if nonprofit organizations continue to dedicate resources

to relationship cultivation over time. Planned giving involves significant consideration and

planning in light of the donor's overall estate plan. Because of the size and potential impact of

these gifts, professional advisors often help prepare the legal documents for the gift

arrangements. Signing the documents for planned giving does not indicate the end of the

nonprofit-donor relationship. Many forms of planned gifts, such as will bequests, are revocable,

and nonprofit organizations should continue to pursue stewardship strategies to keep these

donors informed about the operations and programs at the organization. Even irrevocable gifts

demand appropriate management and reporting by staff fundraisers.

Figure 2-1 is an idealized evolution of the nonprofit organization-donor relationship. Most

annual giving donors will not develop into major gift donors. Pareto's principle, or the 80-20

rule, is applicable to fundraising and states that 20% of the donors will provide 80% of the

overall donation income a nonprofit organization receives (Goodwin, 2004). Weinstein (2002)

believes that the ratio is becoming even more lopsided and that 90 percent of an organization's

donations come from only 10 percent of its donor publics.

However, despite the low likelihood of turning an annual giving donor into a maj or gift

donor, nonprofit organizations need to develop relationships. Appropriate relationship

cultivation for annual giving donors can result in future donations at the same level or with slight









increases. Proper research conducted by staff fundraisers can help determine which annual

giving donors have resources that would suggest potential for future maj or gifts.

Just as the public relations literature is beginning to discuss the different relationship

maintenance strategies, fundraising literature is rich with varying strategies on how the

nonprofit-donor relationship can be enhanced through cultivation. Though practitioner literature

gives advice on securing face-to-face business meetings with maj or gift donors over lunch and in

private settings (Sargeant & Jay, 2004), others are beginning to realize that relationship

maintenance strategies can benefit donors at all levels, not just those with potential to make large

gifts.

Kelly's (2000) formula for stewardship involves thanking the donor and then continued

communication through which the organization shows that it has used the donation wisely and

responsibly. Nonprofit organizations are encouraged to add donors to their mailing lists for

newsletters and annual reports (Neal, 2001), additional fundraising solicitations for future

campaigns (Rosso, 1991), or both (Lindahl, 1992).

For full disclosure, newsletters and/or annual reports should provide detailed financial

information concerning the amounts of money raised each year, the amount spent on programs

and administration, and the amount spent on fundraising programs. Additionally, newsletters

and annual reports should highlight success stories from the organization's services and

programs, list the board of directors, and acknowledge maj or funders. Kinzey (1999) also

recommends that newsletters regularly mention methods by which individuals can get involved

in the organization, such as volunteer opportunities, employment opportunities, and information

regarding where fundraising donations can be sent.









Increasingly, as e-Philanthropy has become more mainstream with donors donating record

amounts over the Intemet (Baker, 2005), relationship strategies have even begun to appear for

web-based relationships (Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington, 2001; Waters, 2005). Nonprofit

organizations have been encouraged to develop transparent programs that provide the elements

of accountability and responsibility for donors. By making information, such as IRS 990 forms

and annual reports, available as downloads on the Internet, the Web can be used as a medium

that allows for a one-way provision of information.

E-newsletters and mass e-mails are one way that nonprofit organizations can use the

Intemet as a one-way method of communication. However, the Web is also being used to

engage stakeholders in a mediated dialogue (Kang & Norton, 2004). By providing feedback

forms and email addresses of key staff members, nonprofit organizations can have personalized

communications with their stakeholders. Blogs are also being used to communicate directly with

interested publics. However, Waters (2007) warns that any nonprofit that chooses to use Intemet

strategies needs to be prepared to respond in a timely manner. Nonprofit publics often expect

responses with 24 hours, though conventional wisdom holds that organizations have up to 48

hours to respond without damaging their reputation (Holtz, 1999).

Wagner (2002) questioned whether organizations should search for new donors or work

with their current donor databases to evolve their donors. Nudd (1991) suggested that nonprofit

organizations--if they are to ensure their longevity--must be ready and prepared to do both.

She acknowledged that organizations must constantly be on the lookout for new individuals who

are interested in the cause or the organization and try to bring them on board as a donor.

However, she maintains that nonprofit organizations should put more focus on donors who









already have an established relationship with the organization because past donor behavior is the

strongest indicator of future giving.

Worth (2002) maintained that the incorporation of these strategies can enhance

relationships with donors. When an organization is open and actively communicates information

about its operations and fiscal health, donors develop a greater sense of loyalty and trust in the

organization. They also are more likely to feel that the organization' s staff is dedicated to

achieving the mission. Kelly's (2001) 4 elements of stewardship demonstrate the organization's

gratitude, and, in turn, donors feel respected because they know the gift was appreciated and

wisely managed.

Fundraising literature maintains that donors typically only give to organizations when they

are connected to the cause. After the initial donation, donors can develop a sense of commitment

not only to the cause but also to the organization when they feel their contributions are being

managed effectively and efficiently. These feelings of satisfaction and commitment can help

elevate the donors' gifts when it is combined with increased communication and targeted

solicitations.

Finally, practitioners have suggested that cultivation strategies in the nonprofit-donor

relationship can result in strengthened attitudes and behavior among donor publics. By

maintaining open communication with donors, nonprofit organizations can increase the response

they get from donors in terms of increased donations and increased volunteer hours. Literature

suggests that donors who are interested in the cause and have developed positive attitudes toward

an organization may become members of the board of directors (Herman & Renz, 2000), may

actively talk about the organization with their friends and family (Herman & Renz, 1997), may









refer potential clients or volunteers to the organization (Snavely & Tracy, 2000), and may even

raise money for the organization (Inglis, 1997).

Defining the Organization-Public Relationships

The importance of studying the organization-public relationship was first introduced to

public relations scholars in the mid-1980s (Ferguson, 1984). However, the suggestion that this

concept should be the Hield's guiding paradigm was not grasped immediately as scholars

continued to focus on strategic communications. As inquiry into relationship management grew,

scholars also began looking outside the traditional theoretical perspectives to develop a better

understanding of the impact relationships have for public relations practitioners. Indeed, "the

early dependence on mass communication theory has proven to be too limiting as relationships

become a dominant focus in public relations thinking and practice" (Coombs, 2001, p. 114).

Despite the use of the term relationship in many of the definitions of public relations and

fundraising, there were few attempts initially to define what constitutes a relationship between an

organization and its stakeholders. In reviewing the definitions proposed by public relations

scholars, there are very few consistencies (Ki & Shin, 2005). However, the definition has

evolved since the first proposed definition to represent a wide range of perspectives.

After Broom, Casey, and Ritchey's (1997) call for a definition of the organization-public

relationship, several scholars began to examine the concept more closely. Bruning and

Ledingham (1998) believed that the organization-public relationship is "the state which exists

between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the

economic, social, cultural or political well being of the other" (p. 62). Broom, Casey, and

Ritchey (2000) provided a different perspective on organization-public relationships by noting

that they are "represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage









between an organization and its publics .. [and that they] can be described at a single point in

time and tracked over time" (p. 18).

In a monograph for the Institute for Public Relations, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) argued that

an individual's relationship with an organization begins when action by the organization has

consequences for the individual or public of which he or she is a member. Similarly, an

organization may recognize the impact of the relationship with its publics when their behavior

has consequences for the organization. The Hon and J. Grunig (1999) definition describes a

series linkages that detail how an organization co-exists in the same environment in a manner

that promotes relationship building with other entities. This definition, though not explicitly

stated, seems rooted in systems theory, which argues that an organization has 4 distinct types of

connections to stakeholder groups and the organization's environment. For nonprofit

organizations, these linkages include enabling linkages, such as donors, board of directors, or

government agencies, which provide the necessary funding and governance to keep the

organization operating; functional linkages, such as employees, volunteers, or members, which

represent the workforce and client base of the organization; diffused linkages, such as media and

community residents, which are used to connect the organization to individuals that are not part

of the organization; and normative linkages, such as other nonprofit organizations and

sectorwide associations, which share similar values and face similar problems as the organization

(J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Schoonraad, 2003).

Hung (2005) built on the existing definition of the organization-public relationship:

"Organization-public relationships arise when organizations and their strategic publics are

interdependent and this interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations

need to manage" (p. 396).









This final definition raises one very intriguing point that was neglected in other definitions.

Previous definitions focused on the interactions between the organization and its stakeholders.

Hung' s (2005) definition also introduces an element of management into the understanding of

organization-public relationships. Hung includes the stipulation that organizations must make

decisions to manage the relationship based on previous interactions and the consequences of

those interactions. With this definition, Hung introduces the concept of relationship maintenance

or cultivation strategies to the management process.

Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship

In her original call for inquiry into the nature of relationship management in public

relations, Ferguson (1984) proposed looking at several dimensions, including dynamic versus

static, open versus closed, mutual satisfaction and understanding, distribution of power, and

levels of agreement. Nearly 25 years after Ferguson' s call, many of the original dimensions

continue to be explored, but over the years there have been several attempts to define how the

organization-public relationship should be measured. Ehling (1992) claimed that the shift from

strategic communication, which involved the manipulation of public opinion, to the building,

nurturing and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders is the essence of public relations.

He called this shift "an important change in the primary mission of public relations" (p. 622).

In the years since public relations' focal shift, 2 distinct research teams have been

exploring measurement of the organization-public relationship: (1) researchers at the University

of Florida and the University of Maryland, studying under Dr. Linda C. Hon and Dr. James E.

Grunig, respectively; and (2) researchers at Capitol University in Columbus, Ohio, studying

under Dr. Stephen D. Bruning and Dr. John A. Ledingham.

The first research team began exploring the concept of organization-public relationship

measurement when L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) proposed that there were 7 basic









elements to understanding relationship dynamics. Echoing Ferguson's dimensions, they

included mutual satisfaction, mutual understanding, and openness; they also added the

dimensions of trust, reciprocity, credibility, and mutual legitimacy.

Reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of relationship management studies, Hon and J.

Grunig (1999) used interpersonal communication literature to devise a list of dimensions that are

present in the organization-public relationship. They proposed that by measuring the dimensions

of the relationship, public relations scholars and practitioners have the ability to examine the

contributions of the public relations program to the organization. The dimensions they created

were trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality, which measures the balance of

power in the relationship. These 4 dimensions were tested using a convenience sample of the

general public for various organizations, including the American Red Cross, the National Rifle

Association, and Microsoft. J. Grunig (2002) later explained how these items could be studied

with qualitative methodologies to provide more depth and understanding to the organization-

public relationship.

The second research group that has created a niche for its studies on organization-public

relationship measurement centers on the work of Brning and Ledingham. Their initial work

into the topic began in 1997 when Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997) pulled

variables from a variety of academic disciplines and suggested the organization-public

relationship could be explored by looking at 17 different dimensions. Much like Ferguson

(1984), Ledingham and his colleagues proposed studying satisfaction and open communication,

However, many of the remaining variables were unique to their own research focus. They

recommended studying investment, commitment, cooperation, mutual goals, interdependence,

power balance, comparison of alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable investment, shared









technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, social bonds, intimacy, and passion. The

result of their initial study formed the basis for an argument that "a favorable predisposition

toward an organization can be linked to the organization's performance" (Ledingham, 2006, p.

4).

Finding evidence to support positive attitudes and behavior, their work turned to focus on

how public relations practitioners could improve their practice by looking at the stages of the

agency-client relationship and the relationship between journalists and media relations

practitioners (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). In 1999, Ledingham and Bruning narrowed the 17

dimensions listed earlier down to 5 when they used multiple discriminant analysis to predict

different levels of relationships between a local telephone company and its customers. The 5

variables they identified as being most influential in evaluating the organization-public

relationship were trust, openness, involvement, commitment, and investment. Bruning and

Ledingham (1999) created a scale consisting of 3 subscales focusing on respondents' personal,

professional, and community attitudes.

Finding growing support for the relationship management perspective, Bruning and

Ledingham (2000b) edited a book focusing on the subj ect, Public Relations a~s Relationship

Management. The book had the goal of "stimulat[ing] colleagues from diverse disciplines--with

the richness their backgrounds and training affords--to j oin in the process of building theory and

practice around the notion of relationship management" (p. viii) More than 20 different scholars

wrote chapters for the book and introduced new topics for the field's understanding of

relationships. J. Grunig and Huang (2000) furthered the concepts of relationship antecedents and

cultivation strategies. Bruning and Ledingham (2000c) also contributed their own chapter that

highlighted the business-to-business relationship, which found that this relationship reflected









much of the work between organizations and other types of stakeholders. In a retrospective

essay on the organization-public relations work, Ledingham (2006) concluded with the

suggestion that "though the nature of interpersonal and organization-public relationships are very

different, the attitudes, behaviors and consequences of both appear to operate similarly" (p. 11).

Similar to the work of Ki and Hon (2005), Bruning and Ralston (2000) examined the

relationship between the influence of relationship dimensions on an individual's attitudes and

behavioral intent, and they explored the dynamics of the university-student relationship, although

they used different scales to capture the relationship. More recently, Ledingham (2003) has

advocated for a closer examination of the role of involvement in relationships, and Bruning,

Langenhop and Green (2004) have added new dimensions of organization-public relationship

measurement, including anthropomorphism and comparison of alternatives to the organization.

Though both research teams have created multiple measures to explore organization-public

relationships, perhaps the ones that have been repeatedly tested more often than the others are

those created by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). This scale has been used to explore the university-

student relationship (Brunner & Hon, 2002; Ki & Hon, 2007), the manufacturer-retailer

relationship (Jo, 2003), the municipal utility-community relationship (M. Hall, 2006); the Air

Force base-community relationship (DellaVedova, 2005); and the nonprofit-donor relationship

(Waters, 2006; O'Neil, 2007). Because Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) dimensions have been

shown to be both reliable and valid, this study uses those dimensions and the indices that

measure trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality.

Dimensions of the Organization-Public Relationship

Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) measures focused on 4 dimensions of relationship quality:

trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Drawing from interpersonal

communication literature, Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) dimensions reflect dimensions that









Bruning and Ledingham (1999) have proposed, although they have used literature from

marketing, sociology, anthropology, and other business disciplines to develop their measures.

Rooted in various disciplines, it is helpful to look at each of the 4 dimensions in depth.

Trust

Based on the dimensions proposed by public relations scholars, trust has been viewed as

fundamental in understanding the organization-public relationship. Vercic and J. Grunig (1995)

said that without trust an organization could not exist. Trust, quite simply, refers to one party's

confidence that it can be open and honest with another party. Ledingham and Bruning (1998)

operationalized trust as "doing what an organization says it will do" (p. 98).

Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) trust scale measures 3 subdimensions: (1) integrity, which

centers on the belief that both parties involved in the relationship are fair and just; (2)

dependability, which is primarily concerned with whether the parties involved in the relationship

follow through with what they say they will do; and (3) competence, which focuses on whether

the parties have the abilities to do what they say they will do.

Drawing on relationship marketing literature, studies have found that when an organization

demonstrates trust with its stakeholders, the publics involved with the organization perceive less

risk about their involvement. Often, high levels of trust can be used to predict future behavior

with the organization (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

Commitment

Another of Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) dimension that is grounded in interpersonal

relationships is commitment. This concept has been defined as "the extent to which one party

believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote" (Hon

and J. Grunig, 1999, p. 20). Hon and J. Grunig's scale contains measures of both attitude and

behavioral intention.









Bruning and Galloway (2003) reported that commitment--the level of dedication to an

organization--is a key component of the organization-public relationship because it is

fundamental to the public' s attitude of the organization. Similarly, Dwyer and Oh (1987) insist

that commitment is the highest stage of the relationship. Unlike the 3 other measures proposed

by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), commitment is the only one that hints toward future behavior.

Trust, satisfaction, and control mutuality all are evaluative measures, but commitment takes into

account extending the relationship.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction was one of the original dimensions proposed by Ferguson (1984). She

suggested that entities may have different expectations that may produce different feelings of

satisfaction. The dimension of satisfaction serves to measure whether the parties involved have

positive feelings about one another. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) note that "a satisfying

relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs" (p. 3). Satisfaction has been one of

the variables that has been measured in numerous studies, including Bruning, Langenhop and

Green's (2004) examination of city-resident relations.

Previous research from relationship marketing suggests that when parties are satisfied with

the nature of the relationship, they are more likely to be committed to maintaining it (Dwyer &

Oh, 1987). Therefore, organizations that invest in developing satisfying relationships with

targeted stakeholders are likely to produce beneficial results for the organization in the long

term. Supporting this mutually beneficial approach to relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999)

defined satisfaction as "the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because

positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced" (p. 20).

Ledingham and Bruning (2000) argued that satisfaction was a dimension of the

organization-public relationship that could easily be increased if the organization invested the









time and resources. Foreshadowing future exploration into relationship management strategies,

they suggested that organizations that were more open and spent time getting stakeholders to

participate in organizational decisions were more likely to have satisfied stakeholders than

others.

Control mutuality

The final dimension of relationship quality involves the distribution of power. Termed

control mutuality by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), this component seeks to evaluate which party has

more power over the other in different situations. In her original call for relationship

management studies, Ferguson (1984) suggested that "other variables related to the relationship

might be how much control both parties to the relationship believe they have [and] how power is

distributed in the relationship" (p. 20).

Power exists in any relationship, and public relations scholars have taken a keen interest in

exploring the role of power in recent years, particularly in light of the shift from seeing public

relations as a strategic communication function to one of relationship management. Plowman

(1998) demonstrated that public relations practitioners who understand power are more likely to

be included in the dominant coalition, and this skill enables the dominant coalition to balance the

organization's interests with those of stakeholders.

Exploring the role of power in mediating conflicts between organizations and stakeholders,

Huang (2001) concluded that the presence of power and its distribution has a tremendous impact

on the perceptions and actualities of the organization-public relationship. Indeed, Berger (2005)

used a critical approach to examine the role of power in his study of activist publics.

Because of the power struggle, public relations practitioners often experience tension with

their role of being a boundary spanner that keeps one foot inside the organization and one outside

the organization to stay in contact with an organization's stakeholders. The parties involved are









usually sensitive to which side exhibits and uses power to gain control in the relationship. This

power can influence the attitude and behavior of both the organization and its publics.

After nearly one decade of studying relationships using these 4 dimensions, public

relations scholars have constructed a framework for studying other organization-public

relationships using valid and reliable scales. Based on fundraising and public relations literature,

this study poses its first research question, which evaluates the nonprofit-donor relationship for

all donors:

RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a favorable rating on the

four relationship dimensions?

It is important to note that in Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) monograph, 2 additional

relationship dimensions were proposed; however, they were not adopted by the current study. In

an attempt to define the types of relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) described organization-

public relationships as either communal, which has both parties providing benefits to one another

because they are concerned for each other' s welfare, or exchange, which has one side of the

relationship giving a benefit to the other side with the expectation that benefits will be returned

in the future if they have not already been given. Waters (2006) included the original

communal/exchange dimensions when measuring the nonprofit-donor relationship and found

that donors evaluate the relationship as a communal rather than exchange.

These measurements were not implemented into the current research design because public

relations scholarship has advanced beyond the dichotomy of organization-public relationship

types. Hung (2006) detailed a continuum of organization-public relationships, which ranged

from relationships where the sides are concerned primarily for themselves (exploitive

relationships) to relationships that demonstrate concern for others (communal). Between the 2










endpoints of the continuum, other types of relationships exist, including contractual, exchange,

and covenantal ones. Although Hung reports that these relationship types were first proposed by

J. Grunig in personal conversations in 2001, public relations scholarship has rarely focused on

relationship type and has not created measurement scales for the different types. Although this

area of public relations is fertile ground for future organization-public studies, the current study

does not incorporate the relationship variable type into the research design due to the lack of

available scales.

Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships

In all the previous organization-public relationship studies, public relations scholars have

only measured the relationship using one organization and the key stakeholder group in question.

The relationships were measured using Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) suggested dimensions, and

there have been many studies that have examined the 4 measurement indices for trust,

satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Over the course of the studies, the measures

have repeatedly produced satisfactory Cronbach alpha ratings (Bowers & Courtwright, 1984) for

social scientific research; thus indicating that the indicators are producing reliable answers.

Similarly, the indicators have held up over time to produce reliable answers.

Given the reliability of the measures, many scholars have conducted these studies to

examine an array of relationships, including the university-student relationship (Hon & Brunner,

2002; Ki & Hon, 2005), the municipal utility-community relationship (M. Hall, 2006), the

manufacturer-retailer relationship (Jo, 2006), the Air Force base-community relationship

(VellaDova, 2005), and the nonprofit-donor relationship (Waters, 2006; O'Neil, 2007). These

studies all found significant results when they looked at different segments of the publics.

However, the studies only looked at one organization and one of its publics. Despite the

numerous studies employing this methodology, one has to wonder if this methodology is a valid










approach for measuring a relationship. Can the evaluations of one organization's

communication and behavioral efforts with one target public truly claim to represent the entire

scope of the relationship? Drawing on other examples in communication studies, Kaid (1989)

insists that generalizations about the media cannot be made from the examination of one news

story; similarly, Jackson and Jacobs (1983) caution scholars to be careful when generalizing

about the impact of messages when only one small segment of the greater population has been

studied.

Thinking to the nature of social scientific research, one has to question whether previous

organization-public relationship studies truly measured the nature of the overall relationship

between a type of organization and a key stakeholder or were they simply applied studies

measuring the publics' views. In that case, the results cannot be generalized beyond the context

of that organization, and they certainly cannot claim to capture the essence of that type of

relationship. Public relations studies are missing a key component in social scientific research:

the ability to compare and contrast the variants of the organization-public relationship within the

confines of one study. This approach would provide significant insights into the nature of

relationships for the profession.

This study takes a different approach to measuring the traditional organization-public

relationship. With its goal of seeking to measure the nonprofit-donor relationship rather than to

understand the dynamics of one nonprofit organization's relationship with its donors, this study

uses multiple organizations to capture the fundamental essence of the nonprofit-donor

relationship.

With the exception of Ki (2006), most of the organization-public relationship studies used

these 4 relationship dimensions-trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality--to









measure the quality of the relationship with the public in question (e.g., donors in this study). To

help understand the impact of different types of donors on relationship evaluation, the first

hypothesis examines the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship for 2 groups of donors:

(1) annual giving donors and (2) major gift donors. As will be explained in more depth in

chapter 3, maj or gift donors were considered as those who gave $10,000 or more per year.

Because fundraising literature maintains that organizations traditionally put more resources into

relationship cultivation with maj or gift donors, the first hypothesis tests the difference in

relationship evaluation between maj or gift and annual giving donors:

H1: Compared to annual gift donors (e.g., those who give less than $10,000), major gift

donors will rate the organization-public relationship more positively on the 4 relationship

dimensions.

Returning to the literature on the nonprofit-donor relationship, fundraising practitioners

often suggest that organizations should invest more time and resources into the donors who

continue to donate to their causes (Tempel, 2003). The ultimate goal of these organizations is to

elevate the donor to higher stages of giving, perhaps turning an annual gift into a maj or gift.

In a study of nonprofit organizational effectiveness, Herman and Renz (1998) found that

the nonprofits who were more focused on managed communication efforts were more likely to

have positive relationships with their stakeholders. Though this study did not exclusively

examine fundraising dynamics, the authors did suggest that nonprofit organizations could expect

positive financial returns when they invest resources into developing a relationship. Similarly,

Voss, Cable, and Voss (2000) found that organizations that were able to demonstrate their values

to their stakeholders were likely to benefit from the relationship over an extended period of time.









According to Rosso (1991), as a donor increases the number of gifts that he or she makes

to a charitable nonprofit, the more likely an organization will be to dedicate resources to

cultivating the relationship. Therefore, the second hypothesis is as follows:

H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively

correlated to the evaluation of the relationship dimensions.

As previously mentioned, both Waters (2006) and O'Neil (2007) have used the 4

dimension indices developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) to evaluate the nonprofit-donor

relationship using the single organization approach. Waters (2006) evaluated the dynamics in

the healthcare nonprofit subsector, whereas O'Neil (2007) studied the relationship at a social

service organization. Due to the cooperation of the participating agency, Waters (2006) was able

to obtain information about which survey participants donated to the organization in the annual

campaign subsequent to the survey. Using this data, the study conducted a one-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) statistical test and found that the most significant differences in how the

relationship dimensions were evaluated by donors and nondonors in the organization's Fall 2005

campaign came from the dimensions of trust and commitment. Though this was a crude use of

the ANOVA statistical test, it raises an interesting question that is proposed as this study's

second research question:

RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be predicted based on the

donor' s evaluation of the relationship?

This study does not seek to dismiss the works of Ledingham and Bruning (e.g., 1999). On

the contrary, the scholarship they have produced has been valuable to the Hield's understanding

of the organization-public relationship. The researchers have identified several areas that have

not been explicitly explored under the Hon and J. Grunig (1999) measures, such as loyalty,










perceptions of the organization, and involvement. Given these different concepts that have yet to

be explored with the dimensions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality, the

third research question is as follows:

RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately represent the

organization-public relationship?

In their monograph on the measurement of relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999)

focused on outlining the dimensions of the organization-public relationship in detail by

operationalizing trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. However, they also

proposed that there were 9 relationship cultivation strategies that organizations could use to

produce positive relationships with their stakeholders. In analyzing the work of Bruning,

Ledingham, and their colleagues, many of the variables they have examined were strategies that

organization's could use to develop relationships. Additionally, other public relations scholars,

such as Kelly (2001) and Plowman (1996), have discussed relationship maintenance and

cultivation strategies in their works.

Impact of Relationship Cultivation Strategies

Throughout the literature on relationships, public relations scholars (Hon & J. Grunig,

1999; J. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hung, 2000; Ki, 2004; M. Hall, 2006) have used the term

maintenance to describe the strategies they recommend using in the management of

organization-public relationships. However, Hung (2005) proposed changing how public

relations scholars describe the relationship strategies. In her book chapter, she notes that "J.

Grunig (personal communication, February 26, 2002) considered using the term, 'cultivation' in

replacing 'maintenance'" (p. 23).










Hung then proceeded to rationalize this decision by exploring Dindia and Canary's

description of relationship maintenance. Dindia and Canary (as cited in Hung, 2005) provide the

4 most commonly used reasons parties employ maintenance strategies:

* to keep a relationship in existence
* to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition
* to keep a relationship in satisfactory condition
* to keep a relationship in repair.

Of those 4 reasons, Hung (2004) argued that only the final 2 truly represent the

organization-public relationship. She contends that the first reason--to keep a relationship in

existence--does not provide any strategic behavior designed to maintain the relationship and that

the second reason--to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition--does not consider the

fluid nature of relationships with stakeholders.

Hung' s (2002) research on types of relationships demonstrates that organizational

behavior, whether intentional or accidental, can often damage the relationship with stakeholders.

Therefore, organizations cannot simply maintain relationships with their publics, but they should

work to restore relationships that have been damaged. With this perspective, she contends

"behaviors in relationships are an on-going cultivating process. Therefore, the term 'cultivation

strategies' fits more in the context of relationship management" (Hung, 2005, p. 23). Given the

appropriateness of relationship development in the fundraising process, this study endorses and

utilizes the term cultivation rather than maintenance, which implies that a relationship is

remaining steady rather than growing.

Relationship Cultivation Strategies Defined

Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) monograph set the guidelines for defining 2 separate types of

relationship strategies: symmetrical and asymmetrical. They stress "not all strategies for

maintaining relationships are equally effective .. we must recognize that not all public relations










strategies, techniques, and programs are equally likely to produce relationship outcomes" (p. 13).

The 9 relationship strategies were originally proposed after reviewing public relations literature

on interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution. The strategies they identified from

interpersonal relationships were symmetrical, meaning that both parties benefited from being in

the relationship, while those coming from conflict resolution represented both symmetrical and

asymmetrical strategies. These various strategies are defined In the following section. Table 2-1

lists which strategies have been classified as symmetrical.

Access

Ultimately, this strategy involves making individuals available to both sides of the

relationship. For example, opinion leaders or influential members of stakeholder groups are

open to meeting with organizational representatives, and public relations representatives or

senior managers grant similar access to publics. By providing the opportunity for the 2 parties to

meet with one another, each side's voices and concerns can be considered when organization's

need to make decisions about current and future issues.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) contend that organization-public relationships that use access as

a strategy involve the willingness of both entities to go to the other party directly when they have

complaints or questions about issues instead of discussing complaints with a third party. By

making individuals available to members of the other party, the organization and its stakeholders

are able to engage one another.

In their monograph, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) discuss the importance of access in terms of

key opinion leaders of stakeholder groups. Because of the increasing use of new media and

Web-based communication, Ki (2003) points out that access is now available to virtually anyone

with Internet access. She notes:









With the World Wide Web, not only members or opinion leaders can influence the
organization decision-making processes. Anyone with Internet access can affect an
organization's decision-making process because diverse contact information such as
telephone numbers, staff electronic mail addresses, bulletin boards, and so on, is provided
on Web sites. (p. 19)

Access has been identified by fundraising consultants as being an important strategy to

connect with donors. Bill Moss, a contributing writer for Blackbaud' s "Nonprofit Fiscal Fitness"

newsletter, encourages nonprofits to make their Einancial history and IRS 990 Tax Forms widely

available to donor publics and to mention their availability in organizational publications.

Although he advises organizations to "get your marketing department's input to 'spin' the words

[about the availability] for the greatest marketing impact" (Moss, 2003, p. 2), informing donors

about the information and subsequently being available to answer their questions helps build

donor confidence that the organization is dedicated to the nonprofit-donor relationship.

The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (2004) offers a list of suggested responsibilities for

members of a nonprofit organizations' board of directors. This list includes many items, but

specifically it details the importance of being available to meet with maj or gift donors to discuss

their concerns and the programs and services of the organization. Although the Council

specifically mentions maj or gift donors, providing access to all donors can result in increased

awareness of the concerns and viewpoints of both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship.

Positivity

Positivity refers to the actions by either side of the organization-public relationship that

make the other side feel more content in the relationship. In their book Communication and'

Relational 2aintenance, Canary and Stafford (1994) describe positivity as "any attempt to make

interactions pleasant" (p. 15). In a litany of examples, the authors discuss acting cheerful and

nice, being courteous and polite in conversation, and avoiding partner criticism.









Positivity has been examined in the context of interpersonal relationships, and it has been

shown to be an important predictor of control mutuality (Canary and Stafford, 1993). Similarly,

positivity has been shown to be the primary cultivation strategy used to predict trust as a measure

of the relationship dimension (Canary and Stafford, 1991). Ki (2003) compared the concept of

positivity to Fisher and Brown's (1988) concept of being unconditionally constructive.

Though they discuss the notion of being constructive in the setting of resolving conflict,

the notion can be extended throughout the domain of public relations. Hon and J. Grunig (1999)

provide an example of the positivity cultivation strategy that is centered on how a public

relations agency CEO sees the organization's relationships with its publics:

We want to be a resource to every one of our publics in some way, shape, or form. It' s in
the way we've set up our web site, the way we've set up everything we do as far as our
newsletter, as far as the service we provide, as far as the way we interact with all of these
publics--whether they're the media or a client or a not-for-profit organization or
whatever--we want them to look at [name of agency] as a resource, as something that has
value to their organization in some way, shape, or form. So, what we try to do is operate on
the principle of providing something that is of self-interest to every one of our clients...so
there is a reason why they should care about us. (p. 17)

Practitioner literature has identified positivity as an important--but often missing--

component of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Sargeant and Lee (2004) found that donors in

the United Kingdom valued positive interactions with nonprofit organizations and that these

exchanges had a positive impact on donor behavior. Public Agenda, a research organization in

New York, released a report entitled "The Charitable Impulse" in 2005. This report had similar

findings to Light' s (2003; 2005) research on the public' s confidence in the nonprofit sector.

However, the Public Agenda report found that the general public was "enthusiastic and positive

when it comes to small, local organizations" (Blum, 2005) in part because they were community-

based organizations that relied on personal touches, such as handwritten thank-you notes and

personalized phone calls, rather than impersonal direct mail pieces used by larger charitable










nonprofits. Pete Mountanos (Gilbert, 1999) of Charitable Way, an Internet watchdog group for

the nonprofit sector, believes that charitable nonprofits that create positive experiences for their

donors are more likely to see renewal gifts from previous donors.

Openness

Openness is about the willingness of both sides of the organization-public relationship to

engage actively and honestly in direct discussions about the nature of the relationship. Hung

(2000a) points out that openness may not guarantee a positive relationship because differences

may be revealed. However, the open discussion of points of disagreement can demonstrate that

neither party is trying to hide information from the other.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) point out that for parties to be open, they should reveal both

their thoughts and their feelings. J. Grunig and Huang (2000) argued that the openness strategy

follows the requirements of excellent, symmetrical communication. They also contend that

organizations that frequently use openness as a cultivation strategy are more likely to have

positive relationships with their stakeholders than those that do not. Hung (2005) proposed that

rather than using the label of openness to describe this concept, the term disclosure might be

more suitable.

Due to its symmetrical approach, openness has been examined by numerous public

relations scholars. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) concluded that openness is one of the more

influential factors in a satisfying relationship between an organization and its publics. Similarly,

L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) proposed that quality relationships could best be

measured by examining the openness of the parties involved.

Openness is becoming increasingly important for charitable nonprofits that seek to

demonstrate their transparency. The top goal of the European Fundraising Association, Europe' s

equivalent to the America's Association for Fundraising Professionals, is "to increase









transparency and openness in fundraising, in order to build donor confidence" (Zachrison, 2005,

para 25). Ragsdale (1995) says that open communication is necessary if an organization seeks to

create a climate conducive to long-lasting relationships with donors.

Assurances

Providing verbal and behavioral assurances to another party can do a great deal to enhance

a relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1992). In a survey of married couples, verbal assurances were

found to be a strong predictor of the level of trust in the relationship and stronger feelings of

being committed to continuing the relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1993). Earning assurances

from publics means organizations need to first offer assurances to their stakeholders (L. Grunig,

1992).

Looking at the relationship between organizations and stakeholders, assurances occur

when "each party in the relationship attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are

legitimate and to demonstrate that is committed to maintaining the relationship" (L. Grunig, J.

Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). An organization can demonstrate how much it values its stakeholders

by incorporating this strategy into its communication plan. Benefits from providing assurances

to key publics are more satisfaction and commitment from both sides (Hung, 2000a).

Leadership and organizational management scholar Peter Drucker (2006) says that

nonprofit organizations have a distinct competitive advantage when it comes to providing

assurances to their stakeholder groups because the sector exists to address community problems.

Nonprofit leaders frequently seek input from those in their operating community to leamn about

concerns and find new ways to address problems through their programs and services (Bracht,

Finnegan, Jr., Rissel, Weisbrod, Gleason, Corbett, & Veblen-Mortenson, 1994; Ospina, Diaz, &

O' Sullivan, 2002). Drucker (2006) argues that having the mindset of assuring clients and










consumers that their concerns are legitimate will also benefit the organization's fundraising

program.

In a discussion of maj or gift fundraising, Drucker (2006) provides an illustration of

assurances that frequently occurs during solicitations:

When a board member calls, say, a real estate developer, and says, "I am on the board of
the hospital, the first response he gets from his friend is, "How much are you giving
yourself, John?" If the answer is Hyve hundred bucks, well, that' s all you're likely to get.
(p. 57)

Though the scenario may not always occur in this casual manner, the point raised is an important

one for the fundraising profession. Many donors want to be assured that their money is going to

a worthwhile cause. By having its members donate to the organization and its programs before

soliciting others, the fundraising team is able to reassure potential donors that it is committed to

the cause.

Likewise, nonprofits can assure donors that their concerns are important by simply taking

time to discuss these matters. Sargeant (2001) encourages nonprofit organizations to listen to

their donors and reiterate the importance of the donors' concerns to enhance their commitment to

the nonprofit-donor relationship. Some donors question their decisions to give to charitable

organizations, but answering questions and assuring donors that their input is appreciated will

help nonprofit organizations overcome reluctant donors (Hibbert & Home, 1996).

Networking

In an examination of nonprofit organizations' role in influencing public policy, Nyland

(1995) defined networking as the positive interaction between the involved parties, whether they

were individual activists, single nonprofit organizations, or entire sectors, such as the

government. Networking can take on many different shapes, such as formal conversation,

authority, or friendship (Nohria & Eccles, 1992). Canary and Stafford (1994) viewed networking









at the interpersonal level as spending time with friends, family, and coworkers to gain their

support and make the relationship more enj oyable.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) refer to networking as the opportunity for organizations to build

coalitions with different stakeholders. Hung (2000a) showed that networking serves as a catalyst

in relationship building. Indeed, scholars suggest that networking should be proactive because it

nurtures symmetrical cultivation strategies and constructive relationship building.

In recent years, watchdog groups and private foundations have encouraged charitable

nonprofits to network and collaborate with one another and other relevant organizations to

increase the reach and work of the sector (Lenkowsky, 2002). Guo and Acar (2005) found that

nonprofit organizations are capable of working with one another; however, the alliances are not

easily formed. Nonprofit leaders often feel that collaborative networks are difficult to create due

to sacrifices of autonomy and often result in programming that fails to serve publics effectively

and efficiently because too many people have say in decision making.

However, Smith (2002) believed that networking was beneficial for charitable nonprofits

far beyond working with other like-minded organizations. By demonstrating that an

organization is open to new approaches to problems and willing to work with outside agencies,

nonprofit organizations are able to show that they are using their financial resources wisely--a

key component of demonstrating fiscal accountability to donors. Indeed, others have expressed

similar ideas over the years that networking and collaborations have direct financial benefits for

charitable nonprofits--not only in terms of saving resources, but in also gaining new resources

from their donors (Abzug & Webb, 1999; Austin, 2000).

Sharing of tasks

Many studies have examined the role of task sharing by focusing on families and couples.

Individuals who believed their spouse also contributed significantly to the sharing of household









tasks were more committed to maintaining the relationship and more satisfied with the state of

their relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991). These studies found that

sharing of tasks consistently predicted an individual's commitment and satisfaction. Though

most of the works studying this phenomenon come from interpersonal communication studies,

there is ample evidence to support that organizations and publics also share tasks.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) conceptualized sharing of tasks as "organizations' and publics'

sharing in solving j oint or separate problems" (p. 15) and provided several examples of the

strategy, such as resolving community issues, providing employment for community residents

and staying in business. These examples involve the interests of the organization, the public, or

both. Ki (2006), however, defined sharing of tasks as those focusing exclusively on mutual

interests between the organization and its publics.

Sharing of tasks is a relationship cultivation strategy that fundraisers frequently employ

with maj or gift and planned giving donors. Kelly (1998) highlights several ways that fundraisers

and donors work together to create giving vehicles that benefit both sides of the nonprofit-donor

relationship. In describing its planned giving program, the National Academies of Science and

Engineering (2007) discusses the mutual value of these gifts:

Charitable gift annuities, like charitable remainder trusts, are life income gifts: you
transfer assets now, receiving a charitable deduction for a portion of the transfer, and you
or a beneficiary receives income for the rest of your life or a fixed period of time. Both the
National Academies and you can benefit from life income gifts such as these. (para 1)

Nonprofit organizations also are increasingly seeing that some maj or gift donors are not

satisfied with simply offering a charitable gift to the organization. Instead, they want to be

involved with the delivery of programs and services to address the concerns that matter the most

to them. These donors, sometimes called "venture philanthropists," often approach nonprofit

organizations to determine the best way that the 2 parties can work together; however, Cobb










(2002) argues that often this discussion is little more than a one-sided sales pitch designed to

appeal to the nonprofit organization's desire for the charitable gift.

Venture Philanthropy Partners, a philanthropic investment organization founded by more

than 30 business and technology leaders, argues that having donors being more involved in

program delivery results in streamlined nonprofits that are more efficient and effective in

accomplishing their goals (Venture Philanthropy Partners, 2004). Regardless of nonprofits'

views of venture philanthropy, it is clear that the organizations must be able to work together

with donors whether the focus is on fundraising programs, such as planned or maj or gifts, or on

creating program and service delivery plans.

Keeping promises

All of the strategies that have been mentioned up to this point were briefly discussed in

Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) monograph. However, there has been subsequent work on

relationship cultivation strategies. Hung's (2002) research on multinational and Taiwanese

companies' relationship development in China identified another strategy, keeping promises.

According to Hung (2002), multinational companies in China utilized keeping promises to

achieve dependability, one element of trust, between themselves and their Chinese publics,

Taiwanese companies used this strategy to enhance dependability and competence, another

component of trust.

The maj ority of these strategies have been classified as symmetrical, not surprising given

the views that symmetry is necessary for enlightened and excellent communication. Though J.

Grunig (2001) said that organizations have made considerable efforts in improving the nature of

their communication, they have not yet truly become excellent or symmetrical. These strategies

can lead to improved conversations between the organization and its publics, but which of the

strategies are most important to the relationship building process? Fundraising literature










supports the tenets of symmetrical communication, but it too offers no maj ority opinion as to

which strategies would be most influential to the relationship building process.

Stewardship

In Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) monograph, Kelly's (2000, 2001) stewardship strategies

were presented as symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies. However, they have not been

tested or presented in any of the other organization-public relationship studies, even though

Kelly argued that stewardship is the second most important step in the public relations process.

The 4 strategies are reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing.

Kelly advocated that organizations-nonprofit, for-profit, and government-should

actively work to incorporate these strategies into their communications and public relations

planning because stakeholders are concerned with how they are treated after the interaction with

the organization. Organizations that include these strategies are also more likely to follow high

ethical standards.

Reciprocity. On an applied level, reciprocity simply means that organizations must

demonstrate gratitude toward their supportive stakeholders. Two underlying dimensions of

reciprocity are acknowledgement of the publics and a sincere expression of appreciation on

behalf of the organization. For nonprofit organizations, fundraisers need to acknowledge and

thank donors in a timely manner for their gifts by offering a receipt declaring the tax

deductibility of the gift and a note of appreciation.

J. Grunig and White (1992) viewed reciprocity as being the basis for social responsibility.

When publics adopt positive attitudes and behavior that support organizational activity,

organizations have an obligation to reciprocate that support. By repaying these obligations,

organizations are able to maintain social balance with their publics.










Responsibility. If an organization incorporates stewardship into its public relations

programming, then it has an obligation to its stakeholders to act in a socially responsible manner.

On a basic level, this component of stewardship is very similar to thr relationship maintenance

strategy proposed by Hung (2002), keeping promises. Hung (2002) concluded that multinational

and Taiwanese companies kept their promises with Chinese stakeholders to demonstrate their

dependability. This element of responsibility centers on an organization' s commitment to its

publics for what it has said it would do.

For fundraising, an organization and its fundraisers have an obligation to make sure that

funds donated to specific causes or programs are only used for those programs. Betraying that

trust is a costly mistake that fundraisers cannot allow because it is much simpler to have a donor

renew their gifts to an organization than for the same fundraiser to go out into the community

and find new donors.

Reporting. Organizations need to keep their publics informed about developments on

issues for which support was sought. For example, a nonprofit organization that solicited

donations to improve community parks has an obligation to let donors who supported that

program how and when the park was improved. Organizations can demonstrate their

accountability by providing open, accurate information to their publics.

In light of recent scandals in the nonprofit sector, fundraisers need to ensure that their

organizations use their Web sites to demonstrate financial accountability by providing their 990

IRS Forms and their audited financial documents and to demonstrate their social accountability

by informing current and potential clients about their programs and services. Nonprofits and

every other type of organization must be held accountable for their actions on issues that impact










their publics. Relationships with these groups cannot be maintained if an organization does not

offer this information and only communicates when it needs support.

Relationship nurturing. As public relations scholarship continues to document the

impact of relationship cultivation with different stakeholder groups, practitioners' abilities to

nurture those relationships becomes more important for long-term success. To truly reach this

level, organizations must recognize the importance of supportive publics and keep them in mind

when any decisions are made.

Opportunities to nurture relationships with publics are numerous. For example, nonprofit

organizations should make sure donors are receiving copies of newsletters and annual reports.

Maj or gift donors and prospects should also be invited to special events and open houses. As the

nonprofit-donor relationship strengthens, fundraisers may also send handwritten cards for special

occasions, such as birthdays, anniversaries or upon learning of serious illnesses. The extra effort

required to cultivate relationships with any public will benefit organizations in the future because

this demonstrated concern will result in continued support and reduce the impact of potential

crises.

It is important to note that Hon and J. Grunig (1999) also proposed symmetrical and

asymmetrical strategies for how organizations can resolve conflicts with stakeholder groups.

These include integrative strategies where the organization and public seek out common interests

that can be used to solve problems, distributive strategies that incorporate a win-loss perspective

and often result in one side benefiting at the expense of the other, and dual concern strategies

where public relations practitioners seek to balance the organization' s concerns with those of the

stakeholder groups. These strategies are derived from Plowman's (1995; 1996; 1998) work on

conflict resolution, power struggles, and negotiations in public relations' practice.









Although these strategies offer valuable insight into how organizations may resolve

conflict with stakeholder groups, they were excluded from the current study because the

researcher perceived a lack of conflict between the participating nonprofit organizations and their

donors. If the organizations studied were embroiled in a scandal or crisis situation similar to

those described in chapter one, then the strategies likely would have been included in the

research design.

Given the multitude of strategies that nonprofit organizations can use to foster relationship

growth with their donors, the fourth research question was created to determine if all of the

strategies were viewed positively:

RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization favorable ratings on its

relationship cultivation strategies?

This question helps to evaluate overall views on the strategies, but as fundraising literature

points out, there is a considerable difference in the amount of resources that nonprofit

organizations dedicate to develop relationships with annual gift and major gift donors. As Figure

2-1 highlights and Rosso (1991) and Nudd (1991) explained, as donors start making larger, more

significant gifts to nonprofit organizations, these organizations start cultivating the relationship

more. Because of the different levels of resources dedicated to cultivating the relationships with

different types of donors, the third hypothesis predicts that the relationship cultivation strategies

will be viewed differently by the 2 primary types of donors, annual gift and maj or gift

contributors :

H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), maj or gift

donors will rate the relationship cultivation strategies more positively.









Because the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig

(1999), Hung (2002), and Kelly (2000, 2001) all represent a wide variety of behaviors and

communication approaches that nonprofit organizations can use to build relationships with their

donors, it is important to understand if any of them are more influential than others in

determining how the relationship is evaluated. For this reason, the fifth research question was

proposed:

RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by public relations

scholars, which are the most influential in terms of influencing donors' evaluation of the

relationship with the nonprofit organization?

Again, because fundraising literature makes a distinction between annual giving and maj or

gift donors, it is important to determine if these groups are impacted differently by the strategies.

To determine the impact of the strategies on how the donor groups evaluate the overall

relationship with the nonprofit organization, a sixth research question was created:

RQ6: Do annual gift and major gift donors experience the relationship cultivation

strategies differently in terms of influencing their evaluation of the relationship with the

nonprofit organization?

New Approach to Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship

Hung' s (2005) definition of the organization-public relationship-"Organization-public

relationships arise when organizations and their strategic publics are interdependent and this

interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations need to manage" (p.

395)--raises an interesting question that has yet to be addressed in related studies. Much of

public relations literature focuses on the need for the public relations department to be

represented in the organization's dominant coalition or group of decision makers. Without the

public relations perspective being included in management's meetings, decisions likely are made









without considering stakeholders' perspectives. Given Hung's (2005) new focus on the

decisions made by the dominant coalition to manage relationships with stakeholders, it would

seem imperative to measure the organizational perspective of the organization-public

relationship.

Yet, with rare exceptions (e.g., Jo, 2003), public relationship studies have yet to take the

organization's perspective into consideration despite Ferguson's (1984) original suggestion that

the "coorientational measurement model should prove quite useful in conceptualizing

relationship variables for this type of paradigm focus" (p. 17). Many public relations scholars

have advocated for the inclusion of the organization' s perspective in relationship studies

(Ledingham, 2001, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Seltzer, 2005), but although

coorientation has been suggested, it has been used only rarely in relationship management

research.

Interestingly, in his retrospective of organization-public relationship studies, Ledingham

(2006) claimed:

Ledingham (2001) again tested Broom and Dozier' s (1990) notion of agreement and
accuracy as indicators of relationship quality. His coorientational analysis of government-
citizenry relationships revealed that the perceptions of agreement between organizations
and publics is, in fact, linked to relationship quality, and, ultimately, to choice behavior.
(p. 14)

This declaration appears to have addressed what this study calls "a new approach" to measuring

the organization-public relationship. However, upon closer examination, Ledingham (2001)

only measured one side of the government-citizen relationship--the citizen' s view.

Ledingham (2006) does note that the advancement of relationship management theory

included Broom and Dozier' s (1990) adaptation of the coorientation measurement model. But,

his specific study on local government and its citizenry relied solely on the methodology

described as follows: "Six focus groups with five to eight participants each were conducted with









community members in accordance with recommended processes, and a subsequent survey

questionnaire was constructed to include the 9 operationalized dimensional items that comprise

Bruning and Ledingham's OPR scale" (p. 290). The stated "recommended process" refers to

Greenbaum' s The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research. Therefore, this

study maintains that although the coorientation method has been mentioned as a useful process

for measuring the organization-public relationship, it has not been employed as outlined by

public relations scholars (Broom & Dozier, 1990). Ledingham (2006) does not even indicate

that the views of government representatives were measured, calling into question how the

coorientation method was implemented into the research design.

In their textbook, Using Research in Public Relations: Applications to Program

Management, Broom and Dozier (1990) suggest that the use of coorientation measurement

would be an important way for an organization to compare its' perspective on an issue with that

of its stakeholders. Using the coorientation methodology allows the organization to determine if

the 2 sides agree on the issue, if either side perceives agreement with the other side, and if the 2

sides are accurate in their perceptions.

The coorientation measurement model traces its beginnings to psychological studies about

the mutual orientation of 2 individuals to some object. Newcomb's (1953) symmetry model was

expanded to groups by mass communication scholars, including McLeod and Chaffee (1973),

who based their model on the basic assumption that people's behavior results from more than

their internal thinking: it also is affected by their orientation to other people and perceptions of

the views others hold.

Public relations scholars Broom and Dozier (1990) adapted the theory to corporations and

publics, resulting in a model that represents the 2 sides of an organization-public relationship.










Kelly (1998) revised that model to develop one that depicts a charitable nonprofit organization's

relationship with its donors.

Drawing from Kelly (1998), the coorientation model consists of 4 elements: (a) the

organization' s views on an issue, represented by the beliefs of individuals who participate in

decision making; (b) the public' s views on the issue; (c) the organization' s estimate of the

public' s views (i.e., perception); and (d) the public' s estimate of the organization' s views.

Figure 2-2 presents the coorientation model of the nonprofit organization-donor relationship

with the issue being the overall evaluation of the relationship between the 2 parties.

As shown in Figure 2-2, agreement is the extent to which the organization and the public

hold similar views on the issue, in this case, the extent to which the fundraising team at a

nonprofit organization and donors to that charitable organization agree on the evaluation of the

relationship. Perceived agreement is the extent to which one side perceives agreement or

disagreement with the other side on the issue, which earlier models termed congruency.

Accuracy is the extent to which one side' s estimate of the other side' s views concurs with the

actual views of the other side. In other words, measuring the views of both the fundraising

leaders and donors on the evaluation of the relationship allows this study to determine the extent

to which the 2 sides are in agreement or disagreement on the relationship, the extent to which

they perceive agreement and disagreement, and their degree of accuracy in predicting the other

side's views.

Broom and Dozier (1990) recommended that researchers calculate D-scores, or the

differences between the 2 sides' rating for each item measuring agreement and perceived

agreement. The lower the D-score, the higher the level of agreement or perceived agreement is

on the issue and vice versa. Based on results, the relationship can be categorized by 4









coorientation states, defined by Broom and Dozier (1990): (a) consensus, (b) dissensus, (c) false

consensus, and (d) false conflict. Consensus exists when the organization and the public agree;

both sides essentially share the same view and each knows that agreement exists. Dissensus is

the opposite state: the 2 sides disagree and recognize the disagreement. The last 2 states result

from inaccurate perceptions. False consensus exists when the organization thinks the public

agrees with it on an issue but the public does not, and false conflict exists when either party

mistakenly thinks there is disagreement.

The coorientation model is a powerful but underutilized approach to public relations

research (Cutlip et al., 1994). Few practitioners apply it to problems in the field. Yet

organizations' communication and action may be completely inappropriate and ineffective if

inaccurate perceptions exit on either side. As Dozier and Ehling (1992) warned,

"Misperceptions can lead to catastrophic actions whenever the dominant coalition sees

agreement or disagreement when none actually exists" (p. 181).

Although public relations scholars embrace coorientation as a core concept in theory

building, their research usually ignores the views and perceptions of organizational decision

makers. Use of coorientation methodology, other than a few exceptions, has been limited to

studying simultaneous orientations of public relations practitioners and affiliated professionals--

most notably, journalists (Kopenhaver, Martinson, & Ryan, 1984; Sallot, Steinfatt, & Salwen,

1998). These studies employ early models that deal with groups of people, as opposed to later

models refined for organizations and their publics.

Previous organization-public relationship is asymmetrical with studies focusing on only

one side of the relationship. With only one exception (Jo, 2003), studies have not included the

measurement of organizational representatives into their research designs, despite managers'









assumed impact on the relationship. For this reason, this study breaks new ground by using the

coorientation methodology to measure the relationship between nonprofit organizations and

donors. Use of the methodology prompts 4 research questions regarding the organization-public

relationship:

* RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors agree/disagree on evaluation
of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

* RQ8: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors perceive agreement/
disagreement between themselves and the other side on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor
relationship?

* RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising team and donors accurate/inaccurate in
predicting the other side's views on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

* RQ10: What coorientation state exists between the fundraising team and donors on
evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

By understanding the two-sided dynamics of the nonprofit-donor relationship, it is possible

to make suggestions for future research into the role of relationship building in this particular

setting. The potential theoretical insights could lead to other coorientational approaches in other

settings. Additionally, there could be practical implications that could help improve the

strategies of fundraising practitioners and the nonprofit organization's management team.

Table 2-2 summarizes the hypotheses and research questions. It also provides the

statistical procedures that will be used to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions.


















































Figure 2-1. Evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship.

This model illustrates the desired impact of relationship maintenance strategies on the nonprofit-
donor relationship. As the charitable donation (or the amount anticipated from a donor)
increases, the more time and resources a nonprofit organization invests into the cultivation
process.

Figure adapted from Nudd, S. P. (1991). Thinking strategically about information (pp.174-189).
In H. A. Rosso (Ed.), Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.












Cultivation Strategy Symmetry Orientation Proposed by
Access Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Positivity Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Oeness Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Assurances Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Networking Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Sharing. of Tasks Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Integrative Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)*
Distributive Asymmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)*
Dual Concern Hon and J. Grunig (1999)*
--Contending Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Avoiding Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Accomodating Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Compromi sing Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Cooperating Symmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Being Unconditionally Symmetrical Plowman (1995) *
Constructive
--Saying "Win-Win" or "No Symmetrical Plowman (1995)*
Deal"
Keeping promises Symmetrical Hung. (2002)
Reciprocity Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
Responsibility Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
Reporting Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
Relationship, Nurturing. Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
*These proposed strategies were not included in the current study because of their focus on
conflict resolution.


Table 2-1. Symmetry Orientation of Relationship Cultivation
osrepretnI nal and Public Relations Li e


Strategies Proposed in












Fundraising Team's
Views on Relationship
Evaluation


Donors' Views on
.Agreement Rltosi
aera.ent I ReatioshiEvaluation


Perceived
Agreement







Donors' Estimate of
Fundraising Team's
Views on Relationship
Evalua tion


Perceived
Agreement







Fundraising Team's
Estimate of Donors'
Views on Relationship
Evalua tion


Figure 2-2. Visual depiction of the coorientation methodology examining relationship evaluation
between nonprofit organizations and their donors.

Figure adapted from Kelly, K. S., Thompson, M., & Waters, R. D. (2006). Improving the way
we die: A coorientation study assessing agreement/disagreement in the organization-public
relationship of hospices and physicians. Journal of Health Communication, 11(6), 607-627.









Table 2-2. Summary of the Current Study's 3 Hypotheses and 10 Research Questions.
Hypothesis or Research Question Statistical Test
RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a Mean and Standard
favorable rating on the four relationship dimensions? Deviation


H1: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than
$10,000), major gift donors will rate the organization-public
relationship more positively on the four relationship dimensions.

H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the
nonprofit will be positively correlated to evaluation of the
relationship dimensions.

RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be
predicted based on the donor' s evaluation of the relationship?

RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately
represent the organization-public relationship?

RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a
favorable rating on the relationship cultivation strategies?

H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than
$10,000), maj or gift donors will rate the relationship cultivation
strategies more positively.

RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed
by public relations scholars, which are the most influential in terms of
their effect on donors' evaluation of the relationship with the
nonprofit organization?

RQ6: Do annual gift and major gift donors experience the
relationship cultivation strategies differently in terms of influencing
their evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization?

RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors
agree/disagree on the evaluation of their nonprofit-donor
relationship?

RQ8: To what extent does fundraising team and donors perceive
agreement/ disagreement between themselves and the other side on
evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising team and donors
accurate/inaccurate in predicting the other side's views on evaluation
of the nonprofit-donor relationship?


One-Way ANOVA



Pearson's r and Multiple
Regression


Multiple Discriminant
Analysis

Multiple Regression


Mean and Standard
Deviation

One-Way ANOVA



Structural Equation
Modeling



Structural Equation
Modeling


D-scores and
Independent t-tests


D-scores and Paired
sample t-tests


D-scores and
Independent t-tests










Table 2-2. Continued
Hypothesis or Research Question Statistical Test
RQ10: What coorientation state exists between the fundraising team N/A
and donors on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?









CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship dimensions proposed by Hon and

J. Grunig (1999) as they apply to fundraising by healthcare nonprofits and the influence of

symmetrical strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), Hung (2006), and Kelly (2000) on

those relationship dimensions. Though previous studies have examined the dimensions of the

nonprofit-donor relationship within the context of 1 organization, little can be generalized to the

relationship overall. This study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of fundraising by

examining multiple nonprofit organizations, specifically those with healthcare missions, to

enlighten understanding of fundraising as it pertains to relationship management.

The second goal of this study is to examine the perceptions of both parties in the

relationship (fundraising management team and donors) using the coorientation methodology as

outlined by Broom and Dozier (1990) and Kelly (1998). Despite the suggestions by other public

relations scholars (e.g., Ferguson, 1984; Ledingham, 2001), there has been only 1 study on

relationship management theory ( Jo, 2003) that measured both sides of the organization-public

relationship. There has been little effort to measure the organization-public relationship in terms

of the parties' levels of agreement, their perceptions, and the accuracy of those perceptions

regarding the relationship quality. Though Jo (2003) did measure the perceptions of both sides

of the manufacturer-retailer relationship, he did not compare the accuracy of those perceptions,

which could impact the formation and continuation of the organization-public relationship.

Because this study desires to generalize as much as possible about the overall relationship

between healthcare nonprofits and their donors, it is necessary to use a quantitative approach.

Although experimental designs are preferable for demonstrating causation, the nature of the

relationship cultivation process discourages the methodology. Organization-public relationships










require time to advance through the various stages (e.g., from a single contribution to annual

giving to a maj or gift for the fundraising relationship). It would be nearly impossible to

construct an experimental design that would allow the researcher to control all the variables that

would influence the relationship dimensions. Even if it were plausible, the length of time

required to observe the variables as the relationship progresses would make the study unfeasible.

Study Design

This study uses survey research to capture both parties' evaluation of the nonprofit-donor

relationship. The survey approach is one of the most appropriate methods for collecting data that

describes a situation or phenomenon (Fowler, 1995). It is the only method that allows

researchers to describe characteristics of a large population accurately when sampled properly.

Surveys have additional advantages. Compared to qualitative methods and experimental

designs, surveys are relatively inexpensive and can be self-administered, which allows them to

be administered from remote locations using mail, e-mail, or telephone. Due to costs and the

various ways to administer surveys, large samples are feasible, which provides more strength to

claims that the collected data represents the population.

The typical survey format allows for some flexibility in the initial creation phase. Though

different survey administration methods will produce different results in terms of the number of

participants, the researcher has the ability to ask as many questions about a given topic as

deemed necessary. However, guidelines must be followed to ensure that the researcher can

properly analyze the data. Standardized, closed-ended questions make the measurement of key

variables more precise because they force participants to use a uniform definition of said

variables. The use of standardized questions also allows the data to be collected from a large

number of participants and analyzed without the researcher interpreting the participants'

meaning.










Survey research is not without its disadvantages. Creswell (1997) suggests that any

methodology that relies on the standardization of variables forces the researcher to develop

questions that can be answered by all of the respondents, which may prevent some key

distinctions between different segments of the sample from emerging in the analysis phase of the

research. Additionally, unlike qualitative methods, surveys are inflexible in their approach.

Changes cannot be made to a survey's questions after the research has started. Once the survey

is administered, either the entire research proj ect must be carried out as is or stopped completely.

As Alreck and Settle (1995) outline, there are different methods of administering surveys.

In their text, they detail the advantages and disadvantages of in-person and intercept surveys,

mail surveys, and telephone surveys. Since the book was first published, there has also been an

increasing amount of scholarly research that has utilized the Intemet as a method of data

collection. Table 3-1 highlights various advantages of each survey method; however, for this

study, one of the most important factors concerns the response rate. Typically, the more

personalized the survey approach (e.g., face-to-face/in-person surveys), the higher the response

rates.

In recent years, there has been considerable research to examine the response rates of Web-

based surveys. Overall, there have been mixed results about which survey method produces

higher response rates. Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004) found that student populations

had a slightly higher response rate for Intemet surveys that were sent out through an e-mail

invitation than for those using traditional mail surveys. This study also compared the response

rates for a one-time mailing of surveys with 1 group receiving a reminder--either an e-mail or a

postcard--and the other group only receiving the survey. Their study found that the use of a










reminder resulted in nearly a 33% increased response rate overall and closer to 40% for mailed

surveys.

A meta-analysis found that the overall response to Internet surveys is similar to that of

mailed surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). However, Cook et al. concluded that

younger demographics tend to respond more with Web-based surveys after finding significantly

higher responses for Web-based studies using college student populations. Zhang (1999) found

that when Internet surveys targeted specific groups, such as association members, student groups

or hard-to-reach populations, the survey response increased significantly.

Another concern of Internet surveys has been the respondents themselves. Researchers

have expressed concern about how well Web-based respondents represent the general

population; however, the population increasingly has adopted Internet technologies, and now

more than 80% of the American population regularly uses the Internet (Pew Internet and

American Life Proj ect, 2006) and more than 53% check email on a daily basis (Pew Internet and

American Life Project, 2006b). However, studies still indicate that those under 40 are still more

likely to respond to Web-based surveys.

For these reasons, this study used a combination of Web-based and traditional mailed

surveys. Because Zhang (1999) concluded that electronic communication was an effective way

to solicit survey responses from individuals with strong affiliations toward a certain group, Web-

based surveys were used for the scale development protests using donors of a healthcare

nonprofit. However, for the full survey implementation, the study used traditional mail surveys

because of the demographic profiles provided by the organizations. Even though the 3

organizations being studied are located in one of the metropolitan areas most connected to the

Internet, according to Forbes magazine (Frommer, 2006.), the desire to boost responses from










maj or gift donors, who tend to be older, led to the use of mail surveys to collect data more

representative of the donor population.

Population and Sampling

For survey research, one of the first questions that must be addressed is what population

should be studied to answer the project's guiding hypotheses and research questions. This

decision must be made based on the population's ability to provide information sought by the

survey, the qualities that populations need to have to make their responses meaningful, and the

researcher' s ability to access the population.

The population of interest in this study is the charitable nonprofit sector and its donors;

however, due to the Internal Revenue Service's reporting laws, it is impossible to Eind a

comprehensive listing of nonprofit organizations. Gven the complexity of the sector as outlined

in the first chapter, the study focuses on 1 particular division of the sector, healthcare.

More specifically, the study concentrates on hospitals represented in the Association for

Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP). AHP is "the only association dedicated exclusively to

advancing and promoting the health care development profession" (AHP, 2007). To keep the

study manageable yet meet the rigors of pushing the research on relationship management

beyond a single organization, 4 hospitals in Northern California were asked to participate in the

study. Due to previous fundraising experience and AHP membership, the researcher had access

to these hospitals. Three of the 4 hospitals agreed to participate in the study: San Francisco

General Hospital, Marin General Hospital, and Children's Hospital and Research Center. To

understand the dynamics of these hospitals, a brief description about each one follows.

San Francisco General Hospital's fundraising arm is the San Francisco General Hospital

Foundation. The foundation's mission is to improve the care and comfort of the patients served

by San Francisco General Hospital. The foundation was established in 1994 by a dedicated core










group of 8 individuals, who became the foundation's first board of directors. The money that the

foundation raises underwrites continued support for an array of services and programs at the

Hospital. These programs and services include emergency and trauma care support, HIV/AIDS

services and treatment, women's health initiatives, substance abuse treatment and prevention

programs, and volunteer programs.

The San Francisco General Hospital Foundation currently has a 30-member board of

directors largely composed of business leaders and surgeons from the Hospital and the

University of California-San Francisco' s medical school. Of those 30 directors, 18 play a

significant role in assisting the 4 staff members with the foundation's fundraising efforts.

Additionally, 11 other key administrators and volunteers are active in fundraising for the

organization. Therefore, the fundraising team at the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation

consists of 33 individuals.

According to their most recent IRS 990 Form, which was obtained through GuideStar.org,

the foundation had assets of $7.4 million at the end of 2004. The foundation reported spending

roughly $173,000 on fundraising, and those efforts resulted in $5.92 million in gifts that same

year; in other words, the organization raised $34.22 for every dollar spent on fundraising

programming. During 2004, the organization spent $3.24 million on hospital improvements.

The second hospital in the study is Marin General Hospital. This nonprofit hospital is

located in Greenbrae, California, and provides services to the residents of Marin County. The

mission of its affiliated foundation is to coordinate the fundraising efforts designed to improve

the programs, facilities, and equipment for the hospital. Additionally, funds are raised for related

healthcare services and programs that the hospital sponsors for the community.









The Marin General Hospital's affiliated foundation currently has an 18-person board of

directors. Given the social networking opportunities in Marin County, two-thirds of the directors

also serve on the board's fundraising committee. Together with the nine people who work in the

hospital's communications and development office, they routinely work with 20 other key

volunteers and hospital administrators on fundraising efforts. Therefore, the Marin General

Hospital fundraising team consists of 47 individuals.

According to their most recent IRS 990 Tax Form, the foundation had assets of $80.4

million at the end of 2004. Although the foundation raised $4.2 million from private individuals

and received an additional $240 million in revenue from government agencies, the foundation

reported that it incurred no fundraising expenses during the year, a troubling trend in the

nonprofit sector that is more fully discussed in chapter 5. The foundation also spent $204.7

million on healthcare programs and services and an additional $24 million on hospital

admini strati on.

The final hospital participating in the study is the Children's Hospital & Research Center

of Oakland. The hospital's fundraising arm is the Children's Hospital & Research Center

Foundation, which was established in 1967. Since then the organization has worked hard to

support the efforts and mission of the hospital by conducting extensive fundraising programs for

individuals, businesses, and foundations.

Children's Hospital & Research Center of Oakland currently has a 35-member board of

directors. Of these directors, 18 are actively involved in the fundraising subcommittee. This

organization has the most sophisticated fundraising structure of the 3 nonprofits in the study.

The fundraising staff consists of 21 people who work on various aspects of fundraising. Despite

the large number of staff fundraisers, 1 1 volunteers and hospital administrators also work on









various fundraising programs. Therefore, the Children's Hospital & Research Center of Oakland

fundraising team consists of 50 individuals.

According to their most recent IRS Form 990, the hospital had assets of $132.7 million at

the end of 2004. Just like Marin General, this foundation raised $10.4 million from private

individuals and received an additional $267.6 million in revenue from government and fees, yet

it also reported that it incurred no fundraising expenses during the year. The hospital spent $10.8

million on healthcare programs and services and an additional $1.19 million on hospital

admini strati on.

These 3 nonprofit organizations all have similar fundraising programs. Though the

methods of implementing the different programs vary, all 3 have active annual giving

campaigns, which solicit donors and prospects twice each year; maj or gift programs, which are

involved in donor cultivation and solicitation year round; and planned giving efforts, which are

promoted throughout the year by the organization to appropriate donors. Tailoring their

fundraising programs to the demographics of their communities, San Francisco General Hospital

and Children' s Hospital & Research Center of Oakland both have actively incorporated e-

Philanthropy into their fundraising structure while Marin General Hospital has refrained from

Intemet giving.

Before discussing the participants in the study, it is important to note the difference

between private foundations and affiliated, or institutionally-related, foundations. Affiliated

foundations are the fundraising arm of organizations that receive substantial government

funding; these foundations raise gifts to carry out the programs and services of the organization.

Affiliated foundations were started to keep private gifts from donors separate from government

funding (Kelly, 1998). Private foundations, on the other hand, are created to distribute money










primarily in the form of grants to other charitable nonprofits to carry out their programs and

services. Although fundraising is carried out primarily by the aff61iated foundations of the

participating hospitals, the study refers to the organizations in the remainder of the study as the

hospitals.

With the population identified, it is necessary to identify the traits necessary for being

included in the sample. Due to the focus on the fundraising relationship, individuals in the

sample must be involved in the fundraising process either as a member of the fundraising

management team or as a donor to the organization being studied. The fundraising team was

defined as the individuals who are involved in the management of the donor relationship,

including cultivation and solicitation. In the healthcare setting, this would include senior

fundraisers, such as the Director of Donor Relations, Development, Institutional Advancement or

any of the titles described by Kelly (1998); development onfcers, who manage the fundraising

process (Worth, 2002); and members of the hospital administration, such as the Chief Executive

Officer, Chief Operations Officer, members of the Board of Directors, and key volunteers, who

are involved in fundraising at different stages of the process. Due to the smaller number of

individuals involved in fundraising management as compared to the number of donors, this study

surveys the entire population of the fundraising teams for the participating hospitals.

Regarding the donor side of the nonprofit-donor relationship, for inclusion in this study,

donors had to have donated any size gift in the past 4 years. Because fundraising literature

distinguishes 2 distinct levels--annual giving and maj or gifts, a stratified random sampling was

used to ensure that members of both groups participated.

As Kelly (1998) suggested, annual giving generates in donations ranging from $10 to

$10,000 for healthcare nonprofits. Gifts greater than $10,000 are typically handled by









development officers working in maj or gift programs. For this reason, the strata of donors for

this study are divided based on the size of their gifts. Donors who had contributed gifts larger

than $10,000 were considered maj or gift donors, whereas those who had made gifts smaller than

$10,000 were annual giving donors. Charitable organizations typically have many more annual

giving donors than maj or gift donors, although maj or gift donors account for the greater

percentage of dollars raised. However, both groups are important to the hospitals' fundraising

efforts .

To choose the donors for the survey, the researcher worked with the hospital fundraisers

to carry out a selection process that provided random sampling of both maj or gift and annual

giving donors. The hospital fundraisers were instructed to divide the database into 2 groups

based on the donors' giving records and provide the researcher with the number of donors in

each of the groups. The researcher then used systematic sampling and calculated the appropriate

skip interval for each donor group at each of the 3 participating organizations. The researcher

provided the hospital fundraisers with a random number as a starting point and told to select

every Ilth donor on the list to include in the sample.

Instrument Design

This survey combines previous research on the dimensions (Huang, 1997; Hon & J.

Grunig, 1999) and cultivation strategies (Ki, 2006) of organization-public relationships with the

creation of new scales to measure stewardship strategies (Kelly, 2000). The research instrument

adopted indicators from previous studies with slight modifications to more closely represent the

nonprofit-donor relationship. The instrument also gathered demographic information, as well as

information concerning donors' giving history and involvement with the hospital.

Because this survey asks each participant to evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship from

both sides of the relationship, the questionnaire was designed to maximize response despite the










large number of questions. The final survey, which is scaled down in Appendix A to meet the

margins required for dissertation binding, used a tabular design to give a clear, simplified

appearance. Indicators were centered on pages and flanked on each side by either the donor' s

views or the fundraising team' s views depending on which version of the survey the participants

received. This design was chosen because having one section on the donor's views followed by

another section on the fundraising team's views would have resulted in a nine-page survey. It

was believed that many potential participants would have avoided the questionnaire even if they

were interested in the topic.

The questionnaire was produced on four 8.5" x 11" pages, which were then photocopied

onto both sides of one 1 1" x 17" sheet of paper. The questionnaire was then folded and placed in

a carrier envelope along with a self-addressed stamped, return envelope, which was addressed to

a PO Box rented by the researcher. A cover letter was written by the researcher and the

development directors at the 3 institutions that explained the purpose of the survey and

encouraged participation so that the organization could use the data to increase its fundraising

effectiveness and efficiency. The cover letter, which was signed by the relevant development

director at each participating organization, accompanied the survey and the University of

Florida-approved Internal Review Board consent form in the packet that was mailed to the

donors. The approved Internal Review Board consent form is presented in Appendix B.

Relationship dimensions

This study measures the 4 dimensions of organization-public relationship that were

initially proposed by Huang (1997) and further explicated by Hon and J. Grunig (1999): trust,

satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. In the 1999 monograph, the 4 dimensions were

operationalized with 2 separate sets of measures: the full set of measurements with 35 indicators

(11 for trust and 8 each for control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment) and a shortened









version using 21 items (6 for trust and 5 each for control mutuality, satisfaction, and

commitment). Additionally, the monograph provided measures for a dual typology of

relationship type (exchange or communal). The indicators were written so that the short version

represented the different conceptualizations of the dimensions; however, Hon and J. Grunig

(1999) provided the full set of measurements so researchers "can choose the number of items

that best fit the research needs" (p. 28). This study uses the shortened scales; however, one

additional item from the full scale was included for both control mutuality and satisfaction

because the researcher felt those items touched on issues important for the nonprofit-donor

relationship. A previous study of the nonprofit-donor relationship by the researcher utilized the

shortened set of measures and resulted in Cronbach's alpha values for the indices ranging from

.72 to .93 (Waters, 2006). Therefore, it was assumed that use of the same relationship dimension

scales in this study would yield reliable results. Table 3-2 presents the relationship dimension

measurement items that were used in this study.

The items were randomly placed on the printed survey so that participants did not evaluate

all of 1 index sequentially. Following the suggestion ofHon and J. Grunig (1999), these items

were measured using a nine-point Likert scale where response ranged from "Strongly Disagree"

(1) to "Strongly Agree" (9). The survey also included reverse-coded items to ensure that

participants were not consistently choosing the same perspective.

Relationship cultivation strategies

In her doctoral dissertation which was supervised by Hon, Ki (2006) measured 6

symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies that had been proposed by Hon and Grunig

(1999). She adapted the indicators from Stafford and Canary (1991) to measure access,

positivity, openness, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurances of legitimacy. Drawn from

interpersonal communication theory, these strategies were deemed applicable to the









organization-public relationships by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). The scales used by Ki (2006) for

her study of members of the Florida Farm Bureau were developed to enhance theoretical

understanding of relationship cultivation but were also tailored somewhat to meet the needs of

the organization (Ki, 2007, personal correspondence).

The creation of relationship cultivation strategies scales for this study was difficult given

the scope of activities that fundraisers can incorporate into their programming. It was also

difficult to advance theory by creating standardized scales that can cover relationships with

consumers, investors, donors and other key publics. However, this study revisited Ki's strategies

and attempted to create scales that can be used across nonprofit organizations and, with minor

alterations, can be used in other public relations settings as well. Table 3-3 presents the

relationship cultivation strategies that were measured in this study

Although the 6 cultivation strategies were shown to have varying impacts on the

relationship between the Florida Farm Bureau and its members, Ki's (2006) study failed to

consider additional symmetrical strategies that have been proposed by public relations scholars,

including 1 from Hung (2002) and 4 from Kelly (2000).

Hung's (2002) dissertation, supervised by J. Grunig, proposed that keeping promises was

another strategy that could be used to develop relationships. Finally, Kelly (2000) suggested that

reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing were 4 strategies that fundraisers

specifically use to develop and build relationships with donors. She maintained that the

strategies also are also a vital component of the public relations process. Upon further

exploration of the keeping promises and responsibility concepts, it was decided that

responsibility actually encompasses Hung's (2002) conceptualization of keeping promises. In

discussing responsibility, Kelly (2001) argued, "At its most basic level, responsibility requires










organizations to keep their word. Promises made when seeking support must be kept." (p. 285).

Therefore, this study measured a total of 10 relationship cultivation strategies for the nonprofit-

donor relationship. Table 3-4 presents the 4 stewardship strategies and 4 indicators for each that

were measured in this study. The indicators were created by the researcher and are original to

this study.

Although all the cultivation strategies had been discussed as being important to the

organization-public relationship, not all had been measured. This study developed scales to

investigate their role in influencing the nonprofit-donor relationship and to allow future studies

to examine the strategies in other typers of organization-public relationships. The newly created

indices, as well as the 6 adapted by Ki (2006), were measured using a nine-point Likert scale, in

which responses ranged from "Strongly Disagree" (1) to "Strongly Agree" (9).

Scale Development

Before the relationship cultivation strategies could be measured, original scales had to be

created to measure the 4 stewardship variables. DeVellis (1991) outlines 7 steps that must be

followed to properly develop scales for social science research. Figure 3-1 illustrates

these steps. The first step was to clearly determine what variables need to be measured. Hinkin

(1995) notes that scales can be developed to be very broad in their scope or they can be created

to focus on a very narrow situation. By clearly defining the goal of the scales, the researcher has

a greater likelihood to create valid scales.

The second step of the scale development process involved generating the items that will

be used to evaluate the variables being studied. At this stage of the scale development process,

researchers are encouraged to be over inclusive rather than attempt to restrict possibilities. Due

to the need for indicators that overlap in the measurement of variables, the creation of many

items is necessary. These items should include both statements and questions that measure both










positive and negative aspects of the dimension, and they should also be worded to reflect both

sides. Fortunately, the strategies discussed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) and Kelly (2000) are

described in detail that provided the researcher with examples for measurement techniques.

Some items were initially created as a part of the doctoral qualifying exam, and the researcher

developed a list of several other statements that could be used to evaluate stewardship.

Next, the researcher needs to pick the most appropriate method for measuring the proposed

scales once the Einal items have been chosen. For this study, the scales used the same nine-point

Likert scale originally used by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) so that these new scales can be

analyzed most effectively against the existing measures.

As displayed in Figure 3-1, the fourth step is to have the items reviewed by experts. To

create the stewardship measurement items, different experts were consulted for guidance in

developing and clarifying the statements measuring reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and

relationship nurturing. Professional, full-time fundraisers in the healthcare and education sectors

and Kelly (personal communication, 2007) offered valuable insight into the practice of

stewardship and its impact on the nonprofit donor-relationship. By having experts and

practitioners examine the scales, they also were given the opportunity to suggest ways to

improve the clarity and conciseness of the items, as well as suggest items that may have been

overlooked.

The fifth step is to conduct a pretest of the scales using a sample similar to the one for

which the scales are being designed. These stewardship scales were created to measure the

nonprofit-donor relationship. Therefore, the study pretested the scales with 35 donors using a

Web-based survey. The scales also were pretested with 7 donors using a telephone survey so

that the researcher could identify any questions or problems that arose. Adjustments to the Einal










survey were made based on the questions that did come up during the telephone pretest. These

42 pretest donors were chosen based on their connection to a nonprofit organization that was not

used in the study. It was necessary to choose an organization that was similar in services, but

located in a different geographic region to ensure that individuals chosen during the sampling

process were not also used in the pretest.

Once the pretest was been completed, the scales were analyzed in terms of their reliability

and validity. Cronbach's alpha measures the internal consistency of the measurement items.

Alpha is an overall measure of how well items in a scale are intercorrelated. Based on the

pretest, the 4 stewardship scales were sufficiently reliable as the alpha values ranged from .81 to

.89.

Validation checks can also be used to determine whether the items produced accurate

findings. Social science typically has been concerned with 3 types of validity. Face validity is

the most basic type of validity and refers to whether the instrument appears to accurately

measure what it is supposed to measure. Face validity is usually accepted based on the

credibility of the researcher (Babbie, 1998). A new scale is said to have content validity if it has

been examined by experts, and they agree that the scale is thorough and represents the domain of

the variable being measured. Before conducting the pretest, experts reviewed the 4 statements

chosen to represent each of the stewardship strategies, and they agreed that the items represented

the underlying dimensions of the variables.

One final form of validity-construct validity--refers to whether scores measure the

construct they claim to assess (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). This form of validation is frequently

measured using factor analysis because the aim of construct validity is to produce an observation

that is generated by 1 sole construct. This study used factor analysis to test the construct validity










of the new proposed scales. Each of the 4 variables-reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and

relationship nurturing--were found to be independent of one another, and the individual

statements in each of the 4 indices were found to be sufficiently correlated with one another.

The final step of the scale development process involves determining the appropriate

number of items to measure the construct. Because the factor analysis revealed that the index

items had strong correlations with one another, none of the items were dropped from the scales.

Additionally, the Cronbach's alpha values were all above the minimum level that Bowers and

Cartwright (1984) encourage researchers to use in theoretical research. Therefore, dropping

items from reliable indices may slightly increase the alpha value, but the indices would lose

some of the underlying dimensions of the stewardship variables. Therefore, it was decided that

all 4 statements would be kept for each scale. This length also was appropriate given that Ki

(2006) measured cultivation strategies in her study with 4 items.

To ensure that donor participants were an appropriate representation of the organizations'

donor database, several items asking for personal information were included in the survey. In

addition to standard demographic questions, such as gender, race, age, education level, and

income, other questions were asked to gauge how the individual first became involved with the

organization and about his or her personal giving to that organization and to other nonprofit

organizations.

Data Collection Procedures

After receiving approval from the organizations, the surveys were assembled in January

2007. The surveys and informed consent documents were photocopied in Gainesville, Florida,

and placed into carrier envelopes along with self-addressed, stamped return envelopes. The

surveys were color-coded so that the classification of annual gift and maj or gift donors could be









determined without invading donor privacy. The organizations were told about the color-coding

and agreed that the distinction would be helpful in further analysis.

While the surveys were being produced in Gainesville, the cover letters were printed in

Northern California and signed by each of the heads of fundraising directors for the 3 hospitals.

A sample of the cover letter is located in Appendix C. The boxes of mailing packets were

shipped to the hospitals from Gainesville so that address labels of donors could be placed on the

carrier envelopes to ensure that the researcher did not have personal contact information of the

organizations' donors. In addition, boxes of postcards printed with a reminder message about

completing the survey for the hospital were sent to the organizations for labeling. The text of the

postcard reminder is located in Appendix D. An anonymous donor gave money to the nonprofit

organizations to pay for the photocopying and postage.

Although the primary reason for shipping the materials to the hospitals was to protect

donor contact information, it was also believed that inclusion of a cover letter from the

fundraising director would increase the overall participation of donors, especially as the letter

stressed that the results were being analyzed by an outside researcher who would use the

information to offer suggestions on how the hospital can improve its fundraising effectiveness

and efficiency. The letters were printed on each hospital's letterhead and personally signed by

the fundraising director.

Finally, the researcher thought that an envelope containing a United States Postal Service's

identification stamp that said Gainesville, Florida, might seem unusual for a research project that

dealt with Northern California organizations. By sending the packets to Northern California to

be mailed by each hospital, the identification stamp made clear that the survey was being sent

from within that region.









The organizations received the boxes of materials on February 2, 2007, and the surveys

were mailed to donors on February 5, 2007. Following the advice set forth by Kaplowitz,

Hadlock, and Levine (2004), postcard reminders were mailed to the sample 3 days later on

February 8, 2007. The fundraising directors also distributed the surveys to members of their

fundraising teams via inter-office mail on February 5, 2007. Both the cover letter and postcard

reminder encouraged participants to complete their surveys by March 1, 2007, so their

information could be included in the analysis.

Given that the purpose of this study was to advance theory development in the

organization-public relationship paradigm and to make some generalizations about the overall

nonprofit-donor relationship, it was determined that surveys would be sent to a larger sample

size than might be necessarily for statistical tests. In other words, the researcher wanted to be

confident in making statements about the overall relationship a donor has with a nonprofit

organization. The statistical tests used by this dissertation, specifically structural equation

modeling, necessitated participation by at least 500 donors from each hospital. Since the typical

mailed survey response varies between 30 and 35%, it was calculated that the survey needed to

be mailed to 1,430 donors for each of the organizations.

As mentioned previously, the donors being sampled included both annual giving and maj or

gift donors. Additionally, the donors had to have made a donation to the organization within the

past 4 years. With those boundaries, each organization had a donor database that was able to

provide an appropriate sampling frame. A stratified, systematic sample was produced. Of the

4,290 surveys that were mailed, 117 were returned to the organizations as undeliverable due to

wrong addresses. Of the 4,173 remaining surveys, 1,706 were returned completed, resulting in a









donor response rate of 41%. This response rate is similar to those that Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and

Levine (2004) found in their study on improving response rates to surveys.

Across the 3 hospitals, there were 130 individuals identified as members of the fundraising

team. Again, this team consisted of full-time staff fundraisers as well as members of the

hospitals' boards of directors and key administrators and volunteers who are active in the

solicitation and relationship cultivation process. Of the 130 who were asked to participate, 124

fundraising team members did complete the survey. Therefore, the fundraising team response

rate was 95%.

As previously stated, the surveys were mailed back to a Post Office box in Gainesville,

Florida. The surveys were picked up daily by the researcher, and each survey was coded to

allow the researcher to go back and analyze each one if questions arose when the data file was

being cleaned for analysis. Once the codes were assigned, 3 undergraduate students, who were

hired to assist in the project, entered the data into the SPSS statistical software program. Before

beginning to enter data, the undergraduate students were required to attend a two-hour training

workshop during which they were familiarized with SPSS files and the purpose of the research.

The students were also given practice data to enter so they could see how long it would take to

enter each survey before they agreed to participate.

The students separately entered the data into SPSS files, and the researcher then merged

the data into 1 file after cleaning the separate files by confirming that missing and outlier values

actually existed in specific coded surveys. When the data were merged into 1 file, indices for the

relationship dimensions and cultivation strategies were calculated from the participants'

evaluations of the individual statements. For each variable, 2 sets of indices were created: 1 for

the participants' views and 1 for their estimate of the other side's views. As Table 3-4 shows,









the Cronbach's alpha values varied between the different indices. The 4 relationship

dimensions-trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction--were all found to be

reliable based on several authorities (Bowers & Cartwright, 1984; Carmines & Zeller, 1979).

Reliability of the cultivation strategies varied. Access, openness, responsibility, and

reporting are reliable for indices of participants' views and their estimates of the other side's

views. Positivity, sharing of tasks, and reciprocity were found to be reliable for the "my views"

indices; however, they failed to meet the a = .80 or greater level that is desirable in social

scientific research for the "others' views" indices. Three variables-networking, assurances,

and relationship nurturing--did not have Cronbach's alpha values greater than .80 on either side.

Instead, the 6 indices all varied between .70 and .77. However, these reliability values are

acceptable for original scales (Bowers & Cartwright, 1984).

Data Analysis Procedures

To test the hypotheses and answer the research questions, several different statistical

procedures were employed to analyze the data collected from the 3 hospitals' donors and

fundraising teams. Before describing the results of the study, it is necessary to explain what data

were examined for each of the research questions and hypotheses, as well as to give a brief

description of the statistical procedures used.

The first research question simply gauged how donors of the 3 hospitals would evaluate

their relationships with the organizations. To answer this research question, mean scores were

calculated for each index of the 4 relationship dimensions (satisfaction, trust, commitment, and

control mutuality). The mean was chosen as the ideal measure over the median (the middle

number in the dataset) or the mode (the value that occurs most frequently) because it was the

average of all the participants. The standard deviation was also sought to determine how closely

the entire data set clustered around the mean value. Indices were developed by summing scores









on the 4 indicators measuring each of the 4 dimensions and the 10 relationship cultivation

strategies.

The first hypothesis sought to determine if annual giving and maj or gift donors evaluated

the nonprofit-donor relationship differently. To determine if the groups differed in their

evaluations, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the donors'

classification (annual giving or maj or gift) as the independent variable and the index scores for

the 4 relationship dimensions as the dependent variables. One-way ANOVAs are most often

used to test the qualities of 3 or more means at one time; however, as used in this study, they are

often used to compare the variances of 2 groups at one time when the sample sizes are over 100

rather than using independent t-tests to help prevent type I errors in the data analysis and

interpretation phases (Stacks & Hocking, 1999).

Attempting to explore an individual's level of involvement with the organization, the

second hypothesis seeks to demonstrate that the number of donations an individual has made to

an organization will be positively related to how they evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship.

In other words, donors who have given several gifts to the organization should evaluate the

relationship more positively than those who have made only 1 or 2 gifts to the organization. To

test this relationship, Pearson's correlation coefficients were computed between the number of

gifts made to the organization as reported by the donors (independent variable) and mean scores

on the 4 relationship dimensions (dependent variables).

The second research question sought to determine if it were possible to predict whether an

individual participated in the organization's most recent fundraising campaign based on his or

her evaluation of the relationship. This research question was answered by using multiple

discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis determines the best linear combination of









continuously measured independent variables to classify cases into different known groups. For

this study the independent variables are the indices of the 4 relationship dimensions and the

groups are donors who reported making a donation during the last campaign and donors who did

not. Although previous studies have found that using donor-reported information on giving

histories is often inflated (Murphy, 2000; Schervish, 2005), it was necessary to use self-reported

data on giving during the previous campaign to ensure participation by the organizations.

The next research question asked how well the 4 relationship dimensions represent the

overall relationship between a donor and nonprofit organization. To answer this question, a

regression analysis was used. Regression is used to account for the variance of a dependent

variable by examining the linear combinations of numerous independent variables. In this

analysis, the independent variables were mean scores on the indices of the 4 relationship

dimensions and the dependent variable was the donors' score on a single-item question asking

the participants to evaluate their overall relationship to the organization. This reverse-coded item

was measured on a 9-point Likert scale with 1 representing "Very Positive" and 9 representing

"Very Negative." If the 4 dimensions adequately represent the relationship, then a significant

amount of the variance in the overall evaluation of the relationship will be explained by the

dimensions.

The fourth research question and the third hypothesis are very similar to the first research

question and first hypothesis. Instead of analyzing how annual giving and maj or gift donors

evaluate the relationship dimensions, this later research question and hypothesis explore how

these donor groups evaluate the 10 cultivation strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999)

and Kelly (2000, 2001). As already stated, indices were developed by summing scores on the 4

indicators measuring each of the 10 strategies. Means and standard deviations were calculated to









determine if the sample believed the strategies were positive or negative to answer the fourth

research question, and one-way ANOVAs were performed to determine if the 2 types of donors

differed in their evaluations of the 10 cultivation strategies.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to answer the fifth and sixth research

questions. SEM is a statistical technique that is used to build and test models by incorporating

multiple statistical tests, most notably confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, and regression.

SEM essentially involves 2 fundamental concepts: measurement and structural modeling. The

measurement aspect establishes relationships between latent and multiple observable variables.

Latent variables are the underlying constructs that are not directly measured by any of the scales

but are thought to have an influence on the model. Although Joireskog (1993) promotes the

testing of latent and measurable variables, most communication scholars have used SEM to

analyze the relationship between measurable variables (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002). The

associations between these variables constitute the structural model.

This study, which follows the traditional communication approach to SEM, focuses on the

observed variables that came from the survey data. Observed variable models may employ

single-item measures or composite indices, and the resulting model resembles the path analysis

technique. For the fifth research question, the indices of the 10 relationship cultivation strategies

were used to see which had the strongest impact on the 4 relationship dimensions. Responses of

all of the donors were used for the fifth research question to be able to discuss the overall

nonprofit-donor relationship. For the sixth research question, SEM was used separately for the 2

donor groups to determine if certain strategies had more of an impact on the relationship

dimension evaluations of either annual giving or maj or gift donors.









Finally, for research questions 7-10, analysis follows the methodology recommended by

Broom and Dozier (1990) in their discussion of coorientation methodology. Participants were

asked to first evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship from their perspective; then, they were

asked to estimate how the other party would evaluate the same relationship. Based on those

results, D-scores were calculated by subtracting mean scores of the 2 groups on each item and

index for views and estimated views, which provided indicators of their agreement/di agreement,

perceived agreement/di agreement, and their accuracy in estimating the views of the other side.

Independent sample t-tests were used to determine statistically significant differences in

agreement/di agreement and accuracy, whereas paired sample t-tests were used for perceived

agreement/disagreement. Stacks and Hocking (1999) suggest that t-tests should only be used for

sample sizes smaller than 100 and that one-way ANOVAs should be conducted on samples

larger than 100. However, other scholars have suggested that t-tests can also predict significant

differences between groups for large sample sizes (Ott, 1993; Kirkpatrick, 2005).










Table 3-1. Comparison of Survey Data Collection Methods.
In-Person Telephone
Cost per response High Medium
Speed of initiation Low High
Speed of return Medium High
Number of interviews completed High High
Design Constraints Low High
Convenience for respondent Low Medium
Risk of interviewer bias Medium Medium
Interview intrusiveness High Medium
Administrative bother High Low
Survey control Medium High
Anonymity of response Low Medium


Mail
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High


Internet-Based
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium


Table adapted from Stacks, D. W., & Hocking, J. E. (1999). Communication research. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. and Cho, C. (2006, personal communication).










Table 3-2. Indices of Relationship Dimension Measures.
Variable Operationalization


Control Mutuality


The organization and donors are attentive to each other's needs.
The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its
donors are important. (Reverse)
I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the
organization.
The organization really listens to what its donors have to say.
When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of
control over the situation.
The organization gives donors enough say in the decision-making
process.

Donors are happy with the organization.
Both the organization and its donors benefit from their
relationship.
Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization.
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the
organization has established with me.
The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse)
Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization.

The organization respects its donors
The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors.
When the organization makes an important decision, I know it
will be concerned about its donors.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into
account when making decisions.
I feel very confident about the organization's ability to
accomplish its mission.
The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and
objectives. (Reverse)

I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term
commitment with donors.
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship
with its donors. (Reverse)
There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its
donors .
Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with
this organization more.
I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not.


S ati sfacti on


Trust


Commitment










Table 3-3.
Variable

Access


Indices of Relationship Cultivation Strategies as adapted by Ki.
Operationalization

The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information.
The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff.
When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer
their inquiries.
The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific
staff on specific issues.


Positivity Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors.
T he organization's communication with donors is courteous.
The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enj oyable.
The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them.

Openness The organization' s annual report is a valuable source of information for donors.
The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it
does with donations. (Reverse)
The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the
issues it faces.
The organization shares enough information with donors about the organization's
governance.


Sharing of
Tasks






Networking







Assurances


The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems.
(Reverse)
The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about.
The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors.
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually
beneficial solutions to shared concerns.

The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address that address
issues that donors care about.
The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to donors.
(Reverse)
The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful for its donors.
The organization's alliances with other community groups are useful to its donors.

The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to donors'
concerns.
The organization communicates the importance of its donors.
When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously.
Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns.
(Reverse)










Table 3-4. Indices of Stewardship Strategies.
Variable Operationalization


Reciprocity








Reporting







Responsibility







Relationship Nurturing


The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timely
manner.
The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations.
The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their
contributions. (Reverse)
Because of my previous donations, the organization recognizes me as a
friend.

The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes.
The organization tells donors how it has used their donations.
The organization's annual report details how much money was raised
in that year.
The organization does not provide donors with information about how
their donations were used. (Reverse)

The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their
donations.
The organization uses donations for proj ects that are against the will of
the donors. (Reverse)
Donors have confidence that the organization will use their donations
wisely.
The organization tells donors what proj ects their donations will fund.
Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for
donations. (Reverse)
The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its
relationships with donors. (Reverse)
Donors receive personalized attention from the organization.
The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it
holds.













Determine What It Is
You Want to Measure




Step 2:

Generate anl Itent Pool




Step 3:

Determine the Format
for Measurement


Srep, -:

Hale InlitinIl Itemns
Reviewredl by Exp~erts


Step 5:

Administer the Scale
with a Pr~etest Sampllle


E~alunre dile Iremis andc
Op~tinlize Scale Lengthrl


Step 1:


Figure 3-1. Graphic representation of the scale development process.










Table 3-5. Cronbach's alpha values of the study's indices.
Variable "My Views" "Their Views"
Trust .93 .88
Control Mutuality .83 .80
Commitment .91 .85
S ati sfacti on .89 .87
Access .90 .83
Positivity .84 .79
Openness .92 .81
Sharing of Tasks .81 .74
Networking .72 .77
Assurances .77 .71
Reciprocity .86 .75
Responsibility .84 .82
Reporting .90 .82
Relationship Nurturing .73 .70









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

In this chapter, results of hypothesis testing are presented as well as answers to the study's

10 research questions. The findings improve the understanding of the nonprofit-donor

relationship and how organizations can maximize their relationship cultivation efforts. However,

before discussing the impact of the study on the fundraising profession and public relations

theory, it is necessary to examine the results by looking at the relationship evaluations of all of

the study's participants. To discuss an overall nonprofit-donor relationship, it is first necessary

to establish that the data from the 3 organizations can be collapsed into 1 dataset.

Participants

Before the results of the research questions and hypotheses are presented, it is important to

look at the 3 organizations individually and the demographics of the participants. One of the

overarching goals of this study was to push measurement of organization-public relationships

from its current applied focus of studying 1 organization to one that captures the essence of the

overall organization-public relationship. To make generalizations about the overall nonprofit-

donor relationship, it is first necessary to determine if the 2 sides of the relationship have similar

views across all 3 organizations. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the mean scores for the relationship

dimensions and relationship cultivation strategies, respectively, for all 3 hospitals.

The first noticeable pattern when examining the relationship dimension scores in Table 4-1

is the positive evaluation of the relationship by both donors and members of the fundraising

team. The mean scores across all 3 hospitals were well above the neutral point on the 9- point

scale, 5. For donors' own views, the lowest score was on control mutuality (M = 6.14) for San

Francisco General Hospital, and the highest score was on commitment (M = 6.87) for Oakland's

Children's Hospital & Research Center. For donors' estimates of the fundraising teams, the









lowest score was on satisfaction (M = 6.28) for San Francisco General and the highest score was

on commitment (M = 6.96) for Children's Hospital & Research Center of Oakland.

Similar results are found when looking at the views of the fundraising teams. Reflecting

their own views, fundraisers from Marin General Hospital had the lowest mean score on

commitment (M = 6.95), and fundraisers from Children's Hospital & Research Center of

Oakland evaluated trust most positively (M = 7.61). Looking at the fundraising team's

estimation of donors views, Marin General Hospital's estimates of control mutuality was the

lowest index score (M = 6.95), and Children's Hospital & Research Center of Oakland again had

the highest evaluation for trust (M = 7.63).

Regardless of the measure, all 48 indices were evaluated positively. However, a second

noticeable pattern shown in Table 4-1 is that the fundraising teams evaluate the relationship more

positively than donors. Naturally, there were variations among the 3 organizations. Hon and J.

Grunig (1999) found that relationships were evaluated differently when they looked at different

types of organizations. Public relations literature discusses how the relationship between an

organization and its stakeholders is impacted by the relationship cultivation strategies that the

organizations enact (e.g., Huang, 1997; Kelly, 2001; Ki, 2006). Even though the 3 fundraising

teams in this study have a similar goal of raising money to support their hospitals' medical

services and outreach programs, they practice fundraising differently. As discussed in chapter 3,

the 3 organizations all share similar fundraising programs, but personnel and resources dedicated

to fundraising differ.

Table 4-2 highlights the differences in how the 3 hospitals' donors and fundraising teams

evaluated 10 relationship strategies. Again, much like the relationship dimension variables, 9

cultivation strategies were evaluated positively by the participants--though scores on some









strategies leaned toward the neutral point of 5. The only item that was evaluated negatively (i.e.,

less than the neutral point of 5) was Marin General Hospital's donors' views of openness (M =

4.45). The remaining 29 measures of the donors' own views of the strategies were positive, with

San Francisco General Hospital's donors evaluating networking lowest (M = 5.68) and Marin

General Hospital's donors evaluating openness strongest (M = 7.00). When considering the

donors' estimates of the fundraising team's views, access was evaluated lowest by San Francisco

General Hospital's donors (M = 5.96) and reciprocity was evaluated highest by Children's

Hospital & Research Center of Oakland' s donors (M = 7. 19).

Strengthening the argument for looking at the results of the study's research questions and

hypotheses as 1 dataset, the fundraising team had similar evaluations of the cultivation strategies

across all 3 organizations. Positivity was the lowest evaluated strategy by the Marin General

Hospital fundraising team (M = 6.76), while both openness and reciprocity were evaluated most

strongly by their counterparts at Children's Hospital & Research Center of Oakland (M = 7.72).

When examining how the fundraising team estimated their donors' views, the lowest evaluated

item still earned a positive mean score. The San Francisco General Hospital fundraising team

thought donors would evaluate access lowest among the remaining strategies (M = 6.71), and

reciprocity was thought to be the highest rated strategy (M = 7.74) by the donors of Children' s

Hospital & Research Center of Oakland.

In order to generalize about the overall relationship between a nonprofit organization's

fundraising team and its donors, it is important to examine the general dataset from a broader

perspective than focusing specifically on the individual organizations. As already touched on,

several patterns are found in the results reported in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. First, the fundraising

team appears to evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship more positively than the donors do.









Although there was less than a one-point difference between the 2 sides' evaluation of most of

the relationship dimensions and cultivation strategies, the fundraisers tended to be more positive

than the donors. The smallest difference (D-score = .26) between the sides is for the

responsibility cultivation strategy of stewardship among the participants from San Francisco

General Hospital, and the greatest difference (D-score = 2.65) exists for how the Marin General

Hospital participants evaluated openness.

Another pattern that seems to emerge from the mean scores reported in Tables 4-1 and 4-2

concerns how the participants evaluate the views of the other side. There is mixed-support for a

third-person effect argument. Although donors estimated that members of the fundraising team

would evaluate the relationship higher than the donors on most of the dimensions and cultivation

strategies, the fundraising teams predicted that donors would evaluate the relationship higher on

less than half of the variables. Across these 3 different organizations with variations in

fundraising operations, there appears to be a greater psychological impact on how the sides

evaluate the relationship.

That being said, enough similarities exist across the organizations to warrant analyzing the

data in response to the research questions and hypotheses from the overall nonprofit

organization-donor relationship rather than taking an organization-by-organization approach and

then generalizing to the broader perspective. However, before the study proceeds to the first

research question, it is important to understand who participated in the study beyond labeling the

participants as donor or fundraising team member. Analysis of demographics ensures that the

data are not skewed toward any 1 particular group.

Demographics. Of all 1,830 participants in the study, the majority was female (52.5%).

Women represented a slight maj ority of the fundraising team (5 1%) and donors (53%).









Reflecting the diversity of the San Francisco Bay Area, Caucasians were the largest group in the

sample (45%); however, there were a significant number of participants who identified

themselves as being Asian/Pacific Islander (17%), Hispanic/Latino (12%), Middle Eastern

(12%), and African-American/Black (9%). Most of this diversity, however, is attributed to the

diversity of the donors. The fundraising teams were largely Caucasian (60%), although there

were several fundraisers from different cultural backgrounds, including Asian/Pacific Islanders

(19%), Hispanic/Latino (9%), and African-American/Black (8%).

Not surprisingly, the vast maj ority of the respondents were annual gift donors to the 3

hospitals. Of the 1,706 donors, 1,348 or 79 percent of the sample were annual giving donors and

3 58 (21%) maj or gift donors. The mean age of the donors was 44.8 years of age (SD = 13.91).

Maj or gift donors were older (M = 52. 15, SD = 12.61) than the annual giving donors (M = 42.95,

SD = 13.6).

Research Question 1

RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organizations a favorable rating on the four

relationship dimensions?

The first research question asked how donors perceived the nonprofit organization-donor

relationship along the 4 relationship dimensions. As shown in Table 4-1, the data indicate that

donors tend to perceive the relationship positively on all of the relationship dimensions. Of the 4

dimensions, commitment was the one that was evaluated most strongly by the donors (M = 6.66,

SD = 1.20) although all of the dimensions were evaluated favorably. Trust (M = 6.46, SD =

1.18) and satisfaction (M = 6.42, SD = 1.11) were very similar in how they were viewed by the

entire group of donors, and control mutuality had the lowest evaluation of the relationship

dimensions (M = 6.30, SD = 1.17) although it was still above the scale's neutral point.










Fundraising literature indicates that all donors may not experience the nonprofit-donor

relationship similarly. Major gift donors typically receive more personalized communication

from the organization because of their abilities to make significant financial donations.

Participating in face-to-face meetings and having direct contact with the organization should

have more of an impact on evaluating the relationship positively than the direct mail and mass

newsletters that the annual giving donors receive. For this reason, the first hypothesis was

created.

Hypothesis 1

H1: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), maj or gift donors

will rate the organization-public relationship more positively on the four relationship dimensions.

Hypothesis 1 stated that maj or gift donors would rate the relationship higher on the 4

dimensions when compared to annual gift donors. Table 4-3 presents the means and standard

deviations of the 2 donor groups on the 4 indices. A simple comparison indicates that maj or gift

donors did evaluate the relationship higher than annual giving donors in terms of trust (M = 7.02,

SD = 1.01 vs. M = 6.31, SD = 1.18), commitment (M = 7. 14, SD = 0.95 vs. M = 6.54, SD =

1.23), satisfaction (M = 6.82, SD = 1.19 vs. M = 6.32, SD = 1.14) and control mutuality (M =

6.80, SD = 1.25 vs. M = 6. 17, SD = 1.20).

Although there appears to be differences in how the 2 groups evaluated the relationship

dimensions, it was necessary to further test the data by conducting a one-way analysis of

variance test (ANOVA). The one-way ANOVA is a statistical method that analyzes the effects

of 1 or more categorical independent variables on a continuous dependent variable. For the first

hypothesis, the independent variable is the donor classification (maj or gift versus annual giving)

and the dependent variables are the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimension indices. The









one-way ANOVA or F-ratio test checks the null hypothesis, which states that the variables'

effects do not differ and the means of the 2 groups would be approximately the same.

As Table 4-4 shows, the null hypothesis was rejected and hypothesis 1 was supported.

Maj or gift donors did evaluate the relationship more positively than annual giving donors did for

all 4 relationship dimensions. The biggest differences were found for the trust and control

mutuality variables; however, all of the evaluations were different at the p < .001 level of

significance.

In discussing the idealized evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship, fundraising

literature says that nonprofit organizations will dedicate more resources and time to those donors

who have donated to the organization for a period of years. This dedication of resources to

relationship cultivation is due to the organization's desire to hopefully elevate the donor to

higher levels of giving, possibly turning an annual giving donor to a maj or gift donor. The

second hypothesis tests this idea.

Hypothesis 2

H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively

correlated to evaluation of the relationship dimensions.

The second hypothesis sought to determine if there was a correlation between the number

of donations made by the donors to the participating nonprofit organizations and their

evaluations of the nonprofit-donor relationship based on the 4 dimensions proposed by Hon and

J. Grunig (1999). Several tests were conducted to determine the relationship between a donor's

past giving history with the organizations and the relationship evaluation. The first test was a

simple Pearson's r correlation. Pearson's correlation reflects the degree of a linear relationship

between 2 variables. The correlation ranges from -1 to +1, the latter of which indicates a perfect

linear relationship.









For this first test, the relationship was analyzed using the participants' answer to the

question, "How many years have you been giving to (name of nonprofit organization)," and their

evaluation of the relationship with the organization based on the 4 relationship dimensions. As

Table 4-5 shows, a donor' s giving history is significantly and quite strongly correlated to how

the donor evaluates his or her relationship with a nonprofit organization.

There is a moderate-to-strong correlation between the donors' giving histories and the 4

relationship dimensions. As individuals donate to the nonprofit organization over multiple years,

the more likely they are to evaluate the relationship positively for trust (r = .69), control

mutuality (r = .65), and commitment (r = .64). Although the correlation between giving history

and satisfaction (r = .54) is not as strong as the correlations for the other 3 dimensions, it is of the

same statistical strength. Therefore, there is a relationship between donor' s involvement in terms

of continued giving and how they evaluate the relationship with the recipient of the donations.

Hypothesis 2 was further tested with more sophisticated analysis, multiple regression.

Multiple regression is a statistical technique used to account for the variance of a dependent

variable by examining the linear combinations of numerous independent variables. For this test,

the independent variables are the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions, and the

dependent variable is the number of years that participants reported having made donations to the

nonprofit organization. Table 4-6 presents the unstandardized and standardized coefficients, t-

values, and p-values resulting from the multiple regression test.

Based on the statistical test, all of the 4 relationship dimensions are important in predicting

the number of years an individual has donated to a nonprofit organization. Trust (t = 15.83, p <

.001), satisfaction (t = 4.77, p < .001), commitment (t = 15.25, p < .001), and control mutuality (t

= 12.01, p < .001) were all influential in the model, as was the model's constant (t = -29.66, p <









.000). But when looking at the standardized coefficients of the relationship dimensions,

commitment (p = .32) is the most important independent variable in predicting the number of

years of giving. Trust (P = .3 1) and control mutuality (P = .25) were also more important to the

model than satisfaction (P = .19).

The correlation coefficient resulting from the analysis shows that there is a relatively

strong correlation (R = .79) between the 4 relationship dimensions and the participants' giving

history with the organizations. Showing that the resulting regression line is a moderate predictor

of the subj ects' past giving, the coefficient of determination is relatively strong (r2 = .62). Thus,

62 percent of the variance in the number of years participants have donated to the organizations

is explained by the 4 relationship dimensions. The resulting regression equation is as follows:

Number ofYears of Donating = -10. 04 + .31(trust) .1(satisfaction) .32(commitment)

.25(control mutualityi)

This line is statistically significant as F (4, 1701) = 693.19 (p < .001).

Another method that can be used to analyze which of the 4 relationship dimensions are

most important in predicting the number of years of giving is stepwise regression. Stepwise

regression is a statistical technique used to account for the variance of a dependent variable by

examining the linear combinations of independent variables that are added and removed from the

regression equation. Just like the previous regression test, the independent variables are the

mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions, and the dependent variable is the number of years

the participants donated to the nonprofit organizations. Table 4-7 presents the results of the 4

models that emerged from the statistical test, including the unstandardized and standardized

coefficients, t-values, and p-values for the dimensions included in the models.









In the first model, the independent variable that had the strongest effect on the number of

years giving to the organization was commitment. This variable (t = 35.23 p < .001) and the

constant (t = -13.24, p < .001) were both statistically significant. For the first model, the

regression equation, y = -4. 39 + 1. 73(commitment) was statistically significant as F(4, 1701) =

1241.2, p < .001. However, this streamlined equation--with a moderate correlation of R = .65-

explains only 42% of the total variance of the subj ects' past giving to the organizations.

The second model included 2 variables-trust (t = 24.36, p < .001) and commitment (t =

24.80, p < .001)--and a constant (t = -25.5, p < .001) that were statistically significant. The

stronger correlation (R = .76) and the coefficient of determination (r2 = .57) indicate that the

regression equation, y = -8. 43 + 1.1~8(trust) 1 .18(commitment), explains slightly more variance

than the first model.

The third model explained even more variance in the participants' giving history. Three

variables-commitment (t = 20.76, p < .001), trust (t = 15.41, p < .001), and control mutuality (t

= 13.9, p < .001)--were statistically significant as was the constant (t = -29.49, p < .001). The

resulting regression line/equation is:

Number of Years of Donating = -9.53 + .99(commitment) + .82(trust) + 76(control

mutualityi)

The fourth model explains the most variance of the participants' giving history, and the

correlation is also the strongest. The correlation coefficient (R = .79) indicates a moderately

strong correlation, and the coefficient of determination (r2 = .62) shows that the model explains

62 percent of total variance in the number of years donors have made gifts to the nonprofit

organizations. All 4 of the models were statistically significant, though the fourth model F(4,

1701) = 693.19, p < .001) shows the strongest statistical strength. For all the models, a positive









evaluation of the relationship dimension measures meant that the participant was more likely to

have made multiple gifts to the organization. The regression line for this model is the same as

the line for the first regression test of the second hypothesis that included all 4 dimensions.

Based on the Pearson's correlation and regression tests, the second hypothesis is supported.

Research Question 2

RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be predicted based on the

donor' s evaluation of the relationship?

Although the early results have indicated that the relationship dimension measures have

shown that maj or gift and annual donors evaluate the relationship differently and that the number

of donations given to a nonprofit organization are moderately correlated with the relationship

evaluation, additional tests need to be conducted to demonstrate relationship management's

predictive abilities. To test the 4 relationship dimension measures' ability to predict a donors'

likelihood of giving, the study's second research question was created and data were analyzed

using discriminant analysis.

Discriminant analysis is a statistical procedure that determines the best linear combination

of continuously measured independent variables to classify cases into different known groups.

For this study, the independent variables were the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions

measured on a 9-point Likert scale, and the dependent variable was the classification of donors

into those who did and those who did not donate to the relevant nonprofit organization's most

recent fundraising campaign in Fall 2006. Table 4-8 presents the results of the multiple

discriminant analysis, showing the unstandardized and standardized coefficients, Wilks' h, F-

ratio, and the means and standard deviations for the 2 groups of donors--those who donated to

the campaign (Group 1) and those who did not donate (Group 2).









As Table 4-8 shows, all 4 of the dimensions were statistically significant for the function.

However, trust was the most important independent variable that led to group prediction. Trust,

for example, has a Wilks h value of .66, which means that 66 percent of the variance in this

variable is not explained by group differences. Although this number is relatively high, the

variance in the 2 groups is explained more by trust than the remaining 3 variables.

When examining the interaction of the relationship dimensions, trust and satisfaction were

the variables that discriminated best between the 2 groups based on the value of the standardized

coefficients. The canonical correlation of the discriminant function, R = .64, means that there is

a moderate correlation between all of the independent variables together and the discriminant

function score. The function' s Wilks' h value (.59) means that 59 percent of the variance in the

discriminant function score is not explained by group differences. Based on the Chi-square test,

the Wilks' h 0f the function is statistically significant (X2 = 909. 12, df = 2, p < .001).

Given the statistical significance of the function and of the 4 relationship dimensions, it is

not surprising that all of the variables were used to create the model to predict the discriminant

function score. The model is as follows:

Discriminant Function Score = -8. 78 + 79(trust) + .54(satisfaction) -.01~(commitment)+

.06(control mutuality)

The discriminant function scores for each group are known as group centroids. The further

apart these mean scores are, the more discriminating the function is. The group centroids for

Groups 1 and 2 of this function are .77 and -.92, respectively.

Given the statistical significance of the function and the distance between the group

centroids, it is possible to test the model to see if it can properly predict whether donors made a

gift to the nonprofit organizations' last fundraising campaign or not. Table 4-9 presents how









many cases were correctly classified against those that were not based on the previously

mentioned model. As the table shows, the model was very accurate in predicting group

membership for individuals who donated to the last campaign as it correctly predicted 770 of 929

cases. Though less powerful, the model was moderately successful in predicting the second

group. Of the survey participants who did not donate during the Fall 2006 campaign, 198 were

incorrectly predicted as not giving to the campaign even though they did. The model did

correctly predict that 578 participants did not donate to the campaign.

Overall, the success rate of this model at predicting group membership was 79. 1 percent

(1,348 of 1,705 cases correctly predicted). To determine if this hit rate was statistically

significant, the t-value had to be calculated, and it was found to be significant (t = 18.59, df =

1703, p < .001). Therefore, the answer to the second research question is that participation in the

most recent fundraising campaign can be predicted by the donor' s evaluation of the relationship

with the nonprofit organization.

Research Question 3

RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately represent the organization-

public relationship?

Given other aspects of organization-public studied by Ledingham and Bruning (e.g, 1999),

this study wanted to determine how well these dimensions represented the overall relationship.

To answer the third research question, another multiple regression test was performed. For this

test, the independent variables are the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions, and the

dependent variable is the participants' score on the following item:

Now thinking overall about your relationship with [name of nonprofit organization], please

circle the number that corresponds to how you view your relationship on the following scale:

Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative





This 9-point Likert scale question was reverse coded. Table 4-10 presents the unstandardized

and standardized coefficients, t-values, and p-values from the multiple regression analysis.

Based on the statistical test, all 4 of the relationship dimensions were important in

predicting the overall evaluation of the relationship. Trust (t = 13.78, p < .001), satisfaction (t =

8.94, p < .001), commitment (t = 11.53, p < .001), and control mutuality (t = 12.37, p < .001)

were all influential in the model, whereas the constant (t = -.741, p = .46) was not. Looking at

the standardized coefficients of the relationship dimensions, trust (P = .28) was the most

important independent variable in predicting the relationship evaluation. Control mutuality (0

.26) and commitment (P = .25) were also more important to the model than satisfaction (P = .19

The correlation coefficients resulting from the analysis shows that there is a relatively

strong correlation (R = .78) between the 4 relationship dimensions and the participants' overall

rating of the relationship with the relevant nonprofit organization. Showing that the resulting

regression line is a moderate predictor of the subjects' evaluation, the coefficient of

determination is relatively strong (r2 = .60). Thus, 60 percent of the variance in the overall

relationship evaluation is explained by the 4 relationship dimensions. The resulting regression

line is as follows:

Overall Relationship Score = -1.01 + .3(trust) .21(satisfaction) .26(commitment) +


=>


.28(control mutualityi)

This line is statistically significant as F (4, 1701) = 644. 11 (p < .001).

A stepwise regression was also conducted to answer the third research question. Similar to

the previous regression test, the independent variables are the 4 relationship dimensions, and the

dependent variable is the participants' overall evaluation of the relationship using the same 9-

point Likert Scale (very positive to very negative). Table 4-11 presents the results of the 4









models that emerged from the statistical test, including the unstandardized and standardized

coefficients, t-values, and p-values for the dimension indices.

In the first model, the independent variable that had the strongest effect on the donors'

overall evaluation of the relationship was control mutuality. This variable (t = 32.22, p < .001)

and the constant (t = 17.61, p < .001) were both statistically significant. The first model's

regression equation, y = 2.26 + 7(control mutuality), was statistically significant as F(4, 1701)

1240.2, p < .001. However, this streamlined equation--with a moderate correlation of R = .65-

explains only 42 percent of the total variance of the donors' overall evaluation.

The second model included 2 variables--control mutuality (t = 23.81, p < .001) and

commitment (t = 21.35, p < .001)--and a constant (t = 6.00, p < .001) that were statistically

significant. The stronger correlation (R = .74) and the coefficient of determination (r2 = .54)

indicate that the regression equation, y = .797 + .49(control mutualityi) .42(commitment),

explains slightly more variance than the first model.

The third model explained even more variance in the donors' evaluation of the

relationship. Three variables--control mutuality (t = 15.27, p < .001), commitment (t = 18.68, p

< .001), and trust (t = 12.83, p < .001)--were statistically significant as was the constant (t =

2.15, p = .05). The resulting regression line/equation is:

Y = .286 + .34(control mutualityi) .37(commitment) .28(trust)

This final model explains the most variance of the relationship evaluation, and the

correlation is also the strongest. The correlation coefficient (R = .78) indicates a moderately

strong correlation, and the coefficient of determination (r2 = .60) shows the model explains 60%

of total variance of donors' overall evaluation of their relationship with the nonprofit

organizations. All 4 of the models were statistically significant although the third model (F(4,










1701) = 644. 11, p < .001) had the greatest statistical strength. For all the models, a positive

evaluation of the relationship dimensions meant that the donor was more likely to have a positive

overall evaluation of the relationship as well. The answer to the third research question, then, is

that Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) 4 relationship dimensions do a fair j ob of representing the

organization-public relationship, at least the relationship between a nonprofit organization and its

donors. However, based on this study's findings, 40 percent of the variance in the overall

evaluation of the relationship is not explained by the 4 dimensions.

Research Question 4

RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a favorable rating on the

relationship cultivation strategies?

The fourth research question mirrors the first one, except that it deals with the 10

cultivation strategies rather than the 4 relationship dimensions. Mean scores were computed for

the 10 strategy indices and are presented in Table 4-12. As shown in Table 4-12, donors

evaluated all of the strategies positively, although there appears to be a fair amount of variance in

the degree of favorability. Of the 10 strategies, the 4 stewardship strategies and openness were

evaluated most positively by the donors. Reciprocity (M = 6.95, SD = 1.07) was the strategy that

was viewed most positively, and networking received the lowest evaluation (M = 5.89, SD =

1.40). Even though networking was evaluated lower than the other strategies, it still was rated

positively on the 9-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). The answer to

the fourth research question is that give nonprofit organizations a favorable rating on all 10 of

the cultivation strategies.

Hypothesis 3

H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), maj or gift donors

will rate the nonprofits' relationship cultivation strategies more positively.









Although the relationship cultivation strategies were evaluated positively by all of the

donors, these strategies may be enacted very differently depending on the donor's classification

as annual giving or maj or gift donor. Because of their gift-giving potential, maj or gift donors

may receive a higher degree of information and involvement though cultivation strategies. For

example, more information about the nonprofit organizations' governance and Einancial standing

may be given to maj or gift donors than to their annual giving counterparts. Maj or gift donors

may also have more interpersonal communication with the organization's leadership.

Fundraising literature indicates that all donors may not experience the nonprofit-donor

relationship similarly. Annual giving donors may begin to receive more personalized

communication from nonprofits as they establish a growing giving history and research on the

donor grows, the organization may not use certain advanced cultivation strategies until that

donor has given a significant gift.

Table 4-13 presents the means and standard deviations for the 2 groups' evaluation of the

10 relationship cultivation strategies. A simple comparison indicates that major gift donors did

evaluate the strategies more positively than annual giving donors. Major gift donors evaluated

positivity lower than the other 9 strategies (M = 6.55, SD = 1.10) and reciprocity as the highest

(M = 7.53, SD = 0.92). Although they rated the 10 strategies lower, annual gift donors also

evaluated the strategies favorably. As with the maj or gift donors, reciprocity received the

highest evaluation by annual giving donors (M = 6.80, SD = 1.05). Networking was evaluated

lowest by the annual giving donors (M = 5.69, SD = 1.43); however, it should be noted that even

this strategy received a positive evaluation.

To determine if statistically significant differences existed in how the 2 groups evaluated

the relationship cultivation strategies, a one-way ANOVA was conducted for each of the 10









indices. For this test, the independent variable is the donor classification (maj or gift versus

annual giving) and the dependent variables are the mean scores for the 10 relationship cultivation

strategies. Table 4-14 shows the results of the ANOVAs. The 2 types of donors did differ in

their evaluations. Major gift donors evaluated all 10 of the cultivation strategies significantly

higher than annual giving donors. The smallest difference between the 2 groups' evaluations

was for reciprocity (.3 8), and the biggest difference was found for networking (.98); however, all

of the evaluations were different at the p < .001 level of significance. The results support the

third hypothesis.

Research Question 5

RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by public relations

scholars, which are the most influential in terms of their effect on donors' evaluation of the

relationship with the nonprofit organization?

Even though analyses determined that donors to the nonprofit organizations in the study

evaluated all 10 of the relationship cultivation strategies positively, there were notable

differences in the mean scores on the strategies. As Table 4-12 shows, reciprocity (M = 6.95, SD

= 1.07) was the strategy that received the most favorable evaluation, followed by reporting (M =

6.87, SD = 1.09), responsibility (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07), and openness (M = 6.62, SD = 1.32).

Networking (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40), access (M = 6.01, SD = 1.33), and positivity (M = 6.02, SD

= 1.29) were the 3 strategies that were evaluated the lowest. However, these mean scores reveal

little about the effect the cultivation strategies have on the nonprofit-donor relationship. Simply

receiving the highest evaluation of all 10 strategies does not make reciprocity the most important

strategy in terms of the nonprofit-donor relationship.

To determine which of the 10 strategies had the greatest impact on how donors evaluated

their relationship with the nonprofit organizations, it is necessary to perform more complex









statistical tests. Structural equation modeling (SEM) can tell which of the strategies was

influential on the 4 relationship dimensions. SEM is a combination of factor analysis

(measurement modeling) and regression analysis (path modeling) that can estimate a series of

interrelated relationships between variables to determine which are most influential on the

others. In recent years, communication scholars have advocated that more research needs to

incorporate SEM to test theoretical boundaries (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002).

Confirmatory factor analysis. Highlighting the power of SEM, Kaplan (2000) described

the technique as "a melding of factor analysis and path analysis into one comprehensive

statistical methodology" (p. 3). With most SEM tests, a two-step process is required to evaluate

the interrelationships between latent and observed variables. In the first step, the measurement

models are created through a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). When the

measurement model has been validated, path modeling can be done.

Several criteria can be used to determine whether the measurement and path models fit the

observed data. Table 4-15 lists the 5 tests used by this study to evaluate the models. The Chi-

square goodness of fit statistic is frequently used by researchers to determine if the data fit the

model. Often, nonsignificant Chi-square values are used to evaluate the model; however, Bollen

(1989) suggests that it may be more appropriate to calculate the ratio of the Chi-square value to

the degrees of freedom given the sensitivity of the Chi-square statistic to sample sizes. Using this

approach, if the ratio is less than 5, the model generally indicates a good fit.

Other methods of evaluation used by this study are the comparative fit index (CFI), the

goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the root mean squared error

approximation (RMSEA). For all of these methods, the values range from 0 to 1.00. For CFI,

GFI, and NFI, higher values indicate that the model is a good fit. Generally, measurements of









.90 or higher are regarded as being a good fit for the model to the data. Unlike the previous 3

methods, RMSEA uses lower values to determine the appropriateness of the model. RMSEA

values of less than .05 generally are used to indicate a good fit for the model.

Because this study sought to determine the influence of the 10 relationship cultivation

strategies on the 4 relationship dimensions, it was necessary to perform 2 separate CFAs. CFAs

were chosen over exploratory factor analysis because the hypothesized factor structure came

from existing public relations literature and theories. Exploratory factor analysis is more

appropriate for factors that are trying to deduce theory. The CFA test examines the extent to

which a proposed measurement model fits the collected data (Hoyle, 1991). For both CFAs used

in this study, a list-wise deletion procedure was used when missing data were found in the Eile.

Fortunately, only 2 surveys were returned that did not have responses for every questionnaire

item .

The first CFA examined the relationship between the 4 relationship dimensions and the 23

items on the survey that represented those variables. Table 4-16 provides the results of the CFA

for the measurement model of the relationship dimensions. Of the 23 items that were originally

entered into the model, 17 significantly and successfully loaded on their designated factors.

Trust and commitment each had 1 variable removed from the factor because they were not

significant, and control mutuality and satisfaction each had 2 items removed. The magnitude of

the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 17 indicators in the relationship dimension

measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of the indicators had

standardized loadings equal to or higher than .70 as Hoyle (1991) recommended. All of the

factor loadings in the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p < .001.










Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-16 can be deemed valid, it is

necessary to check the 5 fit tests for SEM to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits

the data. Table 4-17 shows that this model met the 5 criteria for the fit tests (Chi-square/df =

2.09, CFI = .99, GFI = .99, NFI = .99, and RMSEA = .025). Therefore, the measurement model

of the relationship dimensions had good construct reliability and validity. Figure 4-1 illustrates

the measurement model between the 4 relationship dimensions and the items used to measure

those variables.

Table 4-18 presents the results of the CFA for the relationship cultivation strategy

measurement model. Much like the measurement model for the relationship dimensions, 8 of the

10 strategies had items that were derived from the literature and existing theory removed from

the factor. Only the stewardship strategies of responsibility and reporting were found to be valid

and reliable without removing items. The CFA results indicated that the reciprocity construct

needed to have 2 items removed from the factor while the remaining 7 strategies each had 1 item

removed.

Each of the first 6 strategies listed in Table 4-18 had 1 item removed during the

measurement modeling. For example, the access construct originally was measured by 4 items.

Even though the Cronbach's alpha values were .83 and .90 for the "their views" and "my views"

access indices, respectively, the fourth item was not found to be valid given the overall model,

and so it had to be removed. For the 4 stewardship strategies, reciprocity had 2 items removed,

and relationship nurturing had 1 item removed. Of the 40 items that originally were created to

measure the relationship cultivation strategies, 31 were ultimately included in the measurement

model, which is illustrated in Figure 4-2.









As shown in Table 4-19, the measurement model indicated that the model fit the observed

data with support from all 5 tests. The criteria were met for the Chi-square/degrees of freedom

ratio (1.86), the comparative fit index (.998), the goodness of fit index (.991), the normed fit

index (.995), and the root mean squared error approximation (.023) tests. Therefore, the second

measurement model is said to have good construct reliability and validity.

Regression analysis. The presence of 2 reliable and valid measurement models allows the

study to answer the fifth research question regarding which cultivation strategies have the most

effect on how donors evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The original model that was

tested with path modeling is illustrated in Figure 4-3. This model was subj ected to the same

criteria outlined in Table 4-15 to determine the appropriateness of the model to the observed

data. The relationships between all the variables were subjected to path model analysis.

Table 4-20 presents the statistically significant standardized coefficients and error for the path

between each relationship dimension and each relationship cultivation strategy.

The analysis revealed that every relationship cultivation strategy except reciprocity had a

direct influence on evaluation of the relationship dimensions. However, one of the remaining

strategies, assurances, had a statistically significant negative relationship with the 4 relationship

dimensions. There were mixed results for the remaining strategies. Access, networking,

responsibility, and relationship nurturing all significantly affected trust, control mutuality,

satisfaction, and commitment. Sharing of tasks had a significant impact on trust, and openness

significantly influenced satisfaction. Positivity had a strong influence on how control mutuality

was evaluated. Reporting significantly influenced control mutuality, satisfaction, and

commitment. Interestingly, even though reciprocity had the highest mean score when evaluated










by donors as reported earlier, it did not have a strong association with any relationship

dimension.

As shown in Table 4-21, the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (2.36), the comparative

fit index (.998), the goodness of fit index (.997), the normed fit index (.996), and the root mean

squared error approximation (.028) tests were all met successfully. As shown by Table 4-21, this

model is appropriate for the data based on the results of the fit tests. In Table 4-20, standardized

path estimates are displayed to facilitate comparison of the regression coefficients. It should be

noted that only significant regression coefficients are shown.

Figure 4-4 shows the results of the statistical tests for the significant individual paths in the

final model. Due to the number of significant paths, the statistical significance of each path is

not presented in the figure; however, the values are available in Table 4-20 and are discussed in

the text. Overall, the results show that fundraisers need to incorporate a variety of cultivation

strategies into their efforts in order to have donors evaluate the relationship positively. Access,

sharing of tasks, networking, assurances, responsibility, and relationship nurturing all

significantly affected trust; however, the effect size varied considerably. Assurances (P = -.08, p

< .001) actually had a negative impact on the extent to which donors perceived trust with the

organization. The remaining 5 strategies had a positive impact on the construct. Relationship

nurturing had the largest impact on trust (P = .24, p < .001), and this relationship was the

strongest one in the model. The effect size of relationship nurturing on trust is 4.8 times that of

sharing of tasks (P = .05, p < .05) and 2.2 times that of access (P = .1 1, p < .001), networking (P

=.1 1, p < .001), and responsibility (P = .1 1, p < .001). The relationship strategies of openness,

positivity, reciprocity, and reporting did not significantly affect how donors evaluated trust.









Seven relationship strategies had significant impacts on how donors evaluated balance of

power and control in the relationship. Access (P = .17, p < .001) had the largest impact on the

construct, and it is 4.3 times the size of positivity (P = .04, p < .05) and 2. 1 times the size of

reporting (P = .08, p < .01). The impact of access on donors' evaluation of balance of power and

control was also 1.5 times the size of networking' s impact (P = .1 1, p < .001), 1.2 times the size

of reporting' s impact (P = .14, p < .001), and only slightly greater than that of relationship

nurturing (p = .15, p < .001). Again, assurances had a negative impact on how donors evaluated

the relationship in regards to control mutuality (P = -.07, p < .001). Sharing of tasks, openness,

and reciprocity did not have a statistically significant influence on the extent to which donors

evaluated control mutuality in the relationship.

Regarding satisfaction, 7 of the 10 strategies had an impact on how donors evaluated the

dimension. Relationship nurturing (P = .15, p < .001) had the strongest impact on the

satisfaction dimension. Its impact was 2. 1 times larger than that of openness (P = .07, p < .001),

1.9 times that of reporting (P = .08, p < .01), 1.7 times that of access (P = .09, p < .001), and 1.5

times that of networking (P = .10, p < .001). Responsibility had an effect on satisfaction very

similar to that of relationship nurturing (P = .14, p < .001). Assurances had a negative impact on

how donors evaluated satisfaction with the relationship (P = -. 12, p < .001). Sharing of tasks,

positivity, and reciprocity did not impact the level of a donor' s satisfaction.

The last relationship dimension, commitment, was positively influenced by 5 of the

relationship strategies. Relationship nurturing (P = .17, p < .001) and networking (P = .17, p <

.001) had the same impact on commitment, and they were both only slightly more powerful than

responsibility (P = .16, p < .001). Relationship nurturing and networking were 1.8 times more

powerful than access (P = .09, p < .001) and 1.6 times stronger than reporting (P = .10, p < .001).










Assurances had a negative impact again on how donors evaluated commitment (P = -.10, p <

.001). Finally, sharing of tasks, positivity, openness, and reciprocity did not impact the

evaluation of commitment.

In answer to the fifth research question, relationship nurturing, reporting, networking, and

access appear to be the most influential cultivation strategies in terms of their effect on donors'

evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Positivity, sharing of tasks, and reporting had

varying degrees of significant impact on some of the dimensions, while assurances had negative

impact on all of the relationship dimensions. Finally, it is very interesting to note that

reciprocity--the strategy that was evaluated most positively by donors--did not significantly

affect how the donors responded to any of the 4 relationship dimensions.

Research Question 6

RQ6: Do annual gift and major gift donors experience the relationship cultivation strategies

differently in terms of influencing their evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit

organization?

This study's sixth research question posed a question very similar to the previous one;

however, it added a new aspect to the inquiry. Fundraising literature says that maj or gift donors

are likely to receive more personalized attention from and have more interpersonal

communication with the fundraising team than annual gift donors. Findings previously reported

support the literature by showing that annual giving and major gift donors evaluated the

strategies differently. Given established differences between the 2 groups of donors, the sixth

question sought to determine if the relationship cultivation strategies have different impacts on

the donor groups' evaluation of the relationship.










Major Gift Donors

To answer this question, the structural equation modeling process outlined in the earlier

section on the fifth research question was repeated. However, rather than using the entire dataset

of donors, 2 separate subsets were created and subjected to the same statistical procedures. The

major gift donors were examined first, followed by the annual giving donors. To determine

which cultivation strategies influenced maj or gift donors' evaluations of the relationship

dimensions the most, confirmatory factor analyses had to be conducted on both the dimensions

and the strategies to discard items that were deemed invalid through statistical tests. The same

criteria presented in Table 4-15 were used to evaluate the measurement and path models for the 2

donor groups.

Table 4-22 presents the measurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis results, for the

relationship dimensions as evaluated by the maj or gift donors. Of the 23 items that were

originally entered into the model, 20 were significantly and successfully loaded on their

designated factors. Trust and satisfaction were left intact, while commitment had 1 item

removed and control mutuality had 2 items removed from the factor due to lack of statistical

significance. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 20 indicators

in the relationship dimensions measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors.

All of the factor loadings in the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p < .001.

Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-22 can be deemed valid, it is

necessary to check the 5 tests to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits the data.

Table 4-23 shows that this model met the criteria for the 5 fit indices (Chi-square/df = 1.35, CFI

=.98, GFI = .95, NFI = .95, and RMSEA = .031). Therefore, the measurement model of the

relationship dimensions had good construct reliability and validity. Figure 4-5 illustrates the

measurement model between the 4 relationship dimensions and the items used to measure them.










The process was repeated for the relationship cultivation strategies as evaluated by the

major gift donors. Table 4-24 presents the measurement model for the strategies. Of the 40

items that were originally entered into the model, 33 were significantly and successfully loaded

on their designated factors. Access, reciprocity, and reporting did not have any items removed

from their indices. However, sharing of tasks, openness, networking, positivity, assurances,

responsibility, and relationship nurturing each had 1 item removed from the factor because it was

not significant. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 33

indicators in the cultivation strategies measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the

factors. All of the factor loadings in the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p

< .001.

As shown in Table 4-25, the results indicate that the measurement model fit the observed

data with support from all 5 tests. The criteria were met for the Chi-square/degrees of freedom

ratio (1.34), the comparative fit index (.993), the goodness of fit index (.969), the normed fit

index (.972), and the root mean squared error approximation (.031) tests. Therefore, the second

measurement model in Figure 4-6 is said to have good construct reliability and validity.

Regression analysis. Given the presence of 2 reliable and valid measurement models, it is

now possible to determine which cultivation strategies have the most impact on how maj or gift

donors evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The original model that was tested with path

modeling is illustrated in Figure 4-3 was retested exclusively for the maj or gift donors. This

model was subj ected to the same criteria outlined in Table 4-15 to determine the appropriateness

of the model to the observed data. The relationships between all the variables were subj ected to

the path model analysis. Table 4-26 presents the statistically significant standardized









coefficients and errors for the paths between each relationship cultivation strategy and each

relationship dimension.

The analysis revealed that only 6 of the 10 cultivation strategies had a significant influence

on maj or gift donors' evaluation of the relationship dimensions. All of the significant paths were

positive with the exception of reporting' s impact on satisfaction. None of the 6 strategies

influenced all 4 of the dimensions. Responsibility did influence 3: trust, control mutuality, and

commitment. Relationship nurturing significantly impacted trust and control mutuality, and

reciprocity had a positive impact on satisfaction and commitment. Sharing of tasks had a

significant impact on trust, and access significantly influenced control mutuality. It is interesting

to note that the stewardship strategies appear to have greater significant influence on how maj or

gift donors evaluated the relationship dimensions than donors in general. However, it is

necessary to make sure the model is appropriate given the data.

As shown in Table 4-27, analysis revealed that the structural model of Figure 4-7 fits the

data well, based on the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (.088), the comparative fit index

(.99), the goodness of fit index (.99), the normed fit index (.97), and the root mean squared error

residual (.01) tests. Standardized path estimates are displayed to facilitate comparison of the

regression coefficients. It should be noted that only significant regression coefficients are

shown.

Annual Giving Donors

The SEM process was repeated for annual giving donors. To determine which cultivation

strategies influenced annual gift donors' evaluations of the relationship dimensions the most,

confirmatory factor analyses had to be conducted on both the relationship dimensions and the

strategies to discard items that were deemed invalid through statistical tests. The same criteria










presented in Table 4-15 were used to evaluate the measurement and path models for the second

donor group.

Table 4-28 presents the measurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis, results for the

relationship dimensions as evaluated by the annual gift donors. Of the 23 items that were

originally entered into the model, 20 were significantly and successfully loaded on their

designated factors. Trust had 2 items removed, and satisfaction had 1 item removed due to lack

of statistical significance. Control mutuality and commitment were left intact. The magnitude of

the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 20 indicators in the relationship dimension

measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of the factor loadings in

the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p < .001.

Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-28 can be deemed valid, it is

necessary to check the 5 tests to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits the data.

Table 4-29 shows that this model met the criteria for the 5 fit indices (Chi-square/df = 1.87, CFI

= 99, GFI = .99, NFI = .99, and RMSEA = .025). Therefore, the measurement model of the

relationship dimensions, shown in Figure 4-8, had good construct reliability and validity.

The process was repeated for the relationship cultivation strategies as evaluated by the

annual giving donors. Table 4-30 presents the measurement model for the relationship

cultivation strategies. Of the 40 items that were originally entered into the model, 33 were

significantly and successfully loaded on their designated factors. Access, networking, positivity,

assurances, and relationship nurturing each had 1 item removed from the factor because it was

not significant, and reciprocity had 2 items removed. The remaining 4 strategies remained intact.

The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 3 3 indicators in the









relationship dimension measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of

the factor loadings in the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p < .001.

As shown in Table 4-31, the results indicate the measurement model fit the observed data.

The criteria were met for the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (2.51), the comparative fit

index (.997), the goodness of fit index (.993), the normed fit index (.995), and the root mean

squared error residual (.034) tests. Therefore, the second measurement model is said to have

good construct reliability and validity. The measurement model is displayed in Figure 4-9.

Regression analysis. Given the presence of 2 reliable and valid measurement models, it is

now possible to determine which cultivation strategies have the most impact on how annual gift

donors evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The original model that was tested with path

modeling is illustrated in Figure 4-3 was retested exclusively using the data provided by the

annual giving donors. This model was subjected to the same criteria outlined in Table 4-15 to

determine the appropriateness of the model to the observed data. The relationships between all

the variables were subjected to the path model analysis. Table 4-32 presents the statistically

significant standardized coefficients and errors for the paths between each relationship

cultivation strategy and each relationship dimension for annual gift donors.

Unlike the results for maj or gift donors, this analysis indicated that all 10 strategies had a

significant impact on annual gift donors' evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Much like

the overall donor analysis, assurances had a statistically significant negative effect on of the 4

relationship dimensions. There were mixed results for the remaining strategies. Networking,

positivity, responsibility, and relationship nurturing significantly affected trust, control

mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. Access had a significant impact on control mutuality

and satisfaction, and openness significantly influenced trust and satisfaction. Reporting










significantly influenced control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. Interestingly, both

reciprocity and sharing of tasks had statistically significant negative influences on how annual

giving donors evaluated trust and commitment, respectively.

As shown in Table 4-33, analysis revealed that the structural model of Figure 4-10 fits the

data well, based on the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (0.48), the comparative fit index

(.99), the goodness of fit index (.99), the normed fit index (.99), and the root mean squared error

approximation (.02) tests. Standardized path estimates are displayed to facilitate comparison of

the regression coefficients. It should be noted that only significant regression coefficients are

shown.

Major gift donors compared to annual giving donors. Now that both path models have

been completed for maj or gift and annual giving donors, it is possible to answer the sixth

research question, which sought to determine if the relationship cultivation strategies impact the

groups' evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship differently. The short answer to the

question is that the strategies do differ in their influence on the 2 groups' evaluation. However, a

comparison of the findings provides a fuller answer regarding how the groups experience the

cultivation strategies differently.

Whereas the annual giving donors' evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit was

influenced by all 10 cultivation strategies, maj or gift donors' evaluations were only impacted by

6 of the 10 strategies. Of those 6, all 4 of Kelly's (2000; 2001) stewardship strategies had an

influence--although reporting had a negative impact on the evaluation of satisfaction (P = -. 13).

The 3 strongest links for maj or gift donors were between reciprocity and commitment (P = .21),

relationship nurturing and trust (P = .20), and access and control mutuality (P = .19).









The relationship cultivation strategies more broadly impacted the evaluation of annual gift

donors. Unlike their counterparts, reporting for annual giving donors had a positive impact on 3

relationship dimensions. There were negative impacts for sharing of tasks on commitment (P = -

.07), reciprocity on trust (P = -.07), and assurances on all 4 of the relationship dimensions. The 4

strongest positive links for annual giving donors were between relationship nurturing and trust (P

=.21), networking and commitment (P = .18), responsibility and satisfaction (P = .18), and

responsibility and commitment (P = .17). Similar to the results for maj or gift donors, the next

most significant paths for annual giving donors came from Kelly's (2000; 2001) stewardship

variables.

The strong performance of the stewardship variables in the structural equation modeling,

however, should not discount the contributions of the other 6 relationship cultivation strategies.

The 2 groups had similar reactions to access and how it contributed to the evaluation of control

mutuality. Sharing of tasks had a positive influence for maj or gift donors, but it had a negative

impact for annual giving donors. Several of the strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig

(1999) positively influenced annual gift donors, but did not impact maj or gift donors. These

differences ultimately help distinguish how fundraisers cultivate relationships with donors at

different levels of giving differently, which is discussed more in the discussion chapter.

Research Question 7

RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors agree/disagree on evaluation of the

nonprofit-donor relationship?

The study's seventh research question sought to determine whether donors and members

of the fundraising team viewed the organization' s relationship with its donors similarly on both

the relationship and the relationship cultivation strategies. Analysis revealed that there was

agreement on all 4 dimensions and 10 strategies in that both sides viewed all 14 variables










favorably (i.e., mean scores higher than 5 on a 9-point scale). However, as Table 4-34 shows,

donors did not evaluate the relationship dimensions or the cultivation strategies as favorably as

the fundraising team.

Of the 4 dimensions, donors felt committed to the organization and its mission, but even

though this was their strongest evaluation it was significantly less than how the fundraising team

members felt about commitment (D-score = .46; t = -4. 17, df = 1828, p<.001). Similarly, the

organization's representatives had more trust (D-score = .96; t = -8.85, df = 1828, p<.001) and

satisfaction (D-score = .86; t = -6.68, df = 1828, p<.001) in the relationship. The donors felt that

power generally was balanced between them and the organization as indicated by a mean score

greater than the neutral point. However, the fundraising team felt the power balance was more

evenly distributed (D-score = .69; t = -8.04, df = 1828, p<.001).

Similar results were found when the donors and fundraisers were asked to evaluate the

value of the strategies used to maintain the relationship. Donors viewed all of the cultivation

strategies positively; however, they did not view them as favorably as the fundraisers. When

comparing the D-scores and utilizing independent t-tests, the greatest differences existed

between the 2 sides' views on networking (D-score = 1.22; t = -9.45, df = 1828, p < .001) and

access (D-score = 1.02; t = -8.33, df = 1828, p < .001). Although the donors evaluated

networking positively, their views of the hospital's networking with community groups and the

government were significantly less positive than the viewpoints of the fundraising team.

For the remaining 8 relationship cultivation strategies, there were also statistically different

evaluations in varying levels. The 2 groups were most similar in the evaluations of responsibility

(D-score = .32; t = -3.27, df = 1828, p < .01). Of the remaining 7 strategies, the attitudes of the

groups were the next closest for the stewardship variables of reciprocity (D-score = .64; t = -










6.51, df = 1828, p < .001) and reporting (D-score = .60; t = -5.91, df = 1828, p < .001), with

donors having lower evaluations than the fundraising team. The remaining variables also were

all favored more by the fundraising team. In order of increasing distance between the 2 groups,

the evaluations of these relationship cultivation strategies were all statistically different:

openness (D-score = .71; t = -5.91, df = 1828, p < .001), relationship nurturing (D-score = .75; t

= -7.07, df = 1828, p < .001), assurances (D-score = .79; t = -7.01, df = 1828, p < .001),

positivity (D-score = .88; t = -7.44, df = 1828, p < .001), and sharing of tasks (D-score = .92; t =

-7.34, df = 1828, p< .001). Independent t-test results demonstrate that the answer to the seventh

research question is that donors and fundraising team members are in agreement that the

relationship dimensions and strategies are positive; however, statistically significant differences

exist between the 2 groups on all of the variables.

Research Question 8

RQ8: To what extent do fundraising team members and donors perceive agreement/

disagreement between themselves and the other side on the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor

relationship?

The eighth research question sought to determine whether either side of the nonprofit-

donor relationship perceived agreement with the other in how the overall relationship and the

cultivation strategies were evaluated. Table 4-35 presents the comparison between the donors'

views and their estimates of how the fundraisers would answer the same questions. The donors

perceived a significant difference between themselves and the organization's fundraisers on all 4

of the dimension indices and the strategy scales. The smallest perceived difference was for the

satisfaction level of how the organization created relationships with its donors (D-score = .08; t =

-9.88, df = 1705, p<.001). The donors perceived that the fundraisers would feel power was more

balanced (D-score = .19; t = -17.89, df = 1705, p<.001) and that they viewed donors as being










more committed to the relationship (D-score = .12; t = -12. 12, df = 1705, p<.001) than they

actually are. Additionally, the donors thought that the fundraisers would perceive a greater

amount of trust (D-score = .14; t = -12. 15, df = 1705, p<.001) in the nonprofit-donor relationship

than truly existed.

Although there was statistical difference in how the donors evaluated the dimensions and

how they estimated the fundraisers would, the D-scores indicate that the differences were

reasonably small. The D-scores for the 4 relationship dimensions were closer than all but 3 of

the D-scores for the relationship cultivation strategies. When evaluating the perceived

agreement for the strategies, there was an overall consensus that donors felt fundraisers would

evaluate the strategies more favorably than they would. The greatest difference existed for the

networking variable. Donors felt that fundraisers thought networking would be far more

important for the relationship than it actually is (D-score = 1.06; t = -23.3 5, df = 1705, p < .001).

This was the only strategy where the calculated D-score was greater than one-fourth of 1 point.

Generally, there appears to be agreement on the importance of the strategies even though

statistically significant differences existed. Reflecting their own evaluations of the strategies,

donors felt that fundraisers would favor the stewardship strategies over the other symmetrical

strategies. Donors felt that fundraisers would indicate that reciprocity (D-score = .17; t = -16.82,

df = 1705, p<.001), reporting (D-score = .20; t = -19.59, df = 1705, p<.001), responsibility (D-

score = .17; t = -19.49, df = 1705, p < .001), and relationship nurturing (D-score = .19; t = -

17.24, df = 1705, p<.001) were more valuable to the relationship than the donors felt they were.

Interestingly, the donors had similar views on the remaining symmetrical strategies

proposed in the literature. The smallest difference between the donors views and the estimates of

the fundraising team's views was for sharing of tasks (D-score = .13; t = -1 1.95, df = 1705, p <










.001). Again, just like the relationship dimensions, there was a statistically significant difference

between the views and perceived views even though the evaluations were reasonably close for

openness (D-score = .19; t = -16.28, df = 1705, p < .001), access (D-score = .20; t = 17.24, df =

1705, p < .001), positivity (D-score = .23; t = -20.39, df = 1705, p < .001), and assurances (D-

score = .24; t = -20.09, df = 1705, p < .001). As previously reported, the greatest difference

existed for the networking variable.

Turning to perceived agreement from the organization' s viewpoint, members of the

fundraising team perceived agreement across all 4 dimensions and 10 strategies. Furthermore,

they perceived a significant difference in the degree of agreement on only 1 variable, trust (D-

score = .08; t = 2.59, df = 123, p<.05). Table 4-36 presents the results.

In summary, the answer to the eighth research question is that both the fundraising team

members and donors to the nonprofit organizations perceive agreement with each other on the

positivity of the relationship dimensions and cultivation strategies. Even though donors

perceived agreement, they believed the fundraising team members would evaluate the variables

more positively than the donors did. The fundraising team members, on the other hand,

perceived agreement on all 4 relationship dimensions and 10 cultivation strategies. There was

only 1 statistically significant difference in the fundraising team's views and their estimates of

their donors' perspectives.

Research Question 9


RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising team and charitable donors accurate/inaccurate in

predicting the other side's views on the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

The ninth research question examined how accurate the 2 sides were with their estimates

by comparing the estimates of 1 group with the actual evaluations by the other group. As shown










in Table 4-37, donors underestimated the views of the fundraising practitioners on every

variable. Furthermore, with 1 exception, the degree of the underestimation was statistically

significant. For the relationship management dimension variables, trust (D-score = .82; t = -8.10,

df = 1828, p<.001) and control mutuality (D-score = .67; t = -6.77, df = 1828, p<.001) were

underestimated more than satisfaction (D-score = .61; t = -6.07, df = 1828, p<.001) and

commitment (D-score = .34; t = -3.37, df = 1828, p<.01).

Table 4-37 shows that similar results emerged for the relationship cultivation strategies.

Donors underestimated the views of the fundraising team across all of the variables; however,

the difference between donors' estimated views and the actual views of the fundraising team was

greater for access (D-score = .82; t = -6.96, df = 128, p < .001) and sharing of tasks (D-score =

.79; t = -6.56, df = 128, p < .001). The smallest differences existed for responsibility (D-score =

.15; t = -1.57, df = 128, p = .12) and networking (D-score = .16; t = -7.95, df = 128, p < .001)

although the latter of these 2 variables was still statistically significant. For the remaining 6

strategies, donors underestimated the fundraising team' s views by nearly one-half to three-

quarters of a point on assurances (D-score = .55; t = -5.32, df = 128, p < .001), openness (D-

score = .52; t = -5.02, df = 128, p < .001), positivity (D-score = .65; t = -6. 10, df = 128, p <

.001), reciprocity (D-score = .47; t = -5.13, df = 128, p < .001), reporting (D-score = .40; t = -

4. 15, df = 128, p < .001), and relationship nurturing (D-score = .56; t = -5.68, df = 128, p < .001).

Examining the fundraising team's estimations of donors' views with donors' actual views

reveals that on 7 of the 8 measures the fundraisers significantly overestimated all of the donors'

views. Table 4-38 shows that there was almost a one-point overestimate for 3 of the relationship

dimension variables: trust (D-score = .88; t = -8.19, df = 1828, p<.001), commitment (D-score =

.51; t = -4.61, df = 1828, p<.001), and control mutuality (D-score = .85; t = -8.00, df =1828,










p<.001). Even though the D-score was smaller for satisfaction (D-score = .71; t = -6.86, df =

1828, p<.001), the statistical strength was as strong as the other relationship dimension measures.

As shown in Table 4-3 8, opposite results occurred when determining the accuracy of the

fundraising team's estimates. Whereas the donors underestimated the fundraising team's views,

the fundraising team overestimated the donors' viewpoints. Not surprising given previous

results, the biggest overestimation was for how the fundraising team thought the donors would

evaluate the networking variable (D-score = 1.28; t = -9.96, df = 1828, p < .001). The

fundraising team had almost a one-point overestimation for several other relationship cultivation

strategies, including access (D-score = .99; t = -8.11i, df = 1828, p < .001), positivity (D-score =

.92; t = -7.85, df = 1828, p < .001), and sharing of tasks (D-score = .95; t = -7.67, df = 1828, p <

.001), The fundraising team's estimate of the donors views were closest when it came to the

importance of responsibility on the part of the organization (D-score = .34; t = -3.41, df = 1828,

p < .01). However, the differences for the remaining variables reveal important insight into the

relationship between the organizations and their donors in how assurances (D-score = .77; t = -

7.01, df = 1828, p < .001), openness (D-score = .71; t = -5.91, df = 1828, p < .001), reciprocity

(D-score = .65; t = -6.67, df = 1828, p < .001), reporting (D-score = .64; t = 6.36, df = 1828, p <

.001), and relationship nurturing (D-score = .78; t = -7.35, df = 1828, p < .001) impact the

relationship.

To answer the ninth research question, both sides generally are accurate in their estimates

of the other side's views, although donors underestimate the fundraising team members' views

and the fundraising team members overestimate the views donors have regarding the relationship

dimensions and cultivation strategies.









Research Question 10

RQ10: What coorientation states exist between the fundraising team and charitable donors on

the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

The comparisons highlighted in the previous 3 research questions are designed to reveal

the 4 states of the coorientation model: consensus, dissensus, false consensus, and false conflict.

Recapping this study's findings, donors and fundraising practitioners generally are in agreement

on all 4 of the relationship dimensions and the 10 relationship cultivation strategies. Even

though there were many significant differences in the levels of agreement, perceived agreement,

and accuracy, both sides of the relationship viewed the various aspects of the nonprofit-donor

relationship favorably. Applying the coorientation states to these Eindings, the answer to the

Einal research question is that donors and fundraising team members are in a state of consensus

on all of the variables. As Table 4-39 shows, the states of dissensus, false conflict, and false

consensus do not exist in this relationship.










Table 4-1. Relationship Dimensions Means across 3 Organizations.
San Francisco General Marin General Hospital
Hospital


Children's Hospital &
Research Center of
Oakland
Fundraising Donors
Team


Fundrai sing
Team


Donors



6.20
6.45
6.23
6.14


Fundrai sing
Team

7.28
6.95
7.06
7.08


Donors


My Views
Trust
Commitment
S ati sfacti on
Control
Mutuality

Their Views
Trust
Commitment
S ati sfacti on
Control
Mutuality


7.31
7.29
7.09
7.18


6.41
6.64
6.36
6.20


7.61
7.15
7.16
7.20


6.73
6.87
6.65
6.53


7.17
7.26
6.99
7.24


6.38
6.55
6.28
6.38


7.15
7.07
7.02
6.95


6.57
6.80
6.48
6.37


7.63
7.20
7.32
7.26


6.82
6.96
6.73
6.69










Table 4-2. Relationship Cultivation Strategies' Means across 3 Organizations.
San Francisco General Marin General Hospital Children' s Hospital &
Hospital Research Center of
Oakland
Fundraising Donors Fundraising Donors Fundraising Donors
Team Team Team
My Views
Access 6.83 5.84 6.98 5.82 7.22 6.35
Positivity 6.84 5.85 6.76 5.87 7.07 6.30
Openness 7.08 6.39 7.10 4. 45 7.72 7.00
Sharing of 7.06 6.03 7.12 5.97 7.08 6.46
Tasks
Assurances 7.10 6.07 7.00 6.00 6.83 6.39
Networking 7.23 5.68 7.07 5.81 7.05 6.17
Reciprocity 7.48 6.98 7.53 6.90 7.72 6.97
Reporting 7.45 6.81 7.31 6.88 7.61 6.92
Responsibility 7.01 6.75 6.96 6.72 7.31 6.86
Relationship 7.11 6.24 7.09 6.43 7.49 6.80
Nurturing

Their Views
Access 6.71 5.96 6.93 6.00 7.27 6.63
Positivity 6.94 6.11 6.84 6.07 7.04 6.55
Openness 7.14 6.59 7.12 6.66 7.65 7.13
Sharing of 7.11 6.13 7.21 6.11 7.07 6.63
Tasks
Assurances 7.11 6.31 6.85 6.25 6.94 6.64
Networking 7.25 6.04 7.04 6.13 7.23 6.41
Reciprocity 7.53 7.14 7.51 7.03 7.74 7.19
Reporting 7.42 7.01 7.31 7.09 7.64 7.11
Responsibility 7.06 6.85 6.90 6.91 7.35 7.09
Relationship 6.97 6.49 7.11 6.68 7.64 6.88
Nurturing



Table 4-3. Donors' Evaluation of Relationship with Nonprofits based on Donor Type.
Maj or Gift Donors Annual Giving Donors
Mean Std. Dev N Mean Std. Dev. N
Trust 7.02 1.01 358 6.31 1.18 1348
Commitment 7.14 .95 358 6.54 1.23 1348
Sati sfacti on 6.82 1.19 358 6.32 1.14 1348
Control Mutuality 6.80 1.25 358 6.17 1.20 1348





























Years 1.00 .69*** .65*** .54*** .64***
Donating to
Organization
Trust 1.00 .62*** .37*** .47***
Control 1.00 .52*** .50***
Mutuality
S ati sfacti on 1.00 .65***
Commitment 1.00
*** p <.001


I


Table 4-4. One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the Donors Relationship with the Nonprofit
Organization.
Source of SS df MS F-score p-value


Variation
Trust
Commitment
Sati sfacti on
Control Mutuality


141.25
102.49
69.52
112.71


1,1704
1,1704
1,1704
1,1704


141.25
102.49
69.52
112.71


107.45
73.84
57.86
86.83


.000
.000
.000
.000


Table 4-5. Pearson' s r Correlation of Giving History and Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor
Relationship.
Years Trust Control S ati sfacti on Commitm
Donating to Mutuality
Organization


lent


Table 4-6. Multiple Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with the Number of Years
Donating to the Organization.
Unstandardized Standardized t-value p-value
Coefficient (B) Coeffieient (P)
Constant -10.04 -29.66 .000


Trust .84
Satisfaction .28
Commitment .85
Control Mutuality .68
R = .787, R2 = .62, F (4, 1701) = 693.19, p < .000,


15.83
4.77
15.25
12.01


.000
.000
.000
.000


.31
.10
.32
.25
n =1705






















































B iks' h F (1, 1703) Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Constant -8.78
Trust .79 .76 .66 856.71* 7.08 .92 5.70 1.01
S ati sfacti on .54 .53 .78 476.64* 6.90 .93 5.85 1.04
Commitment -.01 -.02 .83 346.78* 7.11 1.02 6.12 1.17
Control
.06 .06 .79 455.31* 6.79 .94 5.71 1.14
Mutuality
R = .64, Wilks' h of function = .59, X2 = 909. 12, df = 2, group centroids = (.77,-.92)
*p < .001


Table 4-7. Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices for Number of Years of


Donating to the Organization.
Unstandardized
Coefficient (B)
Model 1
Constant -4.39
Commitment 1.73


Standardized
Coefficient (P)


t-value p-value


-13.24 .000
35.23 .000


Model 2
Constant
Commitment
Trust

Model 3
Constant
Commitment
Trust
Control Mutuality

Model 4
Constant
Commitment
Trust
Control Mutuality
S ati sfacti on
Model 1: R =.65, R2
Model 2: R =.76, R2
Model 3: R =.78, R2
Model 4: R =.79, R2


-8.43
1.18
1.18



-9.53
.99
.82
.76


-25.50
24.80
24.36



-29.49
20.76
15.41
13.90



-29.66
15.25
15.83
12.01
4.77


.000
.000
.000



.000
.000
.000
.000



.000
.000
.000
.000
.000


-10.04
.85
.84
.68
.28
F (4, 1701) =1241.23, p
F (4, 1701) =1133.24, p
F~~~~~~ (410) 0.0
F (4,1701) = 905.10, p


.32
.31
.25
.10
=.000, n
=.000, n
.0 =
.000, n


= 1705
= 1705
1705
1705


Table 4-8. Discriminant Function Analysis of Relationship Dimensions with Participation in the
Most Recent Fundraising Campaign.


Group 1 (n = 929)


Group 2 (n = 776)










Table 4-9. Classification Matrix ofDiscriminant Analysis Function.
Predicted
Original Group 1 (Yes) Group 2 (No)
Group 1 (Yes) 770 198
Group 2 (No) 159 578
X2 = 567.05, df = 1, p <.001


Table 4-10. Multiple Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship
Score.


Unstandardized
Coefficient (B)


Standardized
Coefficient (P)


t-value p-value

-.741 .459
13.78 .000
8.94 .000
11.53 .000
12.37 .000


Constant -1.01
Trust .30 .28
S ati sfacti on .21 .19
Commitment .26 .25
Control Mutuality .28 .26
R = .776, R2 = .60, F (4, 1701) = 644. 11, p = .000, N = 1705










Table 4-1 1. Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship
Score.


Unstandardized
Coefficient (B)

2.26
.70


Standardized
Coefficient (P)


t-value p-value


17.61 .000
32.22 .000


Model 1
Constant
Control Mutuality

Model 2
Constant
Control Mutuality
Commitment

Model 3
Constant
Control Mutuality
Commitment
Trust

Model 4
Constant
Control Mutuality
Commitment


.797
.49
.42


.286
.34
.37
.28


6.00
23.81
21.35


2.15
15.27
18.68
12.83


-.741
12.37
11.53
13.78
8.94


.000
.000
.000


.032
.000
.000
.000


.46
.000
.000
.000
.000


-1.01
.28
.26
.30
.21
F (4, 1701) =
F (4, 1701) =
F (4, 1701) =
F (4, 1701) =


.26
.25
.28
.19
=.000, N
=.000, N
.0 =
.000, N=


Trust
S ati sfacti on
Model 1: R
Model 2: R
Model 3: R
Model 4: R


.65, R2
.74, R2
.76, R2
.78, R2


1240.20, p
1013.38, p
795.29, p
644.11, p


= 1705
= 1705
1705
1705


Table 4-12. Donor Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategy Indices.
Variable Mean ( n = 1706) Standard Deviation
Access 6.01 1.33
Positivity 6.02 1.29
Openness 6.62 1.32
Sharing of Tasks 6.17 1.37
Assurances 6.16 1.23
Networking 5.89 1.40
Reciprocity 6.95 1.07
Responsibility 6.78 1.07
Reporting 6.87 1.09


Relationship Nurturing


6.50


1.15






























Table 4-14. One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the 10 Relationship Cultivation Strategies by
Donor Type.
Source of Variation SS df MS F-score p-value
Access 191.84 1,1704 191.84 115.429 .000
Positivity 125.40 1,1704 125.40 78.94 .000
Openness 131.25 1,1704 131.25 79.39 .000
Sharing of Tasks 204.80 1,1704 204.80 116.27 .000
Assurances 212.48 1,1704 212.48 152.76 .000
Networking 273.30 1,1704 273.30 150.83 .000
Reciprocity 151.30 1,1704 151.30 144.59 .000
Reporting 80.81 1,1704 80.81 70.90 .000
Responsibility 40.79 1,1704 40.79 36.36 .000
Relationship Nurturing 130.98 1,1704 130.98 105.93 .000




Table 4-15. Model Fit Criteria for Structural Equation Modeling.
Model Fit Index Criteria
Chi-square/degrees of freedom < 5
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05


Table 4-13. Major Gift and Annual Giving Donors' Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation


Strategies Indices.
Maj or Gift Donors
Mean Std. Dev
6.67 1.21
6.55 1.10
7.16 1.07
f Tasks 6.84 1.04
es 6.85 .98
ng 6.67 .98
ty 7.53 .92
7.29 1.01
,ility 7.08 .96
hip Nurturing 7.04 .97


Annual
Mean
5.84
5.88
6.48
5.99
5.98
5.69
6.80
6.76
6.70
6.36


Giving Donors
Std. Dev. N
1.31 1348
1.29 1348
1.34 1348
1.39 1348
1.23 1348
1.43 1348
1.05 1348
1.10 1348
1.11 1348
1.15 1348


Access
Positivity
Openness
Sharing o~
Assuranc~
Networkil
Reciprocil
Reporting
Responsible:
Relations










Table 4-16. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for
All Donors.
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions
Trust
The organization respects its donors. .96 a
The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. .81 (.021)***
When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be .83 (.024) ***
concerned about its donors.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when .74 (.025) ***
making decisions.
The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and obj ectives. .74 (.03 1) ***
(Reverse)
Control Mutuality
The organization and donors are attentive to each other' s needs. .96 a
The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are .87 (.021) ***
important. (Reverse)
I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. .89 (.020) ***
When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control .74 (.030) ***
over the situation.
S ati sfacti on
Donors are happy with the organization. .92 a
Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. .96 (.023) ***
Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. .83 (.023) ***
The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) .70 (.030) ***
Commitment
I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment .96 a
with donors.
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its .93 (.018) ***
donors. (Reverse)
There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. .84 (.019) ***
Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this .79 (.021) ***
organization more.
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001


Table 4-17. Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model .
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom < 5 2.096
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .997
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .992
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .995
Root Mean Squared Error Approximiation (RMSEA) I .05 .025


































:m #1

:m #2

:m #3

m #5


em #1

em #2

em #3

em #4


.96

Control .87
Mutualityl 89

.74


Control Mutuality Item #1

Control Mutuality Item #2

Control Mutuality Item #3

Control Mutuality Item #5


.92 Satisfaction Ite

.96 Satisfaction Ite
Satisfaction 8
Satisfaction Ite
.70
Satisfaction Ite


.96 Commitment It

.93 Commitment It
Commitment
.84 Commitment It

.9 Commitment It


Figure 4. 1. Measurement model of the organization-public relationship dimensions.










Table 4-18. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies.
Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Access
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. .89 a
(Reverse)
The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. .93 (.026) ***
When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer .83 (.023) ***
their inquiries.
Sharing of Tasks
The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. .95 a
The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. .87 (.022) ***
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually .83 (.023) ***
beneficial solutions to shared concerns.
Openness
The organization' s annual report is a valuable source of information for .98 a
donors.
The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what .89 (.015) ***
it does with donations. (Reverse)
The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the .80 (.016) ***
issues it faces.
Networking
The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address that .98 a
address issues that donors care about.
The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to .87 (.017) ***
donors. (Reverse)
The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful for its .82 (.019) ***
donors.
Positivity
Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to .99 a
donors.
T he organization's communication with donors is courteous. .94 (.020) ***
The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enj oyable. .79 (.025) ***
Assurances
The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to .99 a
donors' concerns.
The organization communicates the importance of its donors. .88 (.018) ***
When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously. .76 (.021) ***
Reciprocity
The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timely manner. .78 a
The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations. .94 (.059) ***
Reporting
The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. .83 a
The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. .96 (.034) ***
The organization's annual report details how much money was raised in that .80 (.046) ***
year.









Table 4-18. Continued
Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Reporting, continued.
The organization does not provide donors with information about how their .84 (.041) ***
donations were used. (Reverse)
Responsibility
The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their .99 a
donations.
The organization uses donations for proj ects that are against the will of the .78 (.026) ***
donors. (Reverse)
Donors have confidence that the organization will use their donations wisely. .81 (.026) ***
The organization tells donors what proj ects their donations will fund. .73 (.024) ***
Relationship Nurturing
Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for donations. .85 a
(Reverse)
The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its .79 (.032) ***
relationships with donors. (Reverse)
Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. .73 (.045) ***
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001











.89


Access
.83


.95


Sharing of Tasks .7
.83


.98

.89
Openness



.98

.87
Networking
.82


.99


Positivity 1~.94

.79


.99


Assurances .88

.76


Access Item #1

Access Item #2

Access Item #3


Sharing of Tasks Item #2

Sharing of Tasks Item #3

Sharing of Tasks Item #4


Openness Item #1

Openness Item #2

Openness Item #3


Networking Item #1

Networking Item #2

Networking Item #3


Positivity Item #1

Positivity Item #2

Positivity Item #3


Assurances Item #1

Assurances Item #2

Assurances Item #3


Figure 4-2. Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies.



171











Reporting Item #1

Reporting Item #2

Reporting Item #3

Reporting Item #4


Responsibility Item #1

Responsibility Item #2

Responsibility Item #3

Responsibility Item #4


.83

.96

Reporting t .80

.84


.99

.78
Responsibility
.81

73


.85
Relationship .79
Nurturing
.73


Figure 4-2. Continued


Relationship Nurturing Item #1

Relationship Nurturing Item #2

Relationship Nurturing Item #3










Table 4-19. Fit Measures for the Relationship Cultivation Strategies Measurement Model.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom I 5 1.86
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .998
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .991
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .995


Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


< .05


.023


Figure 4-3. Initial model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions.









Table 4-20. Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions.
Path Standardized Standardized Error
coefficient
Access & Trust .11 .02***

Access & Control Mutuality .17 .02***
Access & Satisfaction .09 .02***
Access & Commitment .09 .02***
Sharing of Tasks & Trust .05 .01*
Openness & Satisfaction .07 .02***
Networking & Trust .11 .03***
Networking & Control Mutuality .11 .02***
Networking & Satisfaction .10 .02***
Networking & Commitment .17 .03***
Positivity & Control Mutuality .04 .02*
Assurances & Trust -.08 .03***
Assurances & Control Mutuality -.07 .03***
Assurances & Satisfaction -.12 .02***
Assurances & Commitment -.10 .03***
Reporting & Control Mutuality .08 .03**
Reporting & Satisfaction .08 .03**
Reporting & Commitment .10 .03***
Responsibility & Trust .11 .03***
Responsibility & Control Mutuality .14 .03***
Responsibility & Satisfaction .14 .04***
Responsibility & Commitment .16 .04***
Relationship Nurturing & Trust .24 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Control Mutuality .15 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Satisfaction .15 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Commitment .17 .03***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001



Table 4-21. Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions.
Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom < 5 2.36
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .998
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .997
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .996
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .028













































Figure 4-4. Final path model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions for all donors.










Table 4-22. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for
Maj or Gift Donors.
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions
Trust
The organization respects its donors. 1.00 a
The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. 1.03 (.09)***
When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be .91 (.08) ***
concerned about its donors.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when 1.14 (.09) ***
making decisions.
I feel very confident about the organization' s ability to accomplish its .70 (.08)***
mission.
The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and obj ectives. .91 (. 11)***
(Reverse)
Control Mutuality
The organization and donors are attentive to each other' s needs. 1.00 a
The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are .90 (.05) ***
important. (Reverse)
I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. .81 (.05) ***
The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. .72 (.05) ***
S ati sfacti on
Donors are happy with the organization. 1.00 a
Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. .99 (.07) ***
Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. 1.01 (.09) ***
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has .88 (. 10)***
established with me.
The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) .70 (.030) ***
Most donors enj oy dealing with this organization. .95 (. 10)***
Commitment
I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment 1.00 a
with donors.
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its 1.06 (.06) ***
donors. (Reverse)
There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. .79 (.07) ***
Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this .82 (.05) ***
organization more.
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001










Table 4-23. Fit Measures for Maj or Gift Donors' Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions
Measurement Model.


Model Fit Index
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


Criteria Fit Statistics
5 5 1.349
> .90 .987
> .90 .951
> .90 .953
< .05 .031



























Control 1 9
Mutuality 8


1 0 Commitment Item #1

1 06h~ Commitment Item #2
Commitment
791Commitment Item #3
82
Commitment Item #4


Figure 4-5. Measurement model of the organization-public relationship dimensions for maj or
gift donors.










Table 4-24. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Major
Gift Donors.
Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Access
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. 1.53 (.09) ***
When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer 1.20 (.07) ***
their inquiries.
The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for 1.01 (.07)***
specific staff on specific issues.
Sharing of Tasks
The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. .86 (.07) ***
The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. .71 (.07) ***
Openness
The organization' s annual report is a valuable source of information for 1.00a
donors.
The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what 1.06 (.05) ***
it does with donations. (Reverse)
The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the .78 (.04) ***
issues it faces.
Networking
The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address that 1.00 a
address issues that donors care about.
The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to 1.01 (.06) ***
donors. (Reverse)
The organization's alliances with other community groups are useful to its .70 (.05) ***
donors.
Positivity
Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to 1.00 a
donors.
The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. .89 (.09) ***
The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. .98 (. 11) ***
Assurances
The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to 1.00 a
donors' concerns.
The organization communicates the importance of its donors. .97 (.05) ***
When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously. .84 (.06) ***
Reciprocity
The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timely manner. 1.00 a
The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations. 1.10 (.09)***
The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. .95 (. 10)***
(Reverse)









Table 4-24. Continued
Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Reciprocity, continued
Because of my previous donations, the organization recognizes me as a friend. .91 (.08)***
Reporting
The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1.00 a
The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1.17 (.08) ***
The organization's annual report details how much money was raised in that 1.06 (.09) ***
year.
The organization does not provide donors with information about how their 1.13 (. 10) ***
donations were used. (Reverse)
Responsibility
The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their 1.00 a
donations.
The organization uses donations for proj ects that are against the will of the .78 (.07) ***
donors. (Reverse)
The organization tells donors what proj ects their donations will fund. .72 (.06) ***
Relationship Nurturing
Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for donations. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. 1.07 (. 15) ***
The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. .81 (. 16) ***
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001










Table 4-25. Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Maj or Gift Donors.


Model Fit Index
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


Criteria Fit Statistics
5 5 1.34
> .90 .993
> .90 .969
> .90 .972
< .05 .031












1.00


Access
1.20
1.01



1.00


Sharing of Tasks .6
.71


1.00

1.06
Openness .



1.00

1.01
Networking
.70



1.00


Positivity .89

.98


1.00


Assurances .97

.84


Access Item #1

Access Item #2

Access Item #3

Access Item #4


Sharing of Tasks Item #1

Sharing of Tasks Item #2

Sharing of Tasks Item #3


Openness Item #1

Openness Item #2

Openness Item #3


Networking Item #1

Networking Item #2

Networking Item #4


Positivity Item #1

Positivity Item #3

Positivity Item #4


Assurances Item #1

Assurances Item #2

Assurances Item #3


Figure 4-6. Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies for maj or gift donors.




182
















.I5

.91


Reporting Item #1

Reporting Item #2

Reporting Item #3

Reporting Item #4


Responsibility Item #1

Responsibility Item #2

Responsibility Item #3


1.00

1.17

Reporting 1.06

1.13


1.00

.78
Responsibility
.72


1.00
Relationship 1.07
Nurturing
.81



Figure 4-6. Continued

















183


Relationship Nurturing Item #1

Relationship Nurturing Item #3

Relationship Nurturing Item #4






























Table 4-27. Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Maj or Gift Donors.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom I 5 .878
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .999
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .990
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .972
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .009


Table 4-26. Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions for Maj or Gift Donors.
Path Standardized Standardized Error
coefficient
Access & Control Mutuality .19 .03***
Sharing of Tasks & Trust .09 .05*
Reciprocity & Satisfaction .11 .05*
Reciprocity & Commitment .21 .05***
Reporting & Satisfaction -.13 .04**
Responsibility & Trust .18 .06**
Responsibility & Control Mutuality .14 .05**
Responsibility & Commitment .12 .05*
Relationship Nurturing & Trust .20 .05***
Relationship Nurturing & Control Mutuality .12 .04**
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001













































Figure 4-7. Final path model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions for maj or gift donors.










Table 4-28. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for
Annual Giving Donors.
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions
Trust
The organization respects its donors. 1.00 a
The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. .79 (.02) ***
When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be .86 (.03) ***
concerned about its donors.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when .74 (.03) ***
making decisions.
Control Mutuality
The organization and donors are attentive to each other' s needs. 1.00 a
The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are .92 (.02) ***
important. (Reverse)
I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. .95 (.02) ***
The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. .77 (.03) ***
When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control .80 (.03) ***
over the situation.
The organization gives donors enough say in the decision-making process. .72 (.04) ***
S ati sfacti on
Donors are happy with the organization. 1.00 a
Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. .98 (.02) ***
Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. .86 (.03) ***
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has .75 (.03) ***
established with me.
The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) .82 (.03) ***
Commitment
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its 1.00 a
donors. (Reverse)
I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment 1.13 (.03) ***
with donors.
There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. .98 (.03) ***
Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this .92 (.04) ***
organization more.
I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. .85 (.04) ***
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001









Table 4-29. Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Annual Giving Donors.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom I 5 1.874
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .997
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .990
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .994
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .025





1 00 TrustItem #1

Trust 79 TrustItem #2

TrustItem #3
74
TrustItem #4




1 00 Control Mutuality Item #1

Control 92Control Mutuality Item #2
Mutuality
95
Control Mutuality Item #3
77
80Control Mutuality Item #4

72 Control Mutuality Item #5

Control Mutuality Item #6


1 00 Satisfaction Item #1

98 Satisfaction Item #2
Satisfaction 8
Satisfaction Item #3
75
Satisfaction Item #4
82
Satisfaction Item #5


1 00
Commitment Item #1

1 13 Commitment Item #2
Commitment
98 Commitment Item #3
92
Commitment Item #4

Commitment Item #5



Figure 4-8. Measurement model of the organization-public relationship dimensions for annual
giving donors.










Table 4-30. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Annual
Giving Donors.
Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Access
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. 1.13 (.02) ***
When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer .88 (.03) ***
their inquiries.
Sharing of Tasks
The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. .84 (.03) ***
The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. .75 (.03) ***
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually .77 (.03) ***
beneficial solutions to shared concerns.
Openness
The organization' s annual report is a valuable source of information for 1.00 a
donors.
The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what .84 (.03) ***
it does with donations. (Reverse)
The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the .74 (.02) ***
issues it faces.
The organization shares enough information with donors about the .76 (.02) ***
organization's governance.
Networking
The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address that 1.00 a
address issues that donors care about.
The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to .94 (.02) ***
donors. (Reverse)
The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful for donors. .82 (.03) ***
Positivity
Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to 1.00 a
donors.
T he organization's communication with donors is courteous. .84 (.02) ***
The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. .70 (.03) ***
Assurances
The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to 1.00 a
donors' concerns.
The organization communicates the importance of its donors. .71 (.02) ***
Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns. .72 (.03) ***
(Reverse)









Table 4-30. Continued
Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Reciprocity
The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timely manner. 1.00 a
The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations. 1.37 (. 11) ***
Reporting
The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1.00 a
The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1.17 (.04) ***
The organization's annual report details how much money was raised in that .97 (.04) ***
year.
The organization does not provide donors with information about how their .78 (.041 ***
donations were used. (Reverse)
Responsibility
The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their 1.00 a
donations.
The organization uses donations for proj ects that are against the will of the .84 (.03) ***
donors. (Reverse)
Donors have confidence that the organization will use their donations wisely. .87 (.03) ***
The organization tells donors what proj ects their donations will fund. .90 (.04) ***
Relationship Nurturing
Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for donations. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its .74 (.03) ***
relationships with donors. (Reverse)
The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. .84 (.07) ***
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001










Table 4-31. Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Annual Giving Donors.


Model Fit Index
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA)


Criteria Fit Statistics
5 5 2.51
> .90 .997
> .90 .993
> .90 .995
< .05 .034










1.00
Access Item #1

Access Access Item #2
.88
Access Item #3

1.00
Sharing of Tasks Item #1
.84
Sharing of Tasks Item #2

Sharing of Tasks .5 Sharing of Tasks Item #3
.77
Sharing of Tasks Item #4

1.00
Openness Item #1
.84
Openness Item #2
.74
Openness Openness Item #3

Openness Item #4

1.00
Networking Item #1
.94
Networking Networking Item #2
.82
Networking Item #3

1.00
Positivity Item #1

Positivity .84 Positivity Item #2

.0 Positivity Item #3

1.00
Assurances Item #1

Assurances .71 Assurances Item #2

.2 Assurances Item #4



Figure 4-9. Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies for annual giving
donors.



192


















Reporting Item #1

Reporting Item #2

Reporting Item #3

Reporting Item #4


Responsibility Item #1

Responsibility Item #2

Responsibility Item #3

Responsibility Item #4


1.00

1.17

Reporting .97

.78


1.00

.84
Responsibility
.87

.90


1.00
Relationship .74
Nurturing
.84





Figure 4-9. Continued


















193









Table 4-32. Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors.
Path Standardized Standardized Error
coefficient
Access & Control Mutuality .11 .03***
Access & Satisfaction .06 .03*
Sharing of Tasks & Commitment -.07 .02**
Openness & Trust .05 .02**
Openness & Satisfaction .06 .02**
Networking & Trust .10 .03***
Networking & Control Mutuality .10 .03***
Networking & Satisfaction .10 .03***
Networking & Commitment .18 .03***
Positivity & Trust .07 .03*
Positivity & Control Mutuality .09 .03**
Positivity & Satisfaction .06 .03*
Positivity & Commitment .09 .03**
Assurances & Trust -.11 .03**
Assurances & Control Mutuality -.11 .03**
Assurances & Satisfaction -.14 .04***
Assurances & Commitment -.15 .03***
Reciprocity & Trust -.07 .03**
Reporting & Control Mutuality .11 .04**
Reporting & Satisfaction .12 .04**
Reporting & Commitment .12 .03**
Responsibility & Trust .11 .04***
Responsibility & Control Mutuality .15 .04***
Responsibility & Satisfaction .17 .04***
Responsibility & Commitment .17 .04***
Relationship Nurturing & Trust .21 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Control Mutuality .12 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Satisfaction .16 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Commitment .16 .04***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001


Table 4-33. Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom I 5 .484
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .999
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .999
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .999
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .019
















































Figure 4-10. Final path model of the relationship between relationship cultivation strategies and
organization-public relationship dimensions for annual giving donors.














195










Table 4-34. Agreement between Donors and the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.
Variable Mean of Standard Mean of Standard D-Score
Donors' Deviation Fundraising Deviation
Views Team's Views
(n = 1706) (n = 124)
Dimensions
Trust 6.46 1.18 7.42 .83 .96***
S ati sfacti on 6.42 1.11 7. 11 .94 .86***
Commitment 6.66 1.20 7.12 .91 .46***
Control 6.30 1.17 7.16 .84 .69***
Mutuality
Strategies
Access 6.01 1.33 7.03 1.03 1.02***
Assurances 6.16 1.23 6.95 1.05 .79***
Networking 5.89 1.40 7.11 1.02 1.22***
Openness 6.62 1.32 7.33 1.03 .71***
Positivity 6.02 1.28 6.90 1.00 .88***
Sharing of 6.17 1.23 7.09 1.07 .92***
Tasks
Reciprocity 6.95 1.07 7.59 .98 .64***
Responsibility 6.78 1.07 7.10 1.05 .32**
Reporting 6.87 1.09 7.47 .93 .60***
Relationship 6.50 1.15 7.25 1.09 .75***
Nurturing
**p<.01, ***p<.001










Table 4-3 5. Donors' Perceived Agreement with the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.
Mean of Mean of Donors'
Donors' Standard Estimate of Standard D-
Variable.
Views Deviation Fundraising Team's Deviation Score
(n = 1706) Views (n = 1706)
Dimensions
Trust 6.46 1.18 6.60 1.10 .14***
S ati sfacti on 6.42 1.11 6.50 1.08 .08***
Commitment 6.66 1.20 6.78 1.12 .12***
Control
6.30 1.17 6.49 1.08 .19***
Mutuality

Strategies
Access 6.01 1.33 6.21 1.29 .20***
Assurances 6.16 1.23 6.40 1.12 .24***
Networking 5.89 1.40 6.95 1.07 1.06***
Openness 6.62 1.32 6.81 1.14 .19***
Positivity 6.02 1.28 6.25 1.15 .23***
Sharing of ~3'
6.17 1.23 6.30 1.31 .3*
Tasks
Reciprocity 6.95 1.07 7.12 1.00 .17***
Responsibility 6.78 1.07 6.95 1.04 .17***
Reporting 6.87 1.09 7.07 1.03 .20***
Relationship ~9'
6.50 1.15 6.69 1.06 .9*
Nurturing
***p<.001










Table 4-36. The Fundraising Team's Perceived Agreement with Donors on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.
Mean of
Mean of Fundraising
.udasn Standar-d Team's Estimate of Standard D-
Variable Team's.
~Deviation Donors' Views Deviation Score
Views
(n = 124)
(n = 124)
Dimensions
Trust 7.42 .83 7.34 .77 .08*
S ati sfacti on 7.11 .94 7.13 .88 .02
Commitment 7.12 .91 7.17 .83 .05
Control
7.16 .84 7.15 .77 .01
Mutuality

Strategies
Access 7.03 1.03 7.00 .93 .03
Assurances 6.95 1.05 6.93 1.02 .02
Networking 7.11 1.02 7.17 1.12 .06
Openness 7.33 1.03 7.33 .82 .00
Positivity 6.90 1.00 6.94 1.05 .04
Sharing of 7.09 1.07
7.12 1.06 .03
Tasks
Reciprocity 7.59 .98 7.60 .95 .01
Responsibility 7.10 1.05 7.12 1.08 .02
Reporting 7.47 .93 7.51 1.03 .04
Relationship
7.25 1.09 7.28 1.01 .03
Nurturing
*p<.05










Nonprofit-Donor


Standard D-
Deviation Score



.83 .82***
.94 .61***
.91 .34**

.84 .67***


Table 4-37. Donors' Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the
Relationship.
Mean of Donors' Mean of
~Estimate of Standard Fundraising
Variable
Fundraising Team's Deviation Team's Views
Views (n = 1706) (n = 124)


Dimensions
Trust
S ati sfacti on
Commitment
Control
Mutuality


6.60
6.50
6.78

6.49


1.10
1.08
1.12

1.08


7.42
7.11
7.12

7.16


Strategies
Access 6.21
Assurances 6.40
Networking 6.95
Openness 6.81
Positivity 6.25
Sharing of
6.30
Tasks
Reciprocity 7.12
Responsibility 6.95
Reporting 7.07
Relationship
6.69
Nurturing
**p<.01, *** p<.001


1.29
1.12
1.07
1.14
1.15

1.31

1.00
1.04
1.03

1.06


7.03
6.95
7.11
7.33
6.90
7.09

7.59
7.10
7.47

7.25


1.03
1.05
1.02
1.03
1.00
1.07

.98
1.05
.93

1.09


.82***
.55***
.16***
.52***
.65***

.79***

.47***
.15
.40***










Table 4-38. The Fundraising Team's Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-
Donor Relationship.
Mean of Fundrai sing Mean of
Team's Estimates of Standard Donors' Standard D-
Variable..
Donors' Views Deviation Views Deviation Score
(n = 124) (n = 1706)
Dimensions
Trust 7.34 .77 6.46 1.18 .88***
S ati sfacti on 7.13 .88 6.42 1.11 .71***
Commitment 7.17 .83 6.66 1.20 .51***
Control
7.15 .77 6.30 1.17 .85***
Mutuality

Strategies
Access 7.00 .93 6.01 1.33 .99***
Assurances 6.93 1.02 6.16 1.23 .77***
Networking 7.17 1.12 5.89 1.40 1.28***
Openness 7.33 .82 6.62 1.32 .71***
Positivity 6.94 1.05 6.02 1.28 .92***
Sharing of ~5'
7.12 1.06 6.17 1.23 .5*
Tasks
Reciprocity 7.60 .95 6.95 1.07 .65***
Responsibility 7.12 1.08 6.78 1.07 .34**
Reporting 7.51 1.03 6.87 1.09 .64***
Relationship ~8'
7.28 1.01 6.50 1.15 .8*
Nurturing
**p<.01, *** p<.001










Table 4-39. Coorientation States on Key Variables of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.
Variable Agreement Agreement Agreement State of
between 2 Sides Perceived by Perceived by Coorientation
Donors Fundraising Team
Trust Yes Yes Yes Consensus
S ati sfacti on Yes Yes Yes Consensus
Commitment Yes Yes Yes Consensus


Control
Mutuality

Access
Assurances
Networking
Openness
Positivity
Sharing of Tasks
Reciprocity
Responsibility
Reporting
Relationship
Nurturing


Yes


Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes


Yes


Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes


Yes


Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes


Consensus


Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus

Consensus









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

This study sought to advance relationship management theory by refining previous

relationship dimensions, adding new cultivation strategies, measuring both sides of the

organization-public relationship, and measuring the organization-public relationship across

multiple organizations. Through surveys that were mailed to a random sample of maj or gift and

annual giving donors to 3 Northern California nonprofit hospitals and to members of the

hospitals' fundraising teams, this study found that the relationship dimensions and the hospitals'

cultivation strategies were evaluated positively by both the donors and the organizations'

fundraising teams. However, the dimensions and the strategies were evaluated differently by all

3 groups (2 donor types and fundraising team). These differences not only have significant

impact on the nonprofit-donor relationship but also public relations' understanding of the

specialization, its relationship to the academic discipline, and our understanding of relationship

management.

Before interpreting the results of this study, a brief summary of the findings related to the

study's hypotheses and research questions is necessary. The first research question's analysis

found that donors evaluate the 4 relationship dimensions positively, and the first hypothesis

found that maj or gift donors evaluated the relationship dimensions more favorably than annual

giving donors. However, the second hypothesis found that donors of both groups evaluated the

relationship dimensions more favorably as the number of gifts made to the organizations

increased. The second research question's analysis found that these dimensions provide the

ability to predict past involvement with the organization, and the results of the third research

question suggested that the 4 dimensions do an adequate job of describing the overall nonprofit-









donor relationship-however, a large amount of the variance in the relationship is unexplained

by these dimensions.

Paralleling earlier findings, results of the fourth research question found that donors

evaluated all 10 of the relationship cultivation strategies positively, and the third hypothesis was

correct in predicting that maj or gift donors would evaluate them more favorably then annual

giving donors. The fifth research question found that a variety of the theory-derived

interpersonal communication strategies and professionally derived stewardship strategies

impacted donors' evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Meanwhile, results of the sixth

research question revealed that major gift and annual gift donors are impacted by the relationship

cultivation strategies differently.

Finally, turning to the views of donors and the fundraising team members, the

coorientation methodology revealed that the 2 sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship are in

consensus in how they view the relationship. Overall, the 2 sides are in agreement with their

views on the 4 relationship dimensions and 10 cultivation strategies. The 2 sides perceive

agreement with one another, and they are generally accurate in their estimations of the other side.

The results of the seventh, eighth, and ninth research questions indicate that although they share

positive evaluations of the dimensions and strategies, there are significant differences in how

favorably they evaluate them.

The Nonprofit-Donor Relationship

When Hon and J. Grunig (1999) discussed relationship measurement in the monograph

that introduced the topic to professional and academic circles, they concluded by reviewing how

the general public viewed relationships with different organizations, including the American Red

Cross, Microsoft, and the National Rifle Association, regardless of whether those surveyed

interacted with the organizations. Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) study was "generic," similar to the










generic studies of donors without regard to affiliation with specific organizations. This multiple-

organization approach, however, was soon abandoned by scholarly pursuits. Instead, scholars

began studying the relationships that 1 organization had with 1 stakeholder group.

While this single-organization approach was important to further test the relationship

dimension scales, the scales now have been validated and found reliable in many different

settings. This applied case-study type of approach may not be the most appropriate for the

public relations field now that scholarly pursuits seek to refine the relationship management

theory. For theoretical development to occur, relationship management studies need to move

beyond a case study approach.

For example, Waters (2006) and O'Neil (2007) have both studied the nonprofit-donor

relationship using single organizations to assess the levels of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and

control mutuality. These 2 studies examined the relationship with a healthcare and human

services organization, respectively. The studies found that the donors of the 2 organizations

evaluated the 4 dimensions positively. But, one has to ask how these results truly represent the

nonprofit-donor relationship? What if these organizations practiced "excellent" public relations?

Is it fair to then make claims that their programming and relationship cultivation represented the

entire spectrum of nonprofit-donor relationships?

Scholars have long studied the impact that the implementation of different public relations

programming has on stakeholders. Examining the nature of public relations in different

organizations led to the Excellence Theory and the push for symmetrical communication in

diverse organization settings. This theory was able to withstand scrutiny only because it was

created after an extensive global study looking at more than 300 organizations in 3 different

countries. Relationship management has yet to be tested so rigorously.









However, it is necessary to start testing the relationship management paradigm in settings

of more than 1 organization to truly understand how public relations practitioners cultivate and

manage relationships with key stakeholders. If studies remain within the confines of 1

organization, scholars will never be able to compare the impact of public relations programs on

relationships. To truly understand relationship management, good and bad relationships, or well-

developed and poorly-developed ones, must be examined. These comparisons are necessary if

the field truly is interested in theoretical development.

Given the numerous studies that have examined the relationship between an organization

and public using the Hon and J. Grunig (1999) scales, it is time to move beyond single-

organization applied research scenarios. Scholars now need to start trying to make sense of the

relationship paradigm and pull different components together into 1 overarching theoretical

perspective. For this reason, this study examined the nonprofit-donor relationship across 3

fundraising organizations in the nonprofit healthcare subsector. Although this only represents 1

aspect of the nonprofit sector, it is an encouraging first step in moving the relationship

management paradigm forward, especially given the similarities of the results across

organizations.

Relationship Quality and Dimensions

Paralleling public relations' scholarly inquiry into relationship management, this study first

explored relationship quality by evaluating the views of the donors and the fundraising teams

based on 4 key dimensions: trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Although it

was first discussed at the beginning of the results chapter, it is necessary to quickly recap the

similarities and differences across the 3 organizations before examining either side of the

nonprofit-donor relationship.









Given this study's encouragement for examination of the organization-public relationship

across multiple organization, it is important to see the trends that emerged from the evaluation

across all 3 organizations. All of the groups evaluated the relationship positively. So, in

essence, they are all in agreement according to the coorientation methodology. Differences,

however, do exist and would naturally be expected when comparing independent organizations.

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) is the youngest organization in terms of its fundraising

experience; thus, it may not have the experience and well-shaped fundraising programs as the

other 2 hospitals. Overall, the SFGH donors evaluated the relationship less favorably than the

donors of Marin General Hospital (MGH) and Children' s Hospital & Research Center of

Oakland (CHRCO). Additionally, the organization with the most fundraising experience and the

largest endowment, CHRCO, had its donors and fundraising team evaluate the relationship more

positively than the other organizations.

As discussed in the methodology chapter, these 3 hospitals all have fundraising programs

that are similar to most large nonprofit organizations: annual giving, maj or gift, and planned

giving efforts. These 3 organizations all also have varying levels of implementation of e-

Philanthropy programs to tap into the digital communities of Northern California. However,

nonprofit organizations raise funds differently. Communication may not be as frequent from

certain organizations when talking about elements of reporting (e.g., newsletters, annual reports,

or their Web-based counterparts). The personal touches, such as face-to-face meetings or

handwritten thank-you notes on acknowledgement letters, may be more common in

organizations with larger resources allocated to the fundraising department. So the differences in

how the organizations evaluate the relationship are only natural.










The other main trend that emerged across the 3 organizations is the difference in evaluation

of the relationship between the 2 groups. The fundraising team evaluated the relationship more

strongly than donors in all 3 organizations. This difference is important to examine in relation to

the management implications of the nonprofit organizations' dominant coalition, and it will be

addressed in the coorientation methodology discussion in this chapter. However, for now, it is

interesting to note that this trend emerged across all 3 organizations.

Given these overarching trends, it is possible to discuss the results as they relate to an

overall nonprofit-donor relationship. This study examined the relationship dimensions in

relation to both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. For donors, commitment was the

dimension that was evaluated most favorably overall (M = 6.66, SD = 1.20), followed by trust

(M = 6.46, SD = 1.18), satisfaction (M = 6.42, SD = 1.11), and control mutuality (M = 6.30, SD

= 1.17). When separating the donors into annual giving and major gift donors, similar results

emerged. Commitment received the highest evaluations, and control mutuality was the lowest

for both groups.

With few exceptions, previous studies have simply measured the perspectives of the

external stakeholder group. While this may provide insight into the publics' views of the

relationship, it ignores the members of the organization who make the decisions that ultimately

impact those relationships. To bring a symmetrical approach to studying the nonprofit-donor

relationship, the members of the fundraising team were also asked to complete the survey so

comparisons could be made to determine similarities and differences in the fundraising team

members' and donors' views.

When it comes to the evaluations of the fundraising team, trust was viewed most

favorably. Satisfaction was the relationship dimension with the lowest mean score. However,









the lowest fundraising team evaluation was still significantly higher than the highest rated

dimension from the donors' perspectives. Similar to the relationship dimensions and each

hospital's donors, there were variations among the fundraising team at each institution.

Although the fundraising team evaluated the relationship higher than the donors, it is

important to keep in mind that the team members were asked to evaluate the organization's

relationship with its donors. The maj ority of the fundraising team interact with maj or gift donors

and prospects as dictated by Pareto's principle, which--when applied to the fundraising

process--explains that 20 percent of the donors will provide 80 percent of the gifts to charitable

nonprofit organizations. So even though they are the minority in terms of percentages of the

overall donor database, maj or gift donors receive a significant proportion of the fundraising

team's attention. This may inflate the overall evaluation of the fundraising team, especially as

there are fundraisers who primarily work in carrying out the annual giving and e-Philanthropy

programs, which produce significantly more donors in terms of sheer numbers but smaller

amounts of gifts.

All 3 of the hospitals included in this study have fundraisers working with annual giving

donors. Although the survey did not specify which donors the fundraising team members should

consider when evaluating the relationship, the range of answers seems to hint that the fundraisers

who worked with annual giving donors did view the relationship less favorably than their maj or

gift counterparts. On all 4 relationship dimensions, there was a wide range when looking at the

maximum and minimum values for the indices. For example, the views on the control mutuality

index ranged from a low of 4.67 to a high of 8.67. Clearly there are some fundraising team

members who do not feel the relationship is well-balanced between the 2 parties. These lower









evaluations may very well stem from those individuals who work exclusively with the annual

giving donors.

These differing results for the donors and fundraising team members are intriguing given

the current state of nonprofit America, which has been challenged in recent years due to scandals

involving respected, nationally known organizations. Increasingly, donors are holding nonprofit

organizations to higher standards of accountability and transparency. With the financial scandals

of the United Way in the 1990s and the American Red Cross in 2001, donors no longer have a

blind trust for organizations out to "do good" (Sargeant & Lee, 2002). Nonprofits now have to

prove that they worthy of support. Indeed, a Brookings Institution report found that the public's

confidence in the nation's charitable nonprofit sector fell to an all-time low in 2003: Only 13

percent expressed "a great deal" of confidence in nonprofit organization, while 37 percent

reported that they had "not too much" or no confidence in the sector (Light, 2003).

Among the chief concerns highlighted by the Brookings Institution report were concerns

that nonprofit organizations spent donations wisely, that nonprofit leaders made strategic

decisions that were unbiased and fair, that nonprofit organizations dedicated enough time to

developing quality programs that truly addressed the cause of social ills, and that nonprofit

leaders were paid too much (Light, 2003). Alarmingly, more than 60 percent of respondents felt

that nonprofit organizations wasted money.

However, the report found several high notes for nonprofit organizations. Overall, the

respondents evaluated nonprofit organizations highly in terms of delivering programs to those in

need. Even though 60 percent of respondents believed nonprofit organizations wasted money,

this was significantly lower than American businesses (81%) and the government (93%/). For

organizations dedicated to growing relationships with their donors and improving their










reputation, proper resource allocation can ensure that practitioners can educate donors about the

organization's use of donations during the cultivation process.

In her description of the fundraising process, Kelly (2000) said that fundraisers should be

involved in stewardship for 20 percent of the time dedicated to work. These results support her

claims that stewardship is second only to research in its importance to effective fundraising. All

4 components of stewardship-reciprocity, responsibility, reporting and relationship nurturing--

can be utilized to demonstrate an organization's accountability and responsibility. However,

unless an organization is willing to dedicate resources to carrying out its stewardship, it will not

be able to take advantage of relationship development.

Practitioner literature suggests that one of the best ways to gain the support and trust of

donors is for nonprofits to manage their Einances wisely. Not only does this mean carrying out

programs and services in a cost effective and efficient manner, but nonprofit organizations have

an obligation to follow donor' s requests when they specify how they want their donations to be

used. As the United Way and Red Cross scandals pointed out, accountability no longer simply

means keeping a low overhead and not using donations to fund extravagant salaries. Now, donor

intent has become increasingly important.

Kelly (2000) suggested that organizations accurately report how they used donations in a

timely manner. This can be reported either through direct mailings of annual reports (Neal,

2001), the provision of 990 IRS tax forms (Waters, 2005), or even through interpersonal

communication (Hart, 2001). The Internet is increasing being used to convey this information in

digital downloads (Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covington, 2001). Fundraising associations, such as

the Association for Fundraising Professionals and Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, are

encouraging their members to digitize their financial information to make it available to the










general public. Additionally, this is becoming significantly easier as beginning in 2006 the IRS

is mandating that nonprofit organizations use e-file to submit their fiscal information to the

government; this file could easily be uploaded to the nonprofit's Web site as well.

Given the importance of trust in the literature on the nonprofit-donor relationship, it is

interesting that donors did not evaluate trust as the highest of the 4 dimensions--even maj or gift

donors. Perhaps one reason for this is that 2 of the 3 hospitals in this study are guilty of playing

the zero-sum filing game. MGH and CHRCO both reported spending nothing on their

fundraising expenses on their IRS 990 tax forms despite raising $4.2 and $10.4 million,

respectively, from individual donors. These organizations obviously spent money on raising

such a large amount of charitable gifts; however, their misleading tax forms may cause donors to

doubt their trustworthiness. Given the increasing numbers of charity watchdog groups, such as

CharityNavigator.org and Guidestar.org, many nonprofit organizations are striving to

demonstrate that they dedicate more money to programs and services rather than to fundraising

and administrative costs. Wanting to show a reduced amount of organizational resources

dedicated to fundraising causes some nonprofit organizations to report that they spent nothing on

fundraising even though the adage, "You have got to spend money to make money," applies to

fundraising programs.

Even though questions of trustworthiness may be present, 1 trend that was very evident

from the data is that the donors are committed to the relationship with the organizations and their

missions. Though not surprising that individuals who are willing to donate money to an

organization would have some level of commitment to that organization, it was somewhat

unexpected that this would be the relationship dimension that donors evaluated most favorably.









However, in the past several years, the media have paid increasing attention to the nation's

healthcare crises. California, in particular, is facing a financial crisis in terms of supporting its

public facilities (e.g., government-sponsored clinics and hospitals) in providing care for the

uninsured. Additionally, the increasing numbers of AIDS cases, as well as obesity rates among

California's children, have received special attention from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the

California Endowment, 2 foundations created to address the state's growing health problems.

The universal provision of healthcare has also emerged as an early issue being debated by the

2008 presidential candidates. This increased attention may help explain why these donors

evaluated their commitment to the organizations higher than the other dimensions.

The distribution of power and control is 1 aspect of the fundraising process that is often

misunderstood. Many assume that the individual donor holds the power in the relationship

because the donor has the money to give to the organization. However, this assumption is

flawed. Donors have very different motivations for donating to nonprofits, and by understanding

donors' motivations the organization retains a significant amount of power. For example, Prince

and File (1994) found that 11 percent of donors do so for social reasons. They want to see their

name associated with specific proj ects or have hospital wings or lounges named after them.

These naming rights are quite valuable to certain donors, and organizations retain power by

requiring very large donations for the naming rights.

Likewise, organizations have the ability to say no to donations, and many do so regularly

when donors try to place too many restrictions on how the donation can be used. For example,

the SFGH Foundation turned down a donation of $25,000 in 2003 because the donor insisted that

the gift only be used to provide healthcare services to individuals from a specific San Francisco










zip code. For the relatively young foundation, the administrative burden was viewed as too

cumbersome for such a small staff.

With the rise of what is termed venture philanthropy, many donors want to play a

significant role in the planning and delivery of nonprofit programs and services. The balance of

power comes into play when nonprofit organizations are discussing these potential ventures with

such donors. To be socially accountable to its consumers, nonprofit organizations must not stray

from their original missions simply because a donor is willing to fund a program that is

somewhat connected to the organization's goals. Unfortunately, many smaller organizations fall

victim to this mission creep because the availability of funds is too alluring. Nonprofit

organizations should be willing to listen to their donors; however, they must also stand strong to

their missions or risk losing the trust of their other donors.

Finally, the relationship dimension of satisfaction is important for the relationship, but it

was one where the views of the fundraising team and the donors were furthest apart. The

difference between the 2 groups is particularly striking given that Ki (2006) found that

satisfaction was the relationship dimension that led to the others. Fortunately, public relations

and fundraising literature provides several relationship maintenance and cultivation strategies

that can be used to enhance donors' satisfaction with their relationship with the nonprofit

organizations, such as reporting on how donors' gifts were used and providing access to

members of the organization.

Relationship Cultivation Strategies

This study broadened the understanding of relationship cultivation strategies in public

relations by testing 6 derived from interpersonal communication literature as well as creating

scales for 4 stewardship strategies proposed by Kelly (2000, 2001), which are derived from

professional practice. These 10 strategies were all evaluated positively by both the donors and









members of the fundraising team, just like the 4 relationship dimensions. Again, several patterns

emerged when looking at the evaluations across all 3 organizations. First, the fundraising team

evaluated the strategies more positively than the donors. Also the donors evaluated the

stewardship strategies more positively than the 6 interpersonally derived ones. Finally,

networking was evaluated the lowest by the donors overall.

Looking at the evaluation of the strategies in terms of the 2 groups of donors, differences

between the groups start to emerge. Annual giving donors typically are contacted twice a year

for solicitations and receive other quarterly communications from the hospitals. All of the

hospitals send out newsletters to these donors, and one mails an annual report while the other 2

make the annual report available on their Web site and reference it in the newsletters. For these

donors, reciprocity and reporting were the 2 most favorably rated relationship cultivation

strategies based on their mean scores. They appreciate the acknowledgement and the words of

gratitude, and the newsletters throughout the year allow the donors to understand how their

donations are being used as well as the situations the hospitals face.

The results of the structural equation modeling showed that fundraisers really need to

incorporate a variety of the 10 strategies into their programming if they want to cultivate

relationships with their annual giving donors. For example, providing access to contact

information and offering opportunities to meet the organization's staff and leadership had a

significant positive influence in how the donors evaluated their views of satisfaction in the

relationship as well as the levels of the control and power balance. Being open about the

organization's programs and services, its governance, and the issues it faces directly influenced

how donors evaluated trust and satisfaction.









Access, positivity, sharing of tasks, assurances and networking all received evaluations

that were only slightly greater than the neutral point on the 9-point scale. Taking the standard

deviation into account, a substantial number of the annual giving donors evaluated these

strategies negatively. The differences in evaluations of these strategies were powerful in

showing how the different strategies impact the relationship dimensions. For example, although

networking overall received a lower mean score than the other relationship cultivation strategies,

the donors' views of that strategy were quite powerful in predicting how the donors felt about the

levels of trust (p = .10, p < .001), satisfaction (p = .10, p < .001), control mutuality (P = .10, p <

.001), and commitment (p = .18, p < .001) in the relationship. Positivity, responsibility, and

relationship nurturing also had a statistically significant positive influence on all 4 of the

relationship dimensions.

Reporting--providing donors with information about what was done with their donations

and informing them about organizational successes--did not have an influence on trust.

However, it did significantly influence the remaining 3 dimensions. In outlining the basic

principles of reporting, Kelly (2001) details how reporting information can help an organization

demonstrate its accountability. Reporting can lead to increased levels of public confidence in an

organization when it takes time to reinforce its effectiveness (Dressel, 1980). Seemingly, this

should lead to increased levels of trust in an organization, but the results from the structural

equation modeling showed that it had no statistically significant impact on this aspect of the

relationship.

Instead, reporting may help the organization demonstrate its social responsibility rather

than its accountability. Kelly (2001) notes that the 2 concepts are closely related; however, in

this case it seems that telling donors about the organization's performance led to increased levels









of satisfaction and commitment to the organization and its cause. Given the higher evaluations

for commitment, it seems that fundraisers desiring to build trust should focus on other strategies.

The results for reporting were not the only unexpected Eindings that emerged from the

structural equation modeling. Sharing of tasks, which focuses on donors and the fundraising

team working together to resolve problems and trying to Eind what public relations defines as a

"win-win" zone had no statistically significant influence on the relationship dimensions other

than a negative influence on commitment to the organization. Looking at the 2 types of donors,

annual giving donors typically are not involved in organizational decision-making. While the

fundraising team certainly would keep such donors' views in mind, they generally would take a

more personal approach regarding decision making with maj or gift donors who have the ability

to make much larger donations.

Assurances had a negative consequence for all 4 of the relationship dimensions. This

strategy was operationally defined as the fundraising team providing personal responses to

concerns, taking these concerns seriously, and communicating the importance of its donors.

Although conceptualized as a positive aspect of the relationship, these actions had a negative

impact on trust (p = -. 11, p < .01), satisfaction (p = -. 14, p < .001), control mutuality (P = -. 11, p

< .01), and commitment (p = -.15, p < .001).

In recent years, the American Red Cross, Nature Conservancy, and United Way were all

found to be using donated funds for proj ects other than what the donors had intended. The

American Red Cross initially directed some donations to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

to an account to be used for future disasters before the media began focusing on the practice. A

Washington Post expose revealed that the Nature Conservancy used donors' gifts for loans to its

board members, and the national media focused on William Aramony's egregious use of









donations to support a lavish lifestyle. Perhaps the regularity with which these scandals occur

has caused donors who are not invited to participate in those one-on-one meetings with the

organization's fundraisers to be skeptical when they are told that they are valued by the

organization or their concerns are important.

Despite receiving the highest mean score from annual giving donors, reciprocity did not

have an impact on commitment, satisfaction, or control mutuality. Surprisingly, the structural

equation modeling revealed that the acts of recognition and expressions of gratitude had a

statistically significant negative influence on the trust dimension (P = -.07, p < .01). Reciprocity

did, however, have a powerful impact on the maj or gift donors as it enhanced their levels of

commitment (p = .21, p < .001) and satisfaction (p = .11, p < .01).

As results regarding the sixth research question demonstrated, annual giving and maj or gift

donors experience the nonprofit-donor relationship quite differently. Whereas the structural

equation modeling tests found that 9 of the 10 strategies impacted annual giving donors' views

of the relationship dimensions, only 6 strategies had the same impact for maj or gift donors.

Openness, networking, positivity, and assurances did not influence the evaluations of the 4

dimensions in a significant positive or negative manner.

Access led to increased views that the power was balanced between the donors and the

nonprofit organizations (P = .17, p < .001). Similarly, 2 stewardship strategies had a similar

impact. Responsibility (P = .14, p < .001) and relationship nurturing (P = .15, p < .001) both

influenced how maj or gift donors evaluated the balance of power between themselves and the

fundraising team. Annual giving donors' evaluation of the distribution of power experienced

positive influence from networking, positivity, and reporting.









The distribution of power was influenced the most by the access that maj or gift donors

had. These donors are the ones who are more likely to receive personalized attention from the

organization. Because of major gift donors' potential for making large financial donations,

organizations often will give them much greater access to members of the nonprofit' s dominant

coalition and fundraising team leaders. Maj or gift donors may also have acquaintances on the

board of directors. Because of their connections to the organization, they are the ones who have

the ability to ask specific questions and receive prompt attention from the organization.

Therefore, the impact of providing access to these donors leads to more positive feelings of

control mutuality.

Maj or gift donors often place restrictions on what organizations can do with their gifts.

For example, a maj or gift donor could tell the fundraising team that the donation can only be

used to fund support groups or rehabilitation programs. When the organization reports back that

the donation was used for these programs and discusses the impact of the programs, the donor

also is able to feel that the power is balanced because the organization followed his or her

wishes.

For major gift donors, only 2 of the 10 strategies impacted the levels of satisfaction. Both

of those strategies were from Kelly's (2000, 2001) stewardship elements. However, the 2

strategies had opposite influence on the dimension. Satisfaction was positively influenced by

reciprocity (P = .11, p < .05) while reporting (P = -. 13, p < .01) had a negative influence. In

other words, major gift donors appreciated being recognized as a donor and thanked for their

gifts; however, providing them with newsletters and annual reports may not be the most

appropriate methods to make them feel satisfied with the relationship. Perhaps because of their










heightened levels of access, maj or gift donors may not feel they need to see printed reports about

organizational activities because their questions will be addressed personally.

For major gift donors, 2 stewardship strategies, reciprocity (P = .21, p < .001) and

responsibility (P = .12, p < .05), influenced the levels of commitment while none of those

derived from interpersonal communication literature did. Only 2 of the interpersonal strategies

influenced the relationship dimensions. As previously discussed, access influenced the

evaluations of control mutuality, and trust was influenced by the sharing of tasks (P = .09, p <

.05). Trust, however, was more significantly influenced by relationship nurturing (P = .20, p <

.001) and responsibility (P = .18, p < .01).

When the 2 donor groups are combined into 1, the only strategy that does not influence the

dimensions is reciprocity. Goulder (as cited in Kelly, 2001) said that reciprocity was "a

universal component of all moral codes" (p. 284). However, it did not have a strong influence

when donors as a whole evaluated the relationship. It is important to note, however, that

reciprocity was impactful on maj or gift donors but not the annual giving donors. This may be

due to the sample sizes of the 2, maj or gift (n = 3 58) and annual giving (n = 1348) donors.

Again, perhaps influenced by the sample size of the annual giving sample, organizational

assurances had a negative influence on the 4 dimensions in the overall nonprofit-donor

relationship even though there was no statistical significance for the maj or gift donors.

The remaining 8 strategies varied in their impact across the 4 dimensions. Four of these

strategies had statistically significant positive influences on all 4 dimensions. Access,

networking, responsibility, and relationship nurturing all directly influenced how donors

evaluated their levels of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Based on the

standardized coefficients, relationship nurturing and responsibility were the 2 most important









strategies; however, access was also very important in the evaluation. But what does this mean

for fundraising practitioners?

Implications for the Practice

Though structural equation modeling was not used to evaluate the impact that the

relationship cultivation strategies had on the fundraising team members' views of the

relationship, their perspectives of the strategies have important consequences for how

relationship cultivation is executed. Fortunately, the results of the coorientation portion of the

study found that the fundraising team generally was in agreement with the donors on how they

viewed the importance of the 10 relationship cultivation strategies.

Even though they were in agreement, the 2 groups viewed the strategies very differently.

Because of the sample size, the evaluations for the strategies were all statistically significant--

even though some strategies had relatively small D-scores (e.g., responsibility). The greatest

differences existed for the networking strategy. The fundraising team (M = 7. 11, SD = 1.03) and

donors (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40) had viewpoints that were vastly different; however, the

coorientation methodology shows that they are in agreement because their views are both on the

positive side of the 9-point Likert scale.

These differences have an impact on how the relationship between a donor and nonprofit

organization unfolds. If the fundraising team views certain strategies as being more important

than others, then there can be consequences to the relationship if the donors do not share those

views. This scenario seems to be present for the sharing of tasks strategy. There was nearly a 1-

point differential in how the 2 groups evaluated this strategy. In other words, the fundraisers felt

that the hospitals worked with donors to reach mutually beneficial solutions to problems that the

donors cared about. Donors, however, did not perceive that the organization was as willing to

work with the donors as much as the fundraisers did. Investing resources in the sharing of tasks









strategy would be costly for the organizations as the strategy ultimately had little impact on the

relationship dimensions as shown by the structural equation modeling.

Most organizations would not have access to structural equation modeling results on which

to base programming decisions, but the coorientation methodology does provide significant

insights into how the fundraising team can improve the relationship status with the

organization's donors. By examining the perceived agreement and the accuracy of the

viewpoints of donors, the organization can make appropriate decisions to have programming that

appeals to donors. In this study, the fundraising team felt that donors would have very similar

evaluations of the relationship cultivation strategies. Only 1 of the fundraising teams'

evaluations and the fundraising teams' estimates of the donors' views were statistically different,

that being the trust relationship dimension.

For several of the relationship cultivation strategies, the fundraising team thought that the

donors would value the strategies even more than the fundraising team. Although the differences

weren't statistically significant, the fundraising team reported that they believed donors would

evaluate all 4 stewardship strategies, positivity, sharing of tasks, and networking higher than the

team members did. The difference was greatest for the networking strategy (D-score = .06).

Based on the accuracy results, the fundraising team misread the donors. The fundraising team

overestimated the donors' views on all 10 relationship strategies. The fundraising teams'

estimate (M = 7.12, SD = 1.08) of the donors actual views (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07) on

responsibility was as close as the teams' estimates came for any of the 10 strategies. But, even

this was substantially greater than the donors' actual views. This overestimation on the part of

the fundraising team could create problems for the relationship.










Measuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship offers insight into the

management of relationships. Organizations that measure both the views of internal and external

publics are able to Eind out areas where the relationship can be improved. Using the nonprofit-

donor relationship as an example, this study found that the 2 sides evaluated networking very

differently. The fundraising team felt that donors would evaluate the networking strategy quite

favorably (M = 7. 17); however, the donors had only a slightly positive view of the organizations'

external connections (M = 5.89).

Given the nonprofit organizations' overestimation of this strategy, the dominant coalitions

face an important decision: How do they resolve the difference and bring the 2 sides into closer

agreement? The fundraising team could simply abandon the pursuit of coalitions with other

groups focusing on healthcare issues. However, they could also engage the donors in

conversations about the importance of networking for the organization. By concentrating

communication efforts on those issues where the 2 sides have the greatest discrepancies can help

lead to an increased understanding about the importance of the issues. For example, the

fundraising team can educate donors about why the organizations pursue different partners in the

community. Through feature articles in newsletters, Web pages, or sections in the annual report,

the organization can stress the importance of coalitions in helping the organization reach its

mission. The donors can also share their feelings with the fundraising team by providing

feedback or having conversations with key members of the organization if they are maj or gift

donors.

This study sought to offer insight into how nonprofit organizations can improve their

relationships with their donors. Overall, evidence from this study shows that the relationship is

healthy, but more focused communication can lead to improved evaluations of the relationship









and cultivation strategies. Structural equation modeling revealed that certain strategies have

more impact on the relationship dimensions than others. This analysis is not meant to create a

formula that organizations can use to manipulate donors into giving to an organization. Instead,

the analysis shows how nonprofit organizations can improve their relationships with their

donors.

As the study shows, fundraising is built on relationships. Organizations cannot build

lasting relationships with donors when initial donations are given based on deception or guilt.

Nonprofit organizations that use emotionally-manipulative messages will not cultivate long-

lasting relationships with donors. Through open communication and a willingness to work with

donors, nonprofit organizations can produce mutually beneficial relationships with their donors

while working to achieve their missions.

Impact on Public Relations Theory

While this study provided a greater understanding of the nonprofit-donor relationship, it

also expanded the boundaries of the relationship management paradigm. The study provided

further validation of the 4 relationship dimensions proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), and it

is only the second study that tested the impact of relationship cultivation strategies on the

evaluation of the relationship dimensions. It provided new scales to measure the levels of

stewardship in the organization-public relationship, and it also introduced the measurement of

both sides of the relationship to further understand the importance of degrees of agreement and

disagreement about elements of the relationship. All 4 of these innovations of the organization-

public relationship introduce new thoughts on how public relations scholarship has approached

these concepts in the past and raise questions about how they will be treated in the future.









Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship

Public relations scholarship has examined the 4 dimensions proposed by Hon and J.

Grunig (1999) in many different settings. Trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality

have been found to be reliable and valid concepts to describe the relationship that exists in public

affairs, community relations, consumer relations, and now fundraising. But, can the

organization-public relationship be summed up by 4 concepts?

To answer this question, the study returns to the third research question, which asked how

well the 4 dimensions represent the overall relationship. This question used multiple regression

to determine the suitability of the 4 dimensions to describe the overall relationship rather than

using structural equation modeling as Ki (2006) did. Despite using a different statistical test,

similar results emerged. Ki found that commitment was the most important concept influencing

how Florida Farm Bureau members felt about their overall relationship with the organization.

Satisfaction and trust were also important, but control mutuality had little impact on the overall

evaluation.

In the current study, 2 separate regression tests were conducted to evaluate the impact of

the 4 dimensions on the overall relationship the donors experienced. When all 4 concepts were

entered, trust (p = .28, t = 13.78, p < .001) had the most impact though control mutuality (P =

.26, t = 12.37, p < .001) and commitment (P = .25, 11.53, p < .001) were not far behind. Unlike

Ki's results, all 4 dimensions were found to be statistically significant in predicting the overall

relationship evaluation as satisfaction (P = .19, t = 8.94, p < .001) was also helpful in the 4-

variable model in addition to a constant. With all 4 variables in the model, it should explain a

majority of variance in the overall relationship question, and it did. However, this model only

explained 60 percent of the variance.









A stepwise regression was also conducted to see if a more simplified model might be more

appropriate. However, the results for the 3 non-inclusive models did not improve the variance

explanation. In the first model, control mutuality emerged as the strongest indicator of the

overall relationship (P = .65, t = 32.22, p < .001) though it only explained 42 percent of the

variance. Commitment (p = .40, t = 21.35, p < .001) joined control mutuality (P = .45, t = 23.81,

p < .001) and a constant in the model, but it still only explained 54 percent of the variance.

When trust (P = .26, t = 12.83, p < .001) was entered into the model along with commitment (P =

.35, t = 18.68, p < .001), control mutuality (P = .32, t = 15.27, p < .001), and a constant, the

model still only accounted for 58 percent of the variance. So the model with all 4 dimensions

entered does explain the greatest amount of variance (60%).

However, the question remains: What variable(s) account for the remaining 40 percent?

Though not its original intent, this study draws from its results to proposes 2 additional

relationship dimensions that may help explain the overall relationship. The first dimension is

admiration. Admiration is defined as "being attracted to another whom one wants to be like" (de

Rivera & Grinkis, 1986, p. 358). Though not introduced by public relations scholars into the

discussion of the organization-public relationship, it has been studied in the interpersonal

communication literature (e.g., Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Lopes, Salovey, and Straus

(2003) found that admiration helped enhance the quality of relationships in a social setting.

Admiration could also build those relationships between publics and organizations. At

first glance, this concept seems close to satisfaction; however, there are several key distinctions

that are best explained by examining them in different public relations environments. In the

nonprofit-donor relationship, donors may be pleased with how the organization interacts with









them and feel that the organization meets their needs. But, this concept does not really tap into a

deeper respect for the organization's work and mission.

Commitment was found to be strongly evaluated by the donors and also seems to be

closely related to the admiration concept. However, it seems that the underlying idea behind the

concept is very different. Donors may admire certain nonprofit organizations because they

address issues that the government or for-profit sector simply will not, such as working with the

terminally ill or bringing controversial political issues to society's attention.

Anecdotally, admiration also seems to be present in other public relations settings. There

is a segment of the general public who has a problem with the global capitalistic push by

companies like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and other big-box retailers. When these organizations

move into new areas, they frequently face heated discussions with activist publics. However,

there are other chain stores, such as Trader Joes and Peet' s Coffee, that are often welcomed into

neighborhoods. Trader Joes is a national grocery store chain dedicated to unconventional

groceries from smaller independent producers and top-quality organic and non-genetically

modified foods, while Peet' s Coffee, a West Coast coffeehouse rivaling Starbucks, generously

donates money and volunteer hours to community organizations. Consumers may admire these

organizations' dedication to smaller companies and their local communities, respectively.

Consumers may be satisfied with the personal relationship they have with their local

Trader Joes or Peet' s Coffee, and they may be committed to those retail outlets because they

perceive the organizations are trying to build that long-term relationship. But what helps these

organizations stand out from their competition may not have much to with their actual products

or services; it may be that these organizations have built a competitive advantage for certain

publics by investing in aspects of corporate social responsibility. Aperia, Brann, and Schultz









(2004) found that Scandinavian citizens had more positive evaluations of companies that they

trusted and admired. After studying different for-profit companies' business strategies and their

success and failure rates, Miles and Snow (2001) found that companies that invested in socially

responsible behavior that produced feelings of admiration were more likely to have long-term

support from the general public. Fortune magazine even recognizes the value of admiration as it

annually produces lists of the nation' s most admired companies in 19 different industry

categories. Public relations scholarship needs to introduce this relationship dimension into the

discussion on organization-public relationships to provide a better understanding of how

relationships can be managed.

The second relationship dimension that is proposed based on the study's findings is

appreciation. Reciprocity was found to be the relationship cultivation strategy that was evaluated

most favorably by both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Yet, the structural equation

modeling revealed that it had little impact in the overall nonprofit-donor relationship in terms of

influencing the relationship dimensions. Appreciation has been defined in several different

academic disciplines. A psychological definition of appreciation involves "making all choices

valuable and leading to positive consequences in the end" (Ojanen, 1996, p. 79). Adler and

Fagley (2005) defined appreciation as "acknowledging the value and meaning of something--an

event, a person, a behavior, an obj ect-and feeling a positive emotional connection to it" (p. 81).

The Adler and Fagley definition parallels Kelly's (2001) conceptualization of reciprocity.

The acknowledgement of the relationship is similar to the recognition component of reciprocity,

while the positive emotional connection reflects the gratitude component. This linkage warrants

further exploration by public relations scholars, especially as business and management studies









have found that customer appreciation leads to brand loyalty and increased positive behavior,

such as sales (Ragins & Greco, 2003; Dychi, 2001).

Increasingly, for-profit companies are collecting personal demographic information from

their customers and instituting programs whereby they acknowledge their customers through

different incentives. For example, customers who have signed up to receive the Ghirardelli

Chocolate's e-newsletter receive coupons for a free sundae on their birthday, and many stores,

such as New York and Company and the grocer Safeway, offer discounts or gift certificates

when customers purchase a specified amount of products from the store. By acknowledging the

customer in this manner, the stores are able to produce favorable evaluations of the company.

Studies have even found that stores, such as Best Buy or Wal-Mart, that employ individuals to

greet customers as they enter the store benefit from greater feelings of appreciation in their

customer base (Beatty, Mayer, Coleman, Reynolds, & Lee, 1996).

Although these examples are small tokens of acknowledgement and gratitude, research has

shown they contribute to producing the desired effects the organizations want, such as increased

sales and brand loyalty. The potential impact of appreciation extends beyond consumer and

donor publics. Perhaps activists appreciate those organizations who acknowledge their concerns

and are willing to meet with them more than those organizations that continue their operations

regardless of the activists' concerns. On-going media relations activities often involve public

relations practitioners thanking journalists for stories that were written about the organization

(Howard & Matthews, 1995).

Although the addition of these 2 relationship dimensions does not make the existing

relationship management theory more parsimonious, it may add to the field's understanding of

how important relationships are to the longevity of organizational success. The results of the









discriminant analysis found that the dimensions did a fair j ob of predicting those donors who

contributed to the organizations' success (e.g., donating in the most recent fundraising

campaign). Where the 4 existing dimensions failed was in predicting those that did not give

during the campaign or those that were a hindrance to the organization's success.

Trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality are all positive dimensions of the

relationship as are admiration and appreciation. Perhaps inclusion of a dimension that measures

conflict may add value to the predictivity of the theory. Furman and Buhrmester' s (1985)

relationship inventory includes measures for conflict and was important in identifying damaged

interpersonal relationships. These scholars contend that the identification and recognition of

conflict can then lead to behavior changes to resolve the conflict.

Public relations literature is rich with information on negotiation and conflict resolution

(e.g., Plowman, 1996; Plowman, 1998). Since conflict can be a product of the interaction

between an organization and its stakeholders, this dimension needs to be measured and included

in the organization-public relationship model. Perhaps then, the predictive nature of the theory

can be enhanced even more than now offered by the 4 existing dimensions offer. Further

evidence to support the inclusion of conflict measures into the model results from the inclusion

of conflict resolution strategies into Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) relationship management

discussion. How can Plowman's (1996) resolution strategies of contending, avoiding,

accommodating, or compromising be discussed regarding the organization-public relationship if

there is no measure of conflict in the model? This study's research design did not measure the

impact of the conflict resolution strategies because of the implied positive nature of the

relationship between a donor and a nonprofit organization (i.e., donating money to an

organization without any obligation to do so).









Future explorations into conflict resolution and negotiation in public relations will increase

the legitimacy of the relationship management paradigm by adding a negative dimension of

relationships to the model. Although conflict was not measured in this study of 3 nonprofit

hospitals, perhaps organizations involved in scandals may seek to include such measures in the

future.

Relationship Cultivation Strategies

If admiration, appreciation, and conflict were included in the organization-public

relationship dimensions, then the model becomes quite complex and difficult to measure.

Perhaps simplification of the relationship cultivation strategies could help lessen the density of

the model and make the theory one that the profession could implement.

Many of the strategies proposed by Bruning and Ledingham (1998), Hon and J. Grunig

(1999), Huang (1997), Hung (2002), and Kelly (2000, 2001) seem to overlap. For example,

Hung' s "keeping promises" strategy is a core element of Kelly's "responsibility" strategy.

Similarly, access and openness focus on sharing information with a stakeholder group. Positivity

and assurances, although defined differently conceptually, touch on similar issues. Positivity

involves making the interactions with publics pleasant, while assurances stresses letting publics

know they are important. Networking with different external groups to help discuss and resolve

problems is similar to the goals of the "sharing of tasks" strategy, which seeks to reach mutually

beneficial decisions with the stakeholders. The strategies derived from the interpersonal

communication literature are linked.

The interconnectivity of the strategies raises an interesting question for the organization-

public relationship model: Should public relations scholarship continue to concentrate its

research on relationship cultivation strategies on those derived from interpersonal

communication theory? The theory-based strategies tested in this study were originally created









for the interpersonal relationship, while Kelly's (2000, 2001) stewardship strategies were derived

from professional practice. Public relations scholarship has demonstrated that there are

similarities between an interpersonal relationship and the organization-public relationship, but is

it realistic to think that the cultivation strategies for both types of relationships should also be

based on interpersonal strategies?

Other disciplines have aggressively been studying relationships as well. Organizational

communication, business management, and sociology are rich with studies on how relationships

develop, prosper, and fail in different realms. Given the unique perspectives that the different

academic Hields offer, it is important that public relations scholars open their relationship

explorations to such fields in an organized manner. A small number of scholars have been very

active in exploring concepts introduced in other disciplines, for example, anthropomorphism

(Bruning, Langenhop, & Green, 2004). These scholars have challenged public relations'

traditional notion of relationship cultivation and have expanded the measurement of

relationships.

But new theoretical perspectives will not produce a powerful relationship management

theory alone. Public relations scholars often say that the gap between the profession and the

academy is widening. Scholars complain that practitioners rarely read research articles from

either the Journal of Public Relations Research or Public Relations Review. Practitioners,

conversely, say they do not read the research because the topics are not those that impact their

daily duties. Instead of turning to theoretical concepts in books and journal articles, public

relations scholars can start building the bridge with the profession by pulling the relationship

strategies from practitioner literature or even engaging them in discussions about the relationship










management paradigm, in particular by asking them how they conceptualize the different

relationship cultivation strategies.

Based on the results from this study's structural equation modeling, a combination of

theory-derived and practice-derived strategies works best in predicting the relationship

dimensions. Access, sharing of tasks, openness and positivity--the strategies derived from

interpersonal communication theory--all were found to be significant positive indicators of a

donors' trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. However, these specific

strategies were not as powerful as the more broadly defined stewardship strategies of relationship

nurturing and responsibility. These stewardship strategies were first conceptualized based on

Kelly's (1998) experiences as a fundraiser and through a review of practitioner literature.

Drawing on these sources, she was able to step back and see a bigger picture of how these

strategies impacted the nonprofit-donor relationship. In extending the stewardship strategies to

the entire public relations profession, Kelly (2001) found support for these practitioner-based

strategies in scholarly discussions on different elements of reciprocity, responsibility, reporting,

and relationship nurturing.

As this study found, both the theory-derived and profession-derived strategies were

important in predicting the relationship dimensions. However, too many strategies makes the

model too complex for the profession to use, so 1 more question has to be addressed: Is it better

to have a detailed litany of relationship cultivation strategies that overlap or a condensed list that

groups strategies into related concepts? Public relations' most significant theory to date is the

Excellence Theory. Critics of the theory have proposed the Contingency Theory (Cancel,

Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997) of public relations as an alternative perspective; however, its

87 variables are simply too many to really fit into most measurement schema. With a growing









list of relationship cultivation strategies, relationship management theory also approaches levels

of being unmanageable and further distancing the profession and the academy from one another.

To keep the relationship management theory as parsimonious as possible while still

retaining relevancy, perhaps scholars need to develop a condensed listing of strategies that are

more broadly defined. Relationship cultivation strategies were discussed in Hon and J. Grunig's

(1999) original monograph. Yet, it was not until Ki's (2003) study of Fortune 500 companies'

Web sites or Ki's (2006) study of the Florida Farm Bureau that measurement of the strategies

was attempted. Instead, scholars have discussed different strategies and their applicability to

different settings (e.g., Hung, 2006). Perhaps the strategies specified by Hon and J. Grunig

(1999) in the Institute for Public Relations monograph (access, positivity, networking, sharing of

tasks, assurances, and openness) have yet to be subj ected to inquiry by many public relations

scholars because they are too specific.

Because of the multitude of different public relations specializations, it is quite difficult to

create multi-item scales that extend across all of these sub-functions of public relations,

especially when considering that the specializations often have very different types of

programming. Stepping back and taking a broader perspective on relationship cultivation

strategies may help eliminate this challenge. Though not the intent of this particular study, the

researcher does see ways that the relationship cultivation strategies can be reconceptualized for a

more simplified approach. Reporting, openness, and access could all be classified as a

"Communication and Information Provision" strategy, while sharing of tasks and networking

could be conceptualized as a "Cooperation" strategy. Assurances, positivity, and reciprocity

could be reduced to a "Recognition" strategy, or they could all be collapsed under the

"Relationship Nurturing" strategy. Kelly's (2001) responsibility strategy identified an










organization's responsible behavior in the eyes of the stakeholders. This strategy could be

combined with those discussed in corporate social responsibility literature for a larger, more

impactful "Responsibility" construct. Finally, a "Conflict Resolution" strategy should be in

place to help identify and repair negative elements of the organization-public relationship; a

conceptualization of conflict resolution strategies would provide balance to the inclusion of a

conflict dimension. Perhaps with a shortened, simplified approach to the conceptualization of

relationship cultivation strategies, these 6 strategies can help elicit further scholarly inquiry into

the presence and impact of these strategies on the organization-public relationship.

Symmetrical Measurement of the Organization-Public Relationship

The final contribution this study makes to public relations scholarship is the introduction of

symmetrical measurement of the organization-public relationship. Previous studies have simply

measured the external stakeholders in the relationship even though several scholars have called

for the symmetrical approach (Ferguson, 1984; Seltzer, 2005). Ironically, the discipline that

advocates two-way communication between an organization and its publics still conducts

research on relationships in an asymmetric manner.

Previous studies did not take the views of those inside the organization into account. For

example, Waters (2006) and O'Neil (2007) only measured the views of donors to describe the

nonprofit-donor relationship. Although this provided insight into the views of the donors, they

are not the group making the decisions that impact how the fundraising department functions.

The views of the dominant coalition--in the current study defined as members of the fundraising

team--must be considered.

As Seltzer (2005) points out, "Study after study tiptoes around the coorientational

approach without utilizing the perceptions of both the organization and its publics in measuring

the relationship between them" (p. 14). Had the measurement of the fundraisers' views and their









estimations of donors' views not occurred, the fundraisers might not have known that they had

underestimated donors' positivity of the organization' s responsible use of charitable gifts.

By using the coorientation methodology, the research highlights the significant differences

between the perceptions of the participants from several different perspectives. Though the

differences between the 2 sides on many variables are small, the organization can include

proactive symmetrical programming to engage its donors in conversations so they can resolve

differences in understanding the dynamics of the relationship. This conversation will allow them

to move closer to being in exact agreement.

The Eindings suggest that the nonprofit hospitals need to improve their cultivation efforts.

The fundraising teams overestimated the donors' views on all of the variables. The differences

between the relationship dimensions were not as great as the differences between views of the

relationship cultivation strategies. This misperception could have been costly had the

fundraising teams implemented programming based on their estimates of what the donors

thought.

Perhaps in addition to more symmetrical methods of communicating with donors, these

Endings suggest that the organizations should implement more non-fundraising directed

communications, such as newsletters or e-mail updates of successful program and service

delivery, to educate donors why they engage in some strategies, such as networking.

Had this study simply measured the relationship from the donors' perspective, significant

insights into the overall relationship would not have been revealed. The members of the

fundraising teams had misread the perceptions of the donors even though they had worked

closely with the donors. While some of the differences were minimal, they reveal important

information about the coorientation methodology. Comparing the 2 sides of the nonprofit-donor









relationship is not as simple as agreement/di agreement. Based on these results, the 2 sides are

in states of consensus on all of the variables. But, there are differences.

Statistically, the difference between the donors' views (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07) and the

fundraising team members' views (M = 7.10, SD = 1.05) on responsibility is the same as the

difference between the donors' views (M = 5.89, Sd = 1.40) and the organizations' views (M =

7. 11, Sd = 1.02) on networking. The latter variable's D-score (1.22) is nearly 1 point greater

than that of the responsibility (0.32) variable. Is it accurate to say that the 2 groups' views on

these concepts should be viewed similarly since they technically are both in agreement? There

are degrees of agreement for situations like this one where the 2 sides generally are in agreement.

Through symmetrical conversations, it is possible to bring the 2 sides even closer in their views

by increasing the levels of understanding between each group. For this situation, donors might

view the networks that the organizations have created with external groups more favorably if the

fundraising team explains why they are pursued, or the fundraising team at least could

understand why this particular relationship cultivation strategy is not effective for donors. The

coorientation methodology is an important tool to determine which issues need to be addressed

in the organization-public relationship.

Public relations literature prescribes its practitioners to engage in a boundary-spanning

role--keeping 1 foot inside the organization and 1 foot outside in the community. While this

study found agreement on all of the variables, the coorientation methodology can be used by

practitioners to develop a deeper understanding of the issues their organizations face with

different publics. Because the perceptions of the organization's representatives need to be

included in the organization-public relationship measurement, the figure demonstrating the

organization-public relationship in the first chapter needs to be updated. Figure 5-1 illustrates









the update, which now includes the measurement of the organization' s views. Scholars that fail

to measure the views of the organizations are withholding valuable information that could clarify

and further develop the relationship management paradigm.


Figure 5-1. Revised model of the organization-public relationship.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

The nonprofit organization-donor relationship is vital to the maintenance and longevity of

the nonprofit sector. For nonprofit organizations to continue the provision of programs and

services to society, it is vital that they dedicate resources into relationship cultivation with

donors. The results of this study show that these organizations need to spend more time and

effort developing relationships with their donors. Although they evaluate the relationship

positively, the donors fell short of the fundraisers' expectations of how the donors viewed the

relationship with the organization. Fortunately, public relations literature provides several

relationship maintenance strategies that deal with symmetrical communication. Engaging donors

in more conversations to let them know they are appreciated will help encourage more loyalty in

the relationship, but the nonprofit organization must also demonstrate that it is committed to

being both socially and financially accountable.

Reaching out to the greater public relations profession, it is vital to understand how

different perspectives of the sides of the organization-public relationship can impact

organizations. As Dozier and Ehling (1992) warn, there can be disastrous consequences when

programming decisions are made without measuring both sides of the relationship. Fortunately,

this study found that both sides view the nonprofit-donor relationship positively. The minor

differences that emerged in the study, though statistically significant, are easy to overcome by

engaging donors in more conversations to resolve differneces. Given the results of the structural

equation modeling, the study provides information on how nonprofit organizations can best

develop relationships with donors.









Limitations of the Study

When this study was started, 2 goals were created: (1) to provide a better understanding of

the nonprofit-donor relationship by exploring the proposed relationship maintenance strategies

that exists in public relations literature (Hon and Grunig, 1999; Kelly, 2001; Hung, 2002) and (2)

to challenge the traditional organization-public measurement method based on suggestions by

Ferguson (1984), Broom and Dozier (1990), and Ledingham (2001), among others. Thanks to

the cooperation of 3 San Francisco Bay Area hospitals, data were collected and analyzed from

the fundraising teams at these healthcare organizations and their major gift and annual giving

donors. Though the results provided valuable insight into the fundraising process, the study had

several limitations that need to be acknowledged.

The first limitation concerns generalizeability. Though this is the first organization-public

relationship study that looks at the dynamics of a relationship across multiple organizations of

the same public relations specialization, it is difficult to say that the results are generalizeable

beyond nonprofit hospitals in Northern California. All 3 organizations are geographically

located within a 60-mile radius of one another. The Boston College Center on Wealth and

Philanthropy published a study in 2005 that found that giving varies significantly by region

(Havens & Schervish, 2005). Therefore, it is possible that the findings of the current study are

the result of region. However, healthcare is 1 of the subsectors of the charitable nonprofit sector

that is well-funded throughout the nation, not just in California.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the participating organizations were also very

similar in that they were all nonprofit hospitals. As Salamon (2002) points out, the healthcare

subsector is very diverse, ranging from large nonprofit hospitals and large medical research

facilities to small community healthcare clinics. All 3 nonprofit hospitals have a mission that is

dedicated to serving those in need of serious medical treatment in their specified geographic









boundaries. The study did not look at other types of healthcare organizations, such as nonprofit

substance abuse programs, community healthcare clinics, or research centers. Although these

organizations are still focused on healthcare issues, their missions are significantly different from

nonprofit hospitals. The difference in organizational purposes and missions may produce

different findings if this study were to be replicated.

It is important to note, however, that the incorporation of the coorientation methodology

into the research design does require some similarities between the participating organizations.

The coorientation methodology typically has been used to measure 2 sides of an issue within the

scope of 1 particular scenario, for example, measuring an organization's and 1 stakeholder

group's views on a topic for 1 organization. However, this study applied the methodology across

3 organizations to be able to learn more about the overall nonprofit-donor relationship. In order

to apply this design, the context had to be somewhat similar to warrant collapsing both sides of

the relationship at 3 institutions into the overall nonprofit-donor relationship.

Looking at the study from a different perspective, another limitation is that this study only

looked at nonprofits with missions in healthcare. Although many sources acknowledge that

healthcare, along with higher education, employs more fundraisers than the other nonprofit

subsectors outlined in chapter 2 (Kelly, 1998; Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2004),

these subsectors face the same challenges in cultivating relationships with donors. Healthcare is

one of the more often studied fundraising sectors because of its use of advanced strategies and

tactics; others in fundraising often look up to healthcare fundraisers, particularly those in

nonprofit hospitals, as they aspire to emulate their sophistication. However, other types of

nonprofit organizations, such as the United Way and the American Red Cross, are also leaders in

the nonprofit sector and excel at fundraising.









Another way to expand the reach of the study--even if it remains within the healthcare

sector--is to look at organizations of different sizes. The smallest nonprofit hospital in this

study in terms of its assets was San Francisco General Hospital, which had assets of $7.4 million

at the end of 2004, according to its IRS 990 Tax Form. Although these assets pale in comparison

to larger nationally-known charitable nonprofits, it is quite large given that many nonprofits

operate on significantly smaller budgets. Salamon (2002) notes that one of the greatest

difficulties in describing the sector is that the size of nonprofits varies considerably. To truly

capture the essence of the nonprofit-donor relationship, it is necessary to also include the

experiences of those donors who give to smaller organizations, which are more likely not to have

staff fundraisers. Without a doubt, the relationship cultivation process would be different for

these donors.

Although there would be differences in looking at the nonprofit-donor relationship

between large and small charitable nonprofits, studying the subsector that hires the most

fundraisers might also have yielded different results. Paralleling the healthcare subsector,

education fundraisers are also highly regarded within the fundraising community for their

expertise. The education sector may be even more diverse in its scope than healthcare, and it

includes organizations ranging from universities and colleges to private elementary and

secondary schools. An analysis of this sector may have produced different findings due to

broader diversity than looking simply at nonprofit hospitals. Just as healthcare has the

Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP), education fundraisers have established their

own organization, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).

Although this study examined 3 organizations of varying size and financial stature,

comparing and contrasting 2 organizations (e.g., of different sizes or of different nonprofit









subsectors) may serve as an important step in understanding which strategies are more successful

than others; however, the researcher would need to be much more active in this research design

as to eliminate any influence of other variables and to ensure that strategies are being carried out

in a similar manner.

In addition to questions about the population being studied, another limitation of the study

is the type of donors being studied. This study compared the views of annual giving and maj or

gift donors, which was categorized based on yearly giving totals of less than $10,000 for annual

giving and $10,000 or more for major gift donors. As indicated in chapter 1, there are other

vehicles for charitable giving, most notably planned giving and e-Philanthropy. Planned giving,

unlike the other forms of fundraising, is most often initiated by the donor rather than a

fundraising team member. Donors seek out planned giving opportunities to create charitable gift

annuities, charitable remainder trusts, and estate planning options, whereas fundraising team

members actively solicit for annual giving and major gift donations. Given the inherent

differences in the nature of the gift, an individual establishing a planned gift with an organization

may experience the nonprofit-donor relationship differently than either annual or major gift

donors.

Similarly, the rapid growth ofe-Philanthropy is pushing nonprofit organizations to rethink

their annual giving programs. e-Philanthropy is an alternative to nonprofit organizations'

traditional direct mail, workplace, and telephone solicitations. Though public relations scholars

have discussed the impact of the Internet on developing relationships with key stakeholders

(Kent & Taylor, 1998; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Ki, 2003), there has been little discussion about

the differences that exist when a stakeholder group develops a cyber-relationship with an

organization versus a relationship built on human contact with that organization. Baker (2005)










highlights that the growth of e-Philanthropy is surging and that nonprofits are increasingly using

this giving vehicle to reduce expenses related to their annual giving programs. With e-

Philanthropy becoming more commonplace, it is necessary to explore this aspect of the

nonprofit-donor relationship.

By including planned giving and e-Philanthropy donors in the research process, the current

study would have been able to generalize more about the nonprofit-donor relationship.

However, as Kelly (1998) highlights, there are 2 other donor publics that also need to be

examined. Although they give significantly less in aggregate than individual donors,

corporations and foundations provide charitable nonprofits with several billion dollars per year.

Their insights would be valuable to enrich the research, as it would round out the scope of the

nonprofit-donor relationship.

One final limitation of the study is based on the study's data collection procedures. First,

the data concerning giving history were reported by the donor participants rather than being

pulled from their actual giving records housed in the participating organizations' donor

databases. Though the answers were anonymously reported, the donors may have intentionally

or unintentionally skewed the results by reporting inaccurate information. The survey asked

donors to report the number of times they had donated to the 3 hospitals in a given time period.

Donors typically estimate that they have given more than they actually have. Whether this is due

to wanting to provide socially acceptable answers that make the respondent look and feel good or

simply forgetting how many times and how much money was given, false answers inadvertently

influences the data analysis. Had the study been able to link an individual's survey response

with his or her donor record without breaking the promise of anonymity, then the findings would

have been more solid.









Finally, because the study used survey research, it is difficult to establish true causality.

Survey research focuses on the study of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of people at a given

moment. So while statistical analysis shows that the donors' evaluation of the relationship

dimensions was able to predict past involvement with the nonprofit organizations' fundraising

campaigns, to demonstrate a causal relationship. An experiment would have been more

appropriate to draw such conclusions.

Suggestions for Future Research

This study has created several new research streams that can benefit both fundraising and

public relations in terms of professional applications and theory building. First, the current study

raises several questions that can be explored about the dynamics of the nonprofit-donor

relationship. As highlighted in the limitations section, this study focused exclusively on

healthcare nonprofits. Given the sophistication of the fundraising function in this subsector, it

would be interesting to compare these results to those obtained from other types of charitable

nonprofits, such as arts and culture or public/society benefit organizations. Perhaps comparing

these Eindings to religious organizations, which receive the most charitable gift dollars in the

United States from individual donors, or to educational nonprofits, which hire the most staff

fundraisers, would produce intriguing findings that would provide insights into relationship

development and management for fundraisers.

As noted in chapter 2, much of the knowledge on the importance of relationships in

fundraising is built on anecdotal evidence in practitioner literature. Though these findings help

provide a theoretical perspective on relationships, more work needs to be done to fully

understand the nonprofit-donor relationship. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) originally discussed 2

types of relationships in their original monograph, communal and exchange. Waters (2006)









found that donors view the nonprofit-donor relationship as a communal one rather than an

exchange relationship.

Hung (2006) introduced a continuum of relationship types that has yet to be tested through

social scientific research methods. These 5 types of the organization-public relationship

(exploitive, contractual, exchange, covenantal, and communal) should be explored in the

nonprofit-donor relationship. Perhaps, different donors view the relationship differently based

on their levels of involvement with a nonprofit organization. For example, a volunteer, who also

happens to be a donor, may perceive the relationship to be more contractual, while a former

client or customer of the nonprofit may become a donor and view the relationship as being

exchange-oriented. Scales need to be developed so public relations scholars can pursue

understanding the different types of relationships and their impact on public relations and

fundraising management.

The conflict resolution strategies proposed by Plowman (1995, 1996, 1998) were omitted

from this study because of the assumed lack of conflict between nonprofit organizations and

donors. In retrospect, these strategies may be applicable beyond situations involving scandals or

controversies in the nonprofit setting. The conflict resolution diagram proposed by Plowman

(1995) and illustrated by Figure 6-1 might be appropriate for a scholarly understanding of maj or

gift negotiations. By examining nonprofit organizations' and donors' willingness or intent to

participate in a maj or gift negotiation, it would be possible to learn more about the power

balance between the 2 parties. Although this study found that maj or gift donors viewed the

power as balanced, a more interesting approach would have been to focus exclusively on maj or

gift negotiations to determine the different approaches and thought processes the 2 sides of the

nonprofit-donor relationship experience when considering the donation. By focusing on major










gift donors and their relationships with nonprofit organizations, it would be possible to determine

if the 2 sides could resolve conflict through cooperation or compromise to see if they could reach

the "win-win" zone rather than avoid being involved in the nonprofit-donor relationship.

Finally, as far as the nonprofit-donor relationship is concerned, it would be interesting to

study the impact of technology and e-Philanthropy on the relationship. Ki (2003) has explored

how Fortune 500 companies develop relationships online with their stakeholders, and Waters

(2007) has assessed the information provided by charitable nonprofits on the Philanthropy 400

list concerning their fundraising, accountability, and transparency efforts. However, now that

this study, as well as Ki's (2006) dissertation, provides more solid operationalizations of

relationship cultivation strategies, reexamining the Web sites of nonprofit organizations using

access, openness, and reporting, among other relationship cultivation strategies, might offer

greater insights into how they develop cyber-relationships with donors.

The results of the current study also raise many questions for future public relations

scholars to explore in areas other than fundraising. The newly proposed stewardship scales

could simply be tested and refined by examining their relevance in other public relations settings:

however, as this study demonstrated, it may not be suitable to simply test the relationship

cultivation scales in other settings. Keeping Littlejohn's (2002) criteria for judging theory in

mind, the current organization-public relationship scholarship is becoming cumbersome with the

large number of cultivation strategies that can be pulled from theory, practice, or a combination

of both. Although not the original intent of this study, the newly presented cultivation strategies

in chapter 5--communication and information provision, cooperation, relationship nurturing,

responsibility, and conflict resolution--may help simplify the theory. Perhaps with a shortened,

simplified approach to the conceptualization of relationship cultivation strategies, these strategies









can help elicit further scholarly inquiry into the presence and impact of these strategies on the

organization-public relationship.

Concerning the cultivation strategies, one additional approach to better understand the role

these strategies play in the maintenance and development of organization-public relationships is

to broaden our current approach to defining the strategies available to practitioners. While the

application of interpersonal relationship dimensions, drawn from literature and theory, seems to

have served the field well in the early stages of defining the organization-public relationship, it

appears that the application of the interpersonal relationship cultivation strategies may have lost

some of their original meaning when translated to the organization-public relationship. As

highlighted in chapter 5, sociology, anthropology, and business administration all have

approached relationship cultivation differently. Perhaps these academic disciplines might offer

additional insight into the organization-public relationship.

Another approach to understanding relationship cultivation would be to turn to public

relations practitioners for suggestions. Kelly's (2000, 2001) stewardship scales had a stronger

impact on the nonprofit-donor relationship than those derived from interpersonal communication

theory. The stewardship scales originated from the career experiences of fundraising

practitioners. By stopping to rethink the field's approach to measuring relationship cultivation,

the relationship management theory may be able to bring the 2 groups of relationship

management scholars, those using Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) approach and those exploring

relationships under the tutelage of Bruning and Ledingham (1999), together to create a stronger

and more powerful paradigm for public relations scholarship.

Although the cultivation strategies may need to be simplified, the results of this study

indicate that there may be reason to add new dimensions to the 4 measured by current










organization-public relationship studies. Trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality

were only able to explain 60 percent of the variance in how donors evaluated the overall

relationship. Anecdotal evidence and scholarly research from other disciplines indicate that

additional dimensions may be present in the organization-public relationship. As discussed in

chapter 5, admiration, appreciation, and conflict have all been studied in interpersonal

communication literature (e.g., Furman & Buhrmester, 1992); however, they were left behind by

public relations scholars. With scales existing in interpersonal communication literature that

could be adapted for public relations studies, these 3 relationship dimensions seem to offer

significant promise for future organization-public relations studies.

Finally, though the coorientation method has frequently been discussed as a perspective

that should be used in analyzing the organization-public relationship, this is one of the first

attempts to study relationship management using Broom and Dozier' s prescribed methodology.

By bringing the organizational decision makers or dominant coalition into the measurement

picture, scholars are able to better understand the relationship; thus, they are in a better position

to develop a higher theory of relationship management for the public relations Hield. Also, from

a practitioner perspective, the comparison of the 2 sides through t-tests that examine agreement,

accuracy, and perceived agreement enables the public relations department to make better

decisions in planning programming or to convince the dominant coalition that things may not be

as positive as they thought.

The use of the coorientation methodology can help provide a greater understanding of

relationship dynamics. Though this study only examined agreement, accuracy and perceived

agreement between donors and the fundraising team on the relationship dimension measures

(commitment, satisfaction, trust and control mutuality), a future study that examined the 2 sides'










perspectives on the different relationship cultivation strategies could be equally intriguing. Do

both sides value the same types of maintenance and cultivation strategies? If an organization

believes it is being very open but donors want more openness and reporting, then work can be

done to resolve the situation and seek a mutually beneficial "win-win zone" through

conversations between the 2 sides.

The application of this methodology should be embraced by all facets of public relations

research not just fundraising. Though Sallot and her research team (1998) used coorientation to

examine the media relations practitioner-j ournalist relationship, very little scholarship exists

within the scope of other public relations specializations, such as public affairs or consumer

relations. By applying the coorientation methodology to these different sub-functions, different

results may emerge. Studying the organization-public relationship in activist settings or

situations involving employers and labor unions may provide insights into the role conflict and

disagreement plays in the relationship. The current study found that the nonprofit-donor

relationship was positive overall. However, organization-public relationships are not all positive.

By studying relationships where conflict may be present, public relations scholars can further

challenge the current understanding of relationship management.

This study deepened our understanding of the nonprofit-donor relationship and questioned

the traditional approach to measuring the organization-public relationship. While the study's

hypotheses were supported, thereby validating the field's knowledge on relationship

management, answers to the research questions pose another set of questions for future research

to explore. Public relations scholarship of the organization-public relationship has come to a

crossroad. To advance our theoretical framework, future studies can no longer solely measure

the stakeholders' perspective of the organization-public relationship. Future research must









examine the impact of the views of organizational managers, including the dominant coalition, in

different public relations settings. Understanding the views of both sides of the organization-

public relationship in terms of the relationship dimensions and the strategies used to cultivate the

relationship will advance and expand relationship management theory. While many public

relations specializations have yet to be tested using the traditional organization-public

relationship approach, replication of previous studies in new settings will do little to advance

theory. By testing new thoughts and scales proposed by this study in new public relations

domains, the field's understanding of organization-public relationships will increase and perhaps

bring public relations scholars and public relations practitioners closer together in efforts to

demonstrate the profession's value to organizations.


High

Contending Cooperating



Nonprofit
Organization Compromising
Intent





Avoiding Accommodating

Low High
Donor Intent

Figure 6-1. Conflict resolution diagram applied to the fundraising profession.











APPENDIX A
SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL DONORS

For each of the statements below, please evaluate your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital in the left
column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the
statement in the right column. Please circle the number that best represents your response from the 9-point scale
provided, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree.
~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi te as a Iin fa
Donor ofSan
Francisco General
Francisco General Hsia'
Hospital'
HospitalFundraisers
SD SA SD SA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization respects its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors are attentive to each other's needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
with its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors are happy with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Both the organization and its donors benefit from the relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 4 6 78 9The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donorS 123456789
are important.

1 2 4 6 78 9I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its123456789
donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
concerned about its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors are happy with their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I believe donors have influence on the decision-makers of the
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
organization.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
when making decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
has established with me.

1 2 4 6 78 9Compared to other nonprofit organizations, I value my relationship with 123456789
this organization more.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel confident about the organization's ability to accomplish its mission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
over the situation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization gives donors say in the decision-making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9











For each of the statements below, please evaluate how San Francisco General Hospital develops relationships with
its donors in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital
would respond to the statement in the right column. Use the same 9-point scale, where 1 equals strongly' disagree
and 9 equals strongly' agree, to indicate your response.

~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi re as a
I iew ofSan
Donor ofSan rnic era
FFrancisco General
Francisco General
Hospital Hsia
Fundraisers
SD SA SD SA
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact
123456789 123456789
information.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Receiving regular communications from the organization iS123456789
beneficial to donors.

The organization's annual report is a valuable source of information
123456789 123456789
for donors.

The organization and donors do not work well together at solving
123456789 123456789
problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
responses to donors' concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that123456789
address issues that donors care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization's communication with donors is courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not provide donors with enough information
123456789 123456789
about what it does with donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care 123456789
about.

The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are
123456789 123456789
useless to donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization communicates the importance of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is
123456789 123456789
willing to answer their mnqumres.

The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors
123456789 123456789
enjoyable.
The organization provides donors with enough information to
123456789 123456789
understand the issues it faces.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful 123456789
for its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization works with donors to develop solutions that
123456789 123456789
benefit donors.

The organization provides donors with adequate contact
123456789 123456789
information for specific staff on specific issues.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The information the organization provides donors with is of little
use to them.
Continued next page

















SD SA SD SA
The organization shares enough information with donors about the
123456789 123456789
organization s governance.
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to
123456789 123456789
mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with other community groups are123456789
useful to its donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their 123456789
concerns.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timelV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
manner.

The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my
123456789 123456789
donations.

The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their
123456789 123456789
contributions.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Because of my previous donations, the organization recognizes me 123456789
as a friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization's annual report details how much money was
123456789 123456789
raised in that year.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization does not provide donors with information about
how their donations were used.

The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use
123456789 123456789
their donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will 123456789
of the donors.

Donors have confidence that the organization will use their
123456789 123456789
donations wisely.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors what projects their donors will fund. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting
123456789 123456789
donations.

The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with
123456789 123456789
its relationships with donors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization invites donors to participate in special events that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
it holds.

Now thinking overall about your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital, please circle the number that corresponds to holy you view
your relationship on the following scale:

Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative


Your Estimate of the
I iew ofSan
Franc sc t(eneral

Fundraisers


Your Vi re as a
Donor ofSan
Francisco Gaeneral










Please answer the following questions based on your personal demographic information to help us interpret your
answers to better serve you and your community.

What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age? Years old

What is your race? African-American/Black Asian Caucasian

Hispanic/Latino Middle Eastern Native American Other:

How long have you lived in your current community?
Less than 1 year _1 to 2 years _2 to 5 years
5 to 10 years _10 to 20 years _20 years or longer

What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (check one)

High school _Four-year college degree _Advanced degree (MS, MBA, Ph.D.)
Other:

What is your current employment status?

Employed full-time _Employed part-time _Unemployed _Retired
Student Homemaker Other:

What was your approximate household income last year before taxes? $

What was your first contact with San Francisco General Hospital? (check one)
Patient Family member was a patient _Friend was a patient

Employed by hospital Family member employed by hospital Friend employed by hospital
Partnership with community organization _Partnership with government organization
Other:

Have you been a patient at San Francisco General Hospital? Yes No

Please answer the following questions about your charitable giving.

How many years have you been donating to San Francisco General Hospital?

Approximately how much in total did you donate to the hospital last year? $

On average, how much have you donated to the hospital per year during the last five years? $


Including the hospital, how many organizations do you donate to each year, on average?


Approximately how much in total did you donate to all charitable organizations last year? $



7Jhat completes the survey. Please return the survey to the University ofFlorida research team
by using the enclosed self-addressed sttttttttttttttttamped envelope. Thank you for your help.











APPENDIX B
SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING TEAM MEMBERS

For each of the statements below, please evaluate your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital in the left
column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the
statement in the right column. Please circle the number that best represents your response from the 9-point scale
provided, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree.
~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi te as a Iin fa
Fundraising Team
MemberFrancisco General
Hospital's Donors
SD SA SD SA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization respects its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors are attentive to each other's needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
with its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors are happy with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Both the organization and its donors benefit from the relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 4 6 78 9The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donorS 123456789
are important.
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
concerned about its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors are happy with their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I believe donors have influence on the decision-makers of the
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
organization.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
when making decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 4 6 78 9Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization 123456789
has established with me.

1 2 4 6 78 9Compared to other nonprofit organizations, I value my relationship with 123456789
this organization more.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel confident about the organization's ability to accomplish its mission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
over the situation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization gives donors say in the decision-making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9











For each of the statements below, please evaluate how San Francisco General Hospital develops relationships with
its donors in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital
would respond to the statement in the right column. Use the same 9-point scale, where 1 equals strongly' disagree
and 9 equals strongly' agree, to indicate your response.


~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi re as a
I iew ofSan
Fundraising Team rnic era
MemberFrnscGera
Hospital's Donors
SD SA SD SA
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact
123456789 123456789
information.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Receiving regular communications from the organization iS123456789
beneficial to donors.

The organization's annual report is a valuable source of information
123456789 123456789
for donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving 123456789
problems.
The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal
123456789 123456789
responses to donors' concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that123456789
address issues that donors care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization's communication with donors is courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not provide donors with enough information
123456789 123456789
about what it does with donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care 123456789
about.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are123456789
useless to donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization communicates the importance of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is
123456789 123456789
willing to answer their mnqumres.

The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors
123456789 123456789
enjoyable.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with enough information to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
understand the issues it faces.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful 123456789
for its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization works with donors to develop solutions that
123456789 123456789
benefit donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization provides donors with adequate contact123456789
information for specific staff on specific issues.

The information the organization provides donors with is of little
123456789 123456789
use to them.
Continued next pg











~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi re as a
Fundraising Team ieofa
MemberFrancisco General
Hsta's Donors
SD SA SD SA
The organization shares enough information with donors about the
123456789 123456789
organization s governance.
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to
123456789 123456789
mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with other community groups are123456789
useful to its donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their 123456789
concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timelV
manner.

The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my
123456789 123456789
donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their 2468
contributions.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Because of my previous donations, the organization recognizes me 123456789
as a friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization's annual report details how much money was
123456789 123456789
raised in that year.

The organization does not provide donors with information about
123456789 123456789
how their donations were used.

The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use
123456789 123456789
their donations.

12 34 56 7 89 The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will 12 34 56 78 9
of the donors.

123456789 Donors have confidence that the organization will use their 2468
donations wisely.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors what projects their donors will fund. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting
123456789 123456789
donations.

The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with
123456789 123456789
its relationships with donors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization invites donors to participate in special events that
123456789 123456789
it holds.

Now thinking overall about your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital, please circle the number that corresponds to holy you view
your relationship on the following scale:

Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative










Please answer the following questions based on your personal demographic information to help us interpret your
answers to better serve you and your community.

What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age? Years old

What is your race? African-American/Black Asian Caucasian

Hispanic/Latino Middle Eastern Native American Other:

How long have you lived in your current community?
Less than 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years
5 to 10 years _10 to 20 years 20 years or longer

What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (check one)

High school _Four-year college degree _Advanced degree (MS, MBA, Ph.D.)
Other:

What is your current employment status?

Employed full-time _Employed part-time _Unemployed _Retired
Student Homemaker Other:

What was your approximate household income last year before taxes? $

What was your first contact with San Francisco General Hospital? (check one)
Patient Family member was a patient _Friend was a patient

Employed by hospital Family member employed by hospital Friend employed by hospital
Partnership with community organization _Partnership with government organization
Other:

Have you been a patient at San Francisco General Hospital? Yes No

For these final questions, please answer about your charitable giving.

How many years have you been donating to San Francisco General Hospital?

Approximately how much in total did you donate to the hospital last year? $

On average, how much have you donated to the hospital per year during the last five years? $


Including the hospital, how many organizations do you donate to each year, on average? $


Approximately how much in total did you donate to all charitable organizations last year? $



That completes the survey. Please return the survey to the University of Florida research team
by using the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your help.









APPENDIX C
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT
APPROVAL

Dear (INSERT DONOR NAME),

(INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) is participating in a research proj ect with the University of
Florida to better understand the relationship between nonprofit organizations and their donors.
Participation in the survey is completely voluntary. (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) does
not give out personal information to anyone, so we are informing you about this proj ect rather
than the research team. To participate, please read the following information about the proj ect
and complete the enclosed survey. Then, place the completed survey in the self-addressed
stamped envelope and mail it back to the researchers.

Thank you,

(INSERT FUNDRAISER' S NAME)

Protocol Title: Relationship Management and Cultivation Strategies in Nonprofit Fundraising

Please read this consent document carefully before deciding to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the importance of
relationship building between nonprofit organizations and their donors.

What you will be asked to do in the study: Upon reading the description about the proj ect and
agreeing to participate, you will be asked to complete the enclosed survey. The survey consists
of two sets of questions: (1) questions about your relationship with (INSERT ORGANIZATION
NAME) and (2) questions about your individual demographics. Your name and email address
are not being asked for. Information will be provided to (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME)
about the views of its donors, and they will relay information to donors through the
organization's Web site in October, 2007.

Time required: 15-20 minutes

Risks and benefits: There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or economic risks
involved with the study. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study;
however, (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) will benefit from your participation by being
able to streamline its fundraising programs to become more efficient and cost-effective.

Compensation: There is no financial compensation for participating in this research.

Confidentiality: Neither your name nor contact information will be collected. Your completed
survey will be assigned a code number. The data will be kept confidential to the extent provided
by law. Your demographic profile will not be used in any report.









Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not
participating.

Right to withdraw: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without
consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
Richard D. Waters, Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Public Relations, College of Journalism and
Communications, University of Florida, (352) 359-6837, rwiaters@jou.ufl.edu

Dr. Kathleen, S. Kelly, Professor, Dept. of Public Relations, College of Journalism and
Communications, University of Florida, (352) 392-9359, kskelly@jou.ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:

University of Florida Institutional Review Board Office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, (352) 392-0433, irb2@ufl.edu

Agreement: By signing on the following line and completing the following survey, I
acknowledge that I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in
the procedure, and I have received a copy of this description.


Signature of Participant Date




Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2006-U-1151
For Use Through 01/07/2008









APPENDIX D
LETTER MAILED TO DONORS BY THE NONPROFIT HOSPITALS

The following letter was printed on organizational letterhead and mailed by the fundraising

directors at the three nonprofit hospitals to the donors included in the random sample. The

content of the letter was kept very general so that it would be approved by all three participating

organizations. Components of the letter that were tailored by the organizations, such as hospital

name and the donors' contact information, have been replaced by fields that were updated using

the mail merge function.

February 5, 2007

(FIRST NAME) (LAST NAME)
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), (STATE) (ZIP CODE)


Dear (DONOR NAME),

(HOSPITAL NAME) needs your help! No, we're not asking for money. We need your

input to help make our fundraising efforts more efficient. We are working with a research team

at the University of Florida that specializes in fundraising to better understand and improve the

relationship we have with our donors.

This survey focuses on the different strategies that (HOSPITAL NAME) uses to develop

relationships with donors. Your answers will be combined with other donors to help us

understand the views of our community. Your participation will help us streamline and improve

our fundraising programs. Reevaluating our fundraising efforts will allow us to focus our efforts

on ways that we can pursue the mission of (HOSPITAL NAME) more efficiently.

You were randomly selected from our donor database to participate in the survey. The

survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your response is extremely important

and valuable for the results because a limited number of surveys were distributed. Your answers









will be used for statistical purposes and will remain strictly confidential to the extent provided by

law. Your responses are confidential, and we will not share any personal information with the

research team.

If you decide to participate in our efforts, please read and sign the enclosed informed

consent document, which details the purpose of the survey. Please return the signed document as

well as the completed survey to the research team at the University of Florida by using the self-

addressed, stamped return envelope. If you have any questions about the project, please feel free

to contact me at (PHONE NUMBER) or e-mail me at (EMAIL ADDRESS). Thank you for your

continued support of (HOSPITAL NAME).

Sincerely,

(NAME)
(TITLE)
(NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION)









APPENDIX E
POSTCARD REMINDER MAILED TO DONORS BY NONPROFIT HOSPITALS

Postcards were mailed three days after the surveys were mailed, following the process

recommended by Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004). The following text appeared on a

postcard reminder that was mailed to donors included in each hospitals' random sample:

Recently, you received a letter encouraging your completion of a survey designed to help

us improve our fundraising efforts. If you have already completed the survey, thank you!

If you have not had the time to finish the survey yet, we hope you will take a few moments

to complete it and use the self-address stamped return envelope to return the survey to the

research team. The results of the survey will help us design a fundraising plan that will

help us more effectively and efficiently pursue the mission of (Name of Hospital). Thank

you in advance for your participation!










REFERENCE LIST


Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1999). Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations:
A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Vohmntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 416-431.

Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value and
meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal ofPersonality, 73(1), 79-
114.

AHP. (2007). AHP membership. Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, Falls Church, VA.
Retrieved online April 1, 2007, from http://www.ahp. org/membership/index.php .

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies
for conducting a survey. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Aperia, T., Brann, P. S., & Schultz, M. (2004). A reputation analysis of the most visible
companies in the Scandinavian countries. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 218-230.

Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69-97.

Babble, E. (1998). The practice ofsocialresearch. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Baker, H. (2005). Tsunami relief giving. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University,
Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved March 9, 2005, from:
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/tsunami eifgvn_-18-05.html.

Beatty, S. E., Mayer, M., Coleman, J. E., Reynolds, K. E., & Lee, J. (1996). Customer-sales
associate retail relationships. Journal ofRetailing, 72(3), 223-247.

Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on
public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 17(1), 5-28.

Blum, D. E. (2005, November 18). Charities unaware of donors' perceptions. Business Week
Online, Red Oak, IA. Retreived April 21, 2007, from:
http://www.businessweek. com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051 1 18-23 69-db-085.htm.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations nI ithr latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bowers, J.W., & Courtwright, J. (1984). Communication research methods. Glenview, Ill: Scott,
Foresman and Co.

Bracht, N., Finnegan, Jr., J. R., Rissel, C., Weisbrod, R., Gleason, J., Corbett, J., & Veblen-
Mortenson, S. (1994). Community ownership and program continuation following a
health demonstration project. Health Education Research, 9(2), 243-255.










Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-93

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships: An update. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3-
22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to
program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale:
Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization-public
relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309-319.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics:
Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public
Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Public relations and consumer decisions: Examining
the influence of organization-public relationships on consumer behavior. In (Eds. Jerry
Biberman and Abbass Alkhafaji, Business Research Yearbook, International Academy of
Business Disciplines.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of
satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000b). Public relations as relationship management: A
relational approach to public relations. Mahwah, NJ:, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc..

Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. (2004). Examining city-resident relationships:
Linking community relations, relationship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations.
Public Relations Review, 30, 335-345.

Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2000). The role of relationships in public relations: Examining
the influence of relational attitudes on behavioral intent. Communication Research
Reports 17, 426-435.

Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2001). Using a relational approach to retaining students and
building mutually beneficial student-university relationships. Southern Communication
Journal, 66, 337-345.

Burlingname, D. F., & Hulse, L. J. (Eds.). (1991). Taking fund raising seriously: Ad'vancing
the profession and practice of raising money. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.
Communication M~onoguraphs, 59, 243-267.










Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservation of relational characteristics: Maintenance
strategies, equity, and locus of control. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), htterpersonal
conanunication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 237-259). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine
interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Conanunication and relational
maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A
contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 9(1), 31-63.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Cobb, N. K. (2002). The new philanthropy: Its impact on funding arts and culture. The Journal
ofArts Ma'~nagement, Law/, and Society, 32(2), 125-143.

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thomson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web-or
Internet-based surveys. Educational and psychological nzeasurentent, 60(6), 821-836.

Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management advantages of a relational perspective. In J. A.
Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship nzanagentent: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 73-93). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock. A. R. (2005). The uses of marketing theory: Constructs, research
propositions, and managerial implications. Marketing Theory, 5(2), 165-184.

Courtney, R. (2002). Strategic management for vohmntaly nonprofit organizations. New York:
Routl edge.

Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
ttrt~taditions.t~t~r~rtrt~ Newbury Park, CA: Sage publications.

Cutlip, S. (1990). Fund raising in the thrited States: Its role in Anerica's philanthropy. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Originally published 1965).

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., and Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.).
edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Daley, D. (2002). Red cross letter to 60 minutes details inaccuracies in March 10 report.
American Red Cross, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 20, 2007, from
http://www.redcross.org/news/other/special00151lettersixtymin.html.










de Rivera, J., & Grinkis, C. (1986). Emotions as social relationships. Motivation andEmotion,
10(4), 351-369.

DellaVedova, J. P. (2005). Measuring relationships: A model for evaluating U.S. air force
public affairs programs. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

DiPerna, P. (2003). Media, charity, and philanthropy in the aftermath of September 11. In N.
Coe (Ed.), September 11: Perspectives from the field of philanthropy, volume 2 (pp. 149-
158). Washington, DC: The Foundation Center.

Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the
literature tells us about their effects. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations
and communication management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). Managing the nonprofit organization. New York: Collins.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 51(April), 11-27.

Dychi, J. (2001). The crm handbook: A business guide to customer relationship management.
Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an
organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, &
J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 616-
638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferguson (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Association for education in
Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, Gainesville, FL.

Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building a relationship that gets to yes.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fogal, R. E. (2005). Designing and managing the fundraising program. In R. D. Herman (Ed.),
The Jossey-Bass Handbook ofNonprofit Leadership and Management (pp. 419-43 5). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fowler, Jr., F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Frommer, D. (2006). America's most wired cities. Forbes, New York, NY. Retrieved October
3 1, 2006, from http ://www.forbes.com/2006/08/30O/wireless-wired-
broadband cx df 0831Iwiredcities.html.










Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in
their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of
personal relationships. ChildDevelopment, 63(1), 103-115.

Gilbert, M. C. (1999). Interview with Pete Mountanos of charitable way. Nonprofit Online
News, Seattle, WA. Retrieved online April 21, 2007, from
http:.//news.gilb ert. org/features/featureReader$3 594.

Giving USA Foundation (2006). 2005 contributions: $260.28 billion by source and
contribution. The Giving Institute, Glenview, IL. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from
http://www.givinginstitute.org/charts/inde f~gcat.cfm&ID=xgusal.

Glaser, J. S. (1993). The united way scandal: An insider 's account of what went wrong and
why. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Goodwin, R. (2004). Garnering major gifts. Custom Development Solutions, Inc., Mt.
Pleasant, SC. Retrieved online April 18, 2007, from
http://www.cdsfunds. com/garnering~maj or_gifts.html.

Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M. A. (1998). Relationship marketing effectiveness: The
role of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 443-459.

Grace, K.S., & Wendroff, A.L. (2001). High impact philanthropy: How donors, boards, and
nonprofit organizations can transfor~rmt~rt~rt~rt~rt~ communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Greenfield, J. M. (1996). Fund-raising cost effectiveness: A self-assessment workbook. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities,
commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of
Marketing, 64(3), 34-49.

Grunig, J. E. (1966). The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism
M~onoguraphs,No. 3.

Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital.
Journalism Quarterly, 55, 109-118.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship
outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23-
54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.










Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and
practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management: Contributions to Effective Organizations (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how
excellent public relations departments respond. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public
relations and communication management: Contributions to effective organizations (pp.
483-501). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J.
E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.),
Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations:
Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340-361.

Hall, M. R. (1993). The dean 's role in fundraising. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University
Press.

Hall, M. R. (2002). Fundraising and public relations: A comparison of programme concepts
and characteristics. International Journal ofNonprojit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
7(4), pp. 368-381.

Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring
relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1-21.

Hall, P. D. (2005). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States. In
R. D. Herman (Ed.), 7Jhe Jossey-Bass H~andbook ofNonprofit Leadership and Management
(pp. 3-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harvard University Library. (2006). Papers of Henry Dunster and the Dunster family: An
inventory. Harvard University Library, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved online April 18, 2007,
from http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/pasis/delivr~u204

Havens, J. J., & Schervish, P. G. (2005). Geography and generosity: Boston and Beyond.
Boston College: Center on Wealth and Philanthropy.

Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1990). Involvement: A key variable in people's reaction to public
policy issues. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual
(Vol. 2, pp. 193-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.










Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1991). Effects of involvement on reactions to sources of messages
and to message clusters. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research
annual (Vol. 3, pp. 179-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of
nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Vohmntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 185-
206.

Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts
between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 9(1), 23-38.

Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective
local nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 146-160.

Hibbert, S., & Home, S. (1996). Giving to charity: Questioning the donor decision process.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 4-13 .

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.
Journal of2anagementn, 21(5), 967-988.

Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the
communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Conanunication Research, 28(4), 531-551.

Holtz, S. (1999). Public relations on the Net: Winning strategies to inform and in/htence the
media, the investment conanunity, the government, the public, and more! AMACOM:
New York.

Hon, L., & Brunner, B. (2002). Measuring public relationships among students and
administrators at the University of Florida. Journal of Conanunication Management, 6(3),
227-238.

Hon, L. C. & Grunig, J. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations Research.

Howard, C. M., & Mathews, W. K. (1995). On deadline: Managing media relations. Prospect
Heights, Ill: Waveland Press, Inc.

Howe, F. (2001). The boardnzenber 's guide to fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoyle, R. H. (1991). Evaluating measurement models in clinical research: Covariance structure
analysis of latent variable models of self-conception. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59, 67-76.

Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict nzanagentent
strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.










Huang, Y. H. (2001). Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relations
mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 265-301.

Hung, C. J. F. (2000, November). Organization-public relationships, relationship maintenance
strategies, and relationship outcomes. Paper presented to the Educator's Academy, Public
Relations Society of America, Miami, FL.

Hung, C. J. F. (2000b). Global public relations: A study ofpublic relations in China f~on
economic systems perspectives. Paper presented to the Educator' s Academy, Public
Relations Society of America, World Congress, Chicago

Hung, C. J. F. (2002). The interplays of relationship tyipes, relationship cultivation, and
relationship outcomes: How multinational and Taiwanese companies practice public
relations and organization-public relationship nzanagentent in China. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Hung, C. J. F. (2004). Cultural influence on relationship cultivation strategies: Multinational
companies in China. Journal of Conanunication Management, 8(3), 264-28 1.

Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization-public relations and their implications
for relationship management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research,
17(4), 393-426.

Hung, C. J. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations: How
to cultivate quality relationships? In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The Future of Excellence in Public
Relations and Conanunications Ma'~naggement Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages, Human Conanunication
Research, 9, pp. 169-91.

Jo, S. (2003). Measurement of organization-public relationships: Validation of neasurentent
using a nzanufacturer-retailer relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2005). Organisation-public relationships: Measurement
validation in a university setting. Journal of Conanunication Management, 9(1), 14-.

Jordan, R. R., & Quynn, K. L. (2001). Marketing: printed materials and publications for donors
and prospects. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 824-
833). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Joireskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Ed s.), Testing Structural Equation M~odels (pp. 294-3 16). Newbury Park: Sage.

Inglis, S. (1997). Roles of the board in amateur sport organizations. Journal of Sport
Management, 11, 160-176.










Kaid L. L. (1989). Content analysis. In P. Emmert & LL Barker (Eds.), M~easurement of
conanunication behavior (pp. 197-217). New York: Longman.

Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations' use of the World Wide Web: Are
they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30(3), 279-284.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101.

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational
strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Consputer-M\~ediated Conanunication, 11(2),
article 1.

Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hill sdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelly, K. S. (1995). Utilizing public relations theory to conceptualize and test models of fund
raising. Journalism and Ma~ss Conanunication Quarterly, 72(1), 106-127.

Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund-rai~sing nzanagentent. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Kelly, K. S. (1998b, November). Four organizational roles of fund raisers: An exploratory
study. Paper presented to the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) 27th annual conference, Seattle, WA.

Kelly, K. S. (2000). Stewardship: The missing step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelly, K. S. (2001). ROPES: A model of the fund-raising process. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.),
The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 96-116). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kelly, K. S. (2002). The state of fund-raising theory and research. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New
strategies for educational fund raising. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

Kelly, K. S., Thompsom, M., & Waters, R. D. (2006). Improving the way we die: A
coorientation study assessing agreement/di agreement in the organization-public
relationship of hospices and physicians. Journal of Health Conanunication, 11(6), 607-
627.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide
Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321- 334.

Ki, E. J. (2003). Relationship maintenance strategies on Fortune 500 company Web sites.
Unpublished master' s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.










Ki, E. J. (2004, May). Relationship maintenance strategies on web sites: How do different
industries utilize relationship maintenance strategies? Paper presented to the 2004 Annual
Conference of International Communication Association, New Orleans.

Ki, E. J. (2006). Linkages among relationship maintenance strategies, relationship quality
outcomes, attitude, and behavioral intentions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2005, August). Testing the linkages among the organization-public
relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, San Antonio, TX.

Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship
and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1-23.

Ki, E. J., & Shin, J. H. (2005, May). The status of organization-public relationship research in
public relations: Analysis of published articles between 1985 and 2004. Paper presented to
the International Communication Association annual conference, New York.

Kinzey, R. (1999). Using public relations strategies to promote your nonprofit organization.
New York: Haworth Press.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). A simple guide to advanced staitistcsfor SPSS, version 13. 0. Boston:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Kopenhaver, L. L., Martinson, D. L., & Ryan, M. (1984). How public relations practitioners
and editors in Florida view each other. Journalism Quarterly, 61(4), 860-865.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational
theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 285-295.

Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public
relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 18 1-198.

Ledingham, J. A. (2006, August). A chronology of organization-stakeholder relationships with
recommendations concerning practitioner adoption of the relational perspective. Paper
presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual
convention, San Francisco, CA.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55-65.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.










Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, J. A., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of
interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of
relational loyalty. Academy of2anageral Communications Journal, 1, 23-43.

Lenkowsky, L. (2002). Foundations and corporate philanthropy. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The
State ofNonprofit America (pp. 355-386). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Light, P. C. (2003, December). To give or not to give: The crisis of confidence in charities.
Reform Watch 7. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Light, P. C. (2005, September). What it takes to make charities effective. The Chronicle of
Philanthropy, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 20, 2007 from
http://www.brookings. edu/vi ews/op-ed/light/200 5090 1.htm.

Lindahl, W. E. (1992). Strategic planning for fund raising: How to bring in more money using
strategic resource allocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Lohmann, R. (1992). The theory of the commons. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit
sector (pp. 297-310). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the
perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and~ndividual Differences, 35(3),
641-658.

MacCullum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in
psychological research. AnnualReview ofPsychology, 51, 201-226.

Matheny, R. E. (1999). Major gifts: Solicitation strategies. Washington, DC: CASE Books.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). In integrative model of organizational
trust. The Academy of2anagement Review, 20(3) 709-734.

McKenna, R. (1991). Relationship marketing: Successful strategies for the age of the
Customers. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research.
American Behavioral Scientist, 16(4), 469-499.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2001). Fit, failure, & the hall of fame: How companies succeed
or fail. New York: Free Press.

Minnesota Council for Nonprofits. (2004). Governance: Basics. Minnesota Council for
Nonprofits, St. Paul, MN. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from
http://www.mncn. org/b asi c_gov. htm.










Moss, B. (2003, September). Use your annual report and form 990 for marketing. Nonprofit
Fiscal Fitness, Blackbaud, Charleston, SC. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from
http:.//www.blackbaud. com/files/Newsletters/Fi scalFitness/2003/Fi scalFitnessSept2003 .pdf

Moss, D. (1995, June 23). Charity embezzler gets 7-year term. USA Today. UT Watch, Austin,
TX. Retrieved online April 20, 2007 from
http://www.utwatch.org/oldnews/usatoday untda__39.html.

Murphy, T. B. (2000). Financial and psychological determinants of donors' capacity to give.
New Directions in Phrikllambi IlpiL Fundraising, 29, 33-49.

National Academies of Science and Engineering. (2007 ). Charitable gift annuities. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 21, 2007, from
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/Giving/hrtbeGfAnuishm.

National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2006, May 26). NCCS quick facts. The Urban
Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 18, 2007, from
http://ncssdataweb .urban.org/NCC S/files/quickfacts.htm.

National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2007). NTEE classification system. The Urban
Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 19, 2007, from
http://nccsdatabweb .urb an. org/FAQ/index.php? category=73 .

Neal, K. (2001). A primer on nonprofit pr. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.

Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological
Review, 60, 393-404.

Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In N.
Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action
(pp. 288-308). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Nonprofit Congress. (2006). The United States nonprofit sector. National Council of Nonprofit
Associations, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 11, 2006, from
http ://www.nonprofitcongress. org/sites/nonprofitcogress. org/files/theme_editor/npcongress
/US sector report.pdf.

Nudd, S. P. (1991). Thinking strategically about information (pp.174-189). In H. A. Rosso
(Ed.), Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nyland, J. (1995). Issue networks and nonprofit organizations. Review ofPolicy Research, 14,
195-202.

O'Neil, J. (2006, August). The link between strong public relationships and donor support.
Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications
annual convention, San Francisco, CA.










O'Neil, J. (2007). The link between strong public relationships and donor support. Public
Relations Review, 33(1), 99-102.

Ojanen, M. (1996). Persuasion strategies applied in psychosocial rehabilitation. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6(2), 77-99.

Olsen, M., Keevers, M.L., Paul, J. & Covington, S. (2001). E-relationship development strategy
for the nonprofit fundraising professional. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 6, 364-373.

Ospina, S., Diaz, W., & O'Sullivan, J. F. (2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial
lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 31(1), 5-3 1.

Ott, R. L. (1993). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Boston: Duxbury
Press.

Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (1999). The domain and conceptual foundations of relationship
marketing. In J. N. Sheth and A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook ofrelationship marketing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2006). Daily Intemet activities. The Pew Research
Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from
http://www.pewintemet.org/trends/DailyItenetatviis719.06.htm.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2006b). Percentage of U.S. adults online. The Pew
Research Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from
http:.//www.pewintemnet. org/trends/InternetAdoption_4.26.0O6.pdf.

Plowman, K. D. (1995). Congruence between public relations and conflict resolution:
Negotiating in the organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Maryland, College Park.

Plowman, K. D. (1996, August). Negotiation and two-way models in public relations. Paper
presented to the Association for Education of Joumnalism and Mass Communication annual
convention, Anaheim, CA.

Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 10(4), 237-261.

Prince, R. & File, K. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy: A new approach to cultivating
major donors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ragins, E. J., & Greco, A. J. (2003). Customer relationship management and e-business: More
than a software solution. Review ofBusiness, 24(1), 25-31.










Ragsdale, J. D. (1995). Quality communication in achieving fundraising excellence. In D. A.
Brehmer (Ed.), Conanunicating effectively 0I ithr major donors (pp. 17-31). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Ritzenhein, D. N. (2000). One more time: How do you motivate donors? New Directions for


Rosso, H. (1991). Achieving excellence in fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state ofnonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.

Sallot, L. M., Steinfatt, T. M., & Salwen, M. B. (1998). Journalists' and public relations
practitioners' news values: Perceptions and cross-perceptions. Journalism and~a~ss
Conanunication Quarterly, 75(2), 366-377.

Sargeant, A. (2001). Using donor lifetime value to inform fundraising strategy. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 12(1), 25-38.

Sargeant, A. (2001b). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 12(2), 177-192.

Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser 's guide to increasing
hifetintevahue. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U. K. charity
sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Vohentary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185-
202.

Saxon-Harrold, S. K. E. (1999). Facts and findings, 3(1). Washington DC: Independent
Sector.

Schervish, P. G. (2005). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major
gifts. New Directions for Phrikllrl l b~ityi Fundraising, 47, 59-87.

Schoonraad, N. (2003). Ma'~nagnging inncial conanunication: Towards a conceptual model.
Unpublished master' s thesis. University of Pretoria, Hillcrest, Pretoria, South Africa.

Schwartz, J. J. (2001). Fund-raising overview. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit
handbook: Fund raising (pp. 2-14). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Seltzer, T. (2005). Measuring the impact ofpublic relations: Using a coorientational approach
to analyze the organization-public relationship. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public
Relations Research.

Smith, S. R. (2002). Social services. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state ofnonprofit America
(pp. 149-186). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.










Snavely, K., & Tracy, M. B. (2000). Collaboration among rural nonprofits. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 11(2), 145-166.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated ratings scales construction: An introduction. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Stacks, D. W., & Hocking, J. E. (1999). Communication research. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,
217-242.

Stevenson, Jr., M., & Chaves, E. (2006). The nature conservancy, the press, and accountability.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 345-366.

Tempel, E. R. (Ed.). (2003). Hank Rosso 's achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass

Tindall, N. (2004, August). Analysis of fund raising models at public historically Black
colleges and universities. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication annual convention. Toronto, CA.

Venture Philanthropy Partners. (2004). High-engagement philanthropy: A bridge to a more
effective social sector. Venture Philanthropy Partners, Washington, DC. Retrieved online
April 21, 2007 from http:.//www.vppartners. org/report2004. html.

Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). The origins of public relations theory in economics and
strategic management. Paper presented at the Second Intemnational Public Relations
Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.

Viscern.com. (2006). Welcome to viscem. Viscern, Inc., Dallas, TX. Retrieved online
September 7, 2006, from http://www.viscemn.com/cms/index.html.

Voss, G. B., Cable, D. M., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Linking organizational values to relationships
with external constituents: A study of nonprofit professional theatres. Organization
Science

Wagner, L. (2002). The "new" donor: Creation or evolution? International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 343-352.

Waters, R. D. (2000). Thze third-person effect and fund-raising communication: Testing social
and geographic distance. Unpublished master' s thesis, Syracuse University.

Waters, R. D. (2005, August). Fund raising on the intemet: A content analysis of ePhilanthropy
trends of the organizations on the Philan2thropy 400. Paper presented to the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, San Antonio,
TX.










Waters, R. D. (2006, August). Measuring the nonprofit-donor relationship: The impact of
relationship cultivation on donor renewal. Paper presented to the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, San Francisco, CA.

Waters, R. D. (2007). Building the nonprofit-donor relationship online: The increasing
importance of e-Philanthropy. In Duhe, S., & Adams, T. (Eds), M~ediated public relations:
Relationship nzanagentent across space, time and new media. Peter Lang USA: New York.

Waters, R. D., & Hendren, A. G. (2005, November). Fund raising for controversial issues: An
experimental approach using the inoculation theory. Paper presented to the National
Communication Association annual conference, Boston, MA.

Waters, R. D., Kelly, K. S., & Walker, M. L. (2005, August). The practitioner roles of fund
raising: An assessment of gender differences. Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, San Antonio, TX.

Weinstein, S. (2002). The complete guide to fundraising nzanagentent. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Whelan, D. (2002, October 16). What the certified fund-raising executive credential means-and
what it doesn't. Chronicle ofPhilan2thropy, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 19,
2007 from http://www.philanthropy.com/j obs/2002/10/3 1/2002103 1-91492.htm#where.

Worley, D. A. & Little, J. K. (2002). The critical role of stewardship in fund raising: The
coaches vs. cancer campaign. Public Relations Review, 28, 99-112.

Worth, M. J. (Ed.). (2002). New strategies for educational fund raising. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.

Zachrison, E. (2005). An interview with Erik Zachrison, general secretary. European
Fundraising Association, Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from
http://www.efa-net. eu/engli sh/dropdown~menue/li stofmembers.htm.

Zhang,Y. (1999). Using the Internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American
Society for htfornzation Science, 51(1), 57-68.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Richard D. Waters is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Public Relations in the

College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. His research interests

include technology and the fundraising process, relationship management and donor cultivation

in the nonprofit sector, and the use of public relations by nonprofit organizations. He is a former

fundraising practitioner and consultant to healthcare organizations in Northern California.

Before attending the University of Florida, Waters received his Master of Science degree

in public relations from the S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse

University in 2000 and his Bachelor of Arts in journalism from the Grady College of Journalism

at the University of Georgia in 1998.





PAGE 1

1 ADVANCING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THEORY: COORIENTATION AND THE NONP ROFIT-DONOR RELATIONSHIP By RICHARD DAVID WATERS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Richard David Waters

PAGE 3

3 To Oscar and Joey for helping me get through it all

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank several people for helping me accomplish my goal. First, I thank Dr. Lynne Sallot. Although I have had a desire to get my doctoral de gree since my senior year in high school, I would not have found my niche in academia if she had not offered the Public Relations and Fundraising course. That class led me to a career in fundraising and also helped shape my research interests. For that, I am truly grateful. I also thank my supervisory committee: Dr. Kathleen Kelly, Chai r, Dr. Linda Hon, Dr. Jennifer Robinson, and Dr. Elizabeth Bolton. A ve ry special note of gratitude belongs to Dr. Kelly for her continuing counsel and enlightened guidance. When I first spoke with Dr. Kelly over the telephone in 1998 when I was writing my undergraduate honors thesis on fundraising ethics, I never would have guessed that almost 10 years later I would be finishing my doctorate under her guidance. I cons ider her to be the greatest mentor a graduate student could ask for, and I also consider her a close friend and confidant. I also thank Dr. Hon for helping shape my research and public relations interests. Havi ng studied under one of the leading scholars in public relations is something for which I will be forever grateful. Her encouragement and advice on my dissertation topic and addi tional research projects have been valuable beyond belief. I owe special appreciation to Dr. Robinson. I cannot imagine how differently the last 2 years would have been if I remained in one of th e graduate student offices in the basement. Dr. Robinson inspires me to succeed with my research and in the classroom. Her advice has helped me connect with students in ways I would never ha ve thought. It will feel odd next year at North Carolina State not having Dr. Robinson down the ha ll. She has served as a sounding board for various research projects and al so as a mentor to whom I can turn for advice on how to survive as an assistant professor.

PAGE 5

5 Dr. Elizabeth Bolton helped make my time at the University of Florida one of the most unique experiences that a graduate student could have. Not only did she provide me with great insights into nonprofit management, she also ope ned doors to allow me to pursue my greatest interests. From working on independent study res earch projects to teaching a fundraising course in the Family, Youth, and Community Sciences department, Dr. Bolton gave me the opportunity to reach out to others on campus and educate them about the nonpr ofit sector and fundraising. Even though it was additional work, it rea lly made my time at UF enjoyable. I also owe notes of thanks to the many professo rs from whom I have taken courses over the years. At Syracuse, Dr. Elizabeth Toth and Dr. Carol Liebler helped shape my theoretical understanding of public relations and mass communication, and th ey both encouraged me to pursue my academic interests. At Florida, Dr Lisa Duke-Cornell, Dr. Margarete Hall, and Dr. Spiro Kiousis also challenged me to produce or iginal research that helped advance our understanding of public relations. My parents, Edward and Martha Waters, ha ve always been suppor tive of my various endeavors, but they have been particularly help ful these past three years as they tolerated my phone calls from the bus stop and constantly work ing during my vacations. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their constant s upport. Jennifer Lemanski Dani Burrows, Alex Laskin, Seth Oyer, Hyung-Seok Lee, Dave Deele y, and Cristina Popescu helped make my years at Florida memorable and enjoyable. Amy Sanders and Courtney Barclay deserve a spec ial word of thanks. Our lunches will be missed next year. I consider them both great friends, and I am gl ad I had the opportunity to work with you.

PAGE 6

6 Finally, I thank all of the stude nts I have taught over the past 3 years. From teaching undergraduates how to write to teaching graduate students how to research, they all have helped me improve as a teacher. I hope I have taught them as much as they have taught me. I hope to stay in touch in the future and hear about their career successes.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......13 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................16 The State of Nonprofit America.............................................................................................16 Fundraising and the Relations hip Management Paradigm.....................................................23 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....24 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..27 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................32 Nonprofit Sector in the United States.....................................................................................32 Fundraising in the United States.............................................................................................34 Defining Fundraising.......................................................................................................38 Fundraising as a Specializa tion of Public Relations........................................................39 Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................................................................................................43 Defining the OrganizationPublic Relationships....................................................................50 Measuring the Organizati on-Public Relationship...................................................................52 Dimensions of the Organization-Public Relationship.....................................................55 Trust.........................................................................................................................56 Commitment.............................................................................................................56 Satisfaction...............................................................................................................57 Control mutuality.....................................................................................................58 Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships...............................60 Impact of Relationship Cultivation Strategies........................................................................64 Relationship Cultivation Strategies Defined...................................................................65 Access.......................................................................................................................66 Positivity...................................................................................................................67 Openness..................................................................................................................69 Assurances................................................................................................................70 Networking...............................................................................................................71 Sharing of tasks........................................................................................................72 Keeping promises.....................................................................................................74 Stewardship..............................................................................................................75 New Approach to Measuring the Or ganization-Public Relationship.....................................79

PAGE 8

8 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................90 Study Design................................................................................................................... ........91 Population and Sampling.................................................................................................94 Instrument Design...........................................................................................................99 Relationship dimensions........................................................................................100 Relationship cultivation strategies.........................................................................101 Scale Development.............................................................................................................. .103 Data Collection Procedures..................................................................................................106 Data Analysis Procedures.....................................................................................................110 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .....121 Participants................................................................................................................... ........121 Research Question 1............................................................................................................ .125 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................... ......126 Hypothesis 2................................................................................................................... ......127 Research Question 2............................................................................................................ .131 Research Question 3............................................................................................................ .133 Research Question 4............................................................................................................ .136 Hypothesis 3................................................................................................................... ......136 Research Question 5............................................................................................................ .138 Research Question 6............................................................................................................ .145 Major Gift Donors.........................................................................................................146 Annual Giving Donors..................................................................................................148 Research Question 7............................................................................................................ .152 Research Question 8............................................................................................................ .154 Research Question 9............................................................................................................ .156 Research Question 10...........................................................................................................159 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ..202 The Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.......................................................................................203 Relationship Quality and Dimensions...........................................................................205 Relationship Cultivation Strategies...............................................................................213 Implications for the Practice.................................................................................................220 Impact on Public Relations Theory......................................................................................223 Measuring the Organizati on-Public Relationship.........................................................224 Relationship Cultivation Strategies...............................................................................230 Symmetrical Measurement of the Or ganization-Public Relationship....................234 6 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................238 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................239 Suggestions for Future Research..........................................................................................244

PAGE 9

9 APPENDIX A SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL DONORS................................................................................251 B SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING TEAM MEMBERS....................................255 C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUT IONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL......................................................................................................259 D LETTER MAILED TO DONORS BY THE NONPROFIT HOSPITALS..........................261 E POSTCARD REMINDER MAILED TO DONORS BY NONPROFIT HOSPITALS.......263 REFERENCE LIST................................................................................................................. ....264 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................280

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Symmetry Orientation of Relationship Cultivation Strategies Proposed in Interpersonal and Public Relations Literature....................................................................86 2-2 Summary of the Current Studys Three Hypotheses and 10 Research Questions.............88 3-1 Comparison of Survey Data Collection Methods............................................................115 3-2 Indices of Relationshi p Dimension Measures..................................................................116 3-3 Indices of Relationship Cultiva tion Strategies as adapted by Ki.....................................117 3-4 Indices of Stewardship Strategies....................................................................................118 3-5 Cronbachs alpha values of the studys indices...............................................................120 4-1 Relationship Dimensions Mean s across Three Organizations.........................................160 4-2 Relationship Cultivation Strategies Means across Three Organizations........................161 4-3 Donors Evaluation of Relationship with Nonprofits based on Donor Type...................161 4-4 One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the Donors Relationship with the Nonprofit Organization................................................................................................................... ..162 4-5 Pearsons r Correlation of Giving Hist ory and Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................................................................................................................... ..162 4-6 Multiple Regression of Relationship Dime nsion Indices with the Number of Years Donating to the Organization...........................................................................................162 4-7 Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices for Number of Years of Donating to the Organization...........................................................................................163 4-8 Discriminant Function Analysis of Relati onship Dimensions with Participation in the Most Recent Fundraising Campaign................................................................................163 4-9 Classification Matrix of Di scriminant Analysis Function...............................................164 4-10 Multiple Regression of Relationship Dime nsion Indices with Overall Relationship Score.......................................................................................................................... ......164 4-11 Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship Score.......................................................................................................................... ......165 4-12 Donor Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategy Indices............................................165

PAGE 11

11 4-13 Major Gift and Annual Giving Donors Me an Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategies Indices........................................................................................................................ ......166 4-14 One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the 10 Relationship Cultivation Strategies by Donor Type..................................................................................................................... .166 4-15 Model Fit Criteria for St ructural Equation Modeling......................................................166 4-16 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Orga nization-Public Relationship Dimensions for All Donors..................................................................................................................... ...167 4-17 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model.......................................................................................................................... .....167 4-18 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies......................169 4-19 Fit Measures for the Relationship Cultivation Strategies Measurement Model..............173 4-20 Path Model of Relationship Cultivati on Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions.................................................................................................174 4-21 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions................................................................174 4-22 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Orga nization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Major Gift Donors............................................................................................................176 4-23 Fit Measures for Major Gift Donors Or ganization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model........................................................................................................176 4-24 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Major Gift Donors.................................................................................................................... ..179 4-25 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Major Gift Donors..........................................................................................181 4-26 Path Model of Relationship Cultivati on Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Major Gift Donors.............................................................184 4-27 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Di mensions for Major Gift Donors...........................184 4-28 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Orga nization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors.....................................................................................................186 4-29 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Annual Giving Donors....................................................................................187

PAGE 12

12 4-30 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Annual Giving Donors..................................................................................................................189 4-31 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Annual Giving Donors....................................................................................191 4-32 Path Model of Relationship Cultivati on Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors......................................................194 4-33 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Di mensions for Annual Giving Donors....................194 4-34 Agreement between Donors and the Fundr aising Team on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.........................................................................................196 4-35 Donors Perceived Agreement with the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.........................................................................................197 4-36 The Fundraising Teams Perceived Agreem ent with Donors on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.........................................................................................198 4-37 Donors Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................................................................................................................... ..199 4-38 The Fundraising Teams Accuracy on Es timates of the Evaluation of the NonprofitDonor Relationship..........................................................................................................200 4-39 Coorientation States on Key Variable s of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................201

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The organization-public re lationship as described by pub lic relations scholarship, 1984-2006...................................................................................................................... ....31 2-1 Evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship...................................................................85 2-2 Visual depiction of the coorientati on methodology examining relationship evaluation between nonprofit organizations and their donors.............................................................87 3-1 Graphic representation of the scale development process...............................................119 4.1 Measurement model of the organiza tion-public relationship dimensions.......................168 4-2 Measurement model of the rela tionship cultivation strategies........................................171 4-3 Initial model of the relationship between relationship cultiva tion strategies and organization-public rela tionship dimensions...................................................................173 4-4 Final path model of the relationship be tween relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationshi p dimensions for all donors.............................................175 4-5 Measurement model of the organizationpublic relationship dimensions for major gift donors.................................................................................................................... ....178 4-6 Measurement model of the relationship cu ltivation strategies for major gift donors......182 4-7 Final path model of the relationship be tween relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationship di mensions for major gift donors.................................185 4-8 Measurement model of the organizationpublic relationship dimensions for annual giving donors.................................................................................................................. .188 4-9 Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies for annual giving donors......................................................................................................................... ......192 4-10 Final path model of the relationship be tween relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationship dime nsions for annual giving donors...........................195 5-1 Revised model of the orga nization-public relationship...................................................237 6-1 Conflict resolution diagram app lied to the fundraising profession..................................250

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ADVANCING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THEORY: COORIENTATION AND THE NONPROFIT-DONOR RELATIONSHIP By Richard David Waters August 2007 Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Major: Mass Communication By providing programs and services, nonprofit organizations address problems that the government and business sectors have ignored, making them a crucial part of the social, political, and economic landscape of America. Recently, s candals in the charitabl e nonprofit sector have resulted in decreased levels of public conf idence that nonprofits ca rry out their missions effectively and manage themselves efficiently. With individuals providing roughly 80% of the fundraising revenue to charitable nonprofits, it is vita l that these organiza tions cultivate strong relationships with their donors to survive nonprof it controversies. Public relations theory provides a theoretical framework to assess the n onprofit-donor relationship. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of cultivation strategies and th eir influence on how donors and fundraisers evaluate the nonprof it-donor relationship. The study breaks new ground in public relations scholarship by refining previous re lationship dimensions, adding new cultivation strategies, measuring both side s of the organization-public re lationship using coorientation methodology, and measuring the organization-public relationship across multiple organizations. Through a stratified random sample of donors (n = 1706) to three nonprofit hospitals and a census of the fundraising team members at the participating hospitals (n = 124), mailed surveys explored the relationship be tween the donors and the approp riate nonprofit hospital by

PAGE 15

15 examining the relationship dimensions of control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and trust, and the following cultivation stra tegies used to build and maintain relationships: access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, re ciprocity, relationship nurturing, reporting, responsibility, and sharing of tasks. The relationship dimensions were found to be va luable in predicting past involvement with the charitable nonprofits fundraising efforts; however, they only do an adequate job of representing the overall nonprofit-donor relations hip. The relationship cultivation strategies impacted annual giving donors, those who cont ribute less than $10,000, and major gift donors, those who donate $10,000 or more, differently. Whereas the annual giving donors for whom there was a statistically strong in fluence of all 10 strategies on the dimension evaluation, major gift donors evaluations we re only impacted by six of the 10 stra tegies. Of those six, all four of Kellys stewardship strategies had an influence, while only two of the six strategies derived from interpersonal communication theory impacted evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Turning to the coorientation methodology, m easuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship revealed that they each viewed th e relationship dimensions and the relationship cultivation strategies positively. However, there we re differences in their levels of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy. Overall, the fundraising team members evaluated the relationship dimensions and the cultivation st rategies more favorab ly than the donors did, indicating that increased communication between th e sides is necessary to resolve differences. This study shows that nonprofit organizations can use relation ship cultivation strategies effectively to produce strong relationships with their donors that withstand the trickle down effect of national scandals. Strong nonprofit-dono r relationships allow charitable nonprofits to raise the funds necessary to address the nations societal and cultural problems.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the purpose of the study a nd its significance in public relations scholarship and nonprofit management are discussed. However, before detailing what the study aims to accomplish, it is necessary to discuss the importa nce of relationship cu ltivation within the confines of the nonprofit sect or. Insight into the challe nges facing nonprofit organizations allows for greater understanding of this studys impact on theo ry building and the fundraising practice. The State of Nonprofit America Nonprofit organizations are a cr ucial part of the social, po litical, and economic landscape of contemporary America. Nonprofit organizations provide a way for individuals to connect to their community, effectively participate in the democratic process and ultimately to make a difference in our world. According to the Nation al Center for Charitable Statistics (2006), there are currently more than 1.42 million nonprofit organiza tions that are registered with the Internal Revenue Service. Though it is difficult to gene ralize about what nonprofit organizations are or what they do, these organizations share similar experiences. In describing why Americas nonprofit sector emerged, Lohmann (1992) stated there were several traits that helped di stinguish nonprofit organizations fr om government and the for-profit sector. Nonprofit organizations are voluntary associations among people who are neither forced to relate nor enticed by the prospe ct of personal profit or gain. Th ese associations are facilitated by an endowment of resources, which allows them to pursue shared missions or goals. Through such mission-oriented work, nonprofits produce soci al capitalthe attitu de and willingness of people to engage in collective activity addres sing common problems. This action is built upon shared values that reinforce trust, confiden ce, and commitment of the participants.

PAGE 17

17 These characteristics help explain why the nonpr ofit sector has become such an important part of the United States. Rather than relying on government agencies or the for-profit sector to address communal problems, individuals have the ability to rally together to address health crises, environmental concerns, and education, among other causes. Although these efforts may not benefit everyone, they are available to those who seek them. For example, a health clinic may offer free services to community residents, but people wanting medical treatment must seek out the assistance. Others in th e community who have health insu rance or a prefer red healthcare provider may choose not to use the cl inics service, but it is availa ble to them if they need it. Because nonprofit organizations serve such diverse interests, including healthcare, economic development, religion, and political and social issues, P. Hall (2005) claims, Nonprofits are the most rapi dly growing types of organizations in the world (p. 3). These organizations vary enormously in scope a nd scale, ranging from informal grassroots organizations with no assets and no employees to multibillion-dollar foundations, universities, and healthcare complexes. Despite the differe nces, legally recognized nonprofit organizations, which are described in more detail in chapter 2, all seek to address specific missions that speak to needs that have been iden tified by community members. To develop programs and services to addre ss these issues, nonprof it organizations must generate appropriate resources. Resource develo pment is the practice of identifying, cultivating, and securing financial and human support (Cour tney, 2002). Although the human support helps the organizations carry out their programs and se rvices, the financial support arguably is the most important form of resource development because it is needed not only for programs and services but also for the governance and manageme nt of the organization. Many scholars have

PAGE 18

18 claimed the most effective and efficient way of developing these re sources is through the establishment of relationships with li ke-minded stakeholders (Fogal, 2005). The management of these relationships is central to Kellys (1998) definition of fundraising: the management of relationships between a charitable organization and its donor publics (p. 8). When these relationships are cultivated and managed properly, nonprofit organizations are more likely to experience fundraising success with their donors. Even though no 2 donors have the same charitable giving needs or goals, donors fall into 3 distinct groups: annual giving, major gift, or planned giving donors. Generally speaking, annual giving donors provi de donations that keep the charitable nonprofit operating day-to-day by paying for the organizations administration, fundraising, and programs and service delivery. Annual giving f undraising programs typically consist of several solicitation vehicles, such as di rect mail, phone-a-thons, and tele thons. Gifts made to annual giving campaigns vary in their size, ranging from spare change given to the Salvation Armys Red Kettle campaign during the holiday season to gifts of several thousand dollars given to universities and healthcare institutions. By cu ltivating relationships with annual gift donors, organizations can secure future gifts from their donor database. Kelly (1998) claims that it is easier for charitable nonprofits to obtain gifts from past donors th an new ones. In a practitioner workbook, Greenfield (1996) estimate s that charitable nonprofits will spend $1.50 for every $1 raised from new donors, while only spendi ng $0.25 for every $1 raised in renewals. Once the organizations staff fundraisers ha ve conducted research and identified donors who have the potential to make a large gift, the organization can pursue majo r gifts. Major gifts vary in their size, but Kelly ( 1998) says that major gifts typi cally are $10,000 or more. These gifts are important for organiza tions to pursue because every $1 raised from major gift

PAGE 19

19 campaigns only costs the organization $0.10 $0.20 (Greenfield, 1996). The importance of relationships to the fundraising proc ess is particularly highlighted by major gift solicitations. In a guide for nonprofit organizati ons board members, Howe (2001) details that major gift fundraising involves personalized communication, such as handwr itten letters and cards, and face-to-face meetings, which may either serve as updates on the organi zations efforts or a solicitation. Major gift so licitations are more eff ective if the charitable nonprofit has dedicated resources to developing the rela tionship so that staff fundraise rs personally know the donor and his or her interests. While relationship management helps lead to donations during annual giving and major gift fundraising efforts, cultivation strategies al so can help nonprofits w ith their planned giving programs. Planned gifts are made in the presen t but whose value to the organization is usually realized at a later time, generally at the death of the donor or a survivi ng beneficiary (Seiler, 2003, pp. 62-63). These gifts are donated through w ills and bequests, charitable gift annuities, charitable trusts, estates, and insurance. Most charitable nonprofits provide information about their planned giving programs to interested dono rs; however, these gifts are usually initiated by the donorunlike annual and major gifts, which ar e pursued by the organizat ion. Regardless of the donors classification, charitab le nonprofits should invest in re lationship cultivation with all of their donors to ensure that their missions will be addressed in perpetuity. However, cultivation cannot prevent the inevitable ups and downs of the nonprofit-donor relationship. As the number of Congressional hearings (e.g., 2005 s Charities and Charitable Giving: Proposals for Reform) and public scru tiny intensifies, nonprofit organizations have to work harder to demonstrate their social and fi scal accountability. In 1999, Independent Sector, a coalition of corporations, f oundations, and nonprofit organizations that work together to

PAGE 20

20 strengthen Americas nonprofit sector, conducted research and found that public confidence ranged from 28 percent to 72 percent for diffe rent types of nonprofit organizations (SaxonHarrold, 1999). A Gallup Poll from May 2005 f ound that only 15 percent of the American public has a great deal of confid ence in charitable organizations (Light, 2005). This confidence rating is only slightly higher than television ne ws, Congress, and big businessentities that are frequently targets of public analysis. The falling levels of confidence were due to the increasing number of scandals in the sector. In reviewing his resear ch on public support of the nonprof it sector, Light (2005) said: Americans displayed consistent support for what nonprofit organizati ons did to help the needy and strengthen their communities, but they had growing doubts about how organizations spent their money and delivered services. Donors and volunteers were not saying show us the mission but show us the impact. (para 2) These doubts were brought on by scandals that r eceived a significant amount of media attention during the past 15 years. One of the first high profile scandals invol ving the nonprofit sector surrounded the United Way and William Aramony, who headed the agency for 22 years before allegations of financial impropriety forced him to resign in 1992 (Glaser, 1993). During a three-week federal trial, U.S. Attorney Randy Bellows portrayed the nonprofit director as a corrupt womanizer who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the charitys money to fina nce flings with young women and trips (Moss, 1995, para 12) around the world. Aramony was found guilty of federal fraud and conspiracy charges, and Bellows estimated the amount Aramony defrauded the nations United Way chapters was $1.2 million, including trips and gi fts. In response to the conviction, United Ways across the country worked to change th eir image from fundrai sing organizations to community-impact agencies. However, the relati onships that the United Ways had with their donors were already damaged.

PAGE 21

21 In 2001, the American Red Cross caused the publi cs confidence in th e nonprofit sector to continue to fall. In January, the San Diego, California, chapter of the American Red Cross began raising funds for disaster res ponse to a wildfire that destr oyed the homes of more than 250 families. Disgruntled residents of San Diego C ounty complained that funds raised for disaster response were not spent on the lo cal community but were directed to national reserve funds for future disasters. Local and national medi a, including CBS Minutes, charged the organization with deceiving donors by failing to disclose the organizations this and other disaster policy (Daley, 2002). Despite the controversy over events in Sout hern California, the American Red Cross experienced a similar outcry from the public after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In re sponse to the disasters, a record number of donors turned to the Internet to make donations to aid in the emergency response. Combined with more traditional forms of giving and a celebrity-sponsored tele thon, the American Red Cross received more than $1.2 b illion from the American public Facing criticism from news outlets over how donations were being allocated, Dr. Bernadine Healy, then chief executive officer of the American Red Cross, announced that the Liberty Fund had been created so that all donations made to the September 11 relief efforts would be used exclusively for those affected by the attacks rather than being placed in a reserve fund for emergency response to future disasters. During the announcement press conference, Healy also said that donors who felt misled could request a refund of their donation (DiPerna, 2003). Light (2003) documented the falling levels of public confidence in the nations nonprofit sector following the American Red Cross scandals The percentage of the general public who expressed a lot of confidence in the sector fe ll from 25 percent in July 2001 to only 18 percent

PAGE 22

22 in September 2002; meanwhile, there was a 6 point increasefrom 9 to 15i n the percentage of the public who expressed no confidence in the sector. Public suspicions of the nonprof it sector only grew after the Washington Post published an expos on a series of controversial actions by the Nature Conservancy in 2003. A weeklong series argued strongly that th e governing board of the United States largest environmental organization had permitted illegal land transactions using donors charitable gifts as loans to individual chapter board members, the agency had lost sight of its environmental mission for corporate contributions and cause-related market ing partnerships, and the agency wasted many thousands of dollars on community-based project s that ultimately exploited the environment (Stephenson, Jr., & Chaves, 2006). These national scandals resulted in dama ged relationships between the United Way, the American Red Cross, the Nature Conservancy, a nd their stakeholders. However, there was a trickle effect that was felt by many nonprofits as the public grew leery about the management of the sector. Light (2005) found that only 19 pe rcent of the public thought that charitable nonprofits do a very good job of conducting thei r programs and services and only 11 percent thought that the organizations wi sely used their money. Additi onally, roughly half of those sampled said that the leaders of charitable nonprofits were paid too much, and 2 out of every 3 people said the nonprofits waste a gr eat deal of money (Light, 2005). Facing growing concerns over their day-to -day operations ev en today, nonprofit organizations voluntarily started adopting the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was passed by Congress to eliminate fraud within the for-profit se ctor. These actions alone, however, are not enough. Charitable non profits have to inco rporate relationship cultivation strategies into their interactions with all stakeholder gr oups, including consumers,

PAGE 23

23 government regulators, volunteers, and donors. Th ese cultivation strategies, which are detailed in chapter 2, reveal different organizational beha viors that nonprofits can use to recover from the sectors scandals and help in crease the levels of confidence in the nonprofit-donor relationship. Fundraising and the Relationship Management Paradigm Considerable anecdotal evidence has been wr itten regarding the role of relationship management in fundraising literature. Though most of the work is oriented towards practitioners, research has been conducted that looks at re lationship management from a scholarly perspective. Both Waters (2006) and ONeil (2007) found that the longer a donor was involved with a nonprofit organization, the greate r the likelihood that they evaluated the relationship more positively. Advancements in public relations scholarship are making it possible to evaluate the relationship in terms of its dimensions and effective relationship cultivation and maintenance strategies. Though Ferguson (1984) suggested that rela tionship management might provide a theoretical grounding for public relations, the profe ssion and its studies have mostly concentrated on strategic communication. Nearly 15 years after the idea was firs t presented at an Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communica tion conference, scholars began exploring the relationship management approach to public rela tions. Currently, there are 2 very active groups of relationship management scholars: those ex tending the work created by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) and those following the works of Br uning and Ledingham (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Ledi ngham, 2001; Bruning & Galloway, 2003). These groups of scholars are both working to address a problem that has plagued public relations for many years: How do you measur e the contributions of the public relations function? In recent years, scholars have sought to provide answers to that question by focusing on the measurement of relationships between or ganizations and key stakeholders on whom the

PAGE 24

24 organization depends for success and survival. At times, the 2 groups of relationship scholars have measured similar concepts. However, more often than not, they have used very different approaches to measure the relationships between organizations and their stakeholders and the principal dimensions of those re lationships. The main differen ce rests in what variables are measured to capture the relationship. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) first proposed a se t of indices that measured dimensions of relationships an individual may experience w ith an organization. Grounded in interpersonal communication literature, these indices measured how well individuals trusted an organization, how committed they were to the relationship, how satisfied they were with the relationship, and how well power was distributed in the relationship. This current study seeks to continue th ese efforts by focusing on the nonprofit-donor relationship. Though Waters (2006) and ONeil (2007) have provided some initial results to show that there indeed are differences between types of donors, more research needs to be done to test theoretical constructs and provide sound a dvice to fundraising practitioners for ways they can improve their fundraising prog rams. This study, however, seek s to provide more than just scholarly insight into th e fundraising process and the impact of the process on staff fundraisers. The study also examines new aspects of the or ganization-public relationship and their impact on the overall public relations function. Thus, this study seeks to build theory as well as test it. Purpose of the Study Overall, the purpose of this study is to explor e the role of cultivati on strategies and their influence on how donors and fundraisers evalua te the nonprofit-donor rela tionship. However, this study aims to accomplish more than simply examining the relationship. As just discussed, there have been 2 groups seeking to devel op relationship measurement guidelines. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. However, one stands up to the rigor of

PAGE 25

25 social scientific research met hods better than the other. Fo r that reason, this study uses the indices developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). That being said, the current approach used by scholars testing Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) indices is not free of design flaws. First, w ith the exception of Ki (2006), the studies have primarily focused on the measurement of relatio nship dimensions. Drawing on the works of Plowman (1996), J. Grunig (2001), and others, Huang (2005) proposed a classification system of various cultivation strategies. However, Ki ( 2006) was the first scho lar to investigate how different types of strategies resulted in the varying levels of relationship dimensions and behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. This study s eeks to provide further testing of the cultivation strategies in the c ontext of fundraising. Secondly, all of the previous relationship management studies have examined the relationship by looking at 1 orga nization and its relationship w ith 1 stakeholder group. For example, Ki and Hon (2005) looke d at the relationship between students at the University of Florida and the universitys administration while Waters (2006) examined the relationship between Operation Access and its donors. Though these studies pr ovided significant results, one has to question whether they truly captured th e nature of the univers ity-student or nonprofitdonor relationship. Did either of these organizations have excel lent public relations programs in place that influenced the dimensions, or did they accurately reflect the nature of the relationships tested? To ensure that the relationship is measured and not simply the impact of 1 organizations programming, this study uses a research design that will test the relationship in multiple organizations at one time. For this study, th e relationships between 3 nonprofit hospitals in Northern California and their unique donors were measured. An organization will have many

PAGE 26

26 more annual giving donors who provi de gifts at lower donation levels than the minority of major gift donors. As dictated by the principles of fundraising, fundraise rs will need to cultivate these relationships with donors differe ntly depending on their commitment to the organization and their potential for a major or pl anned gift (Rosso, 1991). Theref ore, the study of relationships among the individuals that make up the nonprofit-dono r relationship is esp ecially important for practitioners in addition to the increased theoretical understanding of the relationship management paradigm. There are no universal guidelines that establish what gifts are considered to be a major gift because they vary considerably depending on the organizations. For this reason, this study will consider any gift equal to or greater than $10,000 to be a major gift. This amount was chosen because it is a significant amount that is not likely to be donated during phone-a-thons, direct mailings, or other annual gi ft techniques (Kelly, 1998). The final flaw of previous re search that will be addresse d in this study concerns the practical implications of measuring the relationship. One of the most widely accepted definitions of public relations centers on th e profession being a management function (Cutlip, Center, and Broom, 1994, p. 2). Previous public relations studies have only me asured the stakeholder side of the relationship. However, it seems to reason that the relationship dimensions are greatly influenced by the opinions and decisions ma de by the organizations management. These evaluations must be taken into account. Fortunately, public relations scholars Broom and Dozier ( 1990) identified a research framework that is ideal for measuring the 2 sides of the nonprofitdonor relationship. The coorientation research design cons ists of 4 separate measures: (a) the organizations views on an issue, represented by the beliefs of individuals who participat e in decision making; (b) the

PAGE 27

27 publics views on the issue; (c ) the organizations estimate of the publics views (i.e., perception); and (d) the p ublics estimate of the organizations views. With data collected on all 4 measures, one is able to determine if both si des agree on an issue, if one side perceives agreement when it does not exist, or if both sides ar e accurate in their estimations of the other. Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) note that th e coorientation model is a powerful but underutilized approach to public re lations research and that few pr actitioners apply it to problems in the field. Yet organizations action and communication may be completely inappropriate and ineffective if inaccurate per ceptions exit on either side. As nonprofit organizations face growing pressu re to keep fundraising costs down while remaining fiscally and socially accountable to their various stakeholders, fundraisers and the nonprofit dominant coalitions that do not take their donors inte rests and attitudes into account when making organizational decisions can inv ite financial disaster when making future solicitations. Indeed, Dozier and Ehling ( 1992) warned, Mispercep tions can lead to catastrophic actions whenever th e dominant coalition sees agreement or disagreement when none actually exists (p. 181). Although public relations scholars embrace symmetry as a core concept in theory building, research on organization-public rela tionships is usually one-sided. Most often, these studies fail to account for the views and perceptions of orga nizational decision makers. In other words, scholars supporting symmetry conduct asymmetrical research. This study aims to provide evidence that collecting data from both sides of the relationship is desirable and discusses the implications of the results in chapter 5. Significance of the Study This study expands the body of knowledge for pub lic relations scholars and practitioners in several ways. First, this study brings a much ne eded symmetrical research design to the study of

PAGE 28

28 relationships. By using the coorientation model as the guide to the res earch, it is possible to evaluate the relationship in te rms of both parties involved, in this case the donors and the fundraising decision makers in 3 nonprofit hospitals. Additionally, the coorientati on methodologywhen usedhas typically only been used to look at 1 organization at a time. By selecting 3 hospitals that have similar characteristics to one another, it is possible to allow th e coorientation design to be used in more than a case study of a particular organization. Second, this study provides further opportunity to test Kis (2006) indices for relationship cultivation strategies. Not only does it test their reliability and validity in a different organization-public setting, but th e results also help to determ ine which strategies are most important in the nonprofit-donor rela tionship. The study also proposes new scales to test Kellys (2000) stewardship strategies. Hopefully these scales will be used in the future to test relationship cultivati on in other settings. Finally, and most importantly, this study pr oposes to add another dimension into the fields understanding of the organization-public relationship model by having members of the organization evaluate the relationship with th e publics. The mode l shown in Figure 1-1 highlights the scholarship that has advanced th e understanding of stak eholders relationships with organizations. Quite simply, this model sh ows that the organization-public relationship is first created by antecedents that bring an indivi dual or stakeholder group into contact with the organization. For fundraising, this may be receiv ing printed materials about the organization or participating in the organizations services or programs. During the interaction with the organization, various cultivation strategies are used in their co mmunication and actions with key stakeholders to foster relationship development. These cultivation st rategies produce varying

PAGE 29

29 levels of evaluation of the 4 main relationship dimensions (trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality), which have recently been show n to connect to relationship outcomes, such as attitudes or behavior th at promote a healthy relationship for both sides of the organization-public relationship (Ki & Hon, 2007). Scholarship has shown that different public s evaluate the rela tionship differently depending on the focus of the public relations programming and the st rategies that the programming incorporated. Although these differe nt strategies have b een discussed in public relations literature, Ki (2006) is the first to make attempts to m easure these strategies and their impact. Though it is helpful for future scholarship to develop indices measuring the public relations strategies, a disconnect remains between academia and th e profession. Public relations scholars are attempting to develop measures that help practitioners demonstrate their contributions to the organization, yet practitioners often fail to read the latest scholarship. Even though significant work has been done to demo nstrate how practitione rs behavior and the strategies they incorporate can produce desired attitude and behavior among an organizations publics, this work has gone unread by the people that could most benefit from the work. Unlike public relations, the connection betw een marketing and marketers is stronger (Cornelissen & Lock, 2005). Marketing scholarship also demonstrates the power of relationship. For example, Gordon, McKeage, and Fox (1998) f ound that individuals who perceived that they were more involved in a companys marketing effort s were more likely to have positive attitudes toward the company and more likely to purchase the product being marketed to them. Marketing scholars have begun advocating for practitioners to take a more enlightened approach to the practice by putting the customer first and shiftin g the role from manipulating to communicating

PAGE 30

30 and educating (McKenna, 1991; Parvatiyar & Sheth, 1999), and marketing firms began incorporating that focus into their efforts. Th e profession became even more symmetrical after Gruen, Summers, and Acito ( 2000) suggested that an a ssociations marketing and communication efforts can be tailored to be more symmetrical to enhan ce the relationship with association members. Ki (2006) helped demonstrate how the public re lations profession can benefit from reading and understanding public relations scholarship. By examini ng the influence different relationship cultivation strategi es have on how the organizationpublic relationship is evaluated, practitioners can design programming that has the most impact on an organizations constituencies. Ki (2006) tested the impact these strategies had in the nonprofit associationmember relationship; however, it was just a sing le organization that was examined. This study explores the relationship cultivation strategies across multiple nonprofit or ganizations and their donors. Therefore, this study not only advances theoretical understand ing of relationship management and cultivation, it also makes pract ical suggestions on how nonprofit organizations can improve their relationships with donors. Based on these statistically grounded suggestions, this study hopes to bring public relations scholarship and its pr actitioners closer together. Perhaps through working together on this goal, the profession can tran sform its image from being viewed as a spin machine or an occupati on of hucksters to a profession of relationshiporiented practitioners working to bring orga nizations and their stakeholders together.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 1-1. The organization-publ ic relationship as described by public relations scholarship, 1984-2006. Antecedent Organization Relationship Cultivation Strategy Publics Attitude and Behavior Relationship Dimensions

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the central concepts of fundraising and relationship management are explained. Before exploring the relationship management paradigm in public relations, a general overview of the nonprofit sector and the importa nce of fundraising for charitable nonprofits will be discussed, as well as the evolution of the study within the public relations context from relationship dimensions to specifi c strategies on how to develop a nd maintain relationships with an organizations key stakeholders. Finally, this chapter will explore how these concepts have been measured in previous studies and deta ils how this studys research questions and hypotheses will further test relationship mana gement within the bounds of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Nonprofit Sector in the United States In 2005, more than $260 billion was give n to the nations charitable nonprofit organizations (Giving USA Foundation, 2006). Givi ng to charitable nonprofit organizations has increased steadily over the years just as the num ber of legally registered nonprofit organizations has rapidly increased (Nonprofit Congress, 2006). Currently, there are an estimated 1.42 million nonprofit organizations that are re gistered with the United Stat es Internal Revenue Service according to the National Center for Charitable Stat istics (2006). These organizations represent an array of missions and serve an equally di verse segment of the American population. Although the federal government has given these 1.42 million organizations tax-exempt status, only 60 percent of these organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible gifts from the donating public. The federal government recognizes more than 27 distinct types of nonprofit organizations according to the Internal Revenue Services tax code; however, those organizations with the 501I3 status are the ones with the abil ity to offer individuals a tax deduction for their

PAGE 33

33 gifts. Organizations bearing th e 501I3 classification are public charities that support the arts, education, healthcare, human services, and community service organizations among other causes, and private foundations, wh ich typically are grant-making en tities that provide funds to other 501I3 organizations. The remaining 26 type s of nonprofit organizati ons serve other needs of the American public that are not philanthr opic by nature, such as chambers of commerce (501I6s), social/recreation clubs (501I7s), and funeral homes ( 501I13s). The federal government has recognized the value these remaining 26 types of nonprofit organi zations bring to the community, but they are not entitled to the bei ng able to raise funds by offering tax deductions for those donations. As described above, charitable nonprofits, or 501I3 organizations, re present a variety of missions. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entitie s created and housed at the Urban Institute arranges the diversity of the char itable nonprofit sector into clear di visions: (1) Arts, culture, and Humanities; (2) Education; (3) Environment and animals; (4) Health; (5) Human Services; (6) International and foreign affairs; (7) Public/s ociety benefit; (8) Religion; (9) Miscellaneous membership benefit organizations; and (10) Non-classifiable orga nizations (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2007). This breakdown is slightly more complex than the classification schema that the Association for Fundraising Prof essionals created: (1 ) Arts, culture, and humanities; (2) Education; (3) Health; (4) Human services; (5) Public/society benefit; and (6) Religion. Regardless of how the charitable nonprofit sect or is dissected, the distribution of donations does not fall evenly across the different subsecto rs. Of all the types of charitable nonprofit organizations, Americans are more likely to donate to religious organizations. Of the $260 billion donated in 2005, more than $93 billion or 36 percent was given to organizations with

PAGE 34

34 religious organizations (Givi ng USA Foundation, 2006). The remainder was divided among the other types of charitable nonprofits ; however, 2 subsectors earned mo re than the rest. Education received almost $39 billion, while the health care organizations received approximately $23 billion in donations. The success of these 2 types of charitable nonpr ofit organizations is not surprising given the sophistication of their fundraising efforts. Education and health care employ the most fulltime fundraisers, and the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that individuals who hold the Certified Fund-Raising Executive credential are more likely to wo rk in these 2 sub-sectors as well (Whelan, 2002). Because of the large number of fundraisers employed in these sectors, professional associations were created to fo cus on their professiona l needs. Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CAS E) and the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) both work to advance the prof ession and offer workshops to fundraisers in their respective fields. After evaluating the current level of resear ch on fundraising, Kelly (2002) concluded that most research takes place within the arena of educational fundraising. To advance the overall understanding of nonprofit orga nizations and their fundraising effo rts, more studies need to focus on nonprofits with missions other than education. For this reason, this study examines the nonprofit-donor relationship within the healthcare sector. The participating organizations, which are described more fully in chapter 3, are all nonprofit hospitals with foundations that raise money to underwrite future organizational success. Fundraising in the United States In the United States, the concept of giving to help a neighbor can be tr aced back to colonial times when people worked together to provide f ood and shelter for everyone in their community during harsh New England winters (P. Hall, 2005). As the populat ion grew, so did their needs

PAGE 35

35 and problems. What started as concerned in dividuals working to solve community problems soon evolved into organizational efforts to resolv e community concerns. As people struggled to access education, receive adequate healthcare, and provide for their basic necessities, the nonprofit sector emerged to provide thes e goods and services (P. Hall, 2005). Just as individuals came toge ther to support one another during colonial times, they continued to do so throughout th e history of nonprofit organizations in the United States. In 1640, Henry Dunster became the first President of Harvard College. Desiring to model Harvard after English universities (e.g., Eton University or Cambridge), Dunster launched the nations first fundraising campaign to raise resources for Harvards College Hall w ith the assistance of 3 clergymen sent by Massachusetts Bay Colony to England (Cutlip, 1990). This first campaign was a success as Harvard was able to complete th e construction of buildings and raise funds to support educating its first gradua ting class in 1642 (Harvard Un iversity Library, 2006). The culture of giving that enable d the first fundraising campaign to succeed has permeated throughout our society and has become an e ssential component of our nation. Indeed, philanthropy observers have even declared th at fundraising is an essential component to American democracy (Payton, Rosso, & Tempel, 1991). Despite the importance of giving in our soci ety, there was no formal fundraising function until the early 1900s. Kelly (1998) described early fundraising e fforts, during the Era of Nonspecialists, as solicitations by members of an organization even though they did not specifically have fundraising re sponsibilities. These members may have been employees working in other aspects of the organizations, or they may have been volunteers and like-minded individuals who valued the work of the orga nization (Cutlip, 1990). These early fundraising solicitations evolved as the fundr aising function matured in a manne r that reflects the evolution

PAGE 36

36 of public relations, advancing fr om publicity and propaga nda to a more enlightened symmetrical approach involving the organizatio n and its stakeholder groups. Between 1913 and 1919, fundraising during the Era of Nonspecialis ts was largely a function designed to publicize a cause us ing emotional manipulation and one-way communication. This approach to fundraising was used by Charles Sumner Ward and Lyman Pierce to raise significant amounts of money for th e YMCA and other organi zations in several of Americas largest citie s (Kelly, 1998). One of Wards associates who worked on several campaigns quickly mastered this approach to fundraising and st arted his own fundraising firm. However, one of his own employees retrospectively called him a man of gr eat inherent ability, but with absolutely no self-control and very few prin ciples (Cutlip, 1990, p. 87). Th e use of spectacle to draw attention to the fundraising need s left many feeling uneasy and wanting to use a more honest approach to fundraising. Cutlip (1990) noted that the fundraising process turned to a more truthful approach when Bishop William Lawrence, under the advice of I vy Ledbetter Lee, began raising funds for the Episcopal Church Pension Fund and Princeton Un iversity, respectively. Basing their campaigns on factual information, these prac titioners felt that people, if they are given complete and accurate information, would make the right decisions (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p.34). Though these practitioners sought to enlighten their fundraising prosp ects, they continued to use a oneway approach to communication. While the fundraising process was becoming mo re direct and honest in solicitations, the professions history entered a ne w period, the Era of Fundraising Consultants from 1919-1949. Just as Ward and Lawrence often traveled ar ound the nation helping orga nizations raise funds,

PAGE 37

37 firms began appearing throughout the country an d sought to offer fundraising assistance to charitable nonprofits. These firms used a vari ety of methods, includi ng publicity and public information, to raise awareness and dona tions for various causes (Kelly, 1998). However, a few years later John Price Jones recognized that the campaigns produced by fundraising firms were not reachi ng their potential for success. Jones began using conversations with donors and prospects to conduct some basic res earch that could be used to organize future fundraising campaigns that would appeal to segments of their donors based on persuasion. This two-way asymmetrical approach to fundraising allowed Jones to create a fundraising firm that was based on using scientific research to persuade individuals to give by using the concerns and words of donors as a catalyst to create the campa igns. These conversations resulted in very successful campaigns for Harvard and other academic institutions. As Jones and other fundraising firms trav eled around the country helping nonprofit organizations, individuals at the charitable nonprofits began understa nding more about the fundraising function and how to develop and im plement campaign plans. From 1949-1964, the Era of Transition saw organizations slowly turn ing away from using fundraising firms. The widespread use of fundrai sing firms in the early 20th century helped charit able nonprof its realize that they were capable of producing their ow n campaigns. The nonprofits just needed the exposure to different methods of campaign planning and implementation (Kelly, 1998). As organizations began deve loping expertise about fundrai sing and creating their own programs, many sought to distance themselves even further from fundraising firms. The Era of Staff Fundraisers, from 1964 to the present, br ought about the maturatio n of the profession. Organizations recognized the valu e of researching donors and keep ing records to document the history donors have with the nonprofit. Commu nication became increasingly symmetrical as

PAGE 38

38 fundraising evolved into a process that is built on ope n communication that is designed to reach a mutual understanding between a nonprofit organization and its donors. Practitioner-oriented fundraising literature is full of anecdotes of the value of cu ltivating relationships with donors. Defining Fundraising Many scholars and practitioners have discussed fundraising in relation to the context of philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in general. Tempel (2003) called f undraising a servant to philanthropy (p. 19). In his award-winning book, Achieving Excellence in Fund Raising the late practitioner Henry Rosso failed to define th e fundraising process; instead he focused on the role it plays in philanthropy in general. In his description of the process, Rosso uestion that fundraising is not easy but that much of fund raisings form is made of common sense (1991, p. 9). Rosso and his colleagues discussed fundraisi ng in terms of how to best approach various types of donors. Similarly, former president of the American Association of Fund Raising Counsel John Schwartz (2001) defined fundrai sing by listing several key ingred ients, including a charitable cause, potential donors (indi viduals, foundations, and corporati ons), a communications program, and the voluntary spirit. Schwartz s perspective on fundraising is r ooted in the tactical approach to the profession. His focus on face-to-face solicitation direct mail, phone mail, telemarketing, planned giving, a nd the burgeoning Internet (p. 3) portrays fundraising as methods to support a charitable orga nizations programs and services. Other fundraising literature takes a more ma nagerial approach to fundraising. Though he does not provide a formal definition of fundraisi ng, Stanley Weinstein (2002), former member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals bo ard of directors, placed fundraising in the context of strategic partnerships between an organization and its indi vidual donors and corporate and foundation supporters. Weinstein discussed th e importance of collaborative efforts between

PAGE 39

39 an individual and a nonprofit organization; however, he fails to provide a full definition that truly captures the function. Even though each of the previously referenced books discusses the relationship between a nonprofit organization and its donors, they fail to define fundraising in that context. However, Kelly (1998) provided a definiti on of fundraising that brings the strategic management and relationship cultivation perspec tive together. She defined fundr aising as the management of relationships between a charitable organi zation and its donor publics (p. 8). This definition parallels that of public relations. Cutlip, Ce nter, and Broom (1994) defined public relations as the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the pub lic on whom its success or failure depends (p. 4). Though J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) original ly conceptualized public relations as the management of communications between an organization and its publics, most academic and practitioner literature has come to include relationship management in the definition. Fundraising as a Specialization of Public Relations Kelly (1991) argues that a lack of understanding about fund raising and narrow definitions of public relations have misled scholars and practitioners into believing that fund raising is a separate or superi or function as compared to public relations (p. 337). Her first book critically examined the fundraising process by tracing the history of the function and noting its similarities to the public relations process. Drawing on her own career experiences as well as those of other fundraising practitioners, Kelly (1991) noted the similarities between the 2 professions. Indeed, fundraising literature frequently highlights public relations concep ts, including dialogic co mmunication, relationship cultivation, and programmatic and donor research. The Public Relations Society of Americas

PAGE 40

40 Body of Knowledge added donor relations, or f undraising, to its list of public relations specializations in 1988. Several of the leading fundraising firms in th e United States incor porate public relations strategies and tactics into their efforts to help charitable organizations. With offices in Pittsburg and Dallas, Ketchum is Americas oldest and most successful fundr aising firm [that] has been helping not-for-profit organiza tions meet their philanthropic goals since 1919 (Viscern.com, 2006). Ketchum was founded by Carlton Ketchum, who also founded Ketchum Communications, one of the nation s top public relations firms. The Ketchum fundraising firm was recently purchased by Viscern, a fundraising firm that describes itself as setting the standard for successful capital campaigns, fundraising, and stewardship. Viscern has 2 divisions, Ketchum, which focuses on philanthropic, nonprof it, and humanities organizations, and RSI, which works with faith-based organizations and ministries. In describing its services on its Web site, th e Ketchum fundraising firm offers many of the services that its public relations counterpart offers, incl uding research, strategic planning, communication assistance, campaign evaluation a nd counsel, and donor relations/stewardship. This process closely parallels the R-O-P-E-S pr ocess that many academics encourage students to follow when planning public relations campaigns As Kelly (2001) suggested, the R-O-P-E-S process is suitable for both public relations and fundraising because of the parallels between the 2 fields. This campaign process involves conducting rese arch (R) on the organizations, present and future opportunities and problems the organizati on face, and involved stakeholders. Based on the initial research, practitioners create measurable objectives (O) when creating the campaign. When it comes to implementing the progra mming (P), public relations and fundraising

PAGE 41

41 practitioners cultivate relations hips while carrying out the planned campaigns, which includes solicitations by fundraising pers onnel. Throughout the campai gn and at its conclusion, evaluative research (E) is carri ed out to determine the succes s or failure of the campaign. Finally, practitioners use stewards hip (S) as a method to further develop relationships with key stakeholders. Kelly (2000, 2001) maintains that stewardship is the second most important step in both the public relations and fundraising process. Focusing on fundraising, she advocates that practitioners incorporate 4 elemen ts of stewardship into the or ganizations official fundraising plan: reciprocity, which requires the organization to demonstrat e its gratitude for the gift; responsibility, which means the organization must us e the gift responsibly and act in a sociallyresponsible manner; reporting, whic h includes the basic principles of demonstrati ng transparency and accountability; and relationship nurturing, which includes regular communication and cultivation activities. Th ese principles help the organization and its fundraisers maintain ethical standards as well as ensure continued fundraising success (Worley & Little, 2002). Given the similarities between fundraising and public relations, it is not surprising that there has been considerable academic research done to demonstrate how fundraising and public relations are intertwined. Practitioner literatu re discusses how the inclusion of strategic communication can produce positive results in fundraising campaigns (Rosso, 1991; Matheny, 1999; Kelly, 2001; Jordan & Quynn, 2001). Rossos (1991) Linkage-Ability-Interest formula discusses a strategic approach to communicati ng with potential donors th at nonpofits can use to maximize their impact; this approach is very sim ilar to the situational theory of publics, which consists of the 3 predictor variables of pr oblem recognition, involvement, and constraint recognition (J. Grunig, 1966; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984).

PAGE 42

42 In addition to the linkages between public rela tions and fundraising in the applied setting, there has been considerable work done to adva nce fundraising as a public relations specialty on the scholarly front. Because of the evolution in to an organizational and management function, it makes sense that fundraising is intertwined with public relations Fundraising was first proposed as a specialization of public relations in the early 1990s. Kelly (1991, 1995, 1998) provided the framework for future academic studies examini ng the field. However, in the 15 years since Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis (Kelly, 1991) was published, scholars have been slowly warming up to the idea that fundraisi ng is a specialization of public relations. Even after offering multiple suggestions for future studies in Effective Fund-Raising Management (Kelly, 1998), few public relations scholars have heeded the ca ll for additional inquiry. Nevertheless, a handful of individuals have be en using existing public relations theory to explore the fundraising process. Worley and Littl e (2002) examined the role of stewardship in the fundraising process, and a handful of ot her studies have looked at the nature of communication in fundraising (Wat ers, 2000; M. Hall, 2002; Tinda ll, 2004; Waters & Hendren, 2005). One area of inquiry that has resulted in several conference papers involves role theory and the details of fundraising pr actitioners daily task s (Walker, 1999; Waters, Kelly, & Walker, 2005; Tindall, 2006). A new stream of research has expanded the traditional domain of fundraising by looking at how new media are shaping the futu re of fundraising practices. In a content analysis of the Web sites of the nonprofit organizations on the Chronicle of Philanthropy s Philanthropy 400 list, Waters (2005) explored how nonprofit organi zations use the Inte rnet to communicate specifically with donors and fundraising prospect s. Additionally, Waters (2007) outlined how

PAGE 43

43 nonprofit organizations can use the Internet to develop relationships with key stakeholders, including donors, volunteers, founda tions, and community leaders. Of all the different public relations perspec tives that have been explored, the proposed topic for this study may bring more scholarly interest for fundrai sing. Two early works (Waters, 2006; ONeil, 2007) have provided benchmark numbers to show that relationships can be measured in the donor-nonprofit relationship. ONeil (2007) found significant differences in how donors and non-donors evaluate their relation ships with a Houston-based social welfare organization in terms of trust, commitment, satis faction and the balance of power and control. Using the same scales, Waters (2006) found si milar differences between one-time donors and repeat donors and between major gift donors and annual giving donors for a San Francisco-based healthcare organization. These 2 studies have helped connect f undraising to a recent paradigm shift in the nature of public relations. Nonprofit-Donor Relationship The number of nonprofit organizations has grown exponentially in the United States in the last decade (Salamon, 2002). Relatedly, the comp etition for donors has multiplied. In the next 20 years, fundraising practitioners estimate that an estimated $340 trillion will transfer from the Baby Boom generation to their heirs. A significant portion of this wealth will be transferred to nonprofit organizations as Baby Boomers use estate pl anning, charitable trusts, and gift annuities to reduce their tax burdens. Given this intergenerational transfer of wealth, nonprofit organizations have been pouring more resour ces into their fundraising and development programs in preparation for this transference (Grace & Wendroff, 2001). Basing their plans on their own experience with donors, organizations are putting more resources into cultivating existing donors and finding new prospects.

PAGE 44

44 Fundraisers traditionally have recognized the value that relationships play in securing major gifts and donor participation in planne d giving programs. However, organizations increasingly are realiz ing the importance of stewardship a nd donor cultivation for annual giving donors, especially those who may have the pot ential to make signifi cant donations to the organization. Increasingly, fundraising practit ioner literature is fo cusing on the growing importance of relationship cultivation with all do nors rather than devoting resources to marketing the organization to donor publics. Countless practitioner books and workshops tout the value of relations hips in fundraising (Burlingame & Hulse, 1991; Matheny, 1999; Prince & File, 1994; Rosso, 1991; Worth, 2002). Rather than simply focusing on the cultivation of major gift donors, practitioners have recognized that the same principl es can be applied to all donors. By dedicating more time to donor relations and stewardship, Wo rth (2002) says that these prin ciples can result in increased donor loyalty to the organization. But, it is important to note that the majority of interpersonal cultivation strategies, such as face-to-face meetings and personalized reporting, is restricted to major gift donors. Following Paretos principle, 80 percent of the total am ount donated typically come s from only 20 percent of the donors. Weinstein (2002) notes that in many capital campaigns and mature fundraising programs, the top 10 percent now donate 90 per cent of the amount raised (p. 6). With the success of fundraising campaigns resting heavily on the shoulders of major gift donors, it is not surprising that more personalized cu ltivation strategies are directed to those with the resources to make significant gifts. Rosso (1991) and Nudd (1991) make it clear that if an organization wants to ensure its longevity then it should be prepar ed to dedicate time to developi ng relationships with its donors.

PAGE 45

45 As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the relationship management approach to fundraising can help result in significant gifts from donors. In the typica l nonprofit-donor relations hip, an individual first makes a small gift to an organization, typica lly as a result of a direct mail or telephone solicitation. Over time, fundraising practitione rs work to demonstrate the organizations effectiveness and responsible management of do nations in order to gr ow the relationship. During subsequent solicitations practitioners aim to increa se the individuals level of giving. Nonprofit organizations should not attemp t to elevate the donors gifts too quickly or they risk damaging the trust and accountability th at they had worked to demonstrate (Ritzenhein, 2000). Conducting research on a donor will help the organization determine how quickly they should pursue elevating the gift. Nudd (1991) insisted that orga nizations that conduct research on donors are in the best situati on to cultivate relationships b ecause of their understanding of their donors. Indeed most nonprofit organizatio ns with staff dedicated to the fundraising function keep detailed research files on thei r donors that accurately reflect donors giving histories, their personal lives and interest s, and estimates on potential gift amounts. The fundraising staff pursues larger donations from donors with and without the potential to make major gifts as the relationship between the nonprofit organization and the donor grows. For donors that cannot make major gift contributions, fundraisers may use suggestions in written direct mail pieces or verbal cues with tele phone solicitations to suggest specific donation amounts to help the organization; these donati ons are increased not only to advance the relationship to the next level, but also to maintain the same am ount of giving when inflation is considered. Face-to-face meetings and solicitations may be conducted. A donor, when solicited, may propose to make a major gift contribution to a specific program or service. However, an organization s fundraising representatives may take an active

PAGE 46

46 role in seeking out sign ificant gifts from donors that they be lieve have specific interests in different programs. These major gift solicitati ons typically occur only after significant time and resources have been invested in to the nonprofit-donor relationship. Figure 2-1 illustrates that the relationship lik ely will continue to grow to the point where planned giving is pursued by the donor if nonprofit organizations continue to dedicate resources to relationship cultivation ove r time. Planned giving involve s significant consideration and planning in light of the donors overall estate pl an. Because of the size and potential impact of these gifts, professional advisors often help prepare the legal documents for the gift arrangements. Signing the documents for pla nned giving does not indi cate the end of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Many forms of planned gifts, such as will bequests, are revocable, and nonprofit organizations should c ontinue to pursue stewardshi p strategies to keep these donors informed about the operations and programs at the organization. Even irrevocable gifts demand appropriate management a nd reporting by staff fundraisers. Figure 2-1 is an idealized e volution of the nonprofit organiza tion-donor relationship. Most annual giving donors will not develop into major gift donors. Paretos principle, or the 80-20 rule, is applicable to fundraising and states that 20% of the donors will provide 80% of the overall donation income a nonprofit organization receives (Goodwin, 2004). Weinstein (2002) believes that the ratio is becoming even more l opsided and that 90 percent of an organizations donations come from only 10 pe rcent of its donor publics. However, despite the low likelihood of turni ng an annual giving donor into a major gift donor, nonprofit organizations need to develop relationships. Appr opriate relationship cultivation for annual giving donors can result in future donations at th e same level or with slight

PAGE 47

47 increases. Proper research conducted by staff fundraisers can help determine which annual giving donors have resources that would sugge st potential for future major gifts. Just as the public relations literature is beginning to discuss th e different relationship maintenance strategies, fundraising literature is rich with varying strategies on how the nonprofit-donor relationship can be enhanced through cultivation. Though practitioner literature gives advice on securing face-to-face business m eetings with major gift donors over lunch and in private settings (Sargeant & Jay, 2004), others are beginning to rea lize that relationship maintenance strategies can benefit donors at all levels, no t just those with poten tial to make large gifts. Kellys (2000) formula for stewardship i nvolves thanking the donor and then continued communication through which the or ganization shows that it has used the donation wisely and responsibly. Nonprofit organizations are encouraged to add donors to their mailing lists for newsletters and annual reports (Neal, 2001), additional fundraisi ng solicitations for future campaigns (Rosso, 1991), or both (Lindahl, 1992). For full disclosure, newsletters and/or annua l reports should provi de detailed financial information concerning the amounts of money raised each year, the amount spent on programs and administration, and the amount spent on fundr aising programs. Additionally, newsletters and annual reports should highlight success st ories from the organizations services and programs, list the board of di rectors, and acknowledge major funders. Kinzey (1999) also recommends that newsletters regularly menti on methods by which individuals can get involved in the organization, such as volunteer opportunities, employment opportunities, and information regarding where fundraising donations can be sent.

PAGE 48

48 Increasingly, as e-Philanthropy has become more mainstream with donors donating record amounts over the Internet (Baker, 2005), relationship strategies have even begun to appear for web-based relationships (Olse n, Keevers, Paul, & Covington, 2001; Waters, 2005). Nonprofit organizations have been encourag ed to develop transparent progr ams that provide the elements of accountability and responsibility for donors. By making information, such as IRS 990 forms and annual reports, available as downloads on the Internet, the Web can be used as a medium that allows for a one-way provision of information. E-newsletters and mass e-mails are one wa y that nonprofit organi zations can use the Internet as a one-way method of communication. However, the Web is also being used to engage stakeholders in a mediated dialogue (Kang & Norton, 2004). By providing feedback forms and email addresses of key staff member s, nonprofit organizations can have personalized communications with their stakehol ders. Blogs are also being used to communicate directly with interested publics. However, Waters (2007) warn s that any nonprofit that chooses to use Internet strategies needs to be prepared to respond in a timely manner. Nonprofit publics often expect responses with 24 hours, though conventional wisdom holds that organizations have up to 48 hours to respond without damaging their reputation (Holtz, 1999). Wagner (2002) questioned whether organizatio ns should search for new donors or work with their current donor database s to evolve their donors. N udd (1991) suggested that nonprofit organizationsif they are to ensure their longe vitymust be ready and prepared to do both. She acknowledged that organizations must consta ntly be on the lookout for new individuals who are interested in the cause or the organizati on and try to bring them on board as a donor. However, she maintains that nonprofit orga nizations should put more focus on donors who

PAGE 49

49 already have an established relationship with th e organization because past donor behavior is the strongest indicator of future giving. Worth (2002) maintained that the incorpor ation of these strategies can enhance relationships with donors. When an organizati on is open and actively co mmunicates information about its operations and fiscal h ealth, donors develop a greater sens e of loyalty and trust in the organization. They also are more likely to feel that the organizations staff is dedicated to achieving the mission. Kellys (2001) 4 elements of stewardship demonstrate the organizations gratitude, and, in turn, donors f eel respected because they know the gift was appreciated and wisely managed. Fundraising literature maintains th at donors typically only give to organizations when they are connected to the cause. After the initial donation, donors ca n develop a sense of commitment not only to the cause but also to the organization when they feel their contributions are being managed effectively and efficiently. These fee lings of satisfaction a nd commitment can help elevate the donors gifts when it is combined with increased communication and targeted solicitations. Finally, practitioners have s uggested that cultivation stra tegies in the nonprofit-donor relationship can result in strengthened att itudes and behavior am ong donor publics. By maintaining open communication with donors, nonpr ofit organizations can increase the response they get from donors in terms of increased donati ons and increased volunt eer hours. Literature suggests that donors who are interested in the ca use and have developed positive attitudes toward an organization may become members of the boa rd of directors (Herman & Renz, 2000), may actively talk about the organiza tion with their friends and fa mily (Herman & Renz, 1997), may

PAGE 50

50 refer potential clients or volunt eers to the organization (Snave ly & Tracy, 2000), and may even raise money for the organization (Inglis, 1997). Defining the Organization-Public Relationships The importance of studying the organization-pub lic relationship was first introduced to public relations scholars in the mid-1980s (Fergu son, 1984). However, the suggestion that this concept should be the fields guiding paradi gm was not grasped immediately as scholars continued to focus on strategic communications. As inquiry into relationship management grew, scholars also began looking outside the traditiona l theoretical perspectives to develop a better understanding of the impact relationships have fo r public relations practitioners. Indeed, the early dependence on mass communication theory has proven to be too limiting as relationships become a dominant focus in public relations thinking and practice (Coombs, 2001, p. 114). Despite the use of the term re lationship in many of the defini tions of public relations and fundraising, there were few attempts initially to define what constitutes a relationship between an organization and its stakeholders In reviewing the definition s proposed by public relations scholars, there are very few consistencies (K i & Shin, 2005). However, the definition has evolved since the first proposed definition to represent a wide range of perspectives. After Broom, Casey, and Ritcheys (1997) call fo r a definition of the organization-public relationship, several scholars began to ex amine the concept more closely. Bruning and Ledingham (1998) believed that th e organization-public relationship is the state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural or po litical well being of the othe r (p. 62). Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000) provided a different perspectiv e on organization-public relationships by noting that they are represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage

PAGE 51

51 between an organization and its publics [and th at they] can be describe d at a single point in time and tracked over time (p. 18). In a monograph for the Institute for Public Re lations, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) argued that an individuals relationship with an organization begins when action by the organization has consequences for the individual or public of which he or she is a member. Similarly, an organization may recognize the impact of the re lationship with its publics when their behavior has consequences for the organization. The H on and J. Grunig (1999) definition describes a series linkages that detail how an organization co-exists in the same environment in a manner that promotes relationship building with other en tities. This definiti on, though not explicitly stated, seems rooted in systems theory, which argu es that an organization has 4 distinct types of connections to stakeholder groups and the organizations environment. For nonprofit organizations, these linkages include enabling linka ges, such as donors, board of directors, or government agencies, which provide the nece ssary funding and governance to keep the organization operating; functional linkages, such as employees, volunteers, or members, which represent the workforce and client base of the organization; diffu sed linkages, such as media and community residents, which are used to connect th e organization to individua ls that are not part of the organization; and normative linkages, such as other nonprof it organizations and sectorwide associations, which share similar valu es and face similar problems as the organization (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Schoonraad, 2003). Hung (2005) built on the existing definition of the organization-public relationship: Organization-public relationshi ps arise when organizations and their strategic publics are interdependent and this interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations need to manage (p. 396).

PAGE 52

52 This final definition raises one very intriguing point that was neglected in other definitions. Previous definitions focused on the interactions between the organization and its stakeholders. Hungs (2005) definition also introduces an element of manage ment into the understanding of organization-public relationships. Hung includes the stipulation th at organizations must make decisions to manage the relati onship based on previous interac tions and the consequences of those interactions. With this definition, Hung in troduces the concept of relationship maintenance or cultivation strategies to the management process. Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship In her original call for inqui ry into the nature of relationship management in public relations, Ferguson (1984) propos ed looking at several dimensi ons, including dynamic versus static, open versus closed, mu tual satisfaction and understand ing, distribution of power, and levels of agreement. Nearly 25 years after Fe rgusons call, many of the original dimensions continue to be explored, but ove r the years there have been seve ral attempts to define how the organization-public relationship should be measur ed. Ehling (1992) claimed that the shift from strategic communication, which in volved the manipulation of public opinion, to the building, nurturing and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders is the essence of public relations. He called this shift an important change in the primary mission of public relations (p. 622). In the years since public rela tions focal shift, 2 distinct research teams have been exploring measurement of the organization-public re lationship: (1) research ers at the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, st udying under Dr. Linda C. Hon and Dr. James E. Grunig, respectively; and (2) researchers at Ca pitol University in Columbus, Ohio, studying under Dr. Stephen D. Bruning and Dr. John A. Ledingham. The first research team began exploring th e concept of organiza tion-public relationship measurement when L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Eh ling (1992) proposed that there were 7 basic

PAGE 53

53 elements to understanding re lationship dynamics. Echoing Fe rgusons dimensions, they included mutual satisfaction, mutual understa nding, and openness; they also added the dimensions of trust, reciprocity, cr edibility, and mutual legitimacy. Reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of relationship management studies, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) used interpersonal communication literature to devise a list of dimensions that are present in the organization-public relationship. They proposed th at by measuring the dimensions of the relationship, public relations scholars and practitioners have the ability to examine the contributions of the public relations program to the organization. The dimensions they created were trust, satisfaction, commitment, and cont rol mutuality, which measures the balance of power in the relationship. These 4 dimensions were tested using a convenience sample of the general public for various organizations, includi ng the American Red Cross, the National Rifle Association, and Microsoft. J. Grunig (2002) la ter explained how these items could be studied with qualitative methodologies to provide more depth and understanding to the organizationpublic relationship. The second research group that has created a niche for its studie s on organization-public relationship measurement centers on the work of Bruning and Ledingham. Their initial work into the topic began in 1997 when Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997) pulled variables from a variety of academic disciplines and suggested the organization-public relationship could be explored by looking at 17 different di mensions. Much like Ferguson (1984), Ledingham and his colleagues proposed studying satisfaction and open communication, However, many of the remaining variables were unique to their own research focus. They recommended studying investment, commitment, c ooperation, mutual goals, interdependence, power balance, comparison of alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable investment, shared

PAGE 54

54 technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, social bonds, intimacy, and passion. The result of their initial study formed the basis for an argument that a favorable predisposition toward an organization can be linked to the organizations performance (Ledingham, 2006, p. 4). Finding evidence to support posi tive attitudes and behavior, th eir work turned to focus on how public relations practitioners could improve their practice by looking at the stages of the agency-client relationship and the relationshi p between journalists and media relations practitioners (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). In 1999, Ledingham and Bruning narrowed the 17 dimensions listed earlier down to 5 when they us ed multiple discriminant analysis to predict different levels of relationships between a lo cal telephone company and its customers. The 5 variables they identified as being most in fluential in evaluating the organization-public relationship were trust, openness, involvemen t, commitment, and investment. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) created a scale consisting of 3 subscales focusing on respondents personal, professional, and community attitudes. Finding growing support for the relationshi p management perspective, Bruning and Ledingham (2000b) edited a book focusing on the subject, Public Relations as Relationship Management The book had the goal of stimulat[ing] co lleagues from divers e disciplineswith the richness their backgrounds and training affordsto join in the process of building theory and practice around the notion of relationship manageme nt (p. viii) More than 20 different scholars wrote chapters for the book and introduced ne w topics for the fiel ds understanding of relationships. J. Grunig and Hua ng (2000) furthered the concepts of relationship antecedents and cultivation strategies. Bruning and Ledingham (2000c) also contri buted their own chapter that highlighted the business-to-business relationshi p, which found that this relationship reflected

PAGE 55

55 much of the work between organizations and othe r types of stakeholders In a retrospective essay on the organization-public relations work, Ledingham (2006) concluded with the suggestion that though the nature of interpersonal and organizati on-public relationships are very different, the attitudes, behavior s and consequences of both appear to operate similarly (p. 11). Similar to the work of Ki and Hon (2005), Bruning and Ralston (2000) examined the relationship between the influen ce of relationship dimensions on an individuals attitudes and behavioral intent, and they e xplored the dynamics of the unive rsity-student relationship, although they used different scales to capture the relationship. More recently, Ledingham (2003) has advocated for a closer examination of the role of involvement in relationships, and Bruning, Langenhop and Green (2004) have added new dime nsions of organization-public relationship measurement, including anthropomorphism and compar ison of alternatives to the organization. Though both research teams have created multiple measures to explore organization-public relationships, perhaps the ones that have been repe atedly tested more often than the others are those created by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). This s cale has been used to explore the universitystudent relationship (Brunner & Hon, 2002; Ki & Hon, 2007), the manufacturer-retailer relationship (Jo, 2003), the munici pal utility-community relati onship (M. Hall, 2006); the Air Force base-community relationship (DellaVe dova, 2005); and the nonprofit-donor relationship (Waters, 2006; ONeil, 2007). Because Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) dime nsions have been shown to be both reliable and valid, this study uses those dimensions and the indices that measure trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Dimensions of the Organization-Public Relationship Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) measures focused on 4 dimensions of relationship quality: trust, commitment, satisfaction, and contro l mutuality. Drawing from interpersonal communication literature, Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) dimensions reflect dimensions that

PAGE 56

56 Bruning and Ledingham (1999) have proposed, although they have used literature from marketing, sociology, anthropology, and other busine ss disciplines to develop their measures. Rooted in various disciplines, it is helpful to look at each of the 4 dimensions in depth. Trust Based on the dimensions proposed by public rela tions scholars, trust has been viewed as fundamental in understanding the or ganization-public rela tionship. Vercic and J. Grunig (1995) said that without trust an organi zation could not exist. Trust, qu ite simply, refers to one partys confidence that it can be open and honest with another party. Ledi ngham and Bruning (1998) operationalized trust as doing what an organization says it will do (p. 98). Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) trust scale measur es 3 subdimensions: (1) integrity, which centers on the belief that both parties involved in the relatio nship are fair and just; (2) dependability, which is primarily concerned with wh ether the parties involv ed in the relationship follow through with what they say they will do; and (3) competence, which focuses on whether the parties have the abilities to do what they say they will do. Drawing on relationship marketi ng literature, studies have fo und that when an organization demonstrates trust with its stake holders, the publics involved with the organization perceive less risk about their involvement. Ofte n, high levels of trust can be used to predict future behavior with the organization (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Commitment Another of Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) dime nsion that is grounded in interpersonal relationships is commitment. This concept has be en defined as the extent to which one party believes and feels that the relationship is wort h spending energy to maintain and promote (Hon and J. Grunig, 1999, p. 20). Hon and J. Grunigs scale contains measures of both attitude and behavioral intention.

PAGE 57

57 Bruning and Galloway (2003) reported that comm itmentthe level of dedication to an organizationis a key component of the or ganization-public relationship because it is fundamental to the publics attit ude of the organization. Simila rly, Dwyer and Oh (1987) insist that commitment is the highest stage of the re lationship. Unlike the 3 other measures proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), commitment is the onl y one that hints toward future behavior. Trust, satisfaction, and control mu tuality all are evaluative measur es, but commitment takes into account extending the relationship. Satisfaction Satisfaction was one of the original di mensions proposed by Ferguson (1984). She suggested that entities may have different expectations that ma y produce different feelings of satisfaction. The dimension of satisfaction serves to measure whether the parties involved have positive feelings about one another. Hon a nd J. Grunig (1999) not e that a satisfying relationship is one in which the be nefits outweigh the costs (p. 3) Satisfaction has been one of the variables that has been measured in numerous studies, incl uding Bruning, Langenhop and Greens (2004) examination of city-resident relations. Previous research from relationship marketing suggests that when part ies are satisfied with the nature of the relationship, they are more likely to be committed to maintaining it (Dwyer & Oh, 1987). Therefore, organizatio ns that invest in developing satisfying relationships with targeted stakeholders are likely to produce beneficial results for the organization in the long term. Supporting this mutually beneficial appr oach to relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) defined satisfaction as the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced (p. 20). Ledingham and Bruning (2000) argued that satisfaction was a dimension of the organization-public relationship th at could easily be increased if the organization invested the

PAGE 58

58 time and resources. Foreshadowing future explor ation into relationship management strategies, they suggested that organizations that were more open and spent time getting stakeholders to participate in organizational deci sions were more likely to have satisfied stakeholders than others. Control mutuality The final dimension of relationship quality involves the distribution of power. Termed control mutuality by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), this compone nt seeks to evaluate which party has more power over the other in different situat ions. In her original call for relationship management studies, Ferguson (1984) suggested that other variables rela ted to the relationship might be how much control both parties to the relationship believe they have [and] how power is distributed in the relationship (p. 20). Power exists in any relationshi p, and public relations scholars ha ve taken a keen interest in exploring the role of power in re cent years, particularly in light of the shift from seeing public relations as a strategic communi cation function to one of relationship management. Plowman (1998) demonstrated that public relations practi tioners who understand power are more likely to be included in the dominant coalition, and this skill enables the dominant coalition to balance the organizations interests with those of stakeholders. Exploring the role of power in mediating conflicts between or ganizations and stakeholders, Huang (2001) concluded that the presence of powe r and its distribution ha s a tremendous impact on the perceptions and actualities of the organi zation-public relationship. Indeed, Berger (2005) used a critical approach to examine the role of power in his study of activist publics. Because of the power struggle, public relations practitioners often expe rience tension with their role of being a boundary spanner that keeps one foot inside the orga nization and one outside the organization to stay in contact with an orga nizations stakeholders. The parties involved are

PAGE 59

59 usually sensitive to which side exhibits and uses power to gain control in the relationship. This power can influence the attitude and behavi or of both the organi zation and its publics. After nearly one decade of studying relati onships using these 4 dimensions, public relations scholars have constructed a fr amework for studying other organization-public relationships using valid and reli able scales. Based on fundraising and public relations literature, this study poses its first research question, wh ich evaluates the nonprof it-donor relationship for all donors: RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonpr ofit organization a favorable rating on the four relationship dimensions? It is important to note that in Hon an d J. Grunigs (1999) monograph, 2 additional relationship dimensions were proposed; however, th ey were not adopted by the current study. In an attempt to define the types of relationships Hon and J. Grunig (1999) described organizationpublic relationships as either communal, which ha s both parties providing be nefits to one another because they are concerned for each others welf are, or exchange, which has one side of the relationship giving a benefit to the other side with the expectation th at benefits will be returned in the future if they have not already been given. Waters (2006) included the original communal/exchange dimensions when measur ing the nonprofit-donor relationship and found that donors evaluate the re lationship as a communal ra ther than exchange. These measurements were not implemented into the current research design because public relations scholarship has advanced beyond the dichotomy of organiza tion-public relationship types. Hung (2006) detailed a continuum of organization-public rela tionships, which ranged from relationships where the sides are conc erned primarily for themselves (exploitive relationships) to relations hips that demonstrate concern for others (communal). Between the 2

PAGE 60

60 endpoints of the continuum, other types of relati onships exist, including contractual, exchange, and covenantal ones. Although Hung reports that these relationship types were first proposed by J. Grunig in personal conversati ons in 2001, public relations schol arship has rarely focused on relationship type and has not created measurement scales for the different types. Although this area of public relations is fertile ground for futu re organization-public studies, the current study does not incorporate the relationshi p variable type into the resear ch design due to the lack of available scales. Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships In all the previous organization-public relatio nship studies, public relations scholars have only measured the relationship using one organiza tion and the key stakehol der group in question. The relationships were measured using Hon a nd J. Grunigs (1999) suggested dimensions, and there have been many studies that have exam ined the 4 measurement indices for trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Over the course of the studies, the measures have repeatedly produced satisfactory Cronbach alpha ratings (Bowers & Courtwright, 1984) for social scientific research; thus indicating that the i ndicators are producing reliable answers. Similarly, the indicators have held up over time to produce reliable answers. Given the reliability of the measures, many scholars have conducted these studies to examine an array of relationshi ps, including the univers ity-student relationship (Hon & Brunner, 2002; Ki & Hon, 2005), the municipal utility-co mmunity relationship (M. Hall, 2006), the manufacturer-retaile r relationship (Jo, 2006), the Air Force base-community relationship (VellaDova, 2005), and the nonprofit-donor relati onship (Waters, 2006; ONeil, 2007). These studies all found significant results when they looked at different segments of the publics. However, the studies only looked at one organi zation and one of its publics. Despite the numerous studies employing this methodology, one has to wonder if this methodology is a valid

PAGE 61

61 approach for measuring a relationship. Can the evaluations of one organizations communication and behavioral efforts with one targ et public truly claim to represent the entire scope of the relationship? Dr awing on other examples in co mmunication studies, Kaid (1989) insists that generalizations about the media cannot be made from the examination of one news story; similarly, Jackson and J acobs (1983) caution scholars to be careful when generalizing about the impact of messages when only one sm all segment of the greater population has been studied. Thinking to the nature of soci al scientific research, one ha s to question whether previous organization-public relationship st udies truly measured the nature of the overall relationship between a type of organization and a key stakeholder or were they simply applied studies measuring the publics views. In that case, the resu lts cannot be generali zed beyond the context of that organization, and they ce rtainly cannot claim to capture the essence of that type of relationship. Public relations st udies are missing a key component in social scientific research: the ability to compare and contrast the variants of the organization-public relationship within the confines of one study. This approach would pr ovide significant insight s into the nature of relationships for the profession. This study takes a different approach to m easuring the traditional organization-public relationship. With its goal of seeking to measure the nonprofitdonor relationship rather than to understand the dynamics of one nonprofit organizatio ns relationship with its donors, this study uses multiple organizations to capture the fundamental essence of the nonprofit-donor relationship. With the exception of Ki (2006), most of the organization-public relationship studies used these 4 relationship dimensionstrust, commit ment, satisfaction, and control mutualityto

PAGE 62

62 measure the quality of the relationship with the p ublic in question (e.g., donors in this study). To help understand the impact of different type s of donors on relationship evaluation, the first hypothesis examines the evaluation of the nonprof it-donor relationship for 2 groups of donors: (1) annual giving donors and (2) major gift donors. As will be explained in more depth in chapter 3, major gift donors were considered as those who gave $10,000 or more per year. Because fundraising literature maintains that orga nizations traditionally put more resources into relationship cultivation with ma jor gift donors, the first hypothesis tests the difference in relationship evaluation between ma jor gift and annual giving donors: H1: Compared to annual gift donors (e.g., thos e who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the organizati on-public relationship more positively on the 4 relationship dimensions. Returning to the lite rature on the nonprofitdonor relationship, fundr aising practitioners often suggest that organizations should invest more time and resources into the donors who continue to donate to their causes (Tempel, 2003). The ultimate goa l of these organizations is to elevate the donor to higher stages of giving, perhaps turn ing an annual gift into a major gift. In a study of nonprofit organizational effectiv eness, Herman and Renz (1998) found that the nonprofits who were more focused on manage d communication efforts were more likely to have positive relationships with their stakeh olders. Though this study did not exclusively examine fundraising dynamics, the authors did s uggest that nonprofit orga nizations could expect positive financial returns when they invest resources into developing a relationship. Similarly, Voss, Cable, and Voss (2000) found that organizations that were able to de monstrate their values to their stakeholders were likely to benefit from the relationshi p over an extended period of time.

PAGE 63

63 According to Rosso (1991), as a donor increases the number of gifts that he or she makes to a charitable nonprofit, the mo re likely an organization will be to dedicate resources to cultivating the relationship. Therefor e, the second hypothesis is as follows: H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively correlated to the evaluation of the relationship dimensions. As previously mentioned, both Waters ( 2006) and ONeil (2007) have used the 4 dimension indices developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) to evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship using the single or ganization approach. Waters ( 2006) evaluated the dynamics in the healthcare nonprofit subsector whereas ONeil (2007) studied the relationship at a social service organization. Due to the cooperation of the participating ag ency, Waters (2006) was able to obtain information about which survey partic ipants donated to the organization in the annual campaign subsequent to the survey. Using this data, the study conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test and found that the most significant differences in how the relationship dimensions were evaluated by donors and nondonors in the organizations Fall 2005 campaign came from the dimensions of trust and commitment. Though this was a crude use of the ANOVA statistical test it raises an interesting question that is proposed as this studys second research question: RQ2: Can participation in the most recent f undraising campaign be predicted based on the donors evaluation of the relationship? This study does not seek to dismiss the wo rks of Ledingham and Bruning (e.g., 1999). On the contrary, the scholarship they have produced has been valuable to the fields understanding of the organization-public relationship. The resear chers have identified several areas that have not been explicitly explored under the Hon and J. Grunig (1999) measures, such as loyalty,

PAGE 64

64 perceptions of the organization, a nd involvement. Given these differe nt concepts that have yet to be explored with the dimensions of trust, sa tisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality, the third research question is as follows: RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately represent the organization-public relationship? In their monograph on the measurement of relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) focused on outlining the dimensions of the or ganization-public relationship in detail by operationalizing trust, commitment satisfaction, and control mutuality. However, they also proposed that there were 9 relationship cultivati on strategies that orga nizations could use to produce positive relationships with their stakeh olders. In analyzing the work of Bruning, Ledingham, and their colleagues, many of the variab les they have examined were strategies that organizations could use to deve lop relationships. Additionally, other public relations scholars, such as Kelly (2001) and Plowman (1996), ha ve discussed relationship maintenance and cultivation strategies in their works. Impact of Relationship Cultivation Strategies Throughout the literature on re lationships, public relations scholars (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; J. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hung, 2000; Ki, 2004; M. Hall, 2006) have used the term maintenance to describe the strategies they re commend using in the management of organization-public relationships. Howeve r, Hung (2005) proposed changing how public relations scholars describe the relationship strategies. In her book chapter, she notes that J. Grunig (personal communication, February 26, 2002) considered using the te rm, cultivation in replacing maintenance (p. 23).

PAGE 65

65 Hung then proceeded to rationalize this decision by exploring Dindia and Canarys description of relationship maintenance. Dindi a and Canary (as cited in Hung, 2005) provide the 4 most commonly used reasons par ties employ maintenance strategies: to keep a relationship in existence to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition to keep a relationship in satisfactory condition to keep a relationship in repair. Of those 4 reasons, Hung (2004) argued that only the final 2 truly represent the organization-public relationship. She contends that the first r easonto keep a relationship in existencedoes not provide any strategic behavior designed to maintain the relationship and that the second reasonto keep a relationship in a sp ecified state or conditio ndoes not consider the fluid nature of relations hips with stakeholders. Hungs (2002) research on types of relati onships demonstrates that organizational behavior, whether intentional or acc idental, can often damage the relationship with stakeholders. Therefore, organizations cannot simply maintain re lationships with their pu blics, but they should work to restore relationships that have been damaged. With this perspective, she contends behaviors in relationships are an on-going cultivating process. Therefore, the term cultivation strategies fits more in the context of relationship management (Hung, 2005, p. 23). Given the appropriateness of relationship de velopment in the fundraising pr ocess, this study endorses and utilizes the term cultivation rather than maintenance which implies that a relationship is remaining steady rather than growing. Relationship Cultivation Strategies Defined Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) monograph set the gui delines for defining 2 separate types of relationship strategies: symmetri cal and asymmetrical. They st ress not all strategies for maintaining relationships are equa lly effective we must rec ognize that not all public relations

PAGE 66

66 strategies, techniques, and program s are equally likely to produce relationship outcomes (p. 13). The 9 relationship strategies were originally pr oposed after reviewing pub lic relations literature on interpersonal relationships a nd conflict resolution. The strate gies they identified from interpersonal relationships were symmetrical, mean ing that both parties benefited from being in the relationship, while those comi ng from conflict resolution repr esented both symmetrical and asymmetrical strategies. These various strategies are defined In the following section. Table 2-1 lists which strategies have been classified as symmetrical. Access Ultimately, this strategy involves making indi viduals available to both sides of the relationship. For example, opinion leaders or influential members of stakeholder groups are open to meeting with organizati onal representatives, and public relations representatives or senior managers grant similar access to publics. By providing the opportunity for the 2 parties to meet with one another, each sides voices and c oncerns can be considered when organizations need to make decisions about current and future issues. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) cont end that organization-public re lationships that use access as a strategy involve the willi ngness of both entities to go to the other party di rectly when they have complaints or questions about i ssues instead of discussing compla ints with a third party. By making individuals available to me mbers of the other party, the or ganization and its stakeholders are able to engage one another. In their monograph, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) di scuss the importance of access in terms of key opinion leaders of stakehol der groups. Because of the in creasing use of new media and Web-based communication, Ki (2003) points out that access is now available to virtually anyone with Internet access. She notes:

PAGE 67

67 With the World Wide Web, not only member s or opinion leaders can influence the organization decision-making processes. A nyone with Internet acc ess can affect an organizations decision-making process because diverse contact information such as telephone numbers, staff electro nic mail addresses, bulletin boa rds, and so on, is provided on Web sites. (p. 19) Access has been identified by fundraising consul tants as being an important strategy to connect with donors. Bill Moss, a contributing writer for Blackbauds Nonprofit Fiscal Fitness newsletter, encourages nonprofits to make thei r financial history and IRS 990 Tax Forms widely avai