Citation
Toward an integrated system of income acquisition and management

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Funding ( jstor )
Fundraising ( jstor )
Grants ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Marketing ( jstor )
Private colleges ( jstor )
Tuition ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028774627 ( ALEPH )
50512348 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












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













By

KATHRYN M. BIRMINGHAM


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

scholarly standards.

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

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

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

story.

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

encouragement.

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

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

guidance.

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

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

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

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
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

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

CHAPTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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












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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

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

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

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

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

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

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
















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

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

By

Kathryn M. Birmingham

May 2002

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

Higher education literature documents changes in the source of the revenue

stream for community colleges and states that fundraising and resource development

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

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

structure and management practices of higher education institutions change in response

to changes in the funding environment.

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

structure and management activities have changed in four community colleges in

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

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

study examined the advancement activities within the income acquisition and

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










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

Continuum (IIAM) Model was developed.

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

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

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

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

activities with institutional planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities.

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

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

the IIAM Continuum as a model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for future research are discussed.
















CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY


Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










Another documented external force is shrinking public resources to support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

personal communication, September 25, 2001).

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

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

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

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

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

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








3

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

over the next decade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

governments can stimulate private development efforts and innovative financial aid

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

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

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

Patton, 1999).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Education Commission of the States, 2000).











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

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

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

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

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

13%




12%

S11% -










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

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


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

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

education model.

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










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

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

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

college mission has broadened. Merisotis and Wolanin recommend that community

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

pricing policies.

Individual states have reduced allocations to public higher education institutions,

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

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

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

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

governments to provide adequate funding for enrollment increases threatens the access

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

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

Fundraising as a management practice of community colleges has been influenced

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

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

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

American Association for Community Colleges members, 542 of 550 respondents

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

(Philippe & Patton, 1999).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another public policy impetus for prolific growth in community college

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

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

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

and workforce development missions of community colleges stress public/private

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

and new technology (Johnstone, 1997).

Institutionally related foundations are a way to protect private gifts from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

community college will be a critical success factor.


Statement of the Problem

It has been theorized that resource development must become an institutionalized

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

resource development must become integrated with institutional planning, academic

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

organizational structure and management practices change when the political and funding

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

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

1951, 1980).

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

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

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










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

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

The research need is to discover how organizational structure, administrative

management activities, and faculty management activities have changed in community

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

college operations. Community college administrators have authority over designing and

coordinating organizational structure and management activities. As the importance and

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

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


Purpose of the Study

This study examined the income acquisition and management process and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

institutional planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities.










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

literature reviewed in Chapter 2.

The comparative case analysis describes the participants' understandings and

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

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

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

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

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

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











Table 1-1. IIAM Continuum


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


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

Marketing
y/n

Institutional
Research
y/n

Media Relations
y/n

Community
Affairs y/n

Corporate
Relations
y/n

Government
Relations
y/n

Resource
Development
y/n

Foundation
y/n

Alumni Affairs
y/n


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


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


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


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


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









11

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

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

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

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

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

p. xvii).

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

organized in different ways because the institutions must accommodate to the

environments within which they exist. Community colleges may require different

advancement activities and relationships among those activities. Management has

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

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

administrators of theoretical foundations and successful practice for improving planning

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

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

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

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

fees in America's community colleges.


Statement of Intent

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

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

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

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









12

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

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

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

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

maintaining quality teaching and instructional technology and services, most community

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

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

is debated by community college leaders.

To inform public policy and practice the researcher captured the phenomenon

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

as decisions about programs, implementing management decisions, and organizational

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

an overall comparative study concluding with modification of the postulated IIAM

Continuum theory.

The researcher intended to derive the meaning of community college

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

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

support or repudiation of the postulated IIAM Continuum theory.


Guiding Research Questions

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

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

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










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

income sources?" The four research questions were

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

It is hypothesized that an aggregated income acquisition and management system

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

more income and greater institutional effectiveness than disaggregated systems. More

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

in enrollment and funding crises.

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

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

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

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

discourses among community college administrators. Through semi-structured interviews

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

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

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


Significance of the Study

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

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

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










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

activity of the resource development subfunction within the function of institutional

advancement (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

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

for technology for their economic development and workforce development missions as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resource development activities. The community college organizational structures differ

widely to cover the function of institutional advancement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









15

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

college fiscal strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

community college administrators. The case studies suggest how changing organizational

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

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

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


Definition of Terms

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

community college function that encompasses the activities of govemment affairs,

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

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

a foundation to affect income acquisition and management.

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

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

contributions from private sources and activities that cultivate relationships with

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










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

charities, business and industry, and private foundations.

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

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

common head, the president.

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

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

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

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

advancement function.

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

environmental monitoring, and assessment of internal strengths and weaknesses to

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

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

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

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

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

open system.

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

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

strategic plan to obtain objectives, five steps are undertaken:

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











Using these definitions, strategic planning in community colleges treats the

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


Research Design

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

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

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

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


Methods

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

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

following manner:

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

Thus, the institutional advancement activities and their integration with the

income acquisition and management process were identified through qualitative research

methods.










Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000.

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

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

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

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

reflected in the planning and operational activities of the college.

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

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

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

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

study.

Experience tells us that organizational structure and business practices change

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

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

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

colleges.








19

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

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

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

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

trends described in academic literature.


Assumptions

It was assumed that

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

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

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


Organization of the Study

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

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

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

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

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

colleges stand on the IIAM Continuum.

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

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

recommendations raised in the study for public policy and practice.
















CHAPTER 2
A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY

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

literature on community college income acquisition management, fundraising, and

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

questions are as follows:

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

The foundations for the study are community college advancement and

organizational management research, higher administration literature, and studies on

planning and change in public organizations and community colleges.

The problem was to discover how organizational structure, administrative

management activities, and faculty management activities have changed in four

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

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

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

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

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

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

year period of the study.










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

college organizational structure and changing management activities as they relate to

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

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

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

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


Changes in the Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and projects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education and studies by Jenkins and Glass

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

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

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

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

contribute through tuition and fees to total operating revenue documented in

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










Fundraising in Community Colleges

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

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

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

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

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

private contributions require matching funds.

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

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

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

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

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

Eblinger, 1998).

The growth of community college foundations as an organizational approach to

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

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

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

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

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

Glass, 1999).

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent study of public community college foundations in Michigan described

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








25

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

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

attributable to good public relations and organizational development characterized by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sponsored studies to inform college advancement efforts to acquire financial support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

community college advancement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resource development must generate revenue from both public and private

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

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

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











resource development have broadened to include the investigation and acquisition of

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

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

scanning and relationships (Schuyler, 1997).

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

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

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

raising, and external relationships with all constituents. Enrollment management

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

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

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

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

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

broader context of institutional advancement. He describes educational fundraising as

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

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

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

considerable research for identification of prospects, and prospect tracking and

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

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

continuous (Worth, 1993).

In undertaking the fundraising strategies of annual campaigns, planned and

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

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










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

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

characteristics in common-strong marketing and widespread community support

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

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

development professionals should be specifically trained in both the technical aspects

and the human factors of fundraising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1999).

Although community college foundations may lack the loyalty of older and

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








29

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

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

with the other activities associated with the advancement function because community

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

parallel priorities (Worth, 1993).

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

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

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

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

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

Duronio, 1989).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










answers to questions regarding changes in organizational structure and management

activities as well as changes in the integration of activities.

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

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

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

"Income Acquisition and Management as a System."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Resource Development and Institutional Planning


Organizational Structure

Resource development and fundraising are implementation activities for the

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

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

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

Thompson & Strickland, 2001; Tromble, 1998).








31

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

democratizing institutions that provide access and opportunities for students who have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

advancement function best serves the community college mission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is growing commitment by community college administrators and faculty

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

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










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

strategic planning requires an understanding of external expectations and their contexts

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

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

When resource development officers understand relationships between their

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

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

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

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

making (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

As a leadership function strategic management involves the integration of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most models of institutional planning and strategic management for higher

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

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

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

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










Scan External
Environment
Identify Strategic
Opportunities
and Threats


Implement
Strategies through
Program Selection


Scan Internal Environment
and Identify Strategic
Strengths & Weaknesses


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

Figure 2-1. An Institutional Strategic Management Model



Systems and Processes


Drivers


Outcomes


External
Environment Leadership


Individual &
Group
Response
Rfes rll


Outcomes


Source: Baker, 1998


Figure 2-2. Core Values Model











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

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

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

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

president is critical to the success of the plan.




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


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

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


Source: Barker & Smith, 1997

Figure 2-3 Internal Management Model for Institutional Planning


Peterson and associates (1997) examined strategic planning and strategic

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

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

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











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

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

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

continual communication along with the discipline of ranking priorities is essential

(Peterson et al., 1997).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elements of strategic management for the institutional strategies related to image

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

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

acquisition and management system.

Higher education planning literature focuses on decentralized decision-making

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

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

new decentralized organizational structure may be required for strategic decision-

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

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

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

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








36

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

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

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

strategy and decentralizing operations.

In advancement function literature, the debate continues over centralized or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and grants management.

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

model for resource development within the advancement function should be predicated

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

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











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

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

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

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

communication systems with offices with which the foundation officer must interact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communication must be transactional (Cain, 1999).

A 1991 survey found that community college presidents' preferred an

organizational structure that maintained the following advancement activity staff

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

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

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

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

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

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









38

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

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

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

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

where the vice president for marketing and enrollment services oversees enrollment

services, public relations, and marketing.


Changing Management Activities

Literature on the changing roles of community college administrators and faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Miller & Seagren, 1997).

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

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

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











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

chair responsibilities.

Acknowledging that higher education governance is largely consensual, the

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

with building coalitions with administrators and faculty leaders is necessary to

implement change successfully. New organizational structures and rewards for team

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

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

implement these strategies with resources obtained through resource development

activities.


Income Acquisition and Management as a System

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

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

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

Community Affairs, Corporate Relations, Government Relations, Resource

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

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

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

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

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

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

1999).









40

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

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

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

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

the umbrella of managing important relationships and institutional communications. This

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

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

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

higher education institutions are rarely optimally organized from a marketing

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

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

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

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

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

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

integration (Sevier. 1998, 1999, 2000).

The necessity of integrating resource development into institutional strategic

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

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

integration of institutional and financial planning may lead to greater college

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

college contexts.

There is a growing feeling that community college administrators must improve

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

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

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

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

1997).

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

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

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

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

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

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










planning language makes it confusing and uninformative for organizational planners

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

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

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

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

Management By Objectives (Birnbaum, 2001).

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

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

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

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

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

environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

culture. Academic planning requires external scanning of constituent groups with

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

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

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

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










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

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

This recommendation suggests that participative planning systems that include internal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

models of strategic planning systems in community colleges show that organizational

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

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

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

A study of 107 California community colleges showed inconsistencies between planning

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

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

significant (Williams, 1998).

Institutional effectiveness planning models which allow for outcomes assessment

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

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

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

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

(Braswell & May, 2000).










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

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

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

administration and public management literature as best practice. These are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









45

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

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

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

foundation activity differences among the state system colleges (c) a variety of

advancement activities present, (d) a variety of organizational structures, (e) a variety of

best practice within the advancement units of resource development, institutional

research, marketing, etc., (f) a variety of strategic initiatives grouped to integrate private

revenue into planning, budgeting, and fundraising efforts, yet the study theorizes the

colleges may be placed on a model because the management and planning principles are

applicable to all institutions. "Sound management reduces uncertainty through the

application ofjudgment to context-specific situations in order to define problems in ways

that may lead to effective action" (Birnbaum, 2001, p. 225).

Where is the juncture between management theory and the strategic environment

of the college? The fiscal strategy should lie here. The elements of fiscal strategy are

resource identification, acquisition, and resource allocation.


Summary

The literature review in this chapter gives justification for this comparative case

study. The scholarly work described changes in the sources of revenue for community

colleges and how fundraising, resource development, and institutional planning fit within










the framework of the advancement activities. Organizational structure and changing

management activities are defined within the context of fiscal strategies of community

colleges. Income acquisition and management activities are shown as a system. The

development of the IIAM Continuum is built upon the research reviewed in this chapter.

The factors of the IIAM Continuum are based upon empirical research and theories to

build a coherent model.

"New funding streams change the fundamental shape of the river, and institutions

must strike a balance between managing a coherent identity, matching items on deans'

wish lists with institutional priorities, and identifying those strategic initiatives that also

map to donor expectations" (Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000, p. 3). The

literature reviewed in Chapter 2 also indicates that in addition to reshaping, building, and

maintaining new linkages and cooperative relationships among external constituents,

community colleges must reshape the relationships and decision-making apparatus

among internal stakeholders as part of fiscal strategy making.

In the following chapter the methodology for the comparative case study is

explained. Chapter 4 is a presentation and analysis of the data for each of the four case

studies. The last chapter presents the cross-case conclusions and modifications of the

IIAM Continuum. Recommendations for public policy and future studies are given in

Chapter 5.
















CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter defines the research methodology used in this study. The research

purpose, problem and design are detailed; the research instrument and research sample

are described. The data collection methods are listed followed by the methodology used

for data analysis. The colleges were placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of

the characteristics required for that stage.


Research Problem

The research problem was to discover how organizational structure, management

activities of administrators, and management activities of faculty have changed in four

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

operations by the state government. As the importance and influence of support other

than from the state in the life of higher education have expanded, so too have the

structures which obtain, raise, and manage these dollars.

Unlike deductive research in which the researcher hopes to find data to match a

theory; this study is inductive in that a theory is found to explain the data (Geotz &

LaCompte, 1984). Qualitative research is most useful here for exploring institutional

phenomena, articulating participants' understandings and perceptions, and generating

tentative theories that directly pertain to particular environments (Hathaway, 1995).










Purpose of the Study

This study examined the income.acquisitionand management.activities..within.....

four community colleges located in the states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and

Texas. The purpose of the study was to identify the qualitative elements of the process

and their perceived impact upon the organizational structure and management activities

of administrators and faculty at each of the four institutions. The advancement systems

within the income acquisition and management systems were compared at four colleges

to place each of the institutional systems on an Integrated Income Acquisition and

Management (HAM) Continuum. Stages One to Five on the IIAM Continuum move from

disaggregation to interconnectivity of income acquisition and management activities of

an institution. The colleges were placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of the

characteristics required for that stage.

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

factors, such as, "Does the college perform this advancement activity?" "Who does it?"

and "Where is the activity located in the organizational structure?" The colleges were

placed on a stage in the continuum from disaggregated to aggregated. A college attained

a more aggregated stage when it showed a higher level of integration of the advancement

function and planning systems. For example, to reach Stage Four a college must show

(a) evidence of administrative structures that link academic planning and budgeting with

fundraising to achieve strategic goals, that is, initiatives to integrate the activities of the

advancement function, (b) evidence of methods of determining which revenue stream is

best suited to fund each institutional priority and a strategies of income acquisition for

that revenue stream; and subsequently (c) a plan to implement these strategies. The

analysis and rationale for placement on the IIAM Continuum is based upon the academic











literature in Chapter 2 and linked to the data from the interviews, site observations, and

document review.

The case studies described participants' understandings and perceptions of

changes in management activities and related the HAM theory to the college

environments. By applying theory to the qualitative data collected, the researcher

produced knowledge that can inform higher education administrators of theory and

successful practice for improving planning and management systems in community

colleges.

At the conclusion of the literature review, qualitative elements were identified

and categorized. Data collection was conducted in two phases. The first phase included

collecting data related to the selection criteria of the colleges. The second phase was

conducted through four site visits to the college to interview administrators, observe

planning meetings, and to review materials related to the advancement process and

income acquisition and management. Data analysis was conducted in two phases. The

first phase examined advancement and management activities. The second phase was

coding interview transcripts and employing qualitative evaluation techniques (content

analysis) to determine the perceptions of the administrators regarding where their college

was placed on the IAM Continuum and which factors (qualitative elements) were in

evidence to warrant the placement of the income acquisition and management system at a

stage of the HAM Continuum.

The theory is that as the sources of income have become more diverse and change

in proportion to one another, community colleges organize themselves on a point on the

1AM Continuum. The main question of the study is, "How have the colleges responded

to the change in income streams?" The four research questions are











1. How has organizational structure changed?

2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?

3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?

4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?

It is hypothesized that an aggregated income acquisition and management system

is more desirable than not. Future studies must determine whether aggregated systems

result in more income and greater institutional effectiveness than disaggregated systems.

These four questions constitute the study's major issues, or conceptual structure

(Stake, 1995). The logic linking the data to the theoretical propositions, and the

phenomena to be examined within the bounded instance of the case study are reflected in

the research questions (Yin, 1994).


Design of the Comparative Case Study

The case study method is used when the phenomenon and the contextual

conditions of the phenomenon are inextricably bound. Or, as Yin (1994) states, "the

boundaries between phenomenon and context" are not clear (p. 13). This study is an

embedded, multiple-case design (Yin, 1994). An embedded design is used when a case

involves more than one unit of analysis. The units of analysis in each case were the

advancement subfunctions as they relate to the income acquisition and management

systems of the colleges.

A multiple-case design is used to determine replication of phenomena. This study

was designed to determine whether the same results are replicated in each case.

Figure 3-1 illustrates the multiple-case design.















DEFINE AND DESIGN
I "


PREPARE, COLLECT, &
I


ANALYZE & CONCLUDE
S4 -


Figure 3-1. Framework for Comparative Case Studies











The study investigated factors cited in the literature as affecting income

acquisition and management and components of the advancement function in community

colleges. See Chapter 2 for these factors.

Theory development, prior to the conduct of any data collection, is a major

distinction between case studies and other qualitative research methods (Lincoln & Guba,

1986, Stake, 1995; Van Maanen, Dabbs, & Faulkner, 1982). To acquire a theoretical

framework for designing this study, previous research on community college

advancement and organizational management were reviewed to find a framework. This

knowledge base is covered in Chapter 2. To summarize Chapter 2, the major theoretical

frameworks that provided guidance for this study are descriptions of the effective

advancement function and community college foundation (Adams, Keener, & McGee,

1994; Banks & Mabry, 1988; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1995; Burlingame & Hulse, 1991;

Duronio & Loessin, 1991; Gatewood, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Jackson, 1997;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Keener, 1982, Kelly, 1991; Koelkebeck,

1994; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998; Robison, 1982; Ryan, 1998b; Ryan & Smith, 1989;

Sharon,1982; Williams, 1988; Worth, 1993) and the integration of the advancement

function planning objectives with the community college strategic objectives (Baker et

al., 1992; Bimbaum, 2001; Cameron & Whetten, 1984; Cameron, 1986; Chaffee, 1989;

Cohen et al., 1994; Dolence & Norris, 1995; Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Hecht, et.al., 1999;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000; Miller & Seagren,

1997; Peterson, et. al, 1997; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Tiemey,

1998; Tromble, 1998; Wolverton, 1998). The theoretical frameworks are used as a

template with which to compare the empirical results of the case studies. When two or











more cases are shown to support the same theory, a claim of repetition may be made

(Yin, 1994).

Case studies rely on analytical generalization in which a particular set of results

may be generalized to a broader theory. This pattern matching logic of case studies

allows for an organization to be studied from multiple perspectives rather than the

influence of a single variable (Eisenhardt, 1991).

Questions were developed to relate management activities and affinity to the

theoretical framework. The case studies show how and why each college restructured

functions and implemented specific management activities to support particular

advancement and income acquisition strategies. The case studies show why the simple

addition of the presence of an advancement activity without the coordination of the

activity into the total advancement function is not sufficient to move the institution to a

more mature stage of the IIAM Continuum.


Research Methods


Selection of the Colleges

The selection plan answered the question, "What group of colleges will help us to

understand the problem?" For this criterion a diversity of characteristics was sought. The

characteristics give balance, variety, and an opportunity to lear. Each of the four

institutions had private sector fund raising initiatives from 1996 through 2000 in response

to erosion in state and/or local funding as a percentage of the operating budget. Detailed

profiles and the selection characteristics are provided in Chapter 4.

Case studies can give a refined understanding of process and situation through a

rich description of the unique and complex experiences of others (Stake, 1995). The











cases were designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges

appropriate to their various settings as well as the economic and political situations in the

states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Analyzing the various units on a

continuum, the IIAM, gave more breadth in the description of maturity and integration

of each college's advancement subfunctions.


Case Study Protocols

In integrating data across the case studies, the study protocol used the same

categories across all cases. The data was presented so that patterns can be spotted and

differences examined. The protocol used the same categories for all of the cases'

document abstracts, field observations, interview field notes and analyses. See Appendix

A "Handbook on Protocols" and Appendix D for the juried interview guide. The protocol

was designed to describe the checks and balances, decision rules, and other design

features.


Collection of Data

Interviews. Administrators were contacted and provided a description of the

study. They were asked to participate in an interview and to supply certain documents.

The interview guide questions were mailed to each leader before the interview. The

interviews were structured to last one hour. When needed, clarification of data was

obtained through phone calls conducted within a week of the initial interview. When

accuracy was confirmed, the case evidence was deemed suitable for analysis. Detailed

notes from the interviews were transcribed.

Instrument and data collection. The juried interview questions (Appendix E) were

used for the semi-structured interviews. The interview questions focus on the income











acquisition and management activities of administrators and faculty and the factors

which frame the five stages of the IIAM Continuum.

Participant observation. The researcher observed planning meetings at the

schools. Observation notes were coded in the same manner as the interview transcripts to

discern data to answer the four research questions and the factors in evidence for

placement in the appropriate stage on the HAM Continuum.

Document review. The study protocol was the use of a document abstract form

developed for all cases. Planning documents, meeting minutes, reporting documents,

performance or assessment reports, organizational charts, job descriptions of

administrators, marketing and solicitation materials, budgets, memos, and other

communiques were collected and listed on individual document abstract forms. The data

from these documents were coded in the same manner as interview transcripts and

observation notes.

Empirical data collection. All of the above methods are empirical in that they

make use of data external to the knower. They all use observation, interview, and

examination of artifacts to collect data. Documents from the educational environment

and conversations with informers are important sources.


Analysis of the Data

The units of data were obtained from the transcripts of the interviews, observation

notes, and notes from the document abstract forms. First, data was broken into segments

representing single pieces of information. The segments were then grouped into

categories. Finally, the categories were analyzed for patterns. A case report was written

for each institution. The case reports were compared and cross-case conclusions were











made. Using this process, the theory was used to describe in which of the five stages of

the HIAM Continuum the college systems should be placed.


Coding of Data

The interview data, data from observations, and data from document reviews

were analyzed using the constant comparison method (Merriam, 1998; Sherman &

Webb, 1995). This method is an inductive theory discovery methodology that combines

concurrent coding and analysis of data during data gathering. The resulting theory is

grounded in the data from which it was derived.

Findings were grouped into the same areas as the factors of the theoretical

framework described in Chapter 2. Data were coded in relation to the four research

questions and the factors of the IIAM Continuum. System analysis, participant

observation, and interviews created thickly descriptive field notes. As themes emerged

from the study the theoretical construct for the IAM continuum was modified as

necessary.


Triangulation of Data

The term "triangulation" was coined by Denzin (1970) to describe how

qualitative researchers find their position in relation to two other points. By showing at

least three sources of evidence for every claim or interpretation and the use of several

data collection techniques the researcher can increase the credibility of her work.

Focused interview notes, notes on observation, document review notes, notes on coding

of data, and peer review can close the triangle between the emic and etic perspectives and

the situation at hand. Triangulation is also referred to as the use of multiple data









57

collection methods, multiple resources, multiple investigators, and/or multiple theoretical

perspectives.


The Constant Comparative Method of Analysis

Domain analysis is used in ethnographic research. Domain means literally "what

resides here." As qualitative researchers look for patterns, relationships, and themes in

their data, they place the data in the appropriate emerging category. An ethnographer

calls this category "the domain." The sociologist refers to the idea of domain as "coded

data." The philosopher may use the term "classification."

The categories may be borrowed from another's research or discovered by the

researcher. In this study, the emerging categories used for coding are the factors in

Chapter 2 taken from literature on community college institutional advancement and

higher education management.

This method of domain analysis employs an on-going look at how categories are

similar or different. Qualitative data is moved to a more abstract interpretation to codes.

The codes are compared and then moved to factors. The factors are compared to one

another and then moved to constructs until saturation is obtained.


Validity and Reliability Issues

The concepts of validity and reliability in qualitative research used in this case

study are based upon the works of Yin (1994), Stake (1995), and Lincoln and Guba

(1986) unless otherwise cited. Construct validity is established in the data collection

phase of the research and was increased by using multiple sources of evidence,

establishing a chain of evidence, and having key informants review draft case study

reports. This study used multiple data collection methods, multiple sources, and multiple











theoretical perspectives to increase validity. A conscientious search for unconfirming

evidence to produce a rival theory was used in the data collection phase and used in the

modification of the theory.

Internal validity is established in the data analysis phase of research. It was

increased with the tactics of pattern matching, explanation building, and time-series

analysis. Internal validity was increased with triangulation, multiple sources of

information, and consistency of results. Internal validity is seen in a deeper and richer

understanding of the phenomenon because of study (Lincoln & Guba, 1986).

This study uses triangulation of data in each case and across cases. An external

auditor (an outside person to examine the research process and product) probed for

similarity, consistency, and convergence of results. Consistency of coding was

emphasized in the case study protocols. Participant corroboration of the drafts of the

findings and peer review were used to avoid systematic bias in data collection.

Field observation, multiple-day site visits, individual and focus group interviews,

and systems analysis were used. The four individual case studies as instances were used

to increase credibility and persuasiveness of support for the case study conclusions.

External validity is established in the research design phase. It was increased with

replication logic in multiple-case studies. Multiple case designs may be more robust as

the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling (Yin, 1994). Yin

argues that although not generalizable to populations, case studies, like experiments, are

generalizable to theoretical propositions. In case studies, external validity is the extent to

which the study's findings may be applicable to similar contexts. Mook (1983) defends

purposive sampling in case studies with similar reasoning. Because case studies start

with the theoretical proposition, in this case "community college administrators respond










to public policy which decreases the relative percentage of government funding for

college operating budgets by increasing advancement activities," predictions can be

made, for example, "therefore the administrators we observe ought to do that." And the

prediction is confirmed or disconfirmed (Mook, 1983).

This study used purposive sampling to increase external validity. The data

collection and analysis were of colleges operating in different regions, settings, and at

different levels of integration of their advancement activities. External validity is

increased if the current study can be tied to other studies done on the advancement

activities of the four schools.

Reliability is established in the data collection phase of the research. The tactics

used to establish reliability were use of case study protocol and development of a case

study database. Consistency of results and dependability is shown by the production of

similar findings with similar cases. This study used the case study protocol in Appendix

C and coding forms to increase reliability.


Summary

Case study is contemporary and often idiosyncratic. Case studies are bounded by

a small group of individuals and an instance. The bounded instance is the focus of the

study. A case study leads to anticipation of a behavior because a specific situation is

densely described. For example, in this study there was evidence of agreement on the

change in income streams and that a new way of doing business is essential and

desirable. The case studies describe the decision-making processes about how to change

management activities to attain more income, thus certain behaviors were anticipated. As

the political and funding environment changes community college administrators may








60

anticipate certain behaviors. Through a full and thorough knowledge of the particular a

universal may be perceived.

Chapter 3 defined the research design and methods of the study. Methods to

improve reliability and validity were addressed. Chapter 4 provides the findings of the

four individual case studies. Chapter 5 gives cross-case conclusions and

recommendations for research and practice.
















CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

The problem that prompted this study was the need for a description of how

organizational structure, administrative management, and faculty management have

changed in the income acquisition and management systems of community colleges as a

response to the change in proportional funding of college operations by the state

government. The purpose of the study was to identify the qualitative elements of the

change process and their perceived impact upon the organizational structure and

management activities at four community colleges. The purpose of this chapter is the

presentation and analysis of the data collected in the four case studies.

This chapter describes what was discovered. The categories, themes, key events

and incidents are tied to the theoretical framework as positive or negative cases. The

empirical results are tied to the theoretical foundation of the IIAM Continuum Model.


Selection of the Colleges

The selection plan answered the question, "What group of colleges will help us to

understand the problem?" For this criterion a diversity of characteristics was sought. The

characteristics chosen were (a) evidence of private sector fundraising initiatives from

fyl996 to fy2000 in response to an erosion in state funding as a percentage of the

operating budget, (b) a stable presidency over the 5-year period, (c) an institutional

structure which includes the functions listed in Appendix B, (d) an urban environment of

a district campus or single institution with one or more campuses, (e) an enrollment

range of 6,000 to 20,000 for fy2000, (f) an operations budget ranging from $26 million to










$58 million for fy2000, (g) the presence of academic literature on community college

advancement and its context in the college's state, and (h) active membership in the

Council for Resource Development (CRD). These characteristics give balance, variety

and an opportunity to learn. The reader may find a refinement of understanding process

and situation in the unique and complex experiences of others (Stake, 1995). The cases

are designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges appropriate to

their various settings as well as the economic situations and public policy in the states of

Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Analyzing the various units on a

continuum, the HAM, gives more breadth of maturity and competency of the described

advancement function. The sampling process was chosen to maximize comparability of

incidents and management activities within the income acquisition and management

system.


Research Methodology for Individual Cases

The study began in the summer of 2001. College presidents who agreed to have

their colleges take part in the study were sent a description of the study, sample questions

of the juried interview questions, and consent forms for each of the participating

administrators. During three-day visits at each of the four sites, interviews, observation,

and document review were conducted using case study protocols. Domain analysis was

conducted on the data. The data was coded and triangulated. The cases were written and

the drafts of the cases were presented for verification by the administrators.


Presentation and Analysis of Data for Each Case

Each case begins with a one page profile of the college during the period studied.

State and local context is given along with a description of the changes in income sources











for fiscal year 1996 through 2000. The activities, organizational structure, and

responsibilities of the advancement function are described.

Changes in management activities for the advancement function within the

income acquisition and management system are chronicled along with the participants'

understandings and perceptions of the changes and their decision-making during the

change process. The changes are related to the IIAM Continuum Model and the college

environments.

The cases include analysis of data used to answer the research questions

1. How has organizational structure changed?

2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?

3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?

4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?

Evidence of transformed administrative structures is given. Task and role changes

for management of activities in the income acquisition and management system are

described. The colleges are placed at a stage on the IIAM Continuum.


College A


Profile of College A

College A is a 2-year unit of the State University of New York (SUNY) system

located in the south central area of the state about 200 miles from New York City. It is

one of 30 community colleges in the SUNY system. A mid-size urban college with one

campus, in 2000-2001 there were 5,651 students and 4183 FTE enrolled in credit










courses. Of the students, 75% came from the local county. Over the past 8 years, the

college has lost about 800 FTE due to corporate downsizing and out-migration. One FTE

equals 30 annualized credit hours.

With a $31 million operating budget in 1999-2000, the college has seen state

funding erode from 39% of its budget in fy1991 to 30% in fy2000. For 1997 the State of

New York funding per capital for community colleges was lower than the national

average of $49 at $37.96. For 1998-99 the average expenditure per student FTE in New

York's 47 SUNY and CUNY community colleges was $9,383 and the amount of state

support for FTE was $2,050. New York State policy sets tuition at community colleges at

no more than 30% to 35% of the cost of instruction. College A also receives local county

support for its operating budget.

College A's foundation, begun in 1965, raised $2 million in 1999-2000 with a

foundation operating budget of $284,000. Total foundation assets are $10 million.

Governance of the SUNY community colleges is complex. Both 2- and 4-year

institutions outside of New York City make up the State University of New York

(SUNY). A board of trustees governs the SUNY system. Day-to-day operations of SUNY

are overseen by a System Administration Council, including the chancellor and vice

chancellors, one of which is the community college vice chancellor. New York has two

or more governing boards for its higher education institutions, along with a coordinating

board or governing board for community or technical colleges. New York also retains its

own local governing boards. Therefore, the governance is divided in two heterogeneous

systems each with its own governing board. Thus the same board that governs one of the

nation's largest higher education systems also serves as the coordinating board for a very

large system of locally governed community colleges.










College A has its own 10-member board of trustees. Trustees appoint college

presidents, recommend the approval of the capital and operating budgets, and set policy

for academic affairs, student services, and administration. In the SUNY system an

appointed local board governs each community college, and the board of trustees of

SUNY serves as a coordinating board for all SUNY community colleges. With these

three layers of governance college administrators must determine who has jurisdiction,

"we often have to take time to figure out who to start with to begin a process."

A 1999 study concluded that SUNY colleges are operating under an outdated and

unpredictable funding policy that provides limited support for fiscal strategy change and

is not connected to the developing mission of effective community colleges of providing

affordable access through low tuition and fees.

Despite repeated efforts to amend the Educational Law to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each of the participants, ambiguities and conflicts remain.
Unresolved problems of governance and funding continue to sap the energy and
undermine the capacity of community college-individually and as a system-to
serve their students, their regions, and the State of New York. (National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems, 1999, p. iii).


Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000

This section provides an overview of state funding systems and historical context

for the case beginning with a description of state appropriations. There is a single

consolidated appropriation for all the SUNY community colleges. From this

appropriation, the State of New York uses a funding formula to determine individual

appropriations to the community colleges within the SUNY system. The formula is

legislated and can be modified only through regular and/or budget legislation. The state

funding formula is based upon the prior 3 years' enrollments. It is a weighted formula

funding the best of two FTE numbers: either last year's FTE or a weighted average FTE









66

that is comprised of 50% of the last year's FTE, 30% of the FTE from 2 years prior, and

20% of the FTE from 3 years prior. "The idea is that in times of increasing enrollments,

the college benefits immediately by being funded, but in times of declining enrollments

the loss of revenue is cushioned by the use of the weighting formula."

Included in the FTE calculations for community colleges are high school students

taking community college courses for credit (early admissions). Students may take up to

30 credit hours of remedial work but they must have some college level coursework. The

state budget includes a separate line item appropriation for community college

specialized training programs for businesses and workforce development. Competitive

grants from other state agencies for workforce development programs are available.

The funding formula does not include performance indicators nor perfonnance

based funding. The requirements for registration of postsecondary curricula under the

Regent's mandate (found in Section 52.1, Regulations of the Commissioner of

Education, Subchapter A, Part 51) focus strongly on inputs and resources, not on

performance and productivity. A system of performance indicators and some degree of

perfonnance-based funding are under development.

Early admissions students are charged tuition that may be at a reduced rate for

certain circumstances (offsite, off peak hours, etc.). The tuition rate charged for distance

education is the same as the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students. For

international students the tuition is doubled.

In the late 1990s, upstate New York began to climb out of the recession of the late

1980s and early 1990s. Its recovery was slow compared to many other states. As the third

largest state in the nation with a population of almost 19 million, New York's income

growth is dependent upon the finance, insurance, and real estate industries. The largest











source of revenue for New York is the personal income tax, followed by user taxes and

income taxes. State revenues remained relatively flat during the first half of the 1990s at

a time when most other states were beginning to rise. Governor Pataki's tax cuts took

effect in 1995 resulting in a meager state revenue increase of 3% from 1993 to 1996.

Competition for state funds intensified in the current decade due to the recession,

the accompanying drop in income tax and sales tax revenue, and tax cuts. The declining

state support for higher education was very pronounced in terms of budget share. From

1990 to 1995 there was a huge increase in the share of state appropriations for Medicaid.

The general funds of K-12 Education and Higher Education which respectively had a

23% and 9.3% share of the 1990 state appropriations dropped to 19.3 and 7.3 in 1995

whereas Medicaid grew from 18% to 29.4% of the appropriations in the same period.

Higher education spending in New York State fell from 9.3% of total state spending in

1990 to 7.3% in 1995 (Callan & Finney, 1997).

Unlike states with merit systems, New York has structured its state financial aid

program-Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)-as an entitlement. As tuition rates

increased, maximum TAP awards rose steadily at SUNY. Incrementally, New York has

shifted its funding from direct support of institutions to direct support of students. Until

the mid-1990s, the maximum TAP award covered 100% of tuition at the SUNY

community colleges. In fiscal year 1996 this was dropped to 90%. Student loan value

increased 50% in New York State from 1990-91 to 1994-95.

New York's community colleges have local sponsors (one or more counties) that

have financial responsibility for the colleges. In the case of College A, the county

legislature determines the sponsor share for the college. The community college local










share is included in the county budget, the same as other county agencies. The local

sponsor's share includes not only the sponsor contribution from local tax revenues but

also revenue from charge-backs from New York State residents from nonsponsor

counties for their residents, out-of-state tuition above resident rates, and the use of

college fund balances. College A has a high rate of charge-backs compared to other New

York community colleges. Local sponsors can count funds that derive from student

tuition, College A's foundation, and other nonlocal sources as a local contribution.

New York State requires matching funds for capital outlay. The community

colleges may not use general appropriations for capital construction. The average in New

York State is 50% local taxes/bonds and 50% state taxes/bonds.

To reiterate, SUNY community colleges are funded by state, local government

sponsors, and tuition and fees. State aid cannot exceed 40% of operating income and

tuition revenue is capped at one-third of the operating income. Four public policy

changes and an outmigration event caused by local army base closings and corporate

downsizing led College A to more aggressive advancement initiatives in the period under

study. These were (a) a relatively flat funding of SUNY community colleges during the

first half of the 1990s, (b) a loss in three types of categorical funding for technical

programs effective 1994-95, (c) a 10% jump in tuition for SUNY community colleges

from fiscal year 1995 to 1996 culminating in a 58% increase in tuition from 1991 to

1996, (d) a decrease in the coverage of the TAP award, and (e) a 20% enrollment drop

from 1993 to 1998.

The advancement initiatives described in this section were responses to changes

in the income streams. The president and administrators at College A made the decision









69

to retain staff while trying to ameliorate blows to student access and choice in the midst

of declining state support and increasing tuition rates. In the challenge of this period

maintenance of buildings and grounds were put on hold. Table 4-1, "Sources of Revenue

for Operations-College A," shows the percentages of operating funds for the revenue

categories in the period addressed.

For Table 4-1, note that TAP and Pell grants are digested into a percentage of the

revenue category, Tuition and Student Fees. The Technology Fee is also included in this

revenue category. The table includes operating funds only, no building construction

funds. The average breakdown for general operating funds for New York community

colleges in 1998-99 was Federal-5.70%, State-29.00%, Local-31.30%, and Tuition

and Fees-34.00 (Education Commission of the States, 2000).

Despite the bleak outlook, several factors that positively impact income

acquisition were going quite well for College A during the period of the study. The

public image of the college was, and continues to be, prestigious. The SUNY system was

shifting its focus from governing colleges to serving students and the system allowed for

its executive council to provide funding for priority items to colleges outside of the

formal budget process. College A implemented a technology fee in 1997. This fee took

some pressure off the squeeze to update technology. College A won several workforce

development grants and began to offer corporate training as a profit center. A new cost

analysis system was instituted to helping administrators to plan and have more warning

time to adjust to unanticipated fluctuations in revenue. College A came out of the 1990s

with a more cost-effective management emphasis and a ratio of 65:35 full-time to part-

time faculty, better than the statewide average.












Table 4-1. Sources of Revenue for Operations College A


SOURCE 1995-96 % 1996-97 % 1997-98 % 1998-99 % 1999-00


Tuition& Fees $10.364,993 36.4% 10,486,241 38.7% 11,367,254 38.6% 12,050,032 39.9% 12,714,821 41.0%
NYS SUS 8,392.910 29.5% 8,180,905 30.2% 7,974,320 27.1% 8,322,223 27.6% 8,766,979 28.2%
County (sponsor) 4,690.393 4,690,393 4,850,393 5.100,393 5,250,853
County (other New York 1,398.438 1,516,343 1,740,093 1.725,453 1,870,068
State counties via an
enrollment based "chargeback")
Total county 6,088,831 21.4% 6,206,736 22.9% 6,590,486 22.4% 6.825,846 22.6% 7,120,921 22.9%
Federal Grants 1,266,545 4.5% 921.328 3.4% 1,127,464 3.8% 1.056,064 3.5% 1,040,843 3.4%
State Grants 498,351 1.8% 317.781 1.2% 376,964 1.3% 418,630 1.4% 213,475 0.7%
Private Gifts 207,095 0.7% 310,098 1.1% 902,424 3.1% 336,090 1.1% 286,549 0.9%
Investment Income 331,223 1.2% 318,824 1.2% 335,548 1.1% 286,626 1.0% 373,455 1.2%
Contracts 229,844 0.8% 248,001 0.9% 134,967 0.5% 156,680 0.5% 114,167 0.4%
Sales & Services 76,127 0.3% 77,288 0.3% 75,475 0.3% 67,383 0.2% 69,783 0.2%
Other Revenue 377,093 1.3% 528,137 1.9% 459,874 1.6% 556,878 1.8% 553,948 1.8%
Fund balance 621,729 2.2% -464,240 -1.7% 82,682 0.3% 90,150 0.3% -216,018 -0.7%
TOTAL 28,454,741 100.0% 27,131,099 100.0% 29,427,458 100.0% 30,166,601 100.0% 31,038,923 100.0%

Source: SUNY annual financial report College A final report of revenues FBM 095-C1, prepared by Budget Officer, College A











Institutional Advancement and its Key Activities

College A has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,

institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,

government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni

affairs. Marketing is decentralized. The profit center of continuing education (workforce

development and contract training), and the foundation are responsible for marketing

their respective programs. The departments and the foundation take the lead of the vice-

president for student and community affairs for marketing messages. There are no

written marketing messages or targeted audiences. Marketing activities are viewed as a

low priority because administrators do not see their long-term effect.

The vice president for student and community affairs writes all press releases and

covers media relations activities. Publications, advertising, and community affairs are

also under the vice president for student and community affairs. College A publishes an

annual report as a financial statement. This is not a marketing piece.

Government relations for local relationship building is largely the responsibility

of the president, vice president for administration and financial affairs, and the vice

president for student and community affairs. SUNY administrators take responsibility for

state lobbying efforts. The corporate relations activities are under the vice president for

student and community affairs because continuing education and corporate training are

placed in this division. Institutional research is under the vice president for

administration financial affairs.

Resource development for grants management is divided between student and

community affairs and the division for academic affairs. The vice president for academic

affairs oversees the program development grants; for example, National Science









72

Foundation, and the vice president for student and community affairs monitors grants for

aid for special student audiences and workforce development grants. Grant proposals to

private agencies are managed by College A's foundation. All resource development

grants, whether from public or private sources, require presidential approval and must be

tied to an institutional priority.

The foundation raises private dollars for scholarships, equipment, professional

development, the president's discretionary fund, and capital equipment and facilities.

Foundation staff provide the marketing activities, media relations, alumni relations,

prospect research activities and website production for the foundation. Fundraising

activities and special events include an annual campaign, a planned giving program, and

relationship building with corporations and private foundations. The foundation director

is not a direct report to the president but is a welcome participant on the institutional

planning committee. The responsibility for alumni affairs is shared with the vice-

president for student and community affairs. The director of alumni affairs is a staff

report to the president, and a direct report to the vice-president of student and community

affairs with some delegated reporting to the foundation executive.


Changes in Organizational Structure of the College and Foundation 1996-2000

The erosion in state funding described above, the loss of categorical funding, and

the loss of 20% of FTE set the stage for the period under study. Although in 1993 the

organizational structure was changed to add a vice president of advancement with the

intention of bringing the foundation executive and the alumni affairs function under this

vice president, by 1995 negotiations with the foundation board had not produced this

inclusion. The vice president of advancement became the vice president for student and








73
community affairs upon the retirement of the vice president for student services. During

this same year the college president was made a permanent member of the executive

committee of the foundation board of directors.

Thus the fourth vice presidency was cut to save administrative dollars and the

direct reporting of 8 of the 10 advancement subfunctions to one vice president did not

occur (resource development under the name of sponsored programs reported to the vice

president for academic affairs and institutional research was under the vice president for

administrative and financial affairs). Student and community affairs, the most project-

oriented division, uses a more informal structure than the other divisions.

In 1999 the part-time alumni affairs/annual campaign coordinator became a direct

staff report to the president with a report to the vice president of student and community

affairs with the new title, Director of Alumni Affairs. Responsibility for writing and

publishing the alumni newsletter remained in the student and community affairs division

through 2000 while the foundation maintained the alumni database.

The position of director of institutional research, reporting to the vice president

for administrative and financial affairs, was vacant from 1996 to 1998. Two searches

were conducted without a successful outside hire. The position was filled with an internal

hire.

The foundation executive officer reports to the foundation board of directors and

is not hired by the president. Despite the lack of formal lines of authority the foundation

executive seeks approval and support from the president to ensure that every fundraising

initiative is attached to an institutional priority. In 2000 the foundation executive officer

became part of College A's institutional planning committee. College A is the only









74

community college in the state that does not use state funding to pay for foundation staff

salaries and foundation expenses.


Changes in Management Activities of Administrators and Faculty Members

During the period of the study College A's administrators faced very little

leverage in negotiating for state and county funding. Dealing with a highly politicized

environment where seven chancellors of SUNY with their respective priorities have

served in the past thirteen years, the unpredictability of the state budget timeframes also

made it hard to plan budgets. The State of New York operates on a fiscal year of April 1

through March 31. College A must have its budgets completed by June to ensure the

faculty and other resources to begin the fall academic year. College A begins forecasting

FTE funding for the fall semester. Tuition and sponsor funding are calculated in January.

The sponsor increase must be requested by May 15. The college did not get the state

budget information on base aid and TAP until June or July for some of the years of the

study and one year, September. Added to this scenario are uncertainties in sponsor

contributions because of disputes over charge-back payments to counties.

In order to maintain a greater degree of stability College A administrators began

to hold 10% of supply and equipment budget to the last quarter of the fiscal year when a

reevaluation of the budget could result in a shifting of departmental funds to meet

institutional priorities. Government relations changed with the county sponsor when a

new interpretation in Plan C (the legislation that specifies the relationships between

community colleges and local sponsors) was negotiated. Fiscal responsibility was

delegated to the community college board of trustees within the terms of the approved

budget. The sponsors relinquished authority of line item, preapproval audit of










expenditures. Although a new county executive may interpret Plan C differently than a

predecessor, the president and vice presidents have been able to negotiate with the

sponsor once per year to maintain this interpretation.

During the period of the study, the state FTE funding policy provides incentives

for College A to focus on relatively lower cost liberal arts and science programs and low-

cost, high enrollment professional programs to generate FTE numbers. There is little

incentive for innovative technology programs, economic development initiatives with no

immediate payoff, or entering into partnerships that may serve students better but not

generate FTE. The local sponsors do not fund colleges on the basis of FTE or level of

service. For the 5 years studied, the county sponsor has tolerated funding increases for

inflation costs for goods and services only.

Technical programs have been hit hard at College A. The categorical funding

dropped in fiscal year 1994-95 included $82 per FTE for business courses, $195 per FTE

for technical programs, and $212 aid for disadvantaged students allocated on a headcount

basis. College A's state funding is formulated on a credit basis. Even though the FTE

funding is the same for liberal arts credit programs and applied science certification

programs the certification programs are underfunded because the state formula does not

cover the costs of clinical and lab science components. In discussing the erosion of state

funding for technical programs the vice president for academic affairs lamented,

"SUNY's message is to jettison applied science or get money from the county or students

to support it." Foundation and sponsor dollars have been used to cover some lab fees for

the more expensive technology programs. Delaying the maintenance and replacement of

equipment during 1993 and 1997 along with a growing reliance on new technology to









76

deliver education and training led to the institution of a technology fee in 1997. By 1999-

2000 the technology fee added $300,000 in annual revenue to the operating budget.

As a result of the squeeze for dollars, the college has made a new prioritization

process for technological purchase decisions. Deans, vice presidents, the president and

his executive council are involved in technological purchase decisions. "The dollars are

so scarce it [decisions about technological purchases] has risen to the level of executive

decision."

In considering program mix as an income acquisition and management strategy,

the vice president for academic affairs said that this strategy cannot be pursued without

an increase in marketing data and dollars. "We tend to see enrollment drops as a change

in community interest rather than attempting to drive the interest in programs. We react

to enrollment shifts through the use of our advisory committees to spark interest and

determine direction." In his role as chief integrator and planner, the president has

communicated that strategies to increase market share will require greater marketing

competencies. Other administrators echo this thought. They described the need for

marketing data and external scanning to complete a SWOT analysis. As of 2000 no

money was budgeted for these activities. There is no marketing plan. Enrollment is used

as an indicator of the market demand. "The vice president for student and community

affairs directs each marketing activity under a generally agreed-upon strategy."

In the attempt to generate revenue by generating FTE, College A has been

successful in enrolling international students and distance education students. In 1999-

2000 international students comprised 100 FTEs and the college enrollment numbers

were in the top quartile in the state for community colleges offering distance learning.

Dual enrollment of high school students increased this same year generating tuition and











FTEs. During the period of the study College A instituted a retention tracking

system--CONNIX to monitor student persistence.

College A began to use private dollars to start professional training programs

during the period of the study. Its nursing program expansion was the most extensive

example with a grant from a hospital foundation to College A's foundation. The vice

president for academic affairs has taken on a greater role in proposal writing for program

startups and expansions. Planning with the foundation for the capital campaign for a

health science building and proposals for equipment for engineering technology were

new administrative tasks during the latter half of the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000 the

academic chief officer doubled the time spent on grant proposal writing and grants

management to six weeks of work time per year. "It takes more time to use resources

more strategically and there is more reporting and accountability for evaluation of grants

projects."

In 1995 the vice president for academic affairs spent most of his time on

curriculum development and review. By 2000 he spent most of his time on reviewing

cost structures, process improvement, efficiency, and faculty load. He supervised the

process for 20 faculty members (out of 160 full-time) who applied for grants during the

period of the study. By writing grants objectives into the strategic plan, both the

foundation executive and the sponsored grants director have assisted faculty in becoming

more aware of the availability of private and public dollars. "With the players [grant

proposal writers] scattered across divisions and departments we attempt to have

cohesiveness through committee work." Administrators have proposed a "Teaching and

Learning Center" division as a faculty development function that could orient faculty to,

and develop skills in, advancement activities.









78

There are three private, and two public colleges and universities within a 50-mile

radius of College A. The abundance of institutions of higher education is both an

advantage and disadvantage when looking to increase enrollment, roll out new programs,

and raise private dollars. College A's president decided upon a growth strategy for online

courses and technology upgrades in order to compete with other institutions.

Implementation of competitive strategies is hampered by the difficulty of compliance in

registering new programs and the lengthy process. Under New York State regulations,

new registrations for curricula are required for changes in title, focus, design,

requirements for completion, or mode of delivery. College A's president commented

upon the challenges of beating the competition in the online and corporate training

business, "The registration process is too long for us to be a highly responsive

community college." Given these constraints, College A has done well implementing a

recruitment strategy for high school students. Over the last 10 years, College A has

captured 21% to 39% of the yield of high school graduates in their district.

The director of continuing education managed $3 million in state grants for

workforce development during the period of the study. Sources of corporate training

grants are federal, within the SUNY system, and through member item funding through a

local senator. College A received the funding for its EXCEL center from an annual

member item. A consortia grant with the local university brought $750,000 and federal

funding through a state block grant brought $450,000. The director of continuing

education works with the director of sponsored programs to stay in compliance with the

strategic goals of the college. Two new tactics were used to gain more grant dollars. The

College partnered with nonprofit organizations for sharing costs and profits of hiring

speakers for professional association events. Joint ventures with online training










companies were sought and negotiated for the College to serve as a broker for

customized training.

The director for continuing education has tried to gain grants for training for

companies to administer their own training as a service but this created frustration. "The

companies want grants but don't want to write the proposals and [don't want to] stick to

the requirements of the grant." For example, a grant may require class lists by date, social

security number, age, and ethnic background. In managing these types of grants the

college had no control over these administrative tasks.

Corporate training acquires more money than it costs. Net income from corporate

training under the directorate of community education was $221,093 over the period of

the study. The marketing activities of research to determine what price the market would

bear, advertising design, and relationship building with corporate training directors

became the regular responsibilities of this unit. During the period of the study the

continuing education director began to collect benchmarking data on community colleges

with similar course offerings. "We could use a strong marketing plan for the department.

We use a project management model and rely heavily on the publications department for

art, catalogs, and brochures. It helps that we are all under the same division vice

president. At staff meetings have representation from every department." The continuing

education department began the practice of briefing the foundation executive on

corporate and business and industry news to enhance her relationship building with

corporate CEOs.

To foster greater communication between those prospecting and writing public

and private grant proposals and to give attention to the thought process of how the grants

may impact other departments and college priorities, a standardized form was developed










by the budget officer. The use of this standardized form has created a greater

understanding of writing case statements with objectives that are tied to institutional

priorities. One administrator defined the resource development function as "not on the

organizational chart. It's like tentacles that no one can map on the chart. Personal

relationships make things happen rather than planned [efforts]." The foundation director

is expected to form the necessary relationships with administrators in order to support

institutional objectives.

The purpose of College A's foundation has shifted since its initial focus on

indigent students to supporting students through the maintenance of quality programs,

funding specific projects, and capital. In 1995-96 College A's foundation raised $1.2 in

private dollars for a health science center to add to $8.5 million in building funds from

the state. A local foundation grant and gifts from individuals made up this first capital

campaign for the college. To assist in a greater understanding of college priorities among

foundation board members, College A board of trustees are encouraged to join the

foundation board when they rotate off the College board. From 1996 to 2000 the

foundation has assumed increasing responsibility for administrative costs, donor research

costs, and new hires.

Foundation disbursements to the operating budget were $207,095 for 1995-96,

$310,098 for 1996-97, $902,424 for 1997-98, $336,090 for 1998-99, and $286,549 for

1999-00. Most of the funds were allocated to enhance professional/staff/faculty

development opportunities, to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, and for

scholarships, equipment, programs, and capital projects. The spike in funding from the

foundation to the operating budget occurred during the capital campaign for the health

sciences building. Although New York State requires a 50% match from the local








81

sponsor for capital outlay, this match did not take place for the new building. College A's

foundation raised $1.2 million toward the sponsor's match, plus $1 million for equipment

for the building.

Student financial assistance has always been the priority of the foundation but

pressure to find more dollars for scholarships grew as College A's students faced tuition

hikes of the 1990s and a decrease in the coverage of the TAP award. Student need for

financial aid increased from 48 percent of the total student population in 1994-94 to 85

percent in 1999-2000. The pressure from SUNY to increase tuition continued throughout

the period of the study. College A did not reach the tuition cap of one-third of the

operating income.

The local county sponsor can claim foundation support to the college's operating

budget as part of its contribution. Restricted private dollars and grants from the

foundation are revenues offset to expenses in the line items of the individual

departments. This support from the foundation is usually for scholarships, but

technological equipment purchases, program and capital support, and faculty

development dollars are increasing. In deciding income acquisition strategy for the

foundation College A is caught between the perceptions of the county sponsor and

individual donors. "If the county thinks you can get private dollars, then they will stiff

you. The more successful we are [in fundraising] the less we will get from the county.

The donors know it and want to see a positive gain." The foundation executive pitches

ideas to the president to get around this dilemma. One solution had been funding

endowed chairs.

The leadership of the income acquisition and management system is a formal link

based upon tradition and the chemistry that exists between the president, executive









82

director of the foundation, the vice president for administration and finance, and the vice

president for student and community affairs. In 2000 the foundation executive officer

became part of College A's institutional planning committee. This access helped the

foundation executive to target her work on external relationships and receive internal

news and information, especially from the academic units in a more timely fashion.

Armed with more specific faculty and program needs, the foundation executive has

focused on educating faculty about using foundation funds for the institutional priorities.

"I encourage them to focus on 'the big stuff in regard to professional development

assistance or program grants. We don't want to tell people that we did the little things...

put it [the foundation effort] where it counts."

In her reporting relationship as staff to the president, the foundation director

attempts to support the role of the president as the chief fundraiser. In day-to-day

operations during the period of the study the foundation director "sets up the deals and

the president closes the sale."


IIAM Continuum

College A has all of the key activities of advancement and many of the elements

of strategic management. During the period under study College A approached

institutional planning as a consultative process using implicit strategy rather than a

formal strategic planning process. Strategic planning is easier to do in times of relative

stability than in times of crisis. During a crisis, strategic planning loads the organization

with more work when it is highly stressed. This College was coming out of crisis during

the period of the study. The administrators described a general attitude of cynicism

regarding strategic planning as too elaborate a process. The president prefers "organic








83

planning-something akin to a guided missile system that gives regular feedback used to

re-align targets" rather than written plans.

There was a general consensus among the advancement units and other academic

units on the problems faced by the college although they had not developed a formal

strategic plan. At the close of the period of study College A had reached a more stable

mode and its institutional planning committee was searching for a strategic planning

process appropriate for its culture, consensual environment, and complex state

governance system. There is a need for a common lexicon for the institutional planning

committee regarding management and planning terms, goals, objectives, and strategic

management. Difficulty distinguishing between strategic and operational objectives was

observed at the 2001 annual planning retreat.

In 1999, the foundation funded consulting fees for Michael Dolence, an expert on

higher education strategic planning, to come to campus to discuss how to get started. The

foundation executive had a role in the attempt to gain clarity in defining College A's

strategic goals. The push for a strategic planning system is shared with the institutional

research director.

The first annual planning retreat was held in 2000 with a goal of linking the

planning process to institutional assessment and resource allocation. By the 2002

planning retreat the institutional planning committee was beginning to discuss a new

system for choosing institutional priorities and implementing objectives. The dialogue

continues on how to align organizational structure and assignment of responsibility,

appropriate allocation of resources, and institutional effectiveness monitoring to this new

planning system.










College A began at Stage Ill of the IIAM Continuum Model in fiscal year 1995-

1996. College A experienced greater integration of its income acquisition and

management system. Organizational effectiveness was enhanced by this greater

integration. There was evidence of greater support of the advancement function by the

president, especially fundraising. College A did not demonstrate a strategic management

system as illustrated in Figure 2-1 by fiscal year 1999-2000, thus did not move to

Stage IV.


Conclusion

In the case analysis of College A eight themes emerged from the 28 categories of

the coded data. They are

1. Decentralization of structure with use of project teams.
2. Foundation planning integrated with institutional planning.
3. More resources committed to advancement.
4. Efforts at transparency of management.
5. Linking planning and budgeting.
6. Shortened strategic cycles for income acquisition and management.
7. Academic administrators and faculty expanded development responsibility.
8. Greater information sharing.

College A's assumption for income acquisition and management strategy is tied to these

themes. The financial stability of College A depended upon striking a balance between

funding for fixed costs (i.e., buildings, equipment, and personnel) and funding for more

transitory programming that serves a need and then disappears, requiring resources for

development of new short-term programming.

College A is building capacity to acquire more varied revenue streams and to

continue to integrate its income acquisition and management system. As FTE formula

funding, categorical funding, and TAP funding eroded the revenue from the county,

tuition and fees, public grants, private grants and private gifts increased.










Like the ship that has weathered the storm, College A has withstood the hard

years of 1992 to 1998. In recognition of the need to take the ship to the harbor and mend

the sails, the administrators have focused on planning systems and the income acquisition

and management system. It is a handsome and inherently seaworthy ship.


College B


Profile of College B

College B is located on the east coast of Florida. Serving four counties, the

college has five campuses with about 40,000 students and 9,320 FTE in 1999-2000. One

FTE equals 30 annualized credit hours. The college's district is experiencing high

population growth. Population projections for the four counties anticipate growth from

448,190 in 1998 to 497,091 in 2003, and 543,786 in 2006.

College B had a $58 million operating budget in 1999-2000 and construction

funds of $32 million. The College received 56.35% of operating budget from state

allocations in fiscal year 1996 and 58.38% in fiscal year 2000. In the State of Florida

community colleges receive no local per capital appropriations. The state funding per

capital for community colleges was slightly lower than the national average of $49 at

$48.47 in 1998-1999. For 1998-1999 the average expenditure per student per FTE in

Florida was $ 4,810 and the amount of state support per FTE was $3,351. Florida policy

sets tuition for community colleges at no more than 25-30% of the cost of instruction.

The foundation serving College B, begun in 1965, raised $2 million in 1999-2000

with a foundation operating budget of $147,000. Total foundation assets were $31.7

million for 1999-2000.










The per capital costs for Florida community college students historically have

been well below the cost of the public universities in Florida, making a case for the cost-

effectiveness of the 28 community colleges. Although in constant dollars the Florida

community college system's total revenues and spending have grown over the period of

the study the system is receiving a smaller percentage of the state's general revenue

higher education dollars (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government

Accountability [OPPAGA], 1997).

As part of the change in the governing system for higher education in 2001,

Florida dismissed its coordinating board for community colleges. The Florida Board of

Education, an overall board for K-20 appointed by Governor Bush, was instituted to

establish educational goals, implement policy, and recommend the education budget. A

commissioner of education, also appointed by the governor, oversees the chancellor of

community colleges, the chancellor of colleges and universities, the chancellor of public

schools, and the executive director of the division of independent education (private

schools and universities). The chancellors are appointed by the Florida Board of

Education. Higher education institutions retained local boards of trustees. Community

college literature often cites Florida as one of the states most subject to legislative

micromanagement (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001).

Florida requires community colleges to report on specific performance indicators.

These are (a) the totals of Associate in Arts degrees awarded, (b) the total of Associate in

Science degrees awarded, (c) the total Postsecondary vocational certificates (PSV)

completed (1/2 counted), (d) the total Postsecondary adult vocational certificates (PSAV)

completed (1/2 counted), (e) number of graduates with targeted characteristics

(remediation, economically disadvantaged, disabled, English as a Second











Language//ENS, and African American Males) and (f) partial completers who were

placed in a job or transferred to the state university system. The community colleges can

draw upon "new money" as a source for performance based funding.

In 1996 the Florida legislature began performance-based budgeting for

community colleges with a $12 million allocation for workforce development. The new

funding was provided to the community college system based upon performance at each

institution. The new funding represented 2% to 3% of base funding. By the 1999

legislative session $23 million was allocated for distribution to the colleges based upon

the college's percentage of the system total of increased number of students in the

performance indicator categories. The colleges receive 85% of prior year funding

allocation and 15% of prior year performance-completions/placements per the measures

described above.

The general revenue for Florida community colleges is an FTE base plus system

for the A.A. degree programs. Florida funds noncredit certificate programs through each

college's base operating dollars for workforce development programs. Dual enrollment

courses do not generate support through FTE and are not funded as part of college

appropriation. Adult basic education is funded through the Workforce Development

Program at less than 1.0 FTE. The tuition rate charged for distance education is the same

as the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students.

The Florida Resident Access Grant (FRAG) gives tuition assistance to almost any

full-time undergraduate student registered at an accredited independent, nonprofit college

or university. A tuition voucher award, FRAG is not need nor merit based. Florida

legislature limited the state-funded credit hours to 60 for an associate degree.










Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000

In 1995-1996 as the Florida economy was recovering from the economic

recession of the early 1990s. The stagnated state revenues from sales tax (70% of state

revenue) and business tax (25% of state revenue) fell below budget projections in 1990,

1992, and 1992 as the demand for state services escalated. Voters demanded no new

taxes and state funding for higher education stagnated and then kept pace with inflation

from 1993-1994 to 1995-1996. From 1990-91 to 1995-96 student enrollment headcountt)

increased by 7.5%. Appropriations per student dropped to below the 1990-1991 level.

This restricted situation was compounded by tuition rates that ranked 31st in the nation

and tuition was not raised substantially during the first half of the 1990s. The average

full-time annual fees for Florida's community colleges rose from $766 in 1990-1991 to

$1,052 in 1994-95.

The drop in the share of state spending for higher education was faster than the

national average: from fiscal year 1994-1995 to 1995-1996 the U.S. average went from

6.1% to 6.0% of the state budget and in this same period Florida went from spending

6.0% of its state budget on higher education to 5.25% (Callan & Finney, 1997, p. 111).

For fiscal year 1997-98, of the entire state education budget, the community

colleges received 4.34% of the general tax revenue and 5.18% of the lottery funds for a

total of 4.52% of all the state funds to the state's educational system. For 2000-2001 this

total slipped to barely 4%.

State lottery funds are a distant second to sales tax for Florida community college

system revenue. The 1999-2000 total state appropriations to the community college

system were $847,557,728, of which $750,387,728 was from general revenue and

$97,170,000 was lottery funds. Lottery funds provide no new source of revenue but are










an internal distribution now used to fund performance-based programs. There are

additional performance-based budget grants. The Workforce Development Fund is

performance-based. The Special Categories are five pots of monies-mostly challenge

grants and matching funds.

In 1996-97 College B was ranked second lowest in Associates in Arts

expenditures per FTE student among the 28 Florida community colleges at slightly less

than $3,000 with a system average of $3,491. The same year College B was ranked third

lowest in Associate in Science Program expenditures per FTE student among the system

colleges at about $3,250 with a system average of $4,160. For Continuing Education

expenditures per FTE during this year, College B ranked 7th lowest of the 28 colleges at

close to $3,400 with a system average of $4,222. For College Preparatory Program

Expenditures per FTE student, College B ranked 8th highest at slightly over $4,000 with

a system average of $3,647. In reviewing these figures with College B's administrators, it

was clear that the cost of an FTE for "college prep" had outstripped the cost of an FTE

for A. A., A. S., and continuing education.

Up to fiscal year 1995-1996 Florida's community colleges were rewarded for

increasing access for high school students with dual enrollment funded at 1.25 FTE. This

ratio was decreased to 1.0 FTE in 1996-1997. The state ceased funding dual enrollment

in 1999-2000. College B considers dual enrollment a part of its access mission. To cover

the dual enrollment program funds were taken from other areas. One administrator

explained, "Most of the programs that we have grown in are fee-exempt programs like

dual enrollment or occupational programs with nonrecurring dollars or the funding was

frozen particularly in [fiscal year] 1999 and 2000." Investing in the development of










programs that are partially funded by the state and then seeing those new programs not

receive recurrent funding has led to dilution.

Adult basic education is funded through the Workforce Development Program at

less than 1.0 FTE. Because it is considered a service to the community, adult basic

education for those who can't read, do not have a high school diploma, or speak English

as a second language, is hard to get fully funded." The State of Florida has 50% high

school dropout rate and its community colleges have the primary responsibility for

workforce development, remedial education, and basic skills training for adults.

Although the funding for the Florida community college system total FTE

declined over the period of the study, there has been incremental increases for College B

because College B was growing during a period of time when most other community

college in Florida were experiencing declines in enrollment. As a growing school in a

time of overall system decline, College B saw the tendency of the legislature is to give

minimum incremental funding to all schools. As a growing school College B did not get

funded proportionally for growth. (An equalization formula was sought during period of

the study to adjust for this situation and was put into effect in 2000-2001.)

Florida schools are funded for the enrollment of the prior year. For the years

under study the school experienced high enrollment growth with the corresponding

faculty, technical infrastructure, and facility cost increases. "We remained behind the

curve on maintenance, hiring full-time faculty, providing support services, and staff

development." In addition the number of at-risk students increased dramatically requiring

more federal grants for student services.

Workforce funding had some unintended affects. "Workforce initiatives were

supposed to be performance-based. In response, every college [in the system] performed










better but there was no increase in the pool of money [from the state]. As a result if a

college received more money for performance it was out of the pocket of another

college." College B administrators agree that advancement dollars are needed more

greatly by the occupational programs for quick response and the ability to impact

accountability measures than for AA degree programs where accountability measures

have not yet been implemented and where funding is more stable.

In fiscal year 1996 College B received workforce development funds in the form

of Florida Department of Labor grants. In 1997, mostly in response to federal legislation

that eliminated the number of players and layers in the labor system, Florida restructured

its services and dismantled the Department of Labor. It was replaced by a One Stop

Center system. College B administrators found that state workforce development grants

were difficult to administer because the federal mandate on the One Stop System was

incongruent with the mandates on other federal dollars that flowed through the state.

Table 4-2, "Sources of Revenue for Operations-College B," shows the

percentage changes in funding sources in relation to one another for the 5 years under

study. The table includes operating funds only from the general fund, restricted fund, and

auxiliary fund. The auxiliary category includes revenue from the College bookstore,

foodservice and computer sales to departments. No construction funds are included. The

average breakdown for general operating funds for Florida community colleges in 1998-

99 was Federal-.25%. State-68.51%, Local-.02%, Tuition and Fees-23.06%, and

Other-8.00%. Source does not equal 100% (Education Commission of the States,

2000).












Table 4-2. Sources of Revenue for Operations-College B


SOURCE 1995-96 % 1996-97 % 1997-98 % 1998-99 % 1999-00 %

Tuition & Fees $7,425,348 17.51% 7.933,288 17.18% 8,259,552 16.22% 9,067,370 16.48% 9,418.480 16.15%

FLCC Approp 23,889,707 56.35% 26,561,764 57.53% 30.578,914 60.06% 32,058,440 58.28% 34,035,858 58.38%

Local Govt 30.794 0.07% 52.895 0.11% 76,150 0.15% 104,753 0.19% 50,653 0.09%

Federal Grants 4,133,086 9.75% 4,647,012 10.06% 4,724,846 9.28% 5,168,363 9.40% 5,234,437 8.98%

State Grants 1.222,894 2.88% 1,251,875 2.71% 1,497,222 2.94% 2,021,273 3.67% 2,352,464 4.03%

Private Gifts, Grants,
Contracts 547901 1.29% 855,326 1.85% 259,056 0.51% 742,124 1.35% 664,683 1.14%

Investment Income 494,422 1.17% 579,332 1.25% 652,725 1.28% 554,056 1.01% 709,608 1.22%

Sales & Services 189,166 0.45% 211,491 0.46% 289,264 0.57% 581,830 1.06% 542,853 0.93%

Auxiliary 3,667,523 8.65% 3,666,620 7.94% 4,220,871 8.29% 4,483,810 8.15% 4,792,105 8.22%

Other Income 795601 1.88% 410818 0.89% 352470 0.69% 228425 0.42% 500741 0.86%

TOTAL $42,396,442 100.00% 46,170.421 100.00% 50,911,070 100.00% 55,010,444 100.00% 58,301,882 100.00%

Source: College B Vice President for Administration and Finance










Institutional Advancement and its Key Activities

College B has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,

institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,

government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni

affairs. Most marketing activities are centralized for the college under the director of

institutional advancement who reports to the associate vice- president/provost for the

main campus. Enrollment management is decentralized as a responsibility of the campus

presidents and instructional deans with direction from the associate vice-

president/provost of the main campus. The college foundation provides its own

marketing activities with assistance from the advancement office.

Media relations, publications, and community affairs are centralized under the

director of institutional advancement. Corporate relations are decentralized with

responsibility resting with the five campus provosts, the vice-president for applied

science and technology and the three workforce development administrators and deans

under his division. The assistant dean of research and reports, who provides for the state

reporting, manages institutional research.

Government relations is covered by the president with assistance from the board

of trustees and the president's executive council. College B uses the services of a

resource development firm in Washington, D.C. to earmark discretionary funds. The firm

provides an electronic listing of federal and private grant opportunities that match

College B's institutional priorities. The planning and program development office covers

the resource development function for federally funded grants such as Pell, Title III and

Department of Education TRIO grants (GEAR UP, CROP, Upward Bound, and Talent

Search) Perkins, Title IV, and the National Science Foundation; and state workforce











development grants. Curriculum development grants from private sources are sought in

conjunction with the foundation executive director. For example, seed money for the

Upward Bound programs was acquired through a foundation proposal to the Kellogg

Foundation. The resource development subfunction is decentralized and project-based as

teams of faculty members write proposals with the coaching of the associate vice-

president for planning and program development.

Fundraising from individuals, private foundations, and corporations is centralized

with the college foundation. No public dollars are deposited with the foundation. Placing

donated dollars with the foundation as a 501 (c ) 3 organization gives a higher investment

yield as state regulations for college investing are more stringent. The foundation

executive director reports to the president as an administrative staff member with 40% of

her time dedicated to fundraising and 60% of her time managing the foundation. The

foundation raises money for scholarships, endowed chairs, instructional equipment,

faculty and staff development, special projects, and capital campaigns. There is no

alumni campaign. The foundation began building a database of former students and

reestablishing a relationship with them in 2001. The foundation plans and implements its

special events using foundation operating budget dollars and assistance from publications

department for invitations and programs.

The foundation board of directors aligns the foundation mission and priorities

with College B's planning statements. For the 5 years under study College B's

foundation was in an aggressive growth stage to prepare for its first capital campaign.

The assets of the foundation tripled, endowed chairs were funded, and annual campaigns

grew markedly. Donors are sensitive to the fact that the community college receives state




Full Text
TOWARD AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF
INCOME ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT:
FOUR COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESPONSES
By
’ I
KATHRYN M. BIRMINGHAM
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Gerald T. Horton. He is my greatest
supporter, critic, and coach. The full measure of my appreciation goes to Jerry for his
commitment to me as a full-time doctoral student over the past 2 1/2 years. As an astute
strategic planner, he lives the ancient Chinese proverb, "If we do not change our
direction, we are likely to end where we are headed." I hope some day to meet his
scholarly standards.
I thank my daughters, Tina, Ellen, and Andi, for their patience and understanding
while their mother was engrossed in this study. As a qualitative researcher, certainly
these three taught me a great deal about the triangulation of data to validate versions of a
story.
I would also like to thank my twin sister, Peg Birmingham, for her tremendous
encouragement.
To my dissertation committee, Dr. Dale F. Campbell, Dr. David S. Honeyman,
Dr. Barbara J. Keener, and Dr. H. John Hall, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for their
guidance.
Lastly, I am grateful for my experiences at Eisenhower College. My interest in
the income acquisition and management systems of colleges began in the early 1980s at a
most unusual private institution. My hope is that the life cycle of a college, as chronicled
by Dr. David L. Dresser's 1995 case study, may not have to be learned the hard way.
n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
cage
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTERS
1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Statement of Intent 11
Guiding Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Definition of Terms 15
Research Design 17
Methods 17
Limitations 18
Assumptions ' 19
Organization of the Study 19
2 A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY 20
Changes in the Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges 21
Fundraising in Community Colleges 23
Resource Development and Institutional Planning 30
Changing Management Activities 38
Income Acquisition and Management as a System 39
Summary 45
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 47
Research Problem 47
Purpose of the Study 48
Design of the Comparative Case Study 50
Research Methods 53
Summary 59
iii

4 FINDINGS
61
Selection of the Colleges 61
Research Methodology for Individual Cases 62
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Each Case 62
College A 63
College B 85
College C 104
College D 122
Summary 146
5 CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 147
Comparative Case Conclusions 147
Modifications to HAM Continuum Theory 168
Summary of Findings 171
Management Implications 172
Public Policy Implications 177
Recommendations for Further Study 178
Implications for Theory and Practice 180
APPENDICES
A CRITERIA FOR COLLEGES IN STUDY 182
B KEY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH
ADVANCEMENT FUNCTION 183
C CASE STUDY PROTOCOLS 184
D INTERVIEW GUIDES 188
REFERENCES 213
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 225
IV

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
TOWARD AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF
INCOME ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT:
FOUR COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESPONSES
. By
Kathryn M. Birmingham
May 2002
Chair: Dr. Dale F. Campbell
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
Higher education literature documents changes in the source of the revenue
stream for community colleges and states that fundraising and resource development
must become a long-term core function of a community college and must be integrated
with institutional planning, academic planning, and marketing activities. Organizational
structure and management practices of higher education institutions change in response
to changes in the funding environment.
The research problem was (a) to identify and describe how organizational
structure and management activities have changed in four community colleges in
response to the change in proportional funding of college operations by the state
government and (b) to develop and test a theoretical framework. The comparative case
study examined the advancement activities within the income acquisition and
management systems of four community colleges in the states of Florida, New York,
v

North Carolina, and Texas. An Integrated Income Acquisition and Management
Continuum (IIAM) Model was developed.
The four institutional systems were placed at Stage I to V on the IIAM
Continuum based upon evidence of their system's integration from 1996 to 2000. The
stages are graduated to include key advancement activities, levels of integration of those
activities within the advancement function, and level of integration of the advancement
activities with institutional planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities.
Each of the cases showed movement toward greater integration of their income
acquisition and management systems. The cases illuminate the theoretical foundations of
the 0AM Continuum as a model.
The sources of data were semi-structured interviews with 33 administrators as
well as on-site observations and review of institutional documents. The findings of this
study will contribute to understanding the experiences and decision-making processes of
community college leaders in the states of Florida, New Yode, North Carolina, and
Texas. It will be of use to college leaders that desire to integrate the acquisition of
federal, state, local, and private dollars as well as tuition and student fees with strategic
planning and management. Implications for management and public policy are given.
Suggestions for future research are discussed.
VI

CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Changes in the revenue streams of community colleges are well documented. An
Education Commission of the States (2000) study found that the most serious issues
facing community colleges across the nation are the dual challenges of increasing state
and local financial support for community colleges and improving methods by which the
colleges are funded. Increasingly the colleges are seeking funding sources other than
state revenues, local taxation, and student fees and tuition (Jenkins & Glass, 1999). Over
the past 20 years, external and internal influences have resulted in community colleges
moving from total public support to less public assistance as a percentage of the total
operating budget (Honeyman, Williams, & Wattenbarger, 1991; Smith, 1985).
Among the external forces affecting the sources of income are economic changes,
rising costs of labor and technology, the impact of demographics and immigration, K-12
trends, public policy resulting in legislative cuts, and financial trends. Internal evidences
are fund development trends, the response to competition and a new emphasis on
marketing, and strategic management practices and hard data showing student outcomes
and successes (Alfred, 1996). Competition for government funding and dissatisfaction
over the level of productivity and performance of public higher education in the 1990s
gave rise to performance funding (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001).

Another documented external force is shrinking public resources to support
higher education from federal budgets (Townsend & Twombley, 2001). With college
costs outpacing inflation, grants for students declined from 49% to 42% of all federal aid
allocated from 1990 to 1996. Loans increased from 48% to 57% for all students during
this period. Although the Pell Grant remains a critical foundation of federal financial aid
for community college students, the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has fallen
sharply during the 1990s, negatively impacting access and equity (Merisotis & Wolanin,
2000). The maximum Pell Grant buys less than 30% of the average tuition, room and
board, and fees at public colleges (Callan & Finney, 1997).
Community colleges that in the 1980s and 1990s relied heavily on federal grants,
such as Federal Work-Study, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
(SEOG), GEAR Up, Carl D. Perkins (for Tech-Prep), and Campus Child Care, are
finding they are no longer as plentiful, if available at all (Merisotis & Wolanin, 2000).
The great exception is National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. NSF Awards for
community colleges have remained constant at around $31.2 million annually from 1995
through 1999 with a jump to $35 million in 2000 (V. Ross, NSF Budget Division,
personal communication, September 25, 2001).
State financing of community colleges has been impacted by the elimination of
remedial education in 4-year institutions and public financial assistance plans that award
on the basis of merit rather than need (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001). Following the
trend to concentrate remediation courses in the 2-year sector higher educational systems,
Florida, New York, and Texas have already begun to deliver most or all of their remedial
classes in the 2-year sector (Shaw, 2001). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education

3
(1999) predicts that there will be a steady increase in enrollment in public 2-year colleges
over the next decade.
In response to economic pressures, public policy, and level of appropriations, as
well as new academic and service challenges, college administrations have become more
focused on fundraising and better management practices (Tierney, 1998). Private
foundations, individuals, and corporate charitable gifts are receiving greater attention as
new sources of income to ensure quality public education (Banks & Mabry, 1988;
Keener, 1982; Yee. 1998). Decreasing public investment in education by the state
governments can stimulate private development efforts and innovative financial aid
solutions (Yee. 1998). Between 1992 and 1997, revenue from private grants, gifts, and
contracts increased by 24% for community colleges. The number of public 2-year
colleges with endowments grew' by nearly 40% betw een 1992 and 1997 (Phillippe &
Patton, 1999).
Higher education competes with health care, prison, police services, and other
public services for state financial support. Community colleges have lost ground in the
competition for state resources, while at the same time broadening their mission
(Breneman, 1997). In 1998, community colleges were educating 43% of the nation’s
undergraduates for a small share of state and federal higher education monies. In the
1980s community colleges became major competitors for state tax dollars with many
state appropriations ranging from 75% to 90% of the total expenditures of the colleges
(Richardson & de los Santos, 2001). However, by 1992 state funds accounted for only
46% of community college revenues, local support dropped to 18%, and student tuition
and fees covered 20%. Federal and other sources made up 16% of the operating revenues
(Education Commission of the States, 2000).

4
The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education [WICHE] (1998) data
give a more dire picture of overall state appropriations to higher education as a
percentage of tax revenue in Figure 1-1. Despite the favorable budgetary environment for
many states, the U.S. rate of higher education appropriations to total state appropriations
declined from 12% to 9.7% from 1992 to 1997.
13%
12%
CD
cn
5
c
O
i—
CL
11%
10%
9%
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
Source: Adapted from Western Interstate Commission (WICHE) data,
Policy Implications for Higher Education, 1998
Figure 1-1. State Higher Education Appropriations
(As a % of tax revenue for all states in the U.S.)
Merisotis and Wolanin (2000) suggest that revenue trends show that the funding
of community colleges has migrated toward a more private and workforce-oriented
education model.
The significant shift in revenue sources toward contracted government and private
program funds for training has been accompanied by a parallel decline in
operating funds from state tax coffers. At the same time, students have been asked
to pick up an increasing proportion of the tab. (Merisotis & Wolanin, 2000)

5
They claim that the share of community college revenues from state and local
government appropriations has shrunk from 70% of total revenues in 1980 to 50% in
1996. This shrinkage of public funding for basic support has declined as the community
college mission has broadened. Merisotis and Wolanin recommend that community
college leaders change management activities to meet these shifts and attend to tuition
pricing policies.
Individual states have reduced allocations to public higher education institutions,
federal programs for student grants have been curtailed, deferred maintenance projects
have come due, overall personnel costs have escalated, technology infrastructure
investments have skyrocketed, and more students, with less financial resources, are
pursuing a higher education (Eldredge, 1999). The failure of both state and local
governments to provide adequate funding for enrollment increases threatens the access
mission of community colleges by making students pay for an ever-increasing share of
operating costs (Campbell, Leverty, & Sayles, 1996).
Fundraising as a management practice of community colleges has been influenced
by policy emerging at the state level and federal level. According to Schuyler, large-scale
external fundraising at community colleges began as a result of the 1965 Higher
Education Act and the federal funding opportunities that it offered. In a 1993 survey of
American Association for Community Colleges members, 542 of 550 respondents
reported having a foundation, and almost 30% reported endowments of more than $1
million (Schuyler, 1997). Fundraising as a management and strategic function of
community colleges has taken on a greater importance. The proliferation of foundations
and resource development staff was documented through the 1970s by Sharron (1982)
and in the 1980s by Ryan (1989a). Between 1992 and 1997, revenue from private grants,
gifts, and contracts increased by 24% for community colleges. The number of

6
community colleges with endowments increased by 40% between 1992 and 1997
(Philippe & Patton, 1999).
A national survey of community college revenue from grants from private and
public sources for the fiscal year 1998-99 reported an average of $5.14 million in grant
income ($4.15 million through the grants offices and $.99 million through the college
foundations). For urban community colleges, the grant income was $6.4 million through
the grants offices and $ 1.6 million through the college foundations with an urban total
average of $8 million (Keener, Carrier, & Meaders, 2002).
Another public policy impetus for prolific growth in community college
structures for fundraising was the introduction of matching funds from state legislatures
to the schools for private dollars raised. Florida, North Carolina, and Texas instituted
matching fund programs for the community colleges. In addition, the legislated economic
and workforce development missions of community colleges stress public/private
partnerships that often result in corporate matching donations for new training programs
and new technology (Johnstone, 1997).
Institutionally related foundations are a way to protect private gifts from
confiscation by the state to meet budgetary shortfalls in funding. These foundations stand
legally apart from their institutions but exist exclusively to enhance their programs. For
example, there is the belief among community college foundation staff that having a
scholarship fund created through the use of private money is the only way to ensure that
the open door policy is realized (Jenkins & Glass, 1999).
There is a body of knowledge and empirical data about how community college
foundations are formed and how they operate in relationship to their institutions (Adams,
Keener, & McGee, 1994; Banks & Mabry, 1988; Brittingham & Pezzullo. 1990; Council
for the Advance and Support of Education [CASE], 1989; Duronio & Loessin, 1990;

7
1991; Gatewood, 1994; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Jackson, 1997; Jackson & Glass, 2000;
Jenkins, 1997; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Johnson, 1986; Koelkebeck, 1994; Phillippe &
Eblinger, 1998; Robison, 1982; Ryan, 1988, 1989c; Schuyler, 1997; Sharon, 1982).
Public 2-year higher education institutions use a variety of systems to acquire
grant funding from private and government sources. Most community colleges have
disparate systems for acquiring dollars from the state legislature, private foundations,
individual donors, and government funding agencies. In other words, the colleges may
seek and obtain grant revenue from all of these sources and advancement activities may
not be coordinated. Glass & Jackson (1998a, 1998b), Keener (1982), and Keener, Carrier,
and Meaders (2002) assert that resource development as an integrated function of the
community college will be a critical success factor.
Statement of the Problem
It has been theorized that resource development must become an institutionalized
core function of the American community college and that fundraising as an activity of
resource development must become integrated with institutional planning, academic
planning, and marketing activities (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). Experience tells us that
organizational structure and management practices change when the political and funding
environment changes. Organizational cultures change when there is a significant change
in the organization’s environment to which it must adapt to survive (Gold, 1999; Lewin,
1951, 1980).
In other words, the organization must accommodate to the environment within
which it exists. The management of community colleges is experiential and learned over
time. The management systems and practices of community colleges are studied in social

8
science research. Case studies have researched decisions about programs, management
systems, the implementation process, and organizational change (Yin, 1994).
The research need is to discover how organizational structure, administrative
management activities, and faculty management activities have changed in community
colleges in response to the change in the proportional funding by the state government of
college operations. Community college administrators have authority over designing and
coordinating organizational structure and management activities. As the importance and
influence of private support other than front the state in the life of higher education have
expanded, so, too, have the structures that obtain and manage these dollars.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the income acquisition and management process and
organizational structure in four public community colleges located in the states of
Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. The purpose of the study was to identify
the qualitative elements of the process and their perceived impact upon the organizational
structure and the management activities of administrators and faculty at each of the four
institutions. For purposes of the study, the income acquisition and the management
systems were compared at four colleges. The institutional systems were placed on a point
on the Integrated Income Acquisition and Management (HAM) Continuum. The colleges
systems judged to be more aggregated or less aggregated were based upon evidence of
characteristics of the five stages of the HAM Continuum. The stages are graduated to
include certain advancement activities, levels of integration of those activities within the
advancement function, and level of integration of the advancement activities with
institutional planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities.

9
Stages I to V on the IIAM Continuum move from disaggregation to
interconnectivity of the income acquisition and management system of the institution.
The colleges are placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of the characteristics
listed in Table 1-1, “IIAM Continuum.”
The data from the interviews, observations, and document review answered
questions such as, ‘‘Does the college perform this advancement activity?” “Who does it?”
and “Where is the activity located in the organizational structure?” The colleges are
placed at a stage in the continuum from disaggregated to aggregated. A college has
attained a higher stage when it can show a higher level of integration of the advancement
activities with strategic planning, budgeting and evaluation. For example, to reach Stage
IV a college must show (a) evidence of an administrative sfructure that links academic
planning and budgeting with fundraising to achieve strategic goals (i.e., initiatives to
integrate the activities of the advancement function) and (b) evidence of methods of
determining which revenue stream is best suited to fund each institutional priority and a
strategy of income acquisition and, subsequently, a plan to implement these strategies.
The analysis and rationale for placement on the IIAM Continuum is linked to interview
question responses (Appendix E), site observations, document review, and the academic
literature reviewed in Chapter 2.
The comparative case analysis describes the participants’ understandings and
perceptions and relates the IIAM Continuum theory to the college environments. The
college systems movement on the continuum over time is also compared. Understanding
the experiences and decision-making processes of leading institutions in bellwether states
will be of use to college leaders who desire to integrate the acquisition and management
of federal, state, local, and private dollars as well as tuition and student fees. Of particular
interest is the integration of raising private dollars, as a new core activity of the resource

10
Table 1-1. IIAM Continuum
(Stage I Disaggregated)
(More Aggregated Stage V)
Stage I
Stage 11
Stage Ill
Stage IV
Stage V
College has some
College has
College has
College has all of
College has all of the
of the key
all of the key
all of the key
the key activities
key activities
activities
activities
activities
associated with the
associated with the
associated with
associated
associated
advancement
advancement function
the advancement
with the
with the
function and they
and they are all are
function and they
advancement
advancement
are all are
integrated as evidenced
are not
function and
function and
integrated as
by
coordinated
they are not
some are
evidenced by
a) institutional strategic
coordinated
coordinated
a) institutional
management system*
Marketing
strategic
b) all directors of the
y/n
management
key activities report to
system*
an administrator who
Institutional
b) all directors of
oversees all of the
Research
the key activities
advancement activities
y/n
report to an
and the president
administrator who
provides top level
Media Relations
oversees all of the
support for the
y/n
advancement
advancement function
activities and the
c) key activities are
Community
president provides
interdependent and
Affairs y/n
top level support
administrators share
for the
and use strategic
Corporate
advancement
management
Relations
function
infonnation from the
y/n
c) key activities are
other key activities'
interdependent and
systems
Government
administrators
d) the college
Relations
share and use
evaluation system
y/n
strategic
rewards and recognizes
management
innovating ideas, team
Resource
information from
building, continuous
Development
the other key
views of process
y/n
activities' systems
changes, and attention
to learning
Foundation
organization practices
y/n
that lead to
mission-based high
Alumni Affairs
y/n
performance
Publications y/n
* Institutional Strategic Management System has (a) Mission and Objectives, (b)
Strategic Analysis including internal and external scanning, (c) Strategy Formulation, (d)
Strategy Implementation, and (e) Strategy Evaluation.

11
development function within advancement, into the colleges’ planning. Filling this gap in
knowledge is the purpose of the process study. A process study explores the why and
how of change while linking context, content, and process of change outcomes. In both
the academic and nonacademic sectors, an innovation’s meaning is not self-evident, but
instead is “gradually worked out though a process of social construction” (Rogers. 1995,
p. xvii).
Institutions that do the same things, such as community colleges, can be
organized in different ways because the institutions must accommodate to the
environments within which they exist. Community colleges may require different
advancement activities and relationships among those activities. Management has
discretion over designing and coordinating these activities. By applying theory to the
qualitative data, the researcher will produce knowledge that can inform higher education
administrators of theoretical foundations and successful practice for improving planning
and management systems in the community college advancement function. Scholars of
higher education finance and management can use the conclusions from this theoretical
and empirical inquiry to debate the desirability of integration of the acquisition and
management systems for federal, state, local, and private dollars as well as tuition and
fees in America’s community colleges.
Statement of Intent
The researcher was brought to this study by her experience in local government,
the nonprofit sector, and community college management and fundraising; teaching
management and leadership theory and practice; as well as academic discourse. The
study evolved out of a concern for how changes in the revenue streams of community

12
colleges have changed organizational structure, notions of management, and professional
practice at community colleges in the United States. One mission of community colleges
in America is to provide open access to higher education for anyone motivated to learn-
regardless of social and economic distinctions. In order to reach this ideal while
maintaining quality teaching and instructional technology and services, most community
college leaders have considered the necessity of the infusion of private dollars for
operating and capital budgets. How this acquisition of private dollars should be managed
is debated by community college leaders.
To inform public policy and practice the researcher captured the phenomenon
under study with a comparative case study. Case studies capture bounded instances such
as decisions about programs, implementing management decisions, and organizational
change (Yin, 1994). The portrayals of the college cases were compared and contrasted in
an overall comparative study concluding with modification of the postulated HAM
Continuum theory.
The researcher intended to derive the meaning of community college
administrators’ experiences and relate it to their decisions that caused changes in
institutional structure and management activities. Implications of the inquiry included the
support or repudiation of the postulated IIAM Continuum theory.
Guiding Research Questions
The theory was that as the sources of income have become more diverse and
changed in proportion to one another, community colleges organize themselves on a
point along an integrated income acquisition and management continuum. The main

13
question of the study was, “How have the colleges adapted to the changes in size of the
income sources?” The four research questions were
1. How has organizational structure changed?
2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?
3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?
4. Where do the colleges' systems stand on a continuum from a disaggregated
system of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system?
Have they moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance
of the study?
It is hypothesized that an aggregated income acquisition and management system
is more desirable than not. Future studies may indicate that aggregated systems result in
more income and greater institutional effectiveness than disaggregated systems. More
aggregated systems may also help a college to recover more quickly from sudden drops
in enrollment and funding crises.
These four research questions were related to the theorized IIAM Continuum.
Factors derived from the construct of the ideally integrated advancement function as well
as community college advancement literature were used to create an interview guide.
Justification of choice of questions for the study were taken from literature and
discourses among community college administrators. Through semi-structured interviews
the researcher collected data in order to link the data to the theoretical propositions.
Interview questions were written to get at factors posited in the theoretical frameworks.
The study concludes whether the factors are empirically and theoretically sound.
Significance of the Study
In response to the declining percent of state appropriations as a proportion of
operating budgets along with the need for new service and academic programs,
community college staff, administrators, and faculty have become more focused on

14
income acquisition and management. They are also more focused on fundraising as an
activity of the resource development subfunction within the function of institutional
advancement (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).
America’s community colleges are fundraising in order to keep up with demands
for technology for their economic development and workforce development missions as
well as their learning centered mission. Acquisition of private dollars includes cultivating
public/private partnerships for business alliances and corporate contributions. The
colleges’ success in acquiring income from public and private sources requires a greater
finesse with and a greater reliance upon external scanning of constituencies. This requires
the integration of the institutional activities that fall under the heading of “institutional
advancement.” These activities are government affairs, marketing, resource development,
media relations, community affairs, corporate relations, institutional research,
publications, and alumni affairs. The colleges may also have a foundation to assist in the
resource development activities. The community college organizational structures differ
widely to cover the function of institutional advancement.
Glass and Jackson’s research suggests that private fundraising as a community
college activity has only been marginally understood and instigated in times of financial
crisis. They claim that resource development must become a long-term core function of
community colleges and it mast be integrated with institutional planning, academic
planning, and marketing (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).
The case studies look at the effect of advancement initiatives on (a)
administrative structure, (b) management systems, (c) decisions regarding institutional
financial resources, and (d) the integration of income acquisition and management

15
activities. The proposed research will contribute to the scholarly literature on community
college fiscal strategy.
A case study can answer how the administrators of a college arrived at
management practices and can describe the stresses and disjunctures that threaten shared
income acquisition goals within an institution. A case study can get at the belief systems
that make certain errors possible (Yin, 1994). Case studies help in understanding
complex interrelationships and patterns of practice (Stake, 1995). The case studies
describe how changes in revenue streams can affect the management experiences of
community college administrators. The case studies suggest how changing organizational
structure, management practice, and observed patterns of practice can assist in
institutional success in meeting income acquisition and management goals. A case study
can suggest management practices that can be duplicated as best practice.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study institutional advancement is defined as a
community college function that encompasses the activities of government affairs,
marketing, resource development, media relations, community affairs, corporate
relations, institutional research, publications, alumni affairs, and the possible addition of
a foundation to affect income acquisition and management.
Resource development is defined as the generation of revenue from both public
and private grant sources. Fundraising is defined as activities that acquire monetary
contributions from private sources and activities that cultivate relationships with
individual financial donors, corporate charities, business and industiy, and private

16
foundations. Private revenue is defined as monetary gifts from individuals, corporate
charities, business and industry, and private foundations.
An aggregated management system is one that is considered with reference to its
constituent parts. For example, a college is the aggregate of its departments under one
common head, the president.
Integration is the process of regrouping and re-linking activities into a unified
function in an organization. For example, government affairs, marketing, resource
development, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations, institutional
research, publications, alumni affairs, and foundation activities are integrated in the
advancement function.
Strategic planning is a system of elements such as definition of mission,
environmental monitoring, and assessment of internal strengths and weaknesses to
determine direction and establish decision-making processes and objectives. An array of
strategies are developed to achieve measurable, time-anchored, obtainable, and assigned
objectives. The strategies are implemented through the selection of programs and
projects. Strategic planning is distinguished from an internally focused, closed system of
traditional long-term planning. Instead it is the institution’s use of an externally focused
open system.
Strategic management is a system that links strategic planning and decision¬
making with day-to-day business of operational management. Before implementing a
strategic plan to obtain objectives, five steps are undertaken:
1. definition of organizational structure and assignment of responsibility,
2. appropriate allocation of resources or budgeting,
3. motivation of employees,
4. approval of administrative policies and procedures, and
5. readiness of executive leadership to change the plan if necessary.

17
Using these definitions, strategic planning in community colleges treats the
interaction of external forces, college systems, and institutional outcomes.
Research Design
A comparative case analysis was used to detennine repetition of phenomenon.
Theoretical frameworks were used as a template with which to compare the empirical
results of the case studies. When two or more cases are shown to support the same
theory, a claim of repetition may be made (Yin, 1994).
Methods
The inquiry process and procedures for each use of datum to address each guiding
research question are detailed in Chapters 3 and 4. The researcher proceeded in the
following manner:
1. Literature and research reviewed
2. Theory developed
3. Questions developed
4. Case study protocols written
5. Interview guides developed
6. Interview guides juried
7. Data collected
8. Descriptive data coded and analyzed vis-á-vis theoretical factors of the I1AM
Continuum
9. Findings and conclusions drawn and presented to colleges to further validity
10. Audit peer review conducted
11. Individual case studies written
12. Case studies compared and contrasted
13. HAM Continuum modified
Thus, the institutional advancement activities and their integration with the
income acquisition and management process were identified through qualitative research
methods.

18
Limitations
The study was conducted under certain intent and scope. The focus of the
comparative case study was the function of institutional advancement as it related to the
income acquisition and management systems in four community colleges, one each in
Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and New York. The description was further restricted to
advancement initiatives as depicted in the interviews and observed behavior of each of
the college’s administrators including the written planning documents of the participants
from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000.
This is a study on income acquisition. Although cost containment strategies are
often used in tandem with income acquisition strategies as a response to changes in
revenue, cost containment strategies were not included. In order for an income
acquisition strategy to be considered an institutional strategy the income strategy must be
reflected in the planning and operational activities of the college.
Deleted from the consideration was a critique of the specific competencies of
each of the advancement systems. The focus was on the aggregation of the systems. The
study did not evaluate the organizational culture of the four colleges. Although
organizational culture is a part of institutional planning it was not within the limits of this
study.
Experience tells us that organizational structure and business practices change
when political and funding environment change. The parameters of the study were a
bounded instance of five years of advancement function activities and their integration
with income acquisition and management systems in each of the four community
colleges.

19
Tlie study did not compare state-to-state funding of operating budgets per se. The
changes in the percentages of the operating budgets for each college are investigated as
to the meaning of those changes in four particular environments. The responses to the
changes are analyzed and compared with an eye toward the documented trends and the
trends described in academic literature.
Assumptions
It was assumed that
1. The administrators of the four community colleges are responding to changes in
financial support of their colleges and the study asks what are they doing about
the changes. The study asks how did the administrators arrive at decisions to
change income acquisition and management strategies or pursue an advancement
initiative and how did they manage the change?
2. Income generating strategies are formulated before they are implemented and
planning is the central process by which they are formulated, therefore structures
should be designed to implement given strategies.
3. The decision-making process, planning process, and activities to sustain the
change at each college were identified through qualitative research methods.
Organization of the Study
The study is reported in five chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the problem
under study and its context. Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature and
discourses. Chapter 3 describes the data collection and analysis along with qualitative
methods used. Chapter 4 is an analysis of (a) how the four colleges responded to changes
in funding streams in light of their management and planning systems and (b) where the
colleges stand on the HAM Continuum.
Chapter 5 gives the conclusions drawn from a comparison of the four cases vis-á-
vis the theoretical framework. The final chapter also includes the questions and
recommendations raised in the study for public policy and practice.

CHAPTER 2
A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY
The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the growing scholarly
literature on community college income acquisition management, fundraising, and
advancement in relation to each of the guiding research questions. The four research
questions are as follows:
1. How has organizational structure changed?
2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?
3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?
4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?
The foundations for the study are community college advancement and
organizational management research, higher administration literature, and studies on
planning and change in public organizations and community colleges.
The problem was to discover how organizational structure, administrative
management activities, and faculty management activities have changed in four
community colleges in response to the change in proportional funding for college
operations by state government. The design of organizational structure and management
activities by community college administrators has an impact on the effectiveness of the
institution. The colleges were placed on a point of the Income Acquisition and
Management (IIAM) Continuum to show the degree of integration of the key
advancement activities with planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities during the 5-
year period of the study.
20

21
This chapter is organized under four headings: (a) Changes in the Sources of
Revenue for Community Colleges, (b) Fundraising in Community Colleges, (c) Resource
Development and Institutional Planning, and (d) Income Acquisition and Management as
a System. The historical evolution of the problem on a national level is addressed in
Chapter 1 and summarized in this chapter under the first heading “Changes in the
Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges.’' That section is followed by “Fundraising
in Community Colleges,” a literature review of the emergence of fundraising as a core
activity of the advancement function in community colleges. Studies on community
college organizational structure and changing management activities as they relate to
institutional planning are grouped next under the third heading, “Resource Development
and Institutional Planning.” The last section of Chapter 2 covers organizational
management theories and research findings on the factors that comprise the HAM
Continuum under the heading, “Income Acquisition and Management as a System.”
Changes in the Sources of Revenue for Community Colleges
Over the past 20 years community colleges have lost ground in the competition
with other state agencies for state resources for operating funds. Students, through tuition
and fees, have picked up the tab. In 1979, percentages of tuition support for general
operations of the community college systems with colleges in this study were 21.50%
(FL), 6.90% (NC), 25.20% (NY), and 11.80% (TX) (Breneman & Nelson, 1981, p. 14).
in 1999, percentages of tuition support for general operations of the community college
systems with colleges in this study were 23.06% (FL), 8.20% (NC), 34.00% (NY), and
19.90% (TX) (Education Commission of the States, 2000, p. 11).

22
The types of funding sources for public community colleges maybe divided into
public and private. Most public sources are state, federal, and locally generated tax
dollars. All states use state tax funds and charge students tuition for the funding of
community colleges. The appropriation formulas for state funding for the four colleges in
the study are based on full time equivalents (FTEs) and performance-based budgeting.
Three of the states in this study have local tax components. In these states, New
York, North Carolina, and Texas, local funding is obtained from regular property tax
(NY), special levy property tax (NC) and local option sales tax (TX). Local funding is
also used for capital construction and for other short-term, high-need financing programs
and projects.
In looking to federal funding to offset a states’ lowered funding base as a
percentage of the total operating budget, community colleges seek grants and special
programs. While block grants, categorical grants, formula grants, and discretionary funds
provide a good means to initiate new programs, they cannot be relied upon to sustain
programs on an ongoing basis. Honeyman, Williams, and Wattenbarger (1991) observed
that federal funds were not keeping up proportionally with the numbers of students
entering public postsecondary education. A 1993 report by the National Commission on
Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education and studies by Jenkins and Glass
(1999) indicate that federal dollars for postsecondary education have decreased.
Charting the state trends has made it clear that public community colleges cannot
rely on the state for tax-assisted increases in funding in the future. The trend of
decreasing levels of state support accompanied by an increase in the level that students
contribute through tuition and fees to total operating revenue documented in
Wattenbarger’s 1988 study (Honeyman, Williams, & Wattenbarger, 1991) continues.

23
Fundraising in Community Colleges
The variety of funding sources, especially the trend toward more private funds,
points toward private sector support as necessary for maintaining public two-year
institutions and as a source of income to support innovation and excellence (Pezzullo &
Brittingham, 1990; Honeyman, Williams, & Wattenbarger, 1991). Nongovernmental
financial support is often necessary for capital construction and when government or
private contributions require matching funds.
Community college foundations are a source of private dollars for scholarships,
student support, faculty professional development, programs, equipment, and capital.
According to an AACC survey of community college foundations, local business and
industry are cited as the most frequent source of major contributions to community
college foundations, followed by individuals not affiliated with the college (Phillippe &
Eblinger, 1998).
The growth of community college foundations as an organizational approach to
fundraising was most dramatic in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1970s the
colleges began to adapt the university and liberal arts college model of engaging
nongovernmental contributors for private gifts (Keener, 1984). In 1980 only 18
community colleges claimed foundations of 20 years or older. By 1987 about 800 of
America’s 1,222 community colleges reported having a college foundation (Jenkins &
Glass, 1999).
Gifts to public 2-year colleges from private foundations, business and industry,
and local philanthropists have grown considerably since the 1980s. In 1986, $50,000
represented a significant endowment for a community college foundation. By 1993, 30%
of respondents in an NCRD study reported foundation endowments of more than

24
$1 million (Adams, Keener, & McGee, 1994). On average, community college
endowments more than doubled between 1989 and 1996. There were three community
colleges with endowments of more than $100 million, placing them among the largest
275 endowments in American higher education (MacArthur, 2000).
By 1987 53% of community colleges had established a college foundation as a
recipient of tax-deductible contributions under Section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code. One hundred and seventy-five colleges created endowments between 1989 and
1995 (Williams, 2000). Through the 1980s many of these foundations were passive,
serving only as collection agencies for people who contacted the college about
contributing. In 1988 private gifts and endowments accounted for 1 % of the total
revenues of the average community college (Koltai, 1993). By 1989, only 200 of the
nation’s 1,222 community colleges reported having aggressive foundations
professionally engaged in fund raising operations (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).
A recent study of public community college foundations in Michigan described
characteristics of the foundations raising the most money. They were (a) utilizing a
foundation annual and strategic plan, (b) promoting a positive college image, (c)
articulating the college mission to the public, (d) visibility of college personnel serving
the community, (e) active participation by the president, college board of trustees, and
foundation board of directors, (f) a full-time professional foundation director, (g)
administrative, faculty, and volunteer support for the foundation, and (h) continuous
communication to college stakeholders (Miller & Seagren, 1997). Also in 1997, a delphi
study of the North Carolina community colleges identified the need for additional
training for presidents, trustees, and foundation board members, greater public relations
efforts, and the elevation of development officers to senior level status for the

25
foundations’ success (Jackson, 1997). Again in 1997, a case study done on a community
college foundation in North Carolina stressed that the foundation’s success was
attributable to good public relations and organizational development characterized by
Robison’s (1982) description of the five types of community college foundations
(Jenkins, 1997). Robison described five types of community college foundations:
1. Holding corporations, or passive foundations, whose sole purpose is to receive or
manage assets.
2. “Old boy” systems with a social head and several friends that solicit funds, but
operate the foundation as a personal charity.
3. Actual operating foundations, acting as separate legal entities form the college,
managing financial transactions not allowed [by state laws] for public schools.
4. Single purpose foundations, which solicit, disburse, and manage iunds for a
single cause, such as a library or scholarship fund.
5. Comprehensive mature foundations that include the preceding features and
characteristically have ongoing capital campaigns of several years duration.
Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1980s, the American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC), the National Council for
Resource Development (NCRD), and the Council for the Support of Education (CASE)
sponsored studies to inform college advancement efforts to acquire financial support
from private foundations and corporations. Ryan’s work during this period documented
the status of community college fundraising and philanthropy to 2-year colleges.
Resource lists containing corporate and foundation contact people and funding policies,
bibliographies, literature reviews, case studies, and best practices were available
throughout the latter part of the 1980s (Duffy, 1982; Ryan, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c;
Ryan & Smith, 1989). The 1986 Handbook of Institutional Advancement (2nd ed.l,
edited by Rowland, was updated in 2000 to include more relevant practice for the key

26
activities of the community college advancement function. There is a greater emphasis
on the use of integrated marketing and government relations activities to strengthen
community college advancement.
Correspondingly, there was a huge increase in private dollars for community
college operations and development. While in the 1970s federal grants contributed to
public 2-year colleges more than any other resource development source, by the mid-
1980s financial support from private sources had taken a greater share, hi 1986-1987
almost 44% of monies from resource development to community colleges was provided
by corporations, alumni, individuals, and private foundations (Ryan, 1988). In analyzing
a 1997 survey, Phillippe and Eblinger (1998) also cited local business and industry and
individuals not affiliated with the college as major contributors. The other revenue
sources cited most often for the college foundations were foundation board members,
government or state matching programs, national corporations or foundations, college
staff or faculty, college alumni, development staff, and college board members (Phillippe
& Eblinger, 1998). The Council for Aid to Education reported that after an 8.6% decline
in private gifts to community colleges from academic years 1996-97 to 1997-98, public
and private community colleges experienced a 37.9% increase in 1998-99. The 1998-99
increase from $98 million to $129 million-is attributed to greater experience with
organized campaigns as 2-year schools progressed from annual drives and major gift
campaigns to more sophisticated planned giving and capital campaigns (Lively, 2000).
Resource development must generate revenue from both public and private
sources. Eloneyman, Williams, and Wattenbarger (1991) have suggested that resource
development has attained anew dimension-diversification. Traditionally, community
colleges have looked to alumni for support of capital campaigns. The activities of

27
resource development have broadened to include the investigation and acquisition of
funds from a diverse population of constituents. The fund raising repertoire has
broadened along with the image building and research activities required for external
scanning and relationships (Schuyler, 1997).
Many terms are used to describe systematic efforts to attract financial support. In
community college culture, “advancement” implies forward movement on the fronts of
media relations, marketing, image promotion, alumni programs and activities, fund¬
raising, and external relationships with all constituents. Enrollment management
activities may be included in the advancement function in some community colleges as it
produces tuition and fee income, but this is not the usual practice at this time.
“Advancement staff are the strategists and practitioners, the fundraisers, the publicists,
the image builders, and the connectors” (Tromble, 1998, p. 13). In his text on principles
and practice of educational fundraising, Worth also places educational fundraising in the
broader context of institutional advancement. He describes educational fundraising as
beginning with the sophisticated process of development, a stage in which the
fundraising goals are based upon the academic needs of the institution and financial
donor aspirations are meshed with the academic objectives. These steps require
considerable research for identification of prospects, and prospect tracking and
management. Consequently, the development stage must be undertaken before gifts may
be solicited from donors. Therefore, fundraising is episodic while development is
continuous (Worth, 1993).
In undertaking the fundraising strategies of annual campaigns, planned and
deferred giving, capital campaigns, special event fundraising, grants identification and
acquisition, and business partnerships for cultivation of corporate gifts, there is a need to

28
enhance the image and visibility of the college. A 6-year study of community college
fundraising found that those colleges that are most successful in fundraising have two
characteristics in common-strong marketing and widespread community support
(Keener, Ryan, & Smith, 1991). Schuyler (1997) contends that as community college
foundations play an essential role in the future of community colleges their resource
development professionals should be specifically trained in both the technical aspects
and the human factors of fundraising.
Lovelock and Weinberg (1984) found that the search for increased revenues from
existing markets and from entirely new revenue sources is changing the orientation of
many public organizations. They report that the organizations are developing a structure
closer to that of private firms, becoming more entrepreneurial and more commercial as
they are increasingly more interested in the utility of marketing practices. Oster
documented this same orientation change in nonprofit organizations in her 1995 case
studies (Oster, 1995). A study of markets allows the organization to examine ways to
supplement and diversify its funding base (Lauffer, 1984). In order to better study
external constituencies and trends, the function of institutional research is taking on a
greater role. Membership surveys conducted between 1988 and 1998 by the Association
of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA) have declared that professional
fundraising in community colleges has given rise to a new information specialist
profession. This career path, which has been known as prospect research or advancement
research, is also defined as information resources management for advancement (Mayer,
1999).
Although community college foundations may lack the loyalty of older and
financially successful alumni, and the more experienced staff of well-established 4-year

29
institutions, they have an edge in resource development when they can show a company
how their success serves its interests. Thus, corporate relations activities are grouped
with the other activities associated with the advancement function because community
colleges are in unique positions to attract corporate gifts by demonstrating matching and
parallel priorities (Worth, 1993).
Scholarly research on the community college foundation began in earnest in the
early 1980s. This was mainly descriptive research, such as Robison’s Types of
Foundations (1982). During the decade of the 1980s there was little research on the
process by which community college foundations achieved success (Baxter, 1987;
Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Carbone, 1986; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Loessin &
Duronio, 1989).
Carbone (1986) found that very few studies have focused on resource
development activities at public higher education institutions. This trend has been
consistent despite Robison’s identification of the need for qualitative research on actual
foundations in 1982. Carbone documented the need for case studies of specific fund¬
raising programs in 1986; Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) agreed that case studies on
the new core activity of fundraising in higher education income acquisition are needed.
Loessin and Duronio (1989) found that foundation fundraising activities and
capacities to raise funds vary widely. Qualitative studies can capture the “deliberate,
sustained efforts involved in successful foundation activity” (Loessin & Duronio, 1989,
p. 14) and the process aspects of fundraising. The case studies presented here capture
activities and decision-making processes related to resource development and income
acquisition and management capacity at four community colleges. The study sought

30
answers to questions regarding changes in organizational structure and management
activities as well as changes in the integration of activities.
Literature that suggests how to address these process questions is found mostly in
studies on institutional planning and organizational behavior theory. These are covered
below under the headings “Resource Development and Institutional Planning” and
“Income Acquisition and Management as a System.”
Encapsulating the 20-year trend in fundraising in community colleges, Glass and
Jackson (1998b) argue that resource development officers have become the new power
brokers when they have a direct report to the president of the institution, are informed
about strategic issues and planning, and participate in setting college priorities and fund¬
raising goals. Although community college leaders report that private fundraising is of
increasing importance to their institutions, private fundraising efforts have not been
integrated into planning and management (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Jackson & Glass,
2000). Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) define fundraising as integral to institutional
priorities for reasons beyond the revenues generated. “Each accepted gift, with all its
stipulations and restrictions is a statement about what the institution is willing to become
[and] how it is willing to see itself and the world” (p. 57).
Resource Development and Institutional Planning
Organizational Structure
Resource development and fundraising are implementation activities for the
strategic planning process. It takes money to realize the mission, to fund programs, and
to carry out activities. Organizational structures should be designed to implement
strategies (Jackson & Glass, 2000; Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000;
Thompson & Strickland, 2001; Tromble, 1998).

31
For example, if there is an assumption that public community colleges should be
democratizing institutions that provide access and opportunities for students who have
traditionally been shut out of the higher education experience, then this assumption
should be reflected in the mission of the college and in the mission statement of the
college’s foundation as well. Control issues with community donors who give very large
gifts or conflicts between the college board of trustees and the foundation board members
may be prevented when the foundation’s mission is seen as to implement the institution’s
strategic plan (Evelyn, 1999). Some colleges structure the alignment of foundation goals
with college mission, objectives, and activities by having the development officer report
directly to the president of the college (the staff model approach). Matsoukas (1996)
agrees with Ryan and Smith (1989) and Keener (1989) that the line model for the
advancement function best serves the community college mission.
Answering the strategic question, “How will we pay for the implementation and
realization of the mission of our college?” requires strategic planning to align the
institution with its environment. The first step is gaining an understanding of that
environment. The literature indicates that structuring the chief advancement officer as a
direct report to the president and as a peer of other senior officers improves the alignment
of resource development goals with institutional planning. As far back as 1976
Wattenbarger advocated for the resource development officer’s role in campus planning
and oversight of advancement activities. In 1988, Ryan introduced a line model that
placed the chief advancement officer in line with the chief academic, student services,
and administration services officers all with direct report to the president.
There is growing commitment by community college administrators and faculty
to concentrate the use of resources and focus on priorities for their use. These
commitments lead to a strategic decision-making where the process of strategic planning

32
can increase the effectiveness of outcomes of the decisions. The challenge is that
strategic planning requires an understanding of external expectations and their contexts
in order to develop responses to the expectations in the form of objectives and to sustain
responses as strategic change (Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Pettigrew, 2000).
When resource development officers understand relationships between their
college’s programs and its external environment they may adapt to or influence changes
that impact fundraising. In a survey of the presidents of the 58 community colleges in
North Carolina, the respondents advocated elevating the position of development officer
to senior level and ensuring his/her involvement in institutional planning and decision¬
making (Glass & Jackson, 1998a).
As a leadership function strategic management involves the integration of
future-shaping processes with operational levels of strategy making. It encompasses
strategic planning and other management techniques (Myran, 1983). Strategic planning
and strategic management begin with a scan of the external environment to identify
emerging issues that pose threats or opportunities to an institution. Evaluation of these
issues is followed by trend forecasting, the establishment of objectives and strategies, and
the implementation and monitoring of results. The diagram in Figure 2-1, “An
Institutional Strategic Management Model,” charts the flow of this process. This is an
iterative process whereby administrators may cycle back to activities as necessary in the
event of unforeseen public policy, regulatory, or environmental changes.
Most models of institutional planning and strategic management for higher
education assume that external forces drive the central administration to develop systems
and processes to produce responses and outcomes. Baker’s “Core Values Model” for
community colleges emphasizes a focus on the college culture and the results of
responses to the strategic management process (Figure 2-2).

33
Source: Adapted from Bimbaum, 2001; Dolence & Norris, 1995, Mintzberg, 1994;
Schmidtlein, 1990; Thompson & Strickland, 2001.
Figure 2-1. An Institutional Strategic Management Model
Systems and Processes
Drivers
Mission &
Strategy
External
Environment
Leadership
Outcomes
ege
^^Individual &
^ Group
^ Response
Outcomes
Accountability
Source; Baker, 1998
Figure 2-2. Core Values Model

34
Barker and Smith’s (1997) “Internal Management Model for Institutional
Planning” identifies the elements of strategic planning, and also provides for evaluation
and feedback starting at the lowest level in the institution using a hierarchy of plans to
support goals (Figure 2-3). This model suggests that the interest and involvement of the
president is critical to the success of the plan.
External
Envrionment
Source: Barker & Smith, 1997
Figure 2-3 Internal Management Model for Institutional Planning
Peterson and associates (1997) examined strategic planning and strategic
management in higher education institutions and concluded that there is no fixed protocol
for academic strategic decision making. The differences in models seem to be more
differences of form than differences of substance. Above and beyond the inherent

35
elements of strategic management-treating the interaction of external forces, college
systems and processes, and outcomes-it must respond to culture and include a senior
level champion of strategic change with the buy-in of other campus leaders. Strong and
continual communication along with the discipline of ranking priorities is essential
(Peterson et al., 1997).
A crucial factor in strategic planning and management in higher education is the
relationship of funding and program implementation (Baker, 1998; Barker & Smith,
1997; Cohen et al., 1994; Peterson et al., 1997). “Many community colleges have
sophisticated development and finance systems. The problem is that rarely are they
connected at vital points” (Peterson et al., 1997, p. 319). This study assumes that
institutional effectiveness is increased with a greater integration of strategic planning,
budgeting, and financial allocation systems. The HAM Continuum includes all the
elements of strategic management for the institutional strategies related to image
building, integration of the advancement activities, income acquisition and management,
evaluation of activities, and motivational aspects of making change in the income
acquisition and management system.
Higher education planning literature focuses on decentralized decision-making
for strategic planning. Schmidtlein (1990). Benjamin and Carroll as cited in Tierney
(1998), Howell (2000), Pettigrew and Fenton ( 2000), and Bimbaum (2001) state that a
new decentralized organizational structure may be required for strategic decision¬
making. in his discussion of how the structure of the college determines where power and
authority will be placed, Baker (1998) contends that existing organizational structures of
community colleges “have not provided the degree of control and accountability desired
by external accountability forces” (p. 12). These researchers suggest that organizational

36
structure and strategy must hold equal importance in higher education planning because
of the interdependence of increasingly complex systems. The need to fit structure to
strategy is now well accepted. The density of this fit requires attempts at centralizing
strategy and decentralizing operations.
In advancement function literature, the debate continues over centralized or
decentralized operations (Worth, 1993; Worth & Asp, 1994). Keener (1989) asserted that
the effectiveness of planning for resource development is dependent upon a community
college organizational structure that links the resource development function to the rest
of the institution. In a centralized income acquisition and management system, all
resource development and advancement staff and programs are organized within a central
college advancement office. In a decentralized system, resource development and
advancement efforts are divided by divisions within the community college. Resource
development and other advancement directors report to the deans or directors of the
programs they serve or campus provost. While arguing for an integration of all of the
activities associated with advancement, Worth (1993) warns that the advancement
structure decisions should not be based on lines of authority as much as on (a) staff
commitment to the campus or program, (b) ease and quality of goal setting and planning,
(c) evaluation and compensation, (d) training and career development, and (e) major gift
and grants management.
Glass and Jackson (1998a) recommend that the decision to use a staff or line
model for resource development within the advancement function should be predicated
on the size, location, and competitive situation of the community college.
In the staff model, the development officer is an adjunct of the president’s office.
This model grows out of the philosophy that the president is the chief
advancement officer and his or her leadership is predominant in fundraising. In

37
the line model the development officer reports to the president, but on an equal
footing with academic, business, and student affairs. This structure permits a flow
of information through interactions with other administrators, enabling the
development officer to address institutional concerns. (Glass & Jackson, 1998a,
p. 179)
This study analyzed the position of advancement officers in four colleges on the
organizational chart (staff or line) and in regard to formal and informal authority
(centralized or decentralized), with particular attention to working relationships and
communication systems with offices with which the foundation officer must interact
regularly to be successful. Phillippe and Eblinger (1998) identified these offices (in order
of time spent) as the president’s office, public information, institutional advancement,
resource development, fiscal planning, enrollment and registrar, economic development,
and contract training. In addition, Matsoukas (1996) suggests that there is a relationship
between the location of the college grants office in the organizational structure and the
office’s level of success and argues for an integrated model of the advancement function.
Cain (1999) posits that communication patterns in community colleges both
reveal and create the nature of relationships. Verbal, nonverbal, and contextual
communication must be transactional (Cain, 1999).
A 1991 survey found that community college presidents’ preferred an
organizational structure that maintained the following advancement activity staff
positions with direct report to the president: public relations, development and research,
and development/alumni affairs (Underwood & Hammons, 1999).
Phair and King’s (1998) study of organizational structures for the advancement
function suggests that the organizational chart is not as important as advancement
administrators’ knowledge of what roles the key advancement offices can play. They
describe current restructuring in the advancement function as due to three factors: the

38
ascendancy of marketing in higher education, the growing role and impact of technology,
and the necessity of capital campaigns. “Institutions that are heavily enrollment and
marketing driven-especially community colleges often place the advancement functions
under enrollment management” (p. 65). An example is Macomb Community College
where the vice president for marketing and enrollment services oversees enrollment
services, public relations, and marketing.
Changing Management Activities
Literature on the changing roles of community college administrators and faculty
stresses increased attention to marketing and grants management activities. Miller and
Seagren (1997) contend that despite the growing scholarly attention to community
college fundraising and advancement, department chairs have rarely been studied in
regard to income acquisition and management. Their study of 9,000 academic leaders,
department chairs, deans, and program heads in the United States and Canada implied
that although half of the academic administrators believed that they had no financial
management responsibility to seek external funding, 64% agreed with the concept of
seeking external funding for their departments. In agreeing to take on this new challenge,
the academic administrators felt strongly that they needed applied training to cope with
the increased attention and time they spend on grant proposal writing, marketing, and
grants management activities and how these are related to institutional strategic planning
(Miller & Seagren, 1997).
Dickinson (1999) predicts a transformation in the role of community college
faculty from that of instructor-worker to that of learning process manager. This study
looks for evidence of an emphasis on resource development and external relations

39
becoming a part of community college academic vice-president, dean, and department
chair responsibilities.
Acknowledging that higher education governance is largely consensual, the
research suggests that the support of faculty and other key decision-making groups along
with building coalitions with administrators and faculty leaders is necessary to
implement change successfully. New organizational structures and rewards for team
efforts are necessary (Tierney. 1998). This study looks at how academic administrators
and faculty establish objectives, develop an array of strategies, select strategies, and
implement these strategies with resources obtained through resource development
activities.
Income Acquisition and Management as a System
When the activities of income acquisition and management are integrated in the
American community college, they compose a system that involves all of the
advancement activities; that is. Marketing, Institutional Research, Media Relations,
Community Affairs, Corporate Relations, Government Relations, Resource
Development, College Foundation, Alumni Affairs, and Publications. This system, when
integrated with strategic planning, budgeting, and resource allocation systems, provides
the theoretical context for the I1AM continuum. Thus the income acquisition and
management system is built of other systems in mutual dependency and as such is a
whole with irreducible properties. It cannot be separated into orderly components
because it is more than the sum of its parts—relationships, people, and resources (Cain,
1999).

40
Fundraising, public relations, and marketing are approached by higher education
scholars as subfunctions of institutional advancement. Kelly (1991) places fundraising as
a specialization of public relations. Based on her work and Gaining and Hunt’s (1984)
four models of public relations behavior, Kelly sees the activities of fundraising under
the umbrella of managing important relationships and institutional communications. This
differs from most fund- raising professionals’ placement of public relations in a
supportive role. Duronio and Loessin (1991) define fundraising as a marketing activity as
in “telling the college’s story.” Sevier, a proponent of integrated marketing, found that
higher education institutions are rarely optimally organized from a marketing
perspective. He places a great importance on integrating the key advancement activity of
marketing with the college’s strategic plan. This integration lends greater assessment of
target audiences, a greater sharing of resources and goals, and greater message
integration for recruitment, public relations, institutional research, and governmental
relations. Integrated marketing is more narrowly focused than the communications plan
and is distinguished by its commitment to strategic, organizational, and message
integration (Sevier, 1998, 1999, 2000).
The necessity of integrating resource development into institutional strategic
planning has been trumpeted for almost twenty years (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Ryan,
1989c; Tromble, 1998; Worth, 1993; Wattenbarger, 1994). The notion that greater
integration of institutional and financial planning may lead to greater college
effectiveness is supported by Cohen et al. (1994) in their comprehensive work, The
American Community College. The case for linking strategic planning and budgeting in
community colleges is made by McClenney and Chaffee (1985) and by McClenney in
Baker’s A Handbook on the Community College in America (1994).

41
Public two-year postsecondary institutions’ systems of income acquisition and
management are inherently different than those of public four-year universities because
community college programs and missions are more influenced by state and local
revenue systems and the local city, town, county, or area that comprises the sponsoring or
funding community (Cohen et al., 1994). This necessary difference in approaches to
income acquisition and management systems and, consequently, the structures that raise
and manage the dollars from private support is often seen as the reason why community
college income acquisition effectiveness is contextually driven. In the competition for
private funding, fundraising by community colleges might follow a community-based
rather than a traditional four-year educational fundraising model (Eldredge, 1999;
Jackson & Glass, 2000;). This study related the DAM continuum to four community
college contexts.
There is a growing feeling that community college administrators must improve
their relationships with those who criticize them for raising tuition and continued lapses
in accountability and the detractors who threaten to withhold or reduce funding. Scholars
suggest that to regain credibility higher education institutions must create strategies to
counteract the inertia of academic culture (Baker. 1998; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence,
1997).
There is a general acceptance of the concept and value of strategic planning in
business, private nonprofit, and public organizations. The value of strategic planning in
higher education has been championed by the National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems (NCHEMS) and the Society for College and University Planning
(SCUP). However, there is confusion over the term “strategic planning.” Planning
language has been overused and incorrectly applied as jargon. This misuse of strategic

42
planning language makes it confusing and uninformative for organizational planners
(Mintzberg, 1994; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Thompson &
Strickland, 2001). This has led to cynicism among higher education administrators about
strategic planning and has led to strategic planning being lumped with other management
fads such as Zero-Based Budgeting, Planning Program Budgeting System, and
Management By Objectives (Bimbaum, 2001).
There is a critical difference between operational planning (operations-driven
planning) and strategic planning (opportunity-seeking planning). An analogy for this
study is: managanent will not fix the funding problem in these community colleges, but
managerial judgment can help the administrators and faculty to implement a strategy to
align the institution and its resource development activities with its mission and
environment.
Best practice in academic management is not the same as best practice in business
management. The literature on higher education planning stresses the importance of
adapting planning practices to the institution’s unique characteristics (Schmidtlein &
Milton, 1990). Because individual community colleges do not have control of the
strategic variables of price, location, and program, academic leaders’ options are
confined to the limited authority of supporting relatively autonomous professionals (i.e.,
faculty and specialists) within the context of a particular governance framework and
culture. Academic planning requires external scanning of constituent groups with
conflicting goals. Therefore, administrators must customize ideas to be consistent with
the college’s shared governance structure and culture, achieve top-down support for the
ideas, and sustain them through systematic implementation of strategic objectives and an
integrated comprehensive evaluation system (Bimbaum, 2001; Chaffee, 1982, 1985;

43
Ferlie, Ashbumer, Fitzgerald. & Pettigrew, 1996; Pettigrew & Fenton, 2000;
Schmidtlein, 1990; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Thompson & Strickland, 2001).
This recommendation suggests that participative planning systems that include internal
and external constituents in the early phases of planning the process may be more
important than the plan itself if the goal is to make decisions strategically.
Tierney (1998) posits that there must be a systematic and integrated system that
guides overall resource allocation in higher education institutions, which includes (a)
flexibility to changing objectives, (b) broad communication to support decision-making
throughout the institution, (c) resources to support the integrated planning, and (d)
incentives for individuals to support the institution’s objectives. Studies of particular
models of strategic planning systems in community colleges show that organizational
effectiveness may be increased by integration of strategic planning, budgeting and
resource allocation. A study of 59 community colleges in the southeast found that those
with well-written documentation of planning had a higher goal attainment (Greer, 1999).
A study of 107 California community colleges showed inconsistencies between planning
and resource allocation which resulted in a low mean ranking of the integration of
planning, budgeting, and financial resource allocation. Institutional size was not
significant (Williams, 1998).
Institutional effectiveness planning models which allow for outcomes assessment
to be linked with strategic planning and budgeting are available for review (Nichols,
1996). Colleges are beginning to use software packages for this purpose (Braswell &
May, 2000; Greer, 1999). San Jacinto College (TX), Lakeland Community College (OH),
and others are cited as examples of early models of institutional effectiveness planning
(Braswell & May, 2000).

44
In order to implement and sustain the changes brought by strategic decision¬
making and planning that integrate income identification, acquisition and expenditure,
many factors are recommended. Eight of these are repeated in higher education
administration and public management literature as best practice. These are
1. Persistent and top level support of the president and senior administrators through
posing issues for strategic change and tolerating controversy (Baker, 1994;
Bimbaum, 2001; Peterson et al., 1997; Pettigrew, 2000; Roueche & Baker, 1987;
Rowley & Shennan, 2001; Tierney, 1998; Vaughan, 1986).
2. Skill in leading change and in linking strategy and operational change (Alfred &
Carter, 1999; Cohen et al., 1994; Deegan and Smith as cited in Baker, 1994;
Pettigrew', 1988, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Rowley & Shennan,
2001; Tierney, 1998). All decision makers must have access to information
regarding the issue and the context of the problem and its impact on the
organization, and buy into the implementation of strategic objectives to act on the
problem. Tying strategic enrollment management, resource planning, and
academic planning wáth budgeting is key here.
3. Customization to draw in commitment of operational levels (Chaffee as cited in
Tierney, 1998; Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelcli, & Tucker, 1999; Peterson et al., 1997;
Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Rowley & Sherman, 2001;
Schmidtlein, 1990; Vaughan, 1986).
4. Operations indicators to create and publicize interim successes (Nichols, 1996;
Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Educating participants and
stakeholders about the plan and making the planning document public
(Butterfield & Wolfe, 1997)
5. Team management (Cohen et al., 1994; Deegan as cited in Baker, 1994; Ew'ell &
Chaffee as cited in Tierney, 1998; Pettigrew', 2000; Rowdey & Sherman, 2001).
6. Organizational structures and team/individual rewards and recognition that move
behavior in desired directions (Baker, 1994; Carroll as cited in Tierney, 1998;
Cohen et al., 1994; Galbraith, 2000; Pettigew, 2000; Roueche & Baker, 1987;
Rowdey & Shennan, 2001).
7. Continuous views of process changes e.g. incorporate strategic planning as a
continuous process focusing on outcomes assessment and opportunities (Baker,
1994; Butterfield & Wolfe, 1997; Cohen et al., 1994; Peterson et al., 1997;
Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley & Shennan, 2001; Senge, 1990). By creating processes
and techniques specifically aimed at facilitating change, the college employees
can become continuous learners to help create an overall competency of how to
better compete in the external environment.

45
8. Coherent management of overall process of change in organization (Baker, 1994;
Birnbaum, 2001; Peterson et al., 1997; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Rowley
& Sherman, 2001; Senge, 1990; Tierney, 1998). This last factor includes long¬
term vision, short-term successes, and linking strategic planning and operational
changes. Here the emphasis on mission-based performance integrated into
institutional culture and practices whereby continuity of practice leads to mission-
based performance. Examples of this factor are capitalizing on centralized
databases, use of planning software, outsourcing data collection for student
success, and reduction of reporting duplication.
In the four colleges in this study there are (a) state system level changes in
revenues and spending patterns over time, (b) revenue and expenditure differences and
foundation activity differences among the state system colleges (c) a variety of
advancement activities present, (d) a variety of organizational structures, (e) a variety of
best practice within the advancement units of resource development, institutional
research, marketing, etc., (f) a variety of strategic initiatives grouped to integrate private
revenue into planning, budgeting, and fundraising efforts, yet the study theorizes the
colleges may be placed on a model because the management and planning principles are
applicable to all institutions. “Sound management reduces uncertainty through the
application of judgment to context-specific situations in order to define problems in ways
that may lead to effective action” (Birnbaum, 2001, p. 225).
Where is the juncture between management theory and the strategic environment
of the college? The fiscal strategy should lie here. The elements of fiscal strategy are
resource identification, acquisition, and resource allocation.
Summary
The literature review in this chapter gives justification for this comparative case
study. The scholarly work described changes in the sources of revenue for community
colleges and how fundraising, resource development, and institutional planning fit within

46
the framework of the advancement activities. Organizational structure and changing
management activities are defined within the context of fiscal strategies of community
colleges. Incomei acquisition and management activities are shown as a system. The
development of the HAM Continuum is built upon the research reviewed in this chapter.
The factors of the 11AM Continuum are based upon empirical research and theories to
build a coherent model.
“New funding streams change the fundamental shape of the river, and institutions
must strike a balance between managing a coherent identity, matching items on deans’
wish lists with institutional priorities, and identifying those strategic initiatives that also
map to donor expectations’’ (Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000, p. 3). The
literature reviewed in Chapter 2 also indicates that in addition to reshaping, building, and
maintaining new linkages and cooperative relationships among external constituents,
community colleges must reshape the relationships and decision-making apparatus
among internal stakeholders as part of fiscal strategy making.
In the following chapter the methodology for the comparative case study is
explained. Chapter 4 is a presentation and analysis of the data for each of the four case
studies. The last chapter presents the cross-case conclusions and modifications of the
IIAM Continuum. Recommendations for public policy and future studies are given in
Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter defines the research methodology used in this study. The research
purpose, problem and design are detailed; the research instrument and research sample
are described. The data collection methods are listed followed by the methodology used
for data analysis. The colleges were placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of
the characteristics required for that stage.
Research Problem
The research problem was to discover how organizational structure, management
activities of administrators, and management activities of faculty have changed in four
community colleges in response to the change in the proportional funding of college
operations by the state government. As the importance and influence of support other
than from the state in the life of higher education have expanded, so too have the
structures which obtain, raise, and manage these dollars.
Unlike deductive research in which the researcher hopes to find data to match a
theory; this study is inductive in that a theory is found to explain the data (Geotz &
LaCompte, 1984). Qualitative research is most useful here for exploring institutional
phenomena, articulating participants’ understandings and perceptions, and generating
tentative theories that directly pertain to particular environments (Hathaway, 1995).
47

48
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the income, acquisition .and management.act ivities.wi thin
four community colleges located in the states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and
Texas. The purpose of the study was to identify the qualitative elements of the process
and their perceived impact upon the organizational structure and management activities
of administrators and faculty at each of the four institutions. The advancement systems
within the income acquisition and management systems were compared at four colleges
to place each of the institutional systems on an Integrated Income Acquisition and
Management (ÃœAM) Continuum. Stages One to Five on the IIAM Continuum move from
disaggregation to interconnectivity of income acquisition and management activities of
an institution. The colleges were placed at one of the five stages based on evidence of the
characteristics required for that stage.
The data from the interviews, observations, and document review revealed
factors, such as, “Does the college perfonn this advancement activity?” “Who does it?”
and “Where is the activity located in the organizational structure?” The colleges were
placed on a stage in the continuum from disaggregated to aggregated. A college attained
a more aggregated stage when it showed a higher level of integration of the advancement
function and planning systems. For example, to reach Stage Four a college must show
(a) evidence of administrative structures that link academic planning and budgeting with
fundraising to achieve strategic goals, that is, initiatives to integrate the activities of the
advancement function, (b) evidence of methods of determining w'hich revenue stream is
best suited to fund each institutional priority and a strategies of income acquisition for
that revenue stream; and subsequently (c) a plan to implement these strategies. The
analysis and rationale for placement on the 11AM Continuum is based upon the academic

49
literature in Chapter 2 and linked to the data from the interviews, site observations, and
document review.
The case studies described participants’ understandings and perceptions of
changes in management activities and related the HAM theory to the college
environments. By applying theory to the qualitative data collected, the researcher
produced knowledge that can inform higher education administrators of theory and
successful practice for improving planning and management systems in community
colleges.
At the conclusion of the literature review, qualitative elements were identified
and categorized. Data collection was conducted in two phases. The first phase included
collecting data related to the selection criteria of the colleges. The second phase was
conducted through four site visits to the college to interview administrators, observe
planning meetings, and to review materials related to the advancement process and
income acquisition and management. Data analysis was conducted in two phases. The
first phase examined advancement and management activities. The second phase was
coding interview transcripts and employing qualitative evaluation techniques (content
analysis) to determine the perceptions of the administrators regarding where their college
was placed on the UAM Continuum and which factors (qualitative elements) were in
evidence to warrant the placement of the income acquisition and management system at a
stage of the 1IAM Continuum.
The theory is that as the sources of income have become more diverse and change
in proportion to one another, community colleges organize themselves on a point on the
IIAM Continuum. The main question of the study is, “How have the colleges responded
to the change in income streams?” The four research questions are

50
1. How has organizational structure changed?
2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?
3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?
4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?
It is hypothesized that an aggregated income acquisition and management system
is more desirable than not. Future studies must determine whether aggregated systems
result in more income and greater institutional effectiveness than disaggregated systems.
These four questions constitute the study’s major issues, or conceptual structure
(Stake, 1995). The logic linking the data to the theoretical propositions, and the
phenomena to be examined within the bounded instance of the case study are reflected in
the research questions (Yin, 1994).
Design of the Comparative Case Study
The case study method is used when the phenomenon and the contextual
conditions of the phenomenon are inextricably bound. Or, as Yin (1994) states, ‘‘the
boundaries between phenomenon and context” are not clear (p. 13). This study is an
embedded, multiple-case design (Yin, 1994). An embedded design is used when a case
involves more than one unit of analysis. The units of analysis in each case were the
advancement subfunctions as they relate to the income acquisition and management
systems of the colleges.
A multiple-case design is used to determine replication of phenomena. This study
was designed to determine whether the same results are replicated in each case.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the multiple-case design.

DEFINE AND DESIGN
PREPARE, COLLECT, &
«■
â–º <+
ANALYZE & CONCLUDE
+- -4 â–º
Figure 3-1. Framework for Comparative Case Studies

52
The study investigated factors cited in the literature as affecting income
acquisition and management and components of the advancement function in community
colleges. See Chapter 2 for these factors.
Theory development, prior to the conduct of any data collection, is a major
distinction between case studies and other qualitative research methods (Lincoln & Cuba,
1986, Stake, 1995; Van Maanen, Dabbs, & Faulkner, 1982). To acquire a theoretical
framework for designing this study, previous research on community college
advancement and organizational management were reviewed to find a framework. This
knowledge base is covered in Chapter 2. To summarize Chapter 2, the major theoretical
frameworks that provided guidance for this study are descriptions of the effective
advancement function and community college foundation (Adams, Keener, & McGee,
1994; Banks & Mabry, 1988; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1995; Burlingame & Flulse, 1991;
Duronio & Loessin, 1991; Gatewood, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Jackson, 1997;
Jackson & Glass, 2000; Jenkins & Glass, 1999; Keener, 1982, Kelly, 1991; Koelkebeck,
1994; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998; Robison, 1982; Ryan, 1998b; Ryan & Smith, 1989;
Sharon, 1982; Williams, 1988; Worth, 1993) and the integration of the advancement
function planning objectives with the community college strategic objectives (Baker et
al., 1992; Bimbaum, 2001; Cameron & Whetten, 1984; Cameron, 1986; Chaffee, 1989;
Cohen et al., 1994; Dolence & Norris, 1995; Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Hecht, et.al., 1999;
Jackson & Glass, 2000; Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000; Miller & Seagren,
1997; Peterson, et. al, 1997; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence, 1997; Tierney,
1998; Tromble, 1998; Wolverton, 1998). The theoretical frameworks are used as a
template with which to compare the empirical results of the case studies. When two or

53
more cases are shown to support the same theory, a claim of repetition may be made
(Yin, 1994).
Case studies rely on analytical generalization in which a particular set of results
may be generalized to a broader theory. This pattern matching logic of case studies
allows for an organization to be studied from multiple perspectives rather than the
influence of a single variable (Eisenhardt, 1991).
Questions were developed to relate management activities and affinity to the
theoretical framework. The case studies show how and why each college restructured
functions and implemented specific management activities to support particular
advancement and income acquisition strategies. The case studies show why the simple
addition of the presence of an advancement activity without the coordination of the
activity into the total advancement function is not sufficient to move the institution to a
more mature stage of the IIAM Continuum.
Research Methods
Selection of the Colleges
The selection plan answered the question, “What group of colleges will help us to
understand the problem?” For this criterion a diversity of characteristics was sought. The
characteristics give balance, variety, and an opportunity to leam. Each of the four
institutions had private sector fund raising initiatives from 1996 through 2000 in response
to erosion in state and/or local funding as a percentage of the operating budget. Detailed
profiles and the selection characteristics are provided in Chapter 4.
Case studies can give a refined understanding of process and situation through a
rich description of the unique and complex experiences of others (Stake, 1995). The

54
cases were designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges
appropriate to their various settings as well as the economic and political situations in the
states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Analyzing the various units on a
continuum, the HAM, gave more breadth in the description of maturity and integrations
of each college’s advancement subfunctions.
Case Study Protocols
In integrating data across the case studies, the study protocol used the same
categories across all cases. The data was presented so that patterns can be spotted and
differences examined. The protocol used the same categories for all of the cases’
document abstracts, field observations, interview field notes and analyses. See Appendix
A “Handbook on Protocols” and Appendix D for the juried interview guide. The protocol
was designed to describe the checks and balances, decision rules, and other design
features.
Collection of Data
Interviews. Administrators were contacted and provided a description of the
study. They w'ere asked to participate in an interview and to supply certain documents.
The interview guide questions were mailed to each leader before the interview. The
interviews were structured to last one hour. When needed, clarification of data was
obtained through phone calls conducted within a week of the initial interview. When
accuracy was confirmed, the case evidence was deemed suitable for analysis. Detailed
notes from the interviews were transcribed.
Instrument and data collection. The juried interview questions (Appendix E) were
used for the semi-structured interviews. The interview questions focus on the income

55
acquisition and management activities of administrators and faculty and the factors
which frame the five stages of the IIAM Continuum.
Participant observation. The researcher observed planning meetings at the
schools. Observation notes were coded in the same manner as the interview transcripts to
discern data to answer the four research questions and the factors in evidence for
placement in the appropriate stage on the IIAM Continuum.
Document review. The study protocol was the use of a document abstract form
developed for all cases. Planning documents, meeting minutes, reporting documents,
performance or assessment reports, organizational charts, job descriptions of
administrators, marketing and solicitation materials, budgets, memos, and other
communiques were collected and listed on individual document abstract forms. The data
from these documents were coded in the same manner as interview transcripts and
observation notes.
Empirical data collection. All of the above methods are empirical in that they
make use of data external to the knower. They all use observation, interview, and
examination of artifacts to collect data. Documents from the educational environment
and conversations with informers are important sources.
Analysis of the Data
The units of data were obtained from the transcripts of the interviews, observation
notes, and notes from the document abstract forms. First, data was broken into segments
representing single pieces of information. The segments were then grouped into
categories. Finally, the categories were analyzed for patterns. A case report was written
for each institution. The case reports were compared and cross-case conclusions were

56
made. Using this process, the theory was used to describe in which of the five stages of
the IIAM Continuum the college systems should be placed.
Coding of Data
The interview data, data from observations, and data from document reviews
were analyzed using the constant comparison method (Merriam, 1998; Sherman &
Webb, 1995). This method is an inductive theory discovery methodology that combines
concurrent coding and analysis of data during data gathering. The resulting theory is
grounded in the data from which it was derived.
Findings were grouped into the same areas as the factors of the theoretical
framework described in Chapter 2. Data were coded in relation to the four research
questions and the factors of the HAM Continuum. System analysis, participant
observation, and interviews created thickly descriptive field notes. As themes emerged
from the study the theoretical construct for the HAM continuum was modified as
necessary.
Triangulation of Data
The term “triangulation” was coined by Denzin (1970) to describe how
qualitative researchers find their position in relation to two other points. By showing at
least three sources of evidence for every claim or interpretation and the use of several
data collection techniques the researcher can increase the credibility of her work.
Focused interview notes, notes on observation, document review notes, notes on coding
of data, and peer review can close the triangle between the emic and etic perspectives and
the situation at hand. Triangulation is also referred to as the use of multiple data

57
collection methods, multiple resources, multiple investigators, and/or multiple theoretical
perspectives.
The Constant Comparative Method of Analysis
Domain analysis is used in ethnographic research. Domain means literally “what
resides here.” As qualitative researchers look for patterns, relationships, and themes in
their data, they place the data in the appropriate emetging category. An ethnographer
calls this category “the domain.” The sociologist refers to the idea of domain as “coded
data.” The philosopher may use the term “classification.”
The categories may be borrowed from another’s research or discovered by the
researcher. In this study, the emerging categories used for coding are the factors in
Chapter 2 taken from literature on community college institutional advancement and
higher education management.
This method of domain analysis employs an on-going look at how categories are
similar or different. Qualitative data is moved to a more abstract interpretation to codes.
The codes are compared and then moved to factors. The factors are compared to one
another and then moved to constructs until saturation is obtained.
Validity and Reliability Issues
The concepts of validity and reliability in qualitative research used in this case
study are based upon the works of Yin (1994), Stake (1995), and Lincoln and Guba
(1986) unless otherwise cited. Construct validity is established in the data collection
phase of the research and was increased by using multiple sources of evidence,
establishing a chain of evidence, and having key informants review draft case study
reports. This study used multiple data collection methods, multiple sources, and multiple

58
theoretical perspectives to increase validity. A conscientious search for unconfirming
evidence to produce a rival theory was used in the data collection phase and used in the
modification of the theory.
Internal validity is established in the data analysis phase of research. It was
increased with the tactics of pattern matching, explanation building, and time-series
analysis. Internal validity was increased with triangulation, multiple sources of
information, and consistency of results. Internal validity is seen in a deeper and richer
understanding of the phenomenon because of study (Lincoln & Guba, 1986).
This study uses tri angulation of data in each case and across cases. An external
auditor (an outside person to examine the research process and product) probed for
similarity, consistency, and convergence of results. Consistency of coding was
emphasized in the case study protocols. Participant corroboration of the drafts of the
findings and peer review were used to avoid systematic bias in data collection.
Field observation, multiple-day site visits, individual and focus group interviews,
and systems analysis were used. The four individual case studies as instances were used
to increase credibility and persuasiveness of support for the case study conclusions.
External validity is established in the research design phase. It was increased with
replication logic in multiple-case studies. Multiple case designs may be more robust as
the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling (Yin, 1994). Yin
argues that although not generalizable to populations, case studies, like experiments, are
generalizable to theoretical propositions. In case studies, external validity is the extent to
which the study’s findings may be applicable to similar contexts. Mook (1983) defends
purposive sampling in case studies with similar reasoning. Because case studies start
with the theoretical proposition, in this case “community college administrators respond

59
to public policy which decreases the relative percentage of government funding for
college operating budgets by increasing advancement activities,” predictions can be
made, for example, ‘‘therefore the administrators we observe ought to do that.” And the
prediction is confirmed or disconfirmed (Mook, 1983).
This study used purposive sampling to increase external validity. The data
collection and analysis were of colleges operating in different regions, settings, and at
different levels of integration of their advancement activities. External validity is
increased if the current study can be tied to other studies done on the advancement
activities of the four schools.
Reliability is established in the data collection phase of the research. The tactics
used to establish reliability were use of case study protocol and development of a case
study database. Consistency of results and dependability is shown by the production of
similar findings with similar cases. This study used the case study protocol in Appendix
C and coding forms to increase reliability.
Summary
Case study is contemporary and often idiosyncratic. Case studies are bounded by
a small group of individuals and an instance. The bounded instance is the focus of the
study. A case study leads to anticipation of a behavior because a specific situation is
densely described. For example, in this study there was evidence of agreement on the
change in income streams and that a new way of doing business is essential and
desirable. The case studies describe the decision-making processes about how to change
management activities to attain more income, thus certain behaviors were anticipated. As
the political and funding environment changes community college administrators may

anticipate certain behaviors. Through a full and thorough knowledge of the particular a
universal may be perceived.
Chapter 3 defined the research design and methods of the study. Methods to
improve reliability and validity were addressed. Chapter 4 provides the findings of the
four individual case studies. Chapter 5 gives cross-case conclusions and
recommendations for research and practice.

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The problem that prompted this study was the need for a description of how
organizational structure, administrative management, and faculty management have
changed in the income acquisition and management systems of community colleges as a
response to the change in proportional funding of college operations by the state
government. The purpose of the study was to identify the qualitative elements of the
change process and their perceived impact upon the organizational structure and
management activities at four community colleges. The purpose of this chapter is the
presentation and analysis of the data collected in the four case studies.
This chapter describes what was discovered. The categories, themes, key events
and incidents are tied to the theoretical framework as positive or negative cases. The
empirical results are tied to the theoretical foundation of the IIAM Continuum Model.
Selection of the Colleges
The selection plan answered the question, “What group of colleges will help us to
understand the problem?” For this criterion a diversity of characteristics was sought. The
characteristics chosen were (a) evidence of private sector fundraising initiatives from
fyl996 to fy2000 in response to an erosion in state funding as a percentage of the
operating budget, (b) a stable presidency over the 5-year period, (c) an institutional
structure which includes the functions listed in Appendix B, (d) an urban environment of
a district campus or single institution with one or more campuses, (e) an enrollment
range of 6,000 to 20,000 for fy2000, (f) an operations budget ranging from $26 million to
61

62
$58 million for fy2000, (g) the presence of academic literature on community college
advancement and its context in the college’s state, and (h) active membership in the
Council for Resource Development (CRD). These characteristics give balance, variety
and an opportunity to learn. The reader may find a refinement of understanding process
and situation in the unique and complex experiences of others (Stake, 1995). The cases
are designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges appropriate to
their various settings as well as the economic situations and public policy in the states of
Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Analyzing the various units on a
continuum, the I1AM, gives more breadth of maturity and competency of the described
advancement function. The sampling process was chosen to maximize comparability of
incidents and management activities within the income acquisition and management
system.
Research Methodology for Individual Cases
The study began in the summer of 2001. College presidents who agreed to have
their colleges take part in the study were sent a description of the study, sample questions
of the juried interview questions, and consent forms for each of the participating
administrators. During three-day visits at each of the four sites, interviews, observation,
and document review were conducted using case study protocols. Domain analysis was
conducted on the data. The data was coded and triangulated. The cases were written and
the drafts of the cases were presented for verification by the administrators.
Presentation and Analysis of Data for Each Case
Each case begins with a one page profile of the college during the period studied.
State and local context is given along with a description of the changes in income sources

63
for fiscal year 1996 through 2000. The activities, organizational structure, and
responsibilities of the advancement function are described.
Changes in management activities for the advancement function within the
income acquisition and management system are chronicled along with the participants’
understandings and perceptions of the changes and their decision-making during the
change process. The changes are related to the HAM Continuum Model and the college
environments.
The cases include analysis of data used to answer the research questions
1. How has organizational structure changed?
2. How have the management activities of administrators changed?
3. How have the management activities of faculty changed?
4. Where do the colleges systems fall on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they
moved left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the
study?
Evidence of transformed administrative structures is given. Task and role changes
for management of activities in the income acquisition and management system are
described. The colleges are placed at a stage on the IIAM Continuum.
College A
Profile of College A
College A is a 2-year unit of the State University of New York (SUNY) system
located in the south central area of the state about 200 miles from New York City. It is
one of 30 community colleges in the SUNY system. A mid-size urban college with one
campus, in 2000-2001 there were 5,651 students and 4183 FTE enrolled in credit

64
courses. Of the students, 75% came from the local county. Over the past 8 years, the
college has lost about 800 FTE due to corporate downsizing and out-migration. One FTE
equals 30 annualized credit hours.
With a $31 million operating budget in 1999-2000, the college has seen state
funding erode from 39% of its budget in íy 1991 to 30% in fy2000. For 1997 the State of
New York funding per capita for community colleges was lower than the national
average of $49 at $37.96. For 1998-99 the average expenditure per student FTE in New
York’s 47 SUNY and CUNY community colleges was $9,383 and the amount of state
support for FTE was $2,050. New York State policy sets tuition at community colleges at
no more than 30% to 35% of the cost of instruction. College A also receives local county
support for its operating budget.
College A’s foundation, begun in 1965, raised $2 million in 1999-2000 with a
foundation operating budget of $284,000. Total foundation assets are $10 million.
Governance of the SUNY community colleges is complex. Both 2- and 4-year
institutions outside ofNew York City make up the State University of New York
(SUNY). A board of trustees governs the SUNY system. Day-to-day operations of SUNY
are overseen by a System Administration Council, including the chancellor and vice
chancellors, one of which is the community college vice chancellor. New York has two
or more governing boards for its higher education institutions, along with a coordinating
board or governing board for community or technical colleges. New York also retains its
own local governing boards. Therefore, the governance is divided in two heterogeneous
systems each with its own governing board. Thus the same board that governs one of the
nation’s largest higher education systems also serves as the coordinating board for a very
large system of locally governed community colleges.

65
College A has its own 10-member board of trustees. Trustees appoint college
presidents, recommend the approval of the capital and operating budgets, and set policy
for academic affairs, student services, and administration. In the SUNY system an
appointed local board governs each community college, and the board of trustees of
SUNY serves as a coordinating board for all SUNY community colleges. With these
three layers of governance college administrators must determine who has jurisdiction.
“we often have to take time to figure out who to start w'ith to begin a process.”
A 1999 study concluded that SUNY colleges are operating under an outdated and
unpredictable funding policy that provides limited support for fiscal strategy change and
is not connected to the developing mission of effective community colleges of providing
affordable access through low' tuition and fees.
Despite repeated efforts to amend the Educational Law to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each of the participants, ambiguities and conflicts remain.
Unresolved problems of governance and funding continue to sap the energy and
undermine the capacity of community college—individually and as a system—to
serve their students, their regions, and the State of New York. (National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems, 1999, p. iii).
Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000
This section provides an overview of state funding systems and historical context
for the case beginning with a description of state appropriations. There is a single
consolidated appropriation for all the SUNY community colleges. From this
appropriation, the State of New York uses a funding formula to determine individual
appropriations to the community colleges within the SUNY system. The formula is
legislated and can be modified only through regular and/or budget legislation. The state
funding formula is based upon the prior 3 years’ enrollments. It is a weighted fonnula
funding the best of two FTE numbers: either last year’s FTE or a weighted average FTE

66
that is comprised of 50% of the last year’s FTE, 30% of the FTE from 2 years prior, and
20% of the FTE from 3 years prior. “The idea is that in times of increasing enrollments,
the college benefits immediately by being funded, but in times of declining enrollments
the loss of revenue is cushioned by the use of the weighting formula.”
Included in the FTE calculations for community colleges are high school students
taking community college courses for credit (early admissions). Students may take up to
30 credit hours of remedial work but they must have some college level coursework. The
state budget includes a separate line item appropriation for community college
specialized training programs for businesses and workforce development. Competitive
grants from other state agencies for workforce development programs are available.
The funding formula does not include performance indicators nor performance
based funding. The requirements for registration of postsecondary curricula under the
Regent’s mandate (found in Section 52.1, Regulations of the Commissioner of
Education, Subchapter A, Part 51) focus strongly on inputs and resources, not on
performance and productivity. A system of performance indicators and some degree of
perfonnance-based funding are under development.
Early admissions students are charged tuition that may be at a reduced rate for
certain circumstances (offsite, off peak hours, etc.). The tuition rate charged for distance
education is the same as the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students. For
international students the tuition is doubled.
In the late 1990s, upstate New York began to climb out of the recession of the late
1980s and early 1990s. Its recovery was slow compared to many other states. As the third
largest state in the nation with a population of almost 19 million, New York's income
growth is dependent upon the finance, insurance, and real estate industries. The largest

67
source of revenue for New York is the personal income tax, followed by user taxes and
income taxes. State revenues remained relatively flat during the first half of the 1990s at
a time when most other states were beginning to rise. Governor Pataki’s tax cuts took
effect in 1995 resulting in a meager state revenue increase of 3% from 1993 to 1996.
Competition for state funds intensified in the current decade due to the recession,
the accompanying drop in income tax and sales tax revenue, and tax cuts. The declining
state support for higher education was very pronounced in tenns of budget share. From
1990 to 1995 there was a huge increase in the share of state appropriations for Medicaid.
The general funds of K-12 Education and Higher Education which respectively had a
23% and 9.3% share of the 1990 state appropriations dropped to 19.3 and 7.3 in 1995
whereas Medicaid grew from 18% to 29.4% of the appropriations in the same period.
Higher education spending in New York State fell from 9.3% of total state spending in
1990 to 7.3% in 1995 (Callan & Finney, 1997).
Unlike states with merit systems, New York has structured its state financial aid
program—Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)—as an entitlement. As tuition rates
increased, maximum TAP awards rose steadily at SUNY. Incrementally, New York has
shifted its funding from direct support of institutions to direct support of students. Until
the mid-1990s, the maximum TAP award covered 100% of tuition at the SUNY
community colleges. In fiscal year 1996 this was dropped to 90%. Student loan value
increased 50% in New York State from 1990-91 to 1994-95.
New York’s community colleges have local sponsors (one or more counties) that
have financial responsibility for the colleges. In the case of College A, the county
legislature determines the sponsor share for the college. The community college local

68
share is included in the county budget, the same as other county agencies. The local
sponsor’s share includes not only the sponsor contribution from local tax revenues but
also revenue from charge-backs from New York State residents from nonsponsor
counties for their residents, out-of-state tuition above resident rates, and the use of
college fund balances. College A has a high rate of charge-backs compared to other New
York community colleges. Local sponsors can count funds that derive from student
tuition, College A’s foundation, and other nonlocal sources as a local contribution.
New York State requires matching funds for capital outlay. The community
colleges may not use general appropriations for capital construction. The average in New
York State is 50% local taxes/bonds and 50% state taxes/bonds.
To reiterate, SUNY community colleges are funded by state, local government
sponsors, and tuition and fees. State aid cannot exceed 40% of operating income and
tuition revenue is capped at one-third of the operating income. Four public policy
changes and an outmigration event caused by local army base closings and corporate
downsizing led College A to more aggressive advancement initiatives in the period under
study. These were (a) a relatively flat funding of SUNY community colleges during the
first half of the 1990s, (b) a loss in three types of categorical funding for technical
programs effective 1994-95, (c) a 10% jump in tuition for SUNY community colleges
from fiscal year 1995 to 1996 culminating in a 58% increase in tuition from 1991 to
1996, (d) a decrease in the coverage of the TAP award, and (e) a 20% enrollment drop
from 1993 to 1998.
The advancement initiatives described in this section were responses to changes
in the income streams. The president and administrators at College A made the decision

69
to retain staff while trying to ameliorate blows to student access and choice in the midst
of declining state support and increasing tuition rates. In the challenge of this period
maintenance of buildings and grounds were put on hold. Table 4-1, “Sources of Revenue
for Operations—College A,” shows the percentages of operating funds for the revenue
categories in the period addressed.
For Table 4-1, note that TAP and Pell grants are digested into a percentage of the
revenue category, Tuition and Student Fees. The Technology Fee is also included in this
revenue category. The table includes operating funds only, no building construction
funds. The average breakdown for general operating funds for New York community
colleges in 1998-99 was Federal—5.70%, State—29.00%, Local—31.30%, and Tuition
and Fees—34.00 (Education Commission of the States, 2000).
Despite the bleak outlook, several factors that positively impact income
acquisition were going quite well for College A during the period of the study. The
public image of the college was, and continues to be, prestigious. The SUNY system was
shifting its focus from governing colleges to serving students and the system allowed for
its executive council to provide funding for priority items to colleges outside of the
formal budget process. College A implemented a technology fee in 1997. This fee took
some pressure off the squeeze to update technology. College A won several workforce
development grants and began to offer corporate training as a profit center. A new cost
analysis system was instituted to helping administrators to plan and have more warning
time to adjust to unanticipated fluctuations in revenue. College A came out of the 1990s
with a more cost-effective management emphasis and a ratio of 65:35 full-time to part-
time faculty, better than the statewide average.

Table 4-1. Sources of Revenue for Operations - College A
SOURCE
1995-96
%
1996-97
%
1997-98
%
1998-99
%
1999-00
Tuition & Fees
$10,364,993
36.4%
10,486,241
38.7%
11,367,254
38.6%
12,050,032
39.9%
12,714,821
41.0%
NYS SUS
8,392.910
29.5%
8,180,905
30.2%
7,974,320
27.1%
8.322,223
27.6%
8,766,979
28.2%
County (sponsor)
4,690.393
4,690,393
4,850,393
5.100,393
5,250,853
County (other New York
State counties via an
enrollment based "chargeback")
1,398.438
1,5)6,343
1,740,093
1,725,453
1,870,068
Total county
6,088,831
21.4%
6,206,736
22.9%
6,590,486
22.4%
6,825,846
22.6%
7,120,921
22.9%
Federal Grants
1,266,545
4.5%
921,328
3.4%
1,127,464
3.8%
1,056,064
3.5%
1,040,843
3.4%
State Grants
498,351
1.8%
317,781
1.2%
376,964
1.3%
418,630
1.4%
213,475
0.7%
Private Gifts
207,095
0.7%
310.098
i. 1 %
902,424
3.1%
336,090
1.1%
286,549
0.9%
Investment Income
331,223
1.2%
318,824
1.2%
335,548
1.1%
286,626
1.0%
373,455
1.2%
Contracts
229,844
0.8%
248,001
0.9%
134,967
0.5%
156,680
0.5%
114,167
0.4%
Sales & Services
76,127
0.3%
77,288
0.3%
75,475
0.3%
67,383
0.2%
69,783
0.2%
Other Revenue
377,093
1.3%
528,137
1.9%
459,874
1.6%
556,878
1.8%
553,948
1.8%
Fund balance
621,729
2.2%
-464,240
-1.7%
82,682
0.3%
90,150
0.3%
-216,018
-0.7%
TOTAL
28,454,741
100.0%
27,131,099
100.0%
29,427,458
100.0%
30,166,601
100.0%
31,038,923
100.0%
Source: SUNY annual financial report College A final report of revenues FBM 095-C1, prepared by Budget Officer, College A
-4
O

71
Institutional Advancement and its Kev Activities
College A has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,
institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,
government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni
affairs. Marketing is decentralized. The profit center of continuing education (workforce
development and contract training), and the foundation are responsible for marketing
their respective programs. The departments and the foundation take the lead of the vice-
president for student and community affairs for marketing messages. There are no
written marketing messages or targeted audiences. Marketing activities are viewed as a
low priority because administrators do not see their long-term effect.
The vice president for student and community affairs writes all press releases and
covers media relations activities. Publications, advertising, and community affairs are
also under the vice president for student and community affairs. College A publishes an
annual report as a financial statement. This is not a marketing piece.
Government relations for local relationship building is largely the responsibility
of the president, vice president for administration and financial affairs, and the vice
president for student and community affairs. SUNY administrators take responsibility for
state lobbying efforts. The corporate relations activities are under the vice president for
student and community affairs because continuing education and corporate training are
placed in this division. Institutional research is under the vice president for
administration financial affairs.
Resource development for grants management is divided between student and
community affairs and the division for academic affairs. The vice president for academic
affairs oversees the program development grants; for example, National Science

72
Foundation, and the vice president for student and community affairs monitors grants for
aid for special student audiences and workforce development grants. Grant proposals to
private agencies are managed by College A’s foundation. All resource development
grants, whether from public or private sources, require presidential approval and must be
tied to an institutional priority.
The foundation raises private dollars for scholarships, equipment, professional
development, the president’s discretionaiy fund, and capital equipment and facilities.
Foundation staff provide the marketing activities, media relations, alumni relations,
prospect research activities and website production for the foundation. Fundraising
activities and special events include an annual campaign, a planned giving program, and
relationship building with corporations and private foundations. The foundation director
is not a direct report to the president but is a welcome participant on the institutional
planning committee. The responsibility for alumni affairs is shared with the vice-
president for student and community affairs. The director of alumni affairs is a staff
report to the president, and a direct report to the vice-president of student and community
affairs with some delegated reporting to the foundation executive.
Changes in Organizational Structure of the College and Foundation 1996-2000
The erosion in state funding described above, the loss of categorical funding, and
the loss of 20% of FTE set the stage for the period under study. Although in 1993 the
organizational structure was changed to add a vice president of advancement with the
intention of bringing the foundation executive and the alumni affairs function under this
vice president, by 1995 negotiations with the foundation board had not produced this
inclusion. The vice president of advancement became the vice president for student and

73
community affairs upon the retirement of the vice president for student services. During
this same year the college president was made a permanent member of the executive
committee of the foundation board of directors.
Thus the fourth vice presidency was cut to save administrative dollars and the
direct reporting of 8 of the 10 advancement subfunctions to one vice president did not
occur (resource development under the name of sponsored programs reported to the vice
president for academic affairs and institutional research was under the vice president for
administrative and financial affairs). Student and community affairs, the most project-
oriented division, uses a more informal structure than the other divisions.
In 1999 the part-time alumni affairs/annual campaign coordinator became a direct
staff report to the president with a report to the vice president of student and community
affairs with the new title, Director of Alumni Affairs. Responsibility for writing and
publishing the alumni newsletter remained in the student and community affairs division
through 2000 while the foundation maintained the alumni database.
The position of director of institutional research, reporting to the vice president
for administrative and financial affairs, was vacant from 1996 to 1998. Two searches
were conducted without a successful outside hire. The position was filled with an internal
hire.
The foundation executive officer reports to the foundation board of directors and
is not hired by the president. Despite the lack of formal lines of authority the foundation
executive seeks approval and support from the president to ensure that every fundraising
initiative is attached to an institutional priority. In 2000 the foundation executive officer
became part of College A’s institutional planning committee. College A is the only

74
community college in the state that does not use state funding to pay for foundation staff
salaries and foundation expenses.
Changes in Management Activities of Administrators and Faculty Members
During the period of the study College A’s administrators faced very little
leverage in negotiating for state and county funding. Dealing with a highly politicized
environment where seven chancellors of SUNY with their respective priorities have
served in the past thirteen years, the unpredictability of the state budget timeframes also
made it hard to plan budgets. The State of New York operates on a fiscal year of April 1
through March 31. College A must have its budgets completed by June to ensure the
faculty and other resources to begin the fall academic year. College A begins forecasting
FTE funding for the fall semester. Tuition and sponsor funding are calculated in January.
The sponsor increase must be requested by May 15. The college did not get the state
budget information on base aid and TAP until June or July for some of the years of the
study and one year, September. Added to this scenario are uncertainties in sponsor
contributions because of disputes over charge-back payments to counties.
In order to maintain a greater degree of stability College A administrators began
to hold 10% of supply and equipment budget to the last quarter of the fiscal year when a
reevaluation of the budget could result in a shifting of departmental funds to meet
institutional priorities. Government relations changed with the county sponsor when a
new interpretation in Plan C (the legislation that specifies the relationships between
community colleges and local sponsors) was negotiated. Fiscal responsibility was
delegated to the community college board of trustees within the terms of the approved
budget. The sponsors relinquished authority of line item, preapproval audit of

75
expenditures. Although a new county executive may interpret Plan C differently than a
predecessor, the president and vice presidents have been able to negotiate with the
sponsor once per year to maintain this interpretation.
During the period of the study, the state FTE funding policy provides incentives
for College A to focus on relatively lower cost liberal arts and science programs and low-
cost, high enrollment professional programs to generate FTE numbers. There is little
incentive for innovative technology programs, economic development initiatives with no
immediate payoff, or entering into partnerships that may serve students better but not
generate FTE. The local sponsors do not fund colleges on the basis of FTE or level of
service. For the 5 years studied, the county sponsor has tolerated funding increases for
inflation costs for goods and services only.
Technical programs have been hit hard at College A. The categorical funding
dropped in fiscal year 1994-95 included $82 per FTE for business courses. $195 per FTE
for technical programs, and $212 aid for disadvantaged students allocated on a headcount
basis. College A’s state funding is formulated on a credit basis. Even though the FTE
funding is the same for liberal arts credit programs and applied science certification
programs the certification programs are underfunded because the state formula does not
cover the costs of clinical and lab science components. In discussing the erosion of state
funding for technical programs the vice president for academic affairs lamented,
“SUNY's message is to jettison applied science or get money from the county or students
to support it.” Foundation and sponsor dollars have been used to cover some lab fees for
the more expensive technology programs. Delaying the maintenance and replacement of
equipment during 1993 and 1997 along with a growing reliance on new technology to

76
deliver education and training led to the institution of a technology fee in 1997. By 1999-
2000 the technology fee added $300,000 in annual revenue to the operating budget.
As a result of the squeeze for dollars, the college has made a new prioritization
process for technological purchase decisions. Deans, vice presidents, the president and
his executive council are involved in technological purchase decisions. “The dollars are
so scarce it [decisions about technological purchases] has risen to the level of executive
decision.'1
In considering program mix as an income acquisition and management strategy,
the vice president for academic affairs said that this strategy cannot be pursued without
an increase in marketing data and dollars. “We tend to see enrollment drops as a change
in community interest rather than attempting to drive the interest in programs. We react
to enrollment shifts through the use of our advisory committees to spark interest and
determine direction.” In his role as chief integrator and planner, the president has
communicated that strategies to increase market share will require greater marketing
competencies. Other administrators echo this thought. They described the need for
marketing data and external scanning to complete a SWOT analysis. As of 2000 no
money was budgeted for these activities. There is no marketing plan. Enrollment is used
as an indicator of the market demand. “The vice president for student and community
affairs directs each marketing activity under a generally agreed-upon strategy.”
In the attempt to generate revenue by generating FTE, College A has been
successful in enrolling international students and distance education students. In 1999-
2000 international students comprised 100 FTEs and the college enrollment numbers
were in the top quartile in the state for community colleges offering distance learning.
Dual enrollment of high school students increased this same year generating tuition and

77
FTEs. During the period of the study College A instituted a retention tracking
system—CONNIX to monitor student persistence.
College A began to use private dollars to start professional training programs
during the period of the study. Its nursing program expansion was the most extensive
example with a grant from a hospital foundation to College A’s foundation. The vice
president for academic affairs has taken on a greater role in proposal writing for program
startups and expansions. Planning with the foundation for the capital campaign for a
health science building and proposals for equipment for engineering technology were
new administrative tasks during the latter half of the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000 the
academic chief officer doubled the time spent on grant proposal writing and grants
management to six weeks of work time per year. “It takes more time to use resources
more strategically and there is more reporting and accountability for evaluation of grants
projects.”
In 1995 the vice president for academic affairs spent most of his time on
curriculum development and review. By 2000 he spent most of his time on reviewing
cost structures, process improvement, efficiency, and faculty load. He supervised the
process for 20 faculty members (out of 160 full-time) who applied for grants during the
period of the study. By writing grants objectives into the strategic plan, both the
foundation executive and the sponsored grants director have assisted faculty in becoming
more aware of the availability of private and public dollars. “With the players [grant
proposal writers] scattered across divisions and departments we attempt to have
cohesiveness through committee work.” Administrators have proposed a “Teaching and
Learning Center” division as a faculty development function that could orient faculty to,
and develop skills in, advancement activities.

78
There are three private, and two public colleges and universities within a 50-mile
radius of College A. The abundance of institutions of higher education is both an
advantage and disadvantage when looking to increase enrollment, roll out new programs,
and raise private dollars. College A's president decided upon a growth strategy for online
courses and technology upgrades in order to compete with other institutions.
Implementation of competitive strategies is hampered by the difficulty of compliance in
registering new programs and the lengthy process. Under New York State regulations,
new registrations for curricula are required for changes in title, focus, design,
requirements for completion, or mode of delivery. College A’s president commented
upon the challenges of beating the competition in the online and corporate training
business, “The registration process is too long for us to be a highly responsive
community college.” Given these constraints, College A has done well implementing a
recruitment strategy for high school students. Over the last 10 years, College A has
captured 21% to 39% of the yield of high school graduates in their district.
The director of continuing education managed S3 million in state grants for
workforce development during the period of the study. Sources of corporate training
grants are federal, within the SUNY system, and through member item funding through a
local senator. College A received the funding for its EXCEL center from an annual
member item. A consortia grant with the local university brought $750,000 and federal
funding through a state block grant brought $450,000. The director of continuing
education works with the director of sponsored programs to stay in compliance with the
strategic goals of the college. Two new' tactics w'ere used to gain more grant dollars. The
College partnered w'ith nonprofit organizations for sharing costs and profits of hiring
speakers for professional association events. Joint ventures with online training

79
companies were sought and negotiated for the College to serve as a broker for
customized training.
The director for continuing education has tried to gain grants for training for
companies to administer their own training as a service but this created frustration. “The
companies want grants but don’t want to write the proposals and [don’t want to] stick to
the requirements of the grant.” For example, a grant may require class lists by date, social
security number, age, and ethnic background. In managing these types of grants the
college had no control over these administrative tasks.
Corporate training acquires more money than it costs. Net income from corporate
training under the directorate of community education was $221,093 over the period of
the study. The marketing activities of research to determine what price the market would
bear, advertising design, and relationship building with corporate training directors
became the regular responsibilities of this unit. During the period of the study the
continuing education director began to collect benchmarking data on community colleges
with similar course offerings. “We could use a strong marketing plan for the department.
We use a project management model and rely heavily on the publications department for
art, catalogs, and brochures. It helps that we are all under the same division vice
president. At staff meetings have representation from every department.” The continuing
education department began the practice of briefing the foundation executive on
corporate and business and industry news to enhance her relationship building with
corporate CEOs.
To foster greater communication between those prospecting and writing public
and private grant proposals and to give attention to the thought process of how the grants
may impact other departments and college priorities, a standardized form was developed

80
by the budget officer. The use of this standardized form has created a greater
understanding of writing case statements with objectives that are tied to institutional
priorities. One administrator defined the resource development function as ‘'not on the
organizational chart. It’s like tentacles that no one can map on the chart. Personal
relationships make things happen rather than planned [efforts].” The foundation director
is expected to form the necessary relationships with administrators in order to support
institutional objectives.
The purpose of College A’s foundation has shifted since its initial focus on
indigent students to supporting students through the maintenance of quality programs,
funding specific projects, and capital. In 1995-96 College A’s foundation raised $1.2 in
private dollars for a health science center to add to $8.5 million in building funds from
the state. A local foundation grant and gifts from individuals made up this first capital
campaign for the college. To assist in a greater understanding of college priorities among
foundation board members, College A board of trustees are encouraged to join the
foundation board when they rotate off the College board. From 1996 to 2000 the
foundation has assumed increasing responsibility for administrative costs, donor research
costs, and new hires.
Foundation disbursements to the operating budget were $207,095 for 1995-96,
$310,098 for 1996-97, $902,424 for 1997-98, $336,090 for 1998-99, and $286,549 for
1999-00. Most of the funds were allocated to enhance professional/staff/faculty
development opportunities, to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, and for
scholarships, equipment, programs, and capital projects. The spike in funding from the
foundation to the operating budget occurred during the capital campaign for the health
sciences building. Although New York State requires a 50% match from the local

81
sponsor for capital outlay, this match did not take place for the new building. College A’s
foundation raised $1.2 million toward the sponsor’s match, plus $1 million for equipment
for the building.
Student financial assistance has always been the priority of the foundation but
pressure to find more dollars for scholarships grew as College A’s students faced tuition
hikes of the 1990s and a decrease in the coverage of the TAP award. Student need for
financial aid increased from 48 percent of the total student population in 1994-94 to 85
percent in 1999-2000. The pressure from SUNY to increase tuition continued throughout
the period of the study. College A did not reach the tuition cap of one-third of the
operating income.
The local county sponsor can claim foundation support to the college’s operating
budget as part of its contribution. Restricted private dollars and grants from the
foundation are revenues offset to expenses in the line items of the individual
departments. This support from the foundation is usually for scholarships, but
technological equipment purchases, program and capital support, and faculty
development dollars are increasing. In deciding income acquisition strategy for the
foundation College A is caught between the perceptions of the county sponsor and
individual donors. “If the county thinks you can get private dollars, then they will stiff
you. The more successful we are [in fundraising] the less we will get from the county.
The donors know it and want to see a positive gain.” The foundation executive pitches
ideas to the president to get around this dilemma. One solution had been funding
endowed chairs.
The leadership of the income acquisition and management system is a formal link
based upon tradition and the chemistry that exists between the president, executive

82
director of the foundation, the vice president for administration and finance, and the vice
president for student and community affairs. In 2000 the foundation executive officer
became part of College A’s institutional planning committee. This access helped the
foundation executive to target her work on external relationships and receive internal
news and information, especially from the academic units in a more timely fashion.
Armed with more specific faculty and program needs, the foundation executive has
focused on educating faculty about using foundation funds for the institutional priorities.
“I encourage them to focus on ‘the big stuff in regard to professional development
assistance or program grants. We don’t want to tell people that we did the little things...
put it [the foundation effort] where it counts.”
In her reporting relationship as staff to the president, the foundation director
attempts to support the role of the president as the chief fundraiser. In day-to-day
operations during the period of the study the foundation director “sets up the deals and
the president closes the sale.”
HAM Continuum
College A has all of the key activities of advancement and many of the elements
of strategic management. During the period under study College A approached
institutional planning as a consultative process using implicit strategy rather than a
formal strategic planning process. Strategic planning is easier to do in times of relative
stability than in times of crisis. During a crisis, strategic planning loads the organization
with more work when it is highly stressed. This College was coming out of crisis during
the period of the study. The administrators described a general attitude of cynicism
regarding strategic planning as too elaborate a process. The president prefers “organic

83
planning—something akin to a guided missile system that gives regular feedback used to
re-align targets” rather than written plans.
There was a general consensus among the advancement units and other academic
units on the problems faced by the college although they had not developed a formal
strategic plan. At the close of the period of study College A had reached a more stable
mode and its institutional planning committee was searching for a strategic planning
process appropriate for its culture, consensual environment, and complex state
governance system. There is a need for a common lexicon for the institutional planning
committee regarding management and planning terms, goals, objectives, and strategic
management. Difficulty distinguishing between strategic and operational objectives was
observed at the 2001 annual planning retreat.
In 1999. the foundation funded consulting fees for Michael Dolence, an expert on
higher education strategic planning, to come to campus to discuss how to get started. The
foundation executive had a role in the attempt to gain clarity in defining College A’s
strategic goals. The push for a strategic planning system is shared with the institutional
research director.
The first annual planning retreat was held in 2000 with a goal of linking the
planning process to institutional assessment and resource allocation. By the 2002
planning retreat the institutional planning committee was beginning to discuss a new
system for choosing institutional priorities and implementing objectives. The dialogue
continues on how to align organizational structure and assignment of responsibility,
appropriate allocation of resources, and institutional effectiveness monitoring to this new
planning system.

84
College A began at Stage III of the HAM Continuum Model in fiscal year 1995-
1996. College A experienced greater integration of its income acquisition and
management system. Organizational effectiveness was enhanced by this greater
integration. There was evidence of greater support of the advancement function by the
president, especially fundraising. College A did not demonstrate a strategic management
system as illustrated in Figure 2-1 by fiscal year 1999-2000, thus did not move to
Stage IV.
Conclusion
In the case analysis of College A eight themes emerged from the 28 categories of
the coded data. They are
1. Decentralization of structure with use of project teams.
2. Foundation planning integrated with institutional planning.
3. More resources committed to advancement.
4. Efforts at transparency of management.
5. Linking planning and budgeting.
6. Shortened strategic cycles for income acquisition and management.
7. Academic administrators and faculty expanded development responsibility.
8. Greater information sharing.
College A’s assumption for income acquisition and management strategy is tied to these
themes. The financial stability of College A depended upon striking a balance between
funding for fixed costs (i.e., buildings, equipment, and personnel) and funding for more
transitory programming that serves a need and then disappears, requiring resources for
development of new' short-term programming.
College A is building capacity to acquire more varied revenue streams and to
continue to integrate its income acquisition and management system. As FTE formula
funding, categorical funding, and TAP funding eroded the revenue from the county,
tuition and fees, public grants, private grants and private gifts increased.

85
Like the ship that has weathered the storm, College A has withstood the hard
years of 1992 to 1998. In recognition of the need to take the ship to the harbor and mend
the sails, the administrators have focused on planning systems and the income acquisition
and management system. It is a handsome and inherently seaworthy ship.
College B
Profile of College B
College B is located on the east coast of Florida. Serving four counties, the
college has five campuses with about 40,000 students and 9,320 FTE in 1999-2000. One
FTE equals 30 annualized credit hours. The college’s district is experiencing high
population growth. Population projections for the four counties anticipate growth from
448,190 in 1998 to 497,091 in 2003, and 543,786 in 2006.
College B had a $58 million operating budget in 1999-2000 and construction
funds of $32 million. The College received 56.35% of operating budget from state
allocations in fiscal year 1996 and 58.38% in fiscal year 2000. In the State of Florida
community colleges receive no local per capita appropriations. The state funding per
capita for community colleges was slightly lower than the national average of $49 at
$48.47 in 1998-1999. For 1998-1999 the average expenditure per student per FTE in
Florida w'as $ 4,810 and the amount of state support per FTE was $3,351. Florida policy
sets tuition for community colleges at no more than 25-30% of the cost of instruction.
The foundation serving College B, begun in 1965, raised $2 million in 1999-2000
with a foundation operating budget of $147,000. Total foundation assets were $31.7
million for 1999-2000.

86
Tlie per capita costs for Florida community college students historically have
been well below the cost of the public universities in Florida, making a case for the cost-
effectiveness of the 28 community colleges. Although in constant dollars the Florida
community college system’s total revenues and spending have grown over the period of
the study the system is receiving a smaller percentage of the state’s general revenue
higher education dollars (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability [OPPAGA], 1997).
As part of the change in the governing system for higher education in 2001,
Florida dismissed its coordinating board for community colleges. The Florida Board of
Education, an overall board for K.-20 appointed by Governor Bush, was instituted to
establish educational goals, implement policy, and recommend the education budget. A
commissioner of education, also appointed by the governor, oversees the chancellor of
community colleges, the chancellor of colleges and universities, the chancellor of public
schools, and the executive director of the division of independent education (private
schools and universities). The chancellors are appointed by the Florida Board of
Education. Higher education institutions retained local boards of trustees. Community
college literature often cites Florida as one of the states most subject to legislative
micromanagement (Richardson & de los Santos, 2001).
Florida requires community colleges to report on specific performance indicators.
These are (a) the totals of Associate in Arts degrees awarded, (b) the total of Associate in
Science degrees awarded, (c) the total Postsecondary vocational certificates (PSV)
completed (1/2 counted), (d) the total Postsecondary adult vocational certificates (PSAV)
completed (1/2 counted), (e) number of graduates with targeted characteristics
(remediation, economically disadvantaged, disabled, English as a Second

87
Language//ENS, and African American Males) and (0 partial completers who were
placed in a job or transferred to the state university system. The community colleges can
draw upon “new money” as a source for performance based funding.
In 1996 the Florida legislature began performance-based budgeting for
community colleges with a $12 million allocation for workforce development. The new
funding was provided to the community college system based upon performance at each
institution. The new funding represented 2% to 3% of base funding. By the 1999
legislative session $23 million was allocated for distribution to the colleges based upon
the college’s percentage of the system total of increased number of students in the
perfonnance indicator categories. The colleges receive 85% of prior year funding
allocation and 15% of prior year performance-completions/placements per the measures
described above.
The general revenue for Florida community colleges is an FTE base plus system
for the A.A. degree programs. Florida funds noncredit certificate programs through each
college’s base operating dollars for workforce development programs. Dual enrollment
courses do not generate support through FTE and are not funded as part of college
appropriation. Adult basic education is funded through the Workforce Development
Program at less than 1.0 FTE. The tuition rate charged for distance education is the same
as the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students.
The Florida Resident Access Grant (FRAG) gives tuition assistance to almost any
full-time undergraduate student registered at an accredited independent, nonprofit college
or university. A tuition voucher award, FRAG is not need nor merit based. Florida
legislature limited the state-funded credit hours to 60 for an associate degree.

88
Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000
In 1995-1996 as the Florida economy was recovering from the economic
recession of the early 1990s. The stagnated state revenues from sales tax (70% of state
revenue) and business tax (25% of state revenue) fell below budget projections in 1990,
1992. and 1992 as the demand for state services escalated. Voters demanded no new
taxes and state funding for higher education stagnated and then kept pace with inflation
from 1993-1994 to 1995-1996. From 1990-91 to 1995-96 student enrollment (headcount)
increased by 7.5%. Appropriations per student dropped to below the 1990-1991 level.
This restricted situation was compounded by tuition rates that ranked 31 st in the nation
and tuition was not raised substantially during the first half of the 1990s. The average
full-time annual fees for Florida’s community colleges rose from $766 in 1990-1991 to
$1,052 in 1994-95.
The drop in the share of state spending for higher education was faster than the
national average: from fiscal year 1994-1995 to 1995-1996 the U.S. average went from
6.1% to 6.0% of the state budget and in this same period Florida went from spending
6.0% of its state budget on higher education to 5.25% (Callan & Finney, 1997, p. 111).
For fiscal year 1997-98, of the entire state education budget, the community
colleges received 4.34% of the general tax revenue and 5.18% of the lottery funds for a
total of 4.52% of all the state funds to the state’s educational system. For 2000-2001 this
total slipped to barely 4%.
State lottery funds are a distant second to sales tax for Florida community college
system revenue. The 1999-2000 total state appropriations to the community college
system were $847,557,728, of which $750,387,728 was from general revenue and
$97,170,000 was lottery funds. Lottery funds provide no new source of revenue but are

89
an internal distribution now used to fund performance-based programs. There are
additional performance-based budget grants. The Workforce Development Fund is
performance-based. The Special Categories are five pots of monies—mostly challenge
grants and matching funds.
In 1996-97 College B was ranked second lowest in Associates in Arts
expenditures per FTE student among the 28 Florida community colleges at slightly less
than $3,000 with a system average of $3,491. The same year College B was ranked third
lowest in Associate in Science Program expenditures per FTE student among the system
colleges at about $3,250 with a system average of $4,160. For Continuing Education
expenditures per FTE during this year, College B ranked 7th lowest of the 28 colleges at
close to $3,400 with a system average of $4,222. For College Preparatory Program
Expenditures per FTE student, College B ranked 8th highest at slightly over $4,000 with
a system average of $3,647. In reviewing these figures with College B’s administrators, it
was clear that the cost of an FTE for “college prep” had outstripped the cost of an FTE
for A. A., A. S., and continuing education.
Up to fiscal year 1995-1996 Florida’s community colleges were rewarded for
increasing access for high school students with dual enrollment funded at 1.25 FTE. This
ratio was decreased to 1.0 FTE in 1996-1997. The state ceased funding dual enrollment
in 1999-2000. College B considers dual enrollment a part of its access mission. To cover
the dual enrollment program funds were taken from other areas. One administrator
explained, “Most of the programs that we have grown in are fee-exempt programs like
dual enrollment or occupational programs with nonrecurring dollars or the funding was
frozen particularly in [fiscal year] 1999 and 2000.” Investing in the development of

90
programs that are partially funded by the state and then seeing those new programs not
receive recurrent funding has led to dilution.
Adult basic education is funded through the Workforce Development Program at
less than 1.0 FTE. Because it is considered a service to the community, adult basic
education for those who can’t read, do not have a high school diploma, or speak English
as a second language, “ is hard to get fully funded.” The State of Florida has 50% high
school dropout rate and its community colleges have the primary responsibility for
workforce development, remedial education, and basic skills training for adults.
Although the funding for the Florida community college system total FTE
declined over the period of the study, there has been incremental increases for College B
because College B was growing during a period of time when most other community
college in Florida were experiencing declines in enrollment. As a growing school in a
time of overall system decline, College B saw the tendency of the legislature is to give
minimum incremental funding to all schools. As a growing school College B did not get
funded proportionally for growth. (An equalization formula was sought during period of
the study to adjust for this situation and was put into effect in 2000-2001.)
Florida schools are funded for the enrollment of the prior year. For the years
under study the school experienced high enrollment growth with the corresponding
faculty, technical infrastructure, and facility cost increases. “We remained behind the
curve on maintenance, hiring full-time faculty, providing support services, and staff
development.” In addition the number of at-risk students increased dramatically requiring
more federal grants for student services.
Workforce funding had some unintended affects. “Workforce initiatives were
supposed to be performance-based. In response, every college [in the system] performed

91
better but there was no increase in the pool of money [from the state]. As a result if a
college received more money for performance it was out of the pocket of another
college.” College B administrators agree that advancement dollars are needed more
greatly by the occupational programs for quick response and the ability to impact
accountability measures than for AA degree programs where accountability measures
have not yet been implemented and where funding is more stable.
In fiscal year 1996 College B received workforce development funds in the form
of Florida Department of Labor grants. In 1997. mostly in response to federal legislation
that eliminated the number of players and layers in the labor system, Florida restructured
its services and dismantled the Department of Labor. It was replaced by a One Stop
Center system. College B administrators found that state workforce development grants
were difficult to administer because the federal mandate on the One Stop System was
incongruent with the mandates on other federal dollars that flowed through the state.
Table 4-2, “Sources of Revenue for Operations—College B,” shows the
percentage changes in funding sources in relation to one another for the 5 years under
study. The table includes operating funds only from the general fund, restricted fund, and
auxiliary fund. The auxiliary category includes revenue from the College bookstore,
foodservice and computer sales to departments. No construction funds are included. The
average breakdown for general operating funds for Florida community colleges in 1998-
99 was Federal—.25%, State—68.51%, Local—.02%, Tuition and Fees—23.06%, and
Other—8.00%. Source does not equal 100% (Education Commission of the States,
2000).

Table 4-2. Sources of Revenue for Operations—College B
SOURCE
1995-96
%
1996-97
%
1997-98
%
1998-99
%
1999-00
%
Tuition & Fees
$7,425,348
17.51%
7,933,288
17.18%
8.259,552
16.22%
9.067,370
16.48%
9,418,480
16.15%
FLCC Approp
23,889,707
56.35%
26,561,764 57.53%
30,578,914 60.06%
32,058,440 58.28%
34,035.858 58.38%
Local Govt
30.794
0.07%
52.895
0.11%
76,150
0.15%
104,753
0.19%
50,653
0.09%
Federal Grants
4,133,086
9.75%
4,647,012
10.06%
4,724,846
9.28%
5,168,363
9.40%
5,234,437
8.98%
State Grants
1.222,894
2.88%
1,251,875
2.71%
1.497,222
2.94%
2,021,273
3.67%
2,352,464
4.03%
Private Gifts, Grants,
Contracts
547901
l .29%
855,326
1.85%
259,056
0.51%
742,124
1.35%
664,683
1.14%
investment Income
494,422
1.17%
579,332
1.25%
652,725
1.28%
554,056
1.01%
709,608
1.22%
Sales & Services
189,166
0.45%
211,491
0.46%
289,264
0.57%
581,830
1.06%
542,853
0.93%
Auxiliary
3,667,523
8.65%
3,666,620
7.94%
4,220,871
8.29%
4,483,810
8.15%
4.792,105
8.22%
Other Income
795601
1.88%
410818
0.89%
352470
0.69%
228425
0.42%
500741
0.86%
TOTAL
$42,396,442
100.00%
46,170.421
100.00%
50,911,070
100.00%
55,010,444 100.00%
58,301,882
100.00%
Source: College B Vice President for Administration and Finance

93
Institutional Advancement and its Kev Activities
College B has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,
institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,
government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni
affairs. Most marketing activities are centralized for the college under the director of
institutional advancement who reports to the associate vice- president/provost for the
main campus. Enrollment management is decentralized as a responsibility of the campus
presidents and instructional deans with direction from the associate vice-
president/provost of the main campus. The college foundation provides its own
marketing activities with assistance from the advancement office.
Media relations, publications, and community affairs are centralized under the
director of institutional advancement. Corporate relations are decentralized with
responsibility resting with the five campus provosts, the vice-president for applied
science and technology and the three workforce development administrators and deans
under his division. The assistant dean of research and reports, who provides for the state
reporting, manages institutional research.
Government relations is covered by the president with assistance from the board
of trustees and the president’s executive council. College B uses the services of a
resource development firm in Washington, D.C. to earmark discretionary funds. The firm
provides an electronic listing of federal and private grant opportunities that match
College B’s institutional priorities. The planning and program development office covers
the resource development function for federally funded grants such as Pell, Title 111 and
Department of Education TRIO grants (GEAR UP, CROP, Upward Bound, and Talent
Search) Perkins, Title IV, and the National Science Foundation; and state workforce

94
development grants. Curriculum development grants from private sources are sought in
conjunction with the foundation executive director. For example, seed money for the
Upward Bound programs was acquired through a foundation proposal to the Kellogg
Foundation. The resource development subfunction is decentralized and project-based as
teams of faculty members write proposals with the coaching of the associate vice-
president for planning and program development.
Fundraising from individuals, private foundations, and corporations is centralized
with the college foundation. No public dollars are deposited with the foundation. Placing
donated dollars with the foundation as a 501 (c ) 3 organization gives a higher investment
yield as state regulations for college investing are more stringent. The foundation
executive director reports to the president as an administrative staff member with 40% of
her time dedicated to fundraising and 60% of her time managing the foundation. The
foundation raises money for scholarships, endowed chairs, instructional equipment,
faculty and staff development, special projects, and capital campaigns. There is no
alumni campaign. The foundation began building a database of former students and
reestablishing a relationship with them in 2001. The foundation plans and implements its
special events using foundation operating budget dollars and assistance from publications
department for invitations and programs.
The foundation board of directors aligns the foundation mission and priorities
with College B’s planning statements. For the 5 years under study College B’s
foundation was in an aggressive growth stage to prepare for its first capital campaign.
The assets of the foundation tripled, endowed chairs were funded, and annual campaigns
grew markedly. Donors are sensitive to the fact that the community college receives state

95
dollars for operation—the foundation purpose is stated publicly as the way to move the
college’s programs from average to excellent.
A unique responsibility of College B’s foundation is the management of student
residence facilities owned and operated by the foundation. Rental revenue from these
facilities was about $500,000 for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Changes in Organizational Structure of the College and Foundation 1996-2000
Administration realignment is an expression of what the president pays attention
to, measures, and controls. College B’s president prefers to have resource development
operating at many levels w'ithin the organization. Administrative divisions, faculty and
department teams, and individual faculty members participate in resource development.
The current associate vice-president/provost served as the executive director of
the college foundations from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1999. As foundation director
she wrote the first strategic plan for the foundation. This plan was integrated with the
college plan.
When she became associate vice-president/provost the director of workforce
program development became the executive director of the foundation. At the time of
these position changes the public information officer became the director of advancement
and a full time marketing specialist was added to the advancement department.
The State of Florida allows for the salary of the executive director and staff of the
college foundation to be paid from college operating dollars. The executive is responsible
for upholding the policies of the foundation board of directors while being directly
responsible to and evaluated by President. Under her watch new staff were hired to
coincide with a state policy change in matching funds. A foundation development

96
specialist was hired in 1998-1999 to augment the coordination of special events, alumni
relations and manage a high tech grant and some workforce development scholarships.
Changes in Management Activities of Administrators and Faculty Members
College B’s response to the reductions in per-student funding and its explosive
enrollment growth (with increased need for remedial programs) was to focus on income
acquisition strategies. It is clear that the president’s emphasis on fundraising through the
foundation has changed the use of his time and that of his administrators. In 1999-2000
the president spent 75% of his work time on college initiatives and 25% on foundation
initiatives. “The foundation meetings have become more complex and [messages about]
support of the college through the foundation have become a part of every public
speaking opportunity.” The president has increased the frequency and number of
meetings with major donors to coincide with the capital campaigns beginning in 1998.
The chief business officer is spending more time documenting donated dollars for the
state match program. The advancement director has outsourced some marketing activities
for the capital campaign. To ameliorate the lack of federal financial aid (e.g., Pell Grants)
for the growing number of part-time students and those pursuing certificates, the
foundation staff have stepped up assistance with scholarship dollars. The foundation
executive and staff are conducting more focused prospect research.
The president has taken on a greater role in fundraising of private dollars,
especially for the capital campaigns for state match dollars for Public Education Capital
Outlay (PECO) funds. In 1999-2000 PECO capital outlay funds were higher than any
other public higher education institution except the Florida State University medical
school. “However, the gap between the approval date and the receipt of the construction

97
funds creates the need for capital campaigns to collect state match funds to build
facilities in a responsive timeframe.”
College B’s president attended and presided over special events and met with
donors in their homes more frequently toward the end of the study period. “He closes the
deal on all large gifts. [For the 1999-2000 capital campaign] he carried building models
with him everywhere. He encouraged us to come up with more tools to help him in the
ask.” The largest campaigns during the period under study were a $1.7 million capital
campaign for the entrepreneurship center and a $250,000 campaign for equipment for a
new branch campus.
There is more complexity and fluidity in budgeting and planning for construction
with the private dollars from the capital campaigns. “It used to be we would say to the
architect, give me the best you can for $4.5 million. Now we get the PECO dollars [from
the state], and private donations, plus a state match [for capital donations].” This has led
to the added task of ensuring that architectural firms have the ability to provide good
visuals (e.g., CAD software pictures) and three-dimensional models to use with other
marketing materials for capital campaigns.
Members of the college board of trustees, foundation board members, the
president, and the foundation director engage in shared discussions of how best to assist
the college in its mission. The foundation director has served on the president’s council
for the time of the study. Ha- involvement increased with participation in budgeting
workshops. The foundation has proved valuable in acquiring initial funds for the creation
of branch campuses. “The students are there before the state will fund a new campus.”
Foundation dollars were used to purchase land for a new campus. Upon receipt of the
state PECO funds, the land was purchased from the foundation.

98
Tlie advancement department has taken on more support services for the
foundation: annual campaign printing, invitations to events, and absorbing the tasks from
the growth in the number of special events. The advancement director’s role has changed
over the 5 years of the study to include negotiation of mutual messages with college
partners, especially those partners whose image may be more commercial. As the college
initiates partnerships with training organizations to bring more learning resources to its
students, management of the perceptions of these collaborations and the relationships
themselves are included as advancement activities. Community collaborations also
require marketing and public relations attention as in the case of the shared library
project. Launched in 1997, the college provided land for a county library and the county
built the facility.
The associate vice president for planning and program development has increased
external scanning activities for planning and resource development in the 5 years of the
study. Perception surveys and focus group research on the image of College B and the
satisfaction over its serv ices were conducted jointly by the educational services division
and the advancement office. Academic administrators, provosts, and deans are expected
to glean key information from gatekeepers in the community through their memberships
on local nonprofit organizations (e.g., The Kiwanis Club, The Chamber of Commerce)
and provide feedback to the appropriate decision makers and planners.
The associate vice president for planning and program development became a
reader for the National Science Foundation proposals to learn best practice in submitting
program proposals. In 1998 he began to include a line item for marketing activities to
program proposals because the college budget could not absorb the cost of marketing
new programs. Through the assistant dean of research and reports (under the vice-

99
president for administration and finance) information from external scanning activities
are shared with deans and administrators through an interactive database as part of the
departments decision support system and online planning system.
The positive image of the college is seen as the greatest tool for fundraising. The
public relations unit led by the public information director has taken on dual roles.
During the period of the study public information was charged with public relations for
both the college and the foundation.
During the period of the study, College B’s written marketing goals were centered
on enrollment recruitment and advertising themes for awareness of college programs and
services to target markets. Written messages for each of the specific audiences of
government officials, business and industry/corporate leaders, financial donors and
prospective donors, internal college community, and alumni were not defined. Messages
for the student body, the general public, and local/regional media were included. By
1999, the marketing subfunction was beginning to address the sense of building a college
brand over departmental brands. Competitive analysis was not addressed in the
marketing goals.
The vice president for academic affairs has had grants management responsibility
for over 10 years. The difference is that over the period of the study more grants from
private sources were managed. The vice-president for academic affairs has seen benefits
from his efforts as a reader for National Science Foundation proposals. “Tire faculty see
how small NSF or DoE grants of $5,000, like our Peer Led Team Teaching giant, can
leverage private matching dollars.” The academic officer defined his challenge for 2000
on as “motivating the faculty to apply for grants in priority areas for the college,

100
especially for the applied science programs with high-demand, well paying job
opportunities.”
The vice-president for academic affairs has increased the time spent on the grants
process over the 5 years of the study. A new job was the grants proposal process and
grants management for a Department of Education (DoE) Fund for the Improvement of
Teaching science program. Through the DoE grant, the infrastructure and curriculum
were developed for local scientists to work with College B instructors and local K-12
teachers to create peer-led teaching teams. The peer-led team teaching project, initiated
by a chemistry professor, was an experiment that has won top-down support from the
president’s council with matching funds from the operating budget. The vice-president
for academic affairs saw the time he spent on grants management double during the
period of the study from 2 to 4 hours per week. These five weeks per year spent on grants
management is divided between grants for faculty development, curriculum
development, acquisition of equipment, startup costs for new programs, and
supplemental pay for instructors.
Until 1996-1997 students in the arts and science programs at College B were
isolated from university access after graduation. The nearest university was almost two
hours north or south. A partnership with Florida Atlantic University and a joint use
facility “caused a rebirth of the A.A. program.” The vice president for academic affairs
worked closely with the provost and advancement director to provide the marketing
activities to announce the “2 plus 2” initiative.
With two full-time proposal writers, the approach of the planning and program
development office has been to train and assist faculty and administrators to write
proposals. During the 5 years of the study faculty members became more involved in

101
writing proposals and managing grants. This effort was greatly enhanced with the success
of the endowed chairs program. “As recipients, they were the greatest advocates.”
Instructors became eager to help with resource development and fundraising after a
ceremony for the endowed chairs was instituted. The instructors sought grants for high
technology programs over any other category in 1999-2000. The faculty began making
referrals to the foundation for planned gifts. One referral yielded a $500,000 pledge.
Faculty members became aware of their role in naming prospects for endowed chairs
because these $100,000 gifts are used for curriculum development. By 2000 faculty
members had taken an interest in fundraising to alleviate the adjunct faculty ratio and to
receive foundation funds for development programs. By fiscal year 2000 College B had
200 full-time faculty and 700 part-time instructors.
Together the associate vice-president for planning and program development and
the vice-president for academic affairs regularly recognize deans and faculty members
who have written proposals and managed grants. This recognition is done at faculty
meetings, board meetings, and via e-mail. A new practice begun in 1998 was the
inclusion of support of the public information unit in writing press releases regarding the
approval and success of grants from public sources as a line-item in grant budgets.
The associate vice-president for planning and program development and the
grants and contracts fiscal specialist in the planning and program development division
began to be seen by instructional deans and program specialists as “consultants.” For the
past 8 years or more it has been the practice of faculty, deans and the vice president for
academic affairs to serve as readers for grant proposals in order to become more
proficient in writing winning proposals. Reliance on the technical expertise of a few
administrators has grown as the federal standards for annual results in the TRIO

102
programs have become requisites for consecutive year funding. The associate vice
president for planning and program development identified new grants prospects and
approached deans to determine their interest in the funding.
1IAM Continuum
College B has all of the key activities of advancement and they are coordinated.
All of the elements of strategic management were documented. During the period of the
study College B increased external scanning and trend forecasting activities through the
division of planning and program development and the institutional effectiveness unit
and the advancement unit. The assistant dean for research aand reports provided the
accountability reports. A formal feasibility study for the capital campaign was not done;
however, a foundation committee was formed to identify prospects.
In 1999-2000 an online planning system, “Strategic Planning Online (SPOL).”
was implemented. The system has all the elements of a strategic planning system. Ten
overall college goals are aligned with the mission. Unit goals and objectives for each of
those goals are tied to strategies and implementation plans. Results are monitored.
The annual planning and budgeting process began each January for the years under study
with a meeting of the planning council and all administrators of the planning units. The
annual planning unit goals and budget requests were reviewed at a number of hearings.
The president’s executive council set the priorities after the hearings. “When legislative
allocation is indicated in the spring, salary negotiations and massaging of the budget
takes place.” Then the final budget was developed and brought to the board of trustees
for approval.

103
The foundation budget process was not linked to the college budget process. The
foundation director participated on the president’s council to learn of college needs. The
foundation had its own operating funds and did not request an allocation from the
college.
College B’s SPOL software has a budgeting component which has eased use for
linking planning and budgeting. “This [SPOL] has become a very appealing tool for
administrators.” Evaluation of the income acquisition and management system and its
outcomes are given on SPOL.
College B did not benchmark with other institutions for resource development or
other institutional advancement activities. Exposure of successful activities and
recognition was provided through board of trustees meetings, faculty meetings, press
releases, college e-mails, and outcomes reports as well as one-on-one recognition from
the president and an annual college awards day. There was no formal written evaluation
system.
College B began at Stage III of the I1AM Continuum Model in fiscal year 1996
and moved to Stage IV by 2000. College B experienced greater integration of its income
acquisition and management system. Organizational effectiveness was enhanced by this
greater integration. The college was able to make more nimble mid-course corrections in
its strategic management because of greater integration. The obstacles to moving to Stage
V were the lack of an integrated marketing plan within the income acquisition and
management system and the lack of a formal reward system. This may be an impediment
to advancement initiatives, profit making for corporate training, and a strong, positive
institutional image with some target audiences. It may also be an impediment to mutual

104
understanding among all college units regarding centralized messages and identified
target audiences.
Conclusions
Working within an environment of decline in state appropriations to higher
education as a proportion of the total state budget, Florida’s narrow tax base, and an anti¬
tax electorate, College B succeeded in broadening advancement strategies. State budget
cuts were not offset by foundation funds. College B found public grant revenue for the
cuts while enhancing the quality of academic programs with private dollars. Evidence of
best practice was found in the advancement and income acquisition and management
approaches. These approaches included systems thinking, use of informal governance
structures, customization of ideas, valuing academic quality over cost containment, top-
level support for integration of the income acquisition and management system, the
initiation of partnerships and collaborations, and the use of public funding to leverage
private dollars.
College B had a strong planning process. This institution had a strong strategic
management system to adapt to change and create strategies for income acquisition and
management while in a growth mode.
College C
Profile of College C
College C is located in a coastal region of North Carolina. Serving two
counties, the college has three campuses with 6,600 students and 3500 FTE in 1999-
2000. One FTE is defined as 16 credit hours multiplied by 16 weeks (256 hours). A new
campus is slated to open in 2002. Among the 58 community colleges in North Carolina

105
College C was ranked 6,h in curriculum FTE in May 1999. By 2019 the college expects
10,829 students or more than double its current enrollment.
College C had a $26.7 million operating budget in 1999-2000 with $14 million in
construction bond funds bringing total revenue to $40.7 million. College C receives local
county support for its operating budget. Local support accounted for 9.74 % of operating
budget in 1995-1996 and 11.39 % in 1999-2000. College C received 77.6 % of operating
budget from the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) in 1995-1996 and
73.3% in 1999-2000. The NCCCS revenue includes student tuition and fees. Tuition and
fees are collected by the college and used to offset the NCCCS contribution. North
Carolina has no policy that sets a target percentage for student share of cost of
instruction. For certain continuing education programs, such as defensive driving and
computer classes, tuition revenue is not required to offset the NCCCS contribution. The
state legislature encourages the college to increase tuition revenue from continuing
education programs but places a $200,000 limit on the total profit per year.
The foundation serving College C was begun in 1974 to receive equipment
donations. It raised $1 million in 1999-2000 with an operating budget of $19,500 for
audit, printing, supplies, and campaign expenses. Total foundation assets in 1999-2000
were $1,816,411.
The State of North Carolina provides a consistent funding formula providing a
certain amount for each full time student with no penalty for any private money raised.
The NCCCS funded noncredit certificate programs at $3,485 per student FTE in fiscal
year 2000. The State requires a dollar for dollar match from the county sponsor for
construction funds. North Carolina does not reduce state capital allocation should a

106
school raise funds from other sources. The State allows foundation personnel to be paid
with dollars from the state appropriation to the college.
In 1997. North Carolina funding per capita for community colleges was higher
than the national average of $49.00 at $79.11. For 1999, the average expenditure per
student FTE in a North Carolina community college was $4,748 and the amount of state
support for FTE was $3,838.
Funding for customized training for business and industry is allocated on a
project-by-project basis. The noncredit lifelong learning courses are funded in this way:
1. Adult Basic Education skills are fully funded with state and federal funds by FTE
and incentives.
2. Personal interest courses are self-supported by student fees.
3. Dual enrollment courses generate state support. The FTE generated by high
school students in dual enrollment programs generates the same level of funding
as other courses.
4. The tuition rate charged for distance education is the same as the rate charged for
on-campus courses for in-state students.
The NCCCS requires community colleges to report on specific performance
indicators. These are (a) progress of basic-skills students, (b) performance of college
transfer students, (c) passing rates for licensure and certificate exams, (d) Passing rates of
students in developmental courses, (e) success rate of developmental students in
subsequent college level courses, (f) program enrollment, (g) student satisfaction:
completers and noncompleters, (h) goal completion of completers, (i) curriculum student
progress and success, (j) employer satisfaction with graduates, (k) employment status of
graduates, and (1) client satisfaction with customized training. The community colleges
are required to reallocate existing budgets as a source for these funds.

107
Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000
During the period under study the college’s mission was expanded to that of a
comprehensive community college. Explosive growth put a strain on budget and
facilities. There simply was not enough space. Square footage had not increased from
1976 to 1996. The FTE went from 2500 to 6000. From 1995 to 2000 fulltime employees
went from a little over 100 to 350. Fulltime faculty grew from 70 to 183. During this
period there was a 2% growth in the number of administrators. Faculty salaries are
ranked 14'h highest of the 58 colleges in the NCCCS. Full-time faculty members starting
annual salaries average $39,000 and retiring faculty average $63,000.
Building the case for construction and for $100 million in bond referendums
required to fund the new buildings was the major initiative for the college. At the same
time, College C was faced with funding the growth of faculty and program offerings.
College C administrators chose five activities to meet their fiscal goals. They
aggressively recruited to keep the FTE numbers up to secure state funding. They
encouraged administrator attrition and did not layoff faculty. They increased revenue
from corporate training. The president became more involved in fundraising with the
foundation.
In 1995-1996 the average percentage of operating budget for NC community
colleges from sources other than government, tuition, and sales and services was .04%
(Jackson & Glass, 2000). College C was ahead of the average at .74% from private gifts.
By 1999-2000 the percentage of operating budget from private gifts for College C had
grown to 2.07%.
In 1995-1996 College C’s president and administrators decided that program
starts and faculty hires could not wait for the 18 months lapse period for FTE funding to

108
catch up with FTE enrollment numbers. (State iunding for changes in FTE is always a
year behind the reporting and, as such, FTE growth or decline is not reflected in the
colleges’ budgets until 18 months later). One of its sponsor counties gave less than 1% of
the operating budget per year and the facilities in that county were suffering neglect
because maintenance, repairs, and renovation had been put off. Advancement initiatives
were stepped up.
Table 4-3, “Sources of Revenue for Operations—College C,” gives a snapshot of
the changes in revenue sources as a percentage of the operating budget for the period
under study. Note in Table 4-3 that the source, State NCCCS, includes an offset for
tuition and fees. Table 4-3 includes operating funds only, no building construction funds
Local sponsor funds go toward telephone and building maintenance. Federal
grants are mostly Pell, SEOG, Perkins and Work Study grants (e.g., $2.1 million in 2000
from Pell). The private funds are named scholarships that went directly to the college
from donors and some foundation transfers. Institutional funds are continuing education
and corporate training fees. Auxiliary is bookstore profit, childcare center fees, parking
fees, and student activities fees.
The percentages of state and county funding and tuition and fees for College C
shown in Table 4-3 for fiscal year 1999-2000 are notably low in comparison to the
average breakdown for general operating funds for NC community colleges. The average
breakdown for general operating expenses for North Carolina community colleges in
1998-99 was Federal—3.20%, State—75.20%, Local—12.90%, Tuition and
Fees—8.20%. and Other—.50% (Education Commission of the States, 2000).

Table 4-3. Sources of Revenue for Operations—College C
SOURCE
1995-96
%
1996-97
%
1997-98
%
1998-99
%
1999-00
%
State NCCCS
$12,640,869
77.58
13,343,289
76.03
13,967.535
73.85
16,605,578
73.03
19,3)5,412
72.27
County #1
1500000
9.2
2,017,214
1 1.49
2,034,869
10.75
2,585,724
11.24
2,924.543
10.9
County #2
87,935
0.54
139,166
0.8
123,437
0.65
110.373
0.48
131,769
0.49
Federal Grants
1.301,980
7.99
1,138,630
6.48
1,665,230
8.8
2,223,1 16
9.8
2,893,297
10.83
State Grants
5.961
0.04
28,805
0.16
151,329
0.8
110.078
0.49
0
0
Private Gifts
120,019
0.74
116,934
0.68
102,727
0.54
226,628
1
551,760
2.07
Investment Income
124,613
0.76
137,136
0.79
226,957
1.2
147,867
0.65
191,986
0.73
Institutional Funds
368,873
2.26
391,948
2.23
358,100
1.9
329,651
1.46
322,602
1.2
Auxiliary
109,462
0.67
230,659
1.31
225,491
1
230,839
1.02
377,448
1.4
Other Income
32535
0.22
4,830
0.03
55,847
0.3
81,729
0.37
16,620
0.07
TOTAL
$16,292,247
100
17,548,611
100
18,91 1,522
100
22,651,583
100
26,725,437
100
Source: College C Vice President Business Services
c

110
Institutional Advancement and its Key Activities
College C has all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,
institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,
government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni
affairs. Its marketing activities are decentralized while all other advancement functions
are centralized. There is no written marketing plan for the college. Marketing messages
and target audiences have not been defined. Marketing for enrollment management is
under the vice-president for student development. Marketing for the college’s BIG
(business, industry and government services and training) Center and workforce
development is the responsibility of the dean of continuing education, a direct report to
vice-president of instruction. The foundation relies on the publications subfunction to
help with marketing materials and special events.
The advancement subfunctions of institutional research, media relations, public
relations, community affairs, and publications are under the authority of the vice-
president for institutional development. Institutional effectiveness reporting and planning
are under the purview of this vice-president also. Media relations activities are handled
by the public information officer whose role was broadened during the bond campaigns
to coordinate a speakers bureau and develop ads. Tire public information officer writes
all the press releases for the college and the foundation.
The government relations subfunction is largely in the hands of the president and
the board of trustees. They are the “bird dogs for bills” at the state level by assisting the
state community college system lobbyist. The NCCCS will not fund lobbyist positions
for the individual colleges. The vice-president for instruction serves as an administrator
with the North Carolina National Guard. To cover relationship building with local

Ill
constituents, the president and board members serve on economic development and
advisory councils. The trustees, president, and administrators agree that funding from
County #1 has been consistently satisfactory over the study period at between 9.2 and
11.49 % of the operating budget.
The corporate relations subfunction is spearheaded by the associate dean of the
BIG Center under the dean of continuing education, a direct report to the vice-president
for instruction.
The college foundation was fallow for the first half of the 1990’s. Without a full¬
time executive director for several years, small sporadic campaigns (the largest bringing
in $30,000) continued. In the late 1970’s the college’s image had been besmirched by a
financial scandal. Upon arriving in 1994, the president made the acquisition of private
dollars for scholarships, equipment, technology, professional development, and library
resources a priority. The foundation’s unrestricted revenue grew from $313,404 in 1995-
1996 to $653,499 in 1999-2000. The endowment grew from $155,559 to $632,007 during
this same period.
The current executive director of the foundation was hired in 1996. The
foundation director supervises an assistant and a secretary. The NCCCS allows for state
funding from the colleges to pay for the foundation director and staff salaries. Although
directly responsible to and evaluated by the president, the foundation officer also reports
to the foundation board of directors who set policy for the foundation. The resource
development subfunction of College C resides with the foundation except for the mini¬
grant program, which is coordinated by the dean of vocational/technical education under
the vice-president for instruction coordinates. The foundation conducts an annual
campaign. The 2000 annual campaign collected $350,000 ($28,000 of which was from

112
faculty and staff). The foundation does not solicit alumni for an alumni campaign. The
foundation has never implemented a capital campaign.
The mini-grant proposals and all grant proposals, public and private, are
coordinated through the foundation executive director. The president’s endorsement is
required. The foundation relies on the public information officer to write press releases
recognizing financial donors.
Changes in Organizational Structure of the College and Foundation 1996-2000
In 1995-96 the foundation was under the director for institutional development. In
preparation for the campaign for the construction bonds and in anticipation of the
administrative services directors’ management of this new funding stream, the public
information officer (reporting to the director for administrative sendees) was placed
under institutional development. This move put the public affairs, media relations, and
community relations units under the director for institutional development. The
enrollment management activities were moved from the director for administrative
services to the director for student development. Simultaneous with the above changes in
structure, the president changed titles of senior managers from directors to vice
presidents in 1995-96.
The current foundation executive director was hired in 1997 as a temporary direct
report to the vice president for institutional development. The foundation director became
a permanent employee in 1998 and direct report changed to the president to underscore
the priority of fundraising at the college. A vestige of the prior arrangement and senior
staff titles creates confusion among the public. Institutional development is often
perceived as the label for the resource development function.

113
For planning and operations management the five vice presidents meet as a group
with the president once per week. The college council, comprised of the senior officers
and the college deans meets as a group twice a month. The foundation executive is a
member of the college council.
Chanties in Management Activities of Administrators and Faculty Members
The two bond referendums passed in 1997, $34 million ($27.8 million for
construction and $6.2 million for property for buildings and parking for the downtown
campus) and $27 million for construction on the north campus. The 1999-2019 college
strategic plan recommended that the Board of Trustees seek approval for a bond
referendum by 2001 in the amount of $61,750,000 for classroom/office space and a
parking deck.
Beginning in 1995-1996 the institutional research and planning at College C
became more comprehensive. Institutional effectiveness concepts and student outcomes
assessment based on Nichols’ Institutional Effectiveness and Outcomes Assessment
Model were adopted to help to build the case for construction and the installation of a
data technology network. In this model the institutional effectiveness implementation
cycle includes both strategic planning, which is means/process oriented, and institutional
effectiveness or assessment planning, which is ends/outcomes oriented (Nichols, 1996).
As a result of the institutional effectiveness implementation, community leaders became
more involved with college planning. Training for administrators, faculty, and staff on
effectiveness and assessing outcomes became institutionalized.
In 1996, external scanning activities included focus groups held with community
representatives, allied health employers, financial/business, retail and hospitality

114
employers, vocational and manufacturing employers, former students, high school
students, high school counselors, and personnel from the local public university. A report
of the findings indicated deficiencies in young workers’ basic skills and lack of access to
computer use and the Internet for low-income persons. It was clear that providing classes
away from downtown into outlying areas was necessary in order to meet training needs.
These findings were addressed in the college’s planning. The findings of the focus
groups gave impetus to regular external scanning activities in the academic and
vocational departments from 1997 through 2000.
An executive roundtable in 1999 was held to determine trends in business and
industry, competencies needed by employers, and target groups to train. The results were
added to the college’s planning process and related to goals of training workers in
interpersonal and customer skills as well as specialized training for the growing Hispanic
workforce.
During the 5 years of the study the college moved to place institutional planning
systems online. The use of Strategic Planning Online (SPOL) software gave all college
administrators access to planning cycle documents and program review process
documents. Annual program review documents from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
gave operating costs for curriculum programs. These operating costs were defined as
state funded operating expenditures such as supplies, travel, salaries and fringes,
equipment repairs, software, and service contracts. Not included were major equipment
expenditures, books, or required grant dollars to support the program. In the analysis of
operating costs for programs, the differential costs for programs was seen as well as the
need for private dollars to sustain higher cost programs, for example, practical nursing.
The planning system allowed for each of the five vice presidents to view each other’s

115
budget center as they were prioritizing programs to meet the job market. 15% of College
C’s students already have a bachelor’s degree and are enrolled in a program to get a job.
To cover these cost differentials and to offer priority programs, the president
spent increasingly more time each year visiting individuals who could make sizeable
donations. His focus was on the activities that personalized the relationships. The
president made changes in the flow of donations to the college. Prior to 1995 private
dollars were given directly to the college or the foundation. In the period under study it
became practice to strongly recommend and state a preference for donations to be
deposited with the foundation. This enabled better management and tracking of donor
relationships.
The president, college trustees, foundation executive, and foundation board
members, have used the nonprofit status of the foundation to leverage private dollars for
start up funds for new programs. The nursing program used a matching strategy to get
other donors to invest in the success of its nursing students. With a $50,000 challenge
grant from the local hospital foundation, a $168,000 grant was received from a private
regional foundation. This induced another $50,000 from a hospital corporate
contribution, and the foundation gave nursing scholarships obtained through the help of
the allied health programs chair who had cultivated relationships with prospective
donors.
Foundation dollars began to cover state funding cuts in 1997. When state funding
for lab equipment was cut the foundation gave $35,000. In 1999 the state cut funding to
libraries. To replace books and library resources $55,000 from unrestricted foundation
funds was given. “The State never made up these funds. These little cuts add up—w'e
have to build them into the budget each year.”

116
The foundation executive director has become more involved in the planning
activities of the college by serving on the college council, the institutional effectiveness
committee, and as a participant in budget hearings. This gave her insight into the
initiatives of the college. Since 1997 the foundation officer has had exposure to the state
funding stream changes such as the sunsetting of equipment and computer funding. Both
the college goals and the foundation goals are reflected in the annual work plan of the
foundation. In 1999-2000 the foundation executive and board members began a series of
estate planning receptions for local professionals, attorneys, accountants, and bank
officials to raise awareness of the ease and types of planned giving for the college. There
were no funds earmarked for prospect research in the foundation budget.
Monies from the campus campaign were used for the minigrant program,
supplies, equipment, and scolarships. Begun in 1998, minigrants feature a two-page
application for faculty and staff to compete for grants for professional development. The
average minigrant was $1,000. Minigrant awardees are announced monthly on the
college intranet. A 2000 survey found that faculty and staff are very aware of the
minigrant opportunities and knowledgeable about how the funds from the campus ftind
campaign are used. The foundation executive held training sessions on grant proposal
writing for faculty members and introduced the foundation at new employee orientations.
Five percent of faculty members were involved in grant proposal writing and
implementation in 1996. This involvement had doubled by 1997. By 2000, 20% of the
faculty had written grant proposals or implemented a grant. Proposals written by faculty
were edited by the foundation officer.
With only two additional program chairs since 1996 and the addition of 14 new
programs in the 5 years of the study, the vice president for instruction has seen his time

117
spent on grants management increase by 400% from 1996 to 2000. The management
activities of reviewing grant proposals for alignment to college mission and of evaluating
grants expenditures took as much time as room scheduling for instruction in 2000. Even
so, the vice president of instruction saw many grants opportunities pass during the period
of the study because of the intense focus on the instructional space problem, construction
management, and the focus on hiring 15% more faculty per year to keep up with new
programming. “Trying to get a desk and chair under the new faculty members and find a
computer” was a daily occurrence. Another challenge was line item budgeting, which
constrains how administrators can spend. “Even though we may have the money [in the
budget], we need it here but it’s somewhere else.”
The number of College C’s programs has increased 31% from 1997 to 1999. As
offerings have grown over the 5 years of the study, the role of the public information
officer has grown. “There is more to tell the community about.” Activities have changed
to focus less on advertising and more on the production of program videos and the
handling of special events and department “open houses.”
At the end of fiscal year 2000 College C found its degree programs growing and
thriving enough to attract private money to complement FTE funding. During this same
year the continuing education division was able to sell training at a profit to bring in
revenue for curriculum programs. There were two categories of training in the division of
continuing education: occupational extension and self-support. Both made use of open
enrollment and customized training as profit centers. For the occupational extension
courses revenue from tuition was given back from the state to the college after the state
took a nominal processing fee. The FTE formula for the funding of occupational
extension courses provided less revenue than the FTE for vocational courses. This public

118
policy has resulted in the college converting occupational extension courses into
vocational programs when they are successful in order to get the higher funding per FTE.
In this sense the occupational extension directorate acted as an incubator. For the self-
support courses the college could set fees and retain income of up to $300,000 per year.
The college exceeded this cap in 1999 and 2000.
The major challenge for generating revenue from the continuing education
courses was that the division had responsibility for its own marketing activities and
advertising. The workforce development director spent 25% of her time on the
development and placement of advertising. The marketing activities were not integrated
with the advancement activities housed under the institutional development division.
Although relationships have been built with corporations, and business and industry, the
continuing education division has not felt the boom that the degree/transfer programs
have experienced. The foundation director occasionally asks the staff in this division
about donor prospects. With no shared database it is cumbersome to share lists of the
training recipients with the college president and foundation executive.
To help sustain the advancement initiatives and the integration of the income
acquisition and management system. College C used a salary reward system. Based upon
annual performance review employees were given a rating on a Likert scale from zero to
four. If the employee reached a rating of four the college matched 1% of the salary
increase from the state plus .5%. Recognition included praise from administrators for
specific accomplishments at board meetings, internal college meetings, and external
events. The president remarked that, “Frequently reminding faculty and administrators
that change is painful but worth it,” is important. Implementing advancement initiatives
and income acquisition and management strategies were first met with resistance, but

119
now that the college community has experienced the benefits, there is less resistance to
taking risks.
Five of the 10 1999-2000 strategic goals for College C relied on advancement
activities and proficiencies. Goal No. 4, “Further promote [the college’s] presence in the
community and strengthen partnerships with entities outside the college including
businesses/industries, public schools, universities, and various agencies,” was sought
without a marketing plan. Goal No. 10, “ Manage the college’s fiscal resources
effectively and seek additional funding through external sources such as grants and
donations to support college programs and services,” was sought without an integrated
resource development or corporate relations plan. The budget allocations for marketing
and public relations activities has remained flat for the 5 years of the study.
Given the perceived competition with the local public university for donations
from alumni and community individuals and corporations, an administrator commented,
“Hey, we can’t just rely on donors concluding, “they [the college as a whole] must be
successful—look at all the new buildings.”
HAM Continuum
College C has all of the key activities associated with the advancement function
and they are coordinated. External scanning and trend forecasting were done periodically.
The last extensive surv ey of all constituent groups was in 1996. An executive roundtable
was held in 1999 to determine workplace needs. The relationship of College C’s strategic
planning to its institutional effectiveness planning was clearly defined in the institutional
effectiveness office documents.

120
By 2000 the vice president of institutional development had instituted a
professional development program to assist administrators in college-wide planning and
assessment. Budgeting is clearly tied to the planning through the institutional
effectiveness planning cycle. This annual cycle includes all of the elements of strategic
management. The cycle provides for personnel evaluation to be tied into advancement
initiatives and objectives for the income acquisition and management system.
College C began at Stage ill of the 11AM Continuum Model in 1996 and moved
to Stage IV by 2000. The integration of the income acquisition and management system
was required to implement advancement initiatives. The changes in organizational
structure, changes in management activities and the adoption of an annual cycle linking
strategic planning with institutional effectiveness and budgeting resulted in a more
integrated income acquisition and management system. The annual planning cycle and
online planning software increased internal information sharing. Foundation planning
was integrated with institutional planning. Management became more transparent. There
was empirical evidence that academic administrators and faculty had expanded their
responsibility for resource development.
The obstacle to moving to Stage V on the IIAM Continuum was that College C
had not developed a centralized strategic marketing plan. With no written college-wide
plans for marketing, communications, government relations, and corporate relations it is
difficult to implement strategies. The authority for marketing as a tool of institutional
image and identity was blurred. This may be an impediment to advancement initiatives
with some target audiences. Marketing activities were described but there was confusion
over consistent institutional marketing messages. One administrator commented. “We are
marketing internally, but we are not competing for funds, eyeballs, and opinions.”

121
College C’s leaders are aware of this obstacle. Beginning in 1996-1997 an
institutional goal in College C’s “Strategic Goals and Planning Priorities” has been the
goal, “develop and publish a marketing plan.” This charge has been included in
successive yearly goals.
Explosive growth has increased the complexity of communications and
marketing. “We’ve grown so fast-the PIO [public information officer] doesn’t know
what is going on at the college. Informal operations centers are left to give the answers.”
At the end of the period of the study College C administrators were aware of the need to
integrate communications and marketing with operations planning and strategic planning.
Conclusions
College C has met enrollment growth, construction, and planning challenges to
offset a 5% decrease in state funding as a percentage of the operating budget. Fundraising
for private dollars, public grants, and profit from continuing education division training
have been used to meet the income acquisition challenges.
College C may consider identifying its target audiences and why these audiences
should care about the community college mission. In describing themselves to the world
College C must distinguish between presenting a mirror image of itself or presenting a
projection of a strong institutional image based upon its marketing plan. There should be
a clear connection between academic priorities and marketing priorities.
College C showed a strong 5-year history of planning and strategic management
to bolster its income acquisition and management system. College C has made great
strides in teaching administrators how to use the new strategic planning system. In
particular administrators have learned how to write objectives that are aligned with

122
college income acquisition and management priorities. “As we combined the planning
with budgeting they began to see how they could ask for money to carry out their
objectives.”
The president and senior management gave top-level support for the integration
of the components of fundraising, resource development, and profit making activities for
the income acquisition and management system.
College D
Profile of College D
College D is one of seven separately accredited campuses of a metropolitan Texas
system with an overall system budget of $300 million per year. The college had 12,000
credit students and 6,000 FTE in 1999-2000. One FTE equals 30 annualized credit hours.
Continuing education and training for business and industry brought the total number of
students to 20,000. 80% of College D’s students intend to transfer to a 4-year school.
College D had an operating budget of $44.6 million in 1999-2000. During this
same fiscal year tuition and fees made up 27.5% of the operating budget and state
appropriations made up 50.3%. College D receives local county support for its operating
budget. Local support accounted for 6.9% of the fiscal year 2000 operating budget. In
1999-2000 the State of Texas funding per capita for its 68 community colleges was
higher than the national average of $49 at $54.69.
The 28-year-old district foundation raised $8 million in 1999-2000 for
scholarships. The foundation’s operating budget was $800,000. The total foundation
assets in fiscal year 2000 were $18 million. Prior to 1997 the foundation was considered
a passive pass-through organization. It had raised $1.24 million in 1995-1996, and $1.90

123
million in 1996-1997. After a two-year reorganization and prospecting period in which
lead gifts were obtained, the foundation announced a S30 million district-wide
scholarship program in late 1998. The 1998-1999 revenue was $8.61 million. The
following year $6.60 million was counted as revenue.
Change in Income Sources 1995-1996 to 1999-2000
State appropriation as a percentage of the operating budget dipped from 51.3% in
1996 to 47.5% in 1997. By 2000 the state appropriation made up 50.3% of College D’s
operating budget. The largest state grant lost during the period of the study was the
annual $2.5 million of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) dollars in 1997. College D
had been the largest contractor for JTPA in Texas.
Delays in state funding to keep abreast of rapid growth and major demographic
shifts were the main impetus for seeking revenue from new sources for College D. The
state FTE formula is based upon contact hours for credit as well as continuing education
courses. The legislature meets every other year to set the biennial appropriation for
community colleges. Although the funding is responsive to growth, the response may be
years behind the expenditures.
The lag in funding was exacerbated by College D’s enrollment growth of between
8% and 9% per year from 1996 to 2000. In 1996 the student body of College D was 60%
Anglo American, with Asian, Latino, and African Americans each at close to 15% of the
total. By 1999-2000 the Anglo American percentage dropped to 45% and the Latino
percentage nearly doubled. The number of Asian students jumped to 18% and the
African American percentage of total students remained the same.

124
These increases in enrollment and student population created eight challenges for
college leadership. To begin, greater usage sped deterioration of buildings. “More
students means [sic] that you wear out your facilities faster. Everything from equipment
to carpets has a shorter life. Everyday you find out, ‘What’s broken today—computers,
musical keyboards, microscopes?’ and you have to make the decision ‘ Which gets fixed
first?’ ”
Competition for instructional space increased. “Not enough space is a primary
issue for us. We can get grant money for new programs and their staffing, but we have
nowhere to house any new staff.” This has led the college to plan a reduced tuition
program for students who take classes at nonpeak times.
Demand increased for upgraded technology and equipment. “Residents of the
county can attend anyone of the seven community colleges [in the district]. So there is
competition among campuses over [students’ perceptions of] who [sic] has best the
technology and most appealing campus. Things like new furniture and landscaping make
a difference in enrollment.”
Demographic changes were dramatic. As the numbers of diverse and
disadvantaged students grew, more immigrants were enrolled in English as a Second
Language (ESOL) programs. “More students are learning English and upgrading their
work skills with state funding.”
The community leadership became very concerned with the high school drop out
rate. “Over 40% of the ninth graders in the college district will not graduate high school.
The college w'as charged with helping to keep kids in school by increasing college
aspiration among Latino and African American students.”

125
Adult Basic Education in Texas was funded through public education (K-12),
averaging about $ 80/year/student. Adult education costs were absorbed by College D in
fulfillment of its mission to serv e adult learners.
The number of home-schooled students attending College D had increased
substantially. “No tuition is charged for dual enrollment and it is funded on contact
hours.”
It became a struggle to find funding to keep full time/adjunct faculty ratios above
50:50. “It is very expensive to reduce the number of adjunct faculty and hire full time
faculty.” The eighth challenge was the effort to pass a bond issue for a student intake
center.
The administrators’ perception of erosion described above may be compared to
College D’s operating budgets in Table 4-4, “Sources of Revenue for Operations—
College D.” Note that Table 4-4 includes operating funds only—no building construction
funds. The State Grant category includes Perkins grants received through a block grant.
The average breakdown for operating funds for Texas community colleges in 1998-99
was Federal—14.4% (includes all Perkins funds), State—37.9%, Local—17.9%, Tuition
and Fees—19.9% and Other (federal financial aid and restricted funds other than
Perkins)—9.8% (Education Commission of the States, 2000).
Tuition went from 25% to 27.5% of the total operating budget from 1995-1996 to
1999-2000. The State of Texas sets the minimum tuition. There is no maximum. State
legislators have proscribed that state funds should provide for no more than 50% of each
college’s operating budget. The tuition rate charged for distance education is the same as
the rate charged for on-campus courses for in-state students. “It’s pretty clear that the
state legislators want us to raise tuition and find other [revenue] sources like fees, private
dollars and public grants.”

Table 4-4. Sources of Revenue for Operations—College D
SOURCE
1995-96
%
1996-97
%
1997-98
%
1998-99
%
1999-00
%
TX State Approp
17,448,187
51.3
18,038,862
47.5
20,410,751
49.9
20,851,410
48.5
22,461,614
50.3
Tuition & Fees
8,506,366
25
10,036,810
26.4
11,285,833
27.6
12,214,205
28.4
12,302,856
27.5
Local Appropriations
2,690,912
7.9
3,189,581
8.4
1,871,656
4.6
2,699,434
6.3
3,069,358
6.9
Federal Grants
4,628,136
13.6
5749728
15.1
5,294,869
13
5,867,750
13.6
5,558,808
12.4
State Grants
265,420
0.8
371,203
1
1,371,634
3.4
735,148
1.74
681,757
1.5
Local Grants
17,977
0.1
47,007
0.1
90,602
0.2
79,793
0.2
25,699
0.1
Private Gifts
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,000
0
0
0
Auxiliary
319,387
0.9
359,468
0.9
351,460
0.9
378,949
0.9
400,503
0.9
Other Sources
162480
0.5
163,405
0.4
192,759
0.5
162,488
0.4
192,063
0.4
TOTAL
34.038,865
100
37,956,063
100
40,869,564
100
42,996,177
100
44,692,658
100
Source: College D Financial Affairs, 1PEDS Annual Reporting
K>
O'

127
On the positive side, College D administrators saw four situations in their favor in
regard to income acquisition and management. As the largest college in district, College
D received the largest slice of the district budget pie. College D had the capacity to
develop quality programming in anticipation of community needs. Its entrepreneurial
center, a service and training center had generated $2.5 million for the operating budget
in 1999-2000. Lastly, the local appropriation had room for negotiation. Texas law allows
the community college district to set the tax rate for property taxes to the colleges in
county. The district rate for College D is the lowest of all the county taxing entities at
only five cents per $100 valuation.
Institutional Advancement and its Key Activities
College D had all of the institutional advancement subfunctions: marketing,
institutional research, media relations, community affairs, corporate relations,
government relations, resource development, foundation, publications, and alumni
affairs.
Marketing activities are decentralized with support from the district office for
television, radio, and billboard advertising. The Director of Information Services under
the vice president for institutional advancement had the coordinating role in the
development of marketing activities. Directors with responsibility for marketing
activities were interspersed within the divisions of institutional advancement, community
and economic development, corporate services and workforce training, and student
development. The presidents’ council and the economic development council decided on
major marketing initiatives. There were no written marketing messages or targeted
audiences. “It’s pretty much a by-the-seat-of-the-pants-operation.”

128
Tlie director of information services was responsible for media relations, which
were limited to reactive press releases, and remote broadcasts for special events on
campus. Publications are the purview of the director of information services. Fiscal
issues were rarely mentioned in the college newsletter. There was district coordination of
publications that mention fiscal partnerships. A district wide marketing piece on
educational partnerships noted College D's partnership with Microsoft Corporation and
American Association of Community Colleges as a mentor school for IT curriculum
development. College D’s partnership with Phoenix Solution, Inc. to offer training in
meeting planning software for the college’s Travel, Exposition, and Meeting
Management Program was featured. The college did not publish an annual report. The
procedure for requesting marketing brochures has remained the same over the period of
the study. The unit heads request the development of brochures as part of the budgeting
process.
The other subfunctions are under the following directorates: community affairs is
under the director of corporate and community relations. Institutional research is
centralized under the assistant dean of institutional research/planning. Corporate relations
is the responsibility of the director of corporate and community relations who reports to
both the vice president for community and economic development and the vice president
for corporate services and workforce training. Government relations are largely the
responsibility of the college president. The district chancellor is the driving force. The
president is invited to Austin for legislative sessions and other lobbying activities.
Resource development is in the hands of the dean of institutional advancement who
oversees the proposals and management of all public and private grants.

129
The district foundation is housed off campus in the district office. The foundation
provided operational support to College D in the form of scholarships. State law prohibits
the solicitation of scholarships directly by the colleges. The foundation executive director
interacts mostly with the president, the vice president for institutional advancement, and
the vice president for corporate services and workforce training.
The college has an alumni association. A $10 fee allows members access to the
library and receipt of an annual publication.
Changes in Organizational Structure of the College and Foundation 1996-2000
For those administrators responsible for income acquisition and management
there have been changes in the arrangement of jobs and reporting lines. The moves in the
organizational chart have been to create greater integration of advancement subfunctions
in order to implement college strategies. On the 1995-1996 organizational chart, there
were 10 direct reports to the president. These were four vice presidents (academic and
student development, college resources, economic development, and student and
institutional effectiveness), two deans (resource development and financial affairs), two
directors (facilities services and public information), and two assistants.
By 1999-2000 five vice presidents reported to the president (student learning,
student development, corporate services and workforce training, community and
economic development, and institutional advancement). Two deans (educational and
administrative technology and financial services) and three directors (human resources,
facilities services, infonnation services and college relations) as well as two assistants
were direct reports to the president. The next few paragraphs describe the rationales for
these structural changes.

130
In 1996-1997 when the vice president of college resources (i.e., the chief business
officer) retired, the position was not filled. The director of human resources and the
director of facilities services became direct reports to the president. The director of
educational and administrative technology became a direct report to the vice president for
student learning with a dotted line to the president. The dean of business service, who
had overseen human resources and educational and administrative technology, was
promoted to dean of financial affairs (title changed in 2000 to financial services).
The second major change in structure was the promotion of the dean of
institutional advancement to vice president for institutional advancement in fiscal year
1997-1998. This allowed for greater oversight of the institutional effectiveness planning,
research/planning, information services/college relations, and resource development
subfunctions. Three new directorates were created: (a) the executive director of
infonnation services and college relations reporting to the vice president for institutional
advancement and a dotted line to the president, (b) the director of corporate and
community relations reporting to the vice president for community and economic
development and the vice president for corporate services and workforce training, and (c)
the director of organizational learning and service reporting to the vice president for
student learning and the vice president for community and economic development. The
dean of institutional advancement was charged with spending 100% of his time on grants
proposals and grants management with a priority on NSF grants and funds for
technology.
Also during 1997-1998 the economic development council was formed. This
group consists of the president, vice-presidents, and deans. This council adopted a web
like rather than hierarchical structure whereby program directors or community guests

131
may participate in meetings. The council defined itself as the entrepreneurial arm of the
college. The council adopted the job of environmental scanning for the college. It met
every month to prioritize opportunities for fiscal development, new programming for
credit and continuing education, and marketing strategies.
The split of the division of community and economic development into two was
an accommodation of the administrators. The director of corporate and community
relations/resource development, who reported to the president with a dotted line to the
vice president of community and economic development, became the vice president of
corporate services and workforce training. This enabled the vice president of community
and economic development to concentrate on the revenue streams that affect continuing
education programs. The vice president for corporate services and workforce training
could focus on increasing the revenue stream from corporate training. Another reason for
the change was the recognition that the different programs have different marketing
messages and activities, as well as competitive strategies. The values and needs of the
constituents for continuing education programs and corporate and workforce training are
very different (e.g., senior citizens vs. Texas Instruments). The training formats differ
(e.g., 3-6 weeks for corporate training vs. a 16 week semester for continuing education).
Corporate services and workforce training has a more aggressive marketing and pricing
structure. The vice president for community and economic development focused on
community relationship building and creating entrée for corporate services and
workforce training. The new structure decreases duplication of meeting attendance, such
as memberships in the local chamber of commerce and telecom corridor council.
Commensurate with the changes described above for 1997-98, the vice president
for student development and institutional effectiveness position was recast as vice

132
president for student development and some of the research and planning activities under
institutional effectiveness were transferred to the new vice president for institutional
advancement.
All of the structural changes were implemented to position the organization to
move quickly should an opportunity arise. The current structure was more efficient
because the vice presidents could focus on their revenue generating areas: corporate fees
for services, community fees for courses, government and private grants, enrollment
management, student support services and student learning for tuition and FTE
generation. College D has settled on a combination of centralized and unit-based (also
called division) authority and decision-making centers.
The reorganization of the foundation began in October 1997 with a change in the
leadership of both the 25-member board of directors of the foundation and the
professional staff. The new chair of the board and executive director agreed on a strategic
direction that required a change in structure as well as new skills and expertise. Before
the 1997 reorganization, the staffing of the foundation consisted of an executive director,
associate director, accountant, and secretary. The three support staff were direct reports
to the executive director. The executive director reported to the foundation board and the
district chancellor. By 1998 there were three new direct reports to the executive director:
director of finance, director of administration, director of communications. The new hires
were chosen for their area of expertise and none had prior higher education experience.
By 2000 the foundation had 8 staff members and was described by the executive director
as a “presentation machine.”

133
Changes in Management Activities of Administrators and Faculty Members
This section describes management activities to implement strategies for income
acquisition for each of the revenue sources. For College D administrators the obvious
place to start to acquire tuition and FTE funding was to create and implement strategies
to plan for enrollment and retention. One very effective practice begun in support of an
enrollment strategy was to give financial aid specialists the responsibility of training
academic advisors on how to help students attain financial aid. This practice helped to
maximize Pell grant funding which, both increased enrollment and retention, and, in turn,
boosted tuition and FTE. With 80% of College D’s students intending to transfer to a 4-
year institution, administrators were very cognizant of enrollment trends in strong and
weak economic cycles. “In a weak economy they stay longer, to get degrees. In a strong
economy they try to get it done on weekends because they are working more hours.”
In 1997-98 College D’s “American English and Cultural Institute” was founded
with a partnership with the University of Texas. Designed to draw F-l Visa students to
attend to learn American English and customs, the institute program was a boost to FTE
also. International students completing the program at College D may transfer to a 4-year
public school.
A third major approach to acquire revenue was to increase continuing education
programs and contract training. The two divisions of community and economic
development and corporate services and workforce training became “entrepreneurial
centers.” Operating under one function at the beginning of the study period, the two
divisions were reorganized to build target markets and increase profitability. The creation
of these entrepreneurial centers was a direct response to the $2.5 million College D lost

134
in JTPA grants in 1997. Income acquisition strategies were developed to sell new
services and seek corporate payment for training. This was deemed preferable to seeking
state workforce development grants to replace the JTPA revenue.
In building revenue for the college, these two divisions generated a net profit that
was transferred to the operating budget. The tuition and fees collected minus costs was
used as seed money, “it allowed us to be more creative. It [the funds transferred] helped
us to grow even with limited funding. Out of general operating fund I can get
supplemental funds for technology and staff [from this revenue].”
By 1999-2000 the entrepreneurial centers had contributed $2.5 million to the
operating budget and construction costs for a new student services building to be
completed in 2002. One floor of the new facility will house continuing education
computer labs. The community and economic development division has pledged to
subsidize the district funds for the new building. No private money will be raised through
the foundation for the construction of this new building.
The success of the entrepreneurial centers in acquiring revenue has been
attributed to a narrow and deep strategy. Fewer companies were sought for training sales
and the College contracted for a wide variety of training needs to gain a greater
percentage of each firm's workforce. Weekly monitoring of income resulted in a quick
intervention system when income did not meet projections. Other market niches were
sought. The Emeritus Program began in 1999. Designed to attract senior citizens to
nondegree courses, the Emeritus program is expected to be income producing by 2002.
With assistance from the district foundation, private grants were sought in 2000 for
symposia for the Emeritus Program.

135
A fourth approach was increasing revenue from grants. In addition to the annual
$2.5 million in JTPA contracts College D has had much success with Title III funds
gamering about $1 million per year. The community and economic development division
managed the Carl D. Perkins grants with the institutional advancement division providing
monitoring and evaluation. The college had been less assertive in seeking money from
the National Science Foundation. Through a collaborative effort with the Community
College Humanities Association, the college has received grant dollars from the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for training opportunities to infuse technology
into the teaching methodologies for humanities courses. A monograph on the use of the
NEH grant will be published through the corporate sponsorship of Frito-Lay.
Although the college attained a fourth U. S. Department of Education TRIO
program during the study period, assuring the continuance of the four Title III programs
(S.O.A.R., two Upward Bound programs, and Talent Search) have become more
competitive. The time spent by the vice president for student services on federal and state
grant management and budgeting increased by 30% during the period of the study. The
addition of the foundation scholarship program in 1999-2000 required the creation of a
case management system for the scholarship students. Just as the TRIO programs are
used for encouraging students to complete high school and move into post-secondary
education, the foundation scholarship program requires extensive support services
through the college case management approach.
College D used federal and state grants to build leverage for private grants and to
boost FTE numbers. For example, an Advancing Technology Education (ATE) grant
from the National Science Foundation was matched with a Microsoft/AACC Working
Connections grant. To give program directors freedom to manage grants while generating

136
contact hours for FTE funding College D administrators settled in the practice of
requesting money for tuition for a specific number of students in grant proposals for
program development. Before the period of the study they had listed staff and line items
amounts in grant proposals.
College D’s district foundation does not solicit public grant dollars for program
enhancement and the administrators see this as preferable. The administrators do not see
a value in funneling money through the foundation. They believe public granting
agencies do not see a value in a fund transfer. Considering the college’s strategy of
asking for grants for tuition for targeted groups of students it would dilute the merit of
this strategy by using the foundation as a fiscal agent.
College D developed programs across the continuing education and the credit
curricula. Some full-time faculty had a portion of their teaching load in both credit and
continuing education classes. This practice was developed during the period of the study
as a way to position the College for both corporate and private foundation grants.
A fifth approach was to gain competency in advancement activities for income
acquisition and management. This was achieved through the creation of an organizational
learning institute. The pressure points that indicated a need for professional training were
new legislation, new programs, new technology, and higher performance standards. A
cross-functional team of 20 college personnel followed organizational development and
learning organization theories to create the new system for faculty and staff development.
It functions to orient employees to the mission, vision, values, culture, and institutional
goals of the college as well as to provide professional development opportunities. The
new learning institute was linked to institutional goals and priorities with the vision of
building collective organizational competencies. New employees received an orientation

137
to college strategic goals. Budget proposal workshops were taught by the accounting
services unit. Workshops on writing grant proposals were offered in the fall before action
plans and budgets are submitted to the president’s council and the academic council. The
workshops on grant proposals are not yet part of the core courses offered by the institute.
College D’s sixth approach was a greater emphasis on external scanning and
marketing activities. Over the period of the study administrators increased the number of
community meetings they attended and the number of memberships they held in
community agencies. The president took a more visible role in fundraising by speaking
about College D’s model programs at national meetings. He met more frequently with
donors as requested by the district chancellor.
New sources of data from the Chamber of Commerce and labor market data from
partner agencies were found and used for external scanning. The community and
economic development division ceased creating their own marketing pieces. The
institutional advancement division in conjunction with the information services unit took
on the responsibility for creating and producing the continuing education marketing
pieces. College D did not have a college-wide marketing plan with written messages,
target audiences or objectives tied to a marketing budget.
The seventh approach was fundraising through the foundation. In 1997 College D
began integrating college and foundation planning. A district resource development
council was formed in 1998 with participation of the district college presidents and key
advancement administrators. “This changed how the foundation viewed itself and how
the colleges viewed the foundation.”
Foundation activities changed markedly. Before 1997 scholarships were offered
by donor preference, not necessarily by the needs of the community. It was a less active

138
foundation so individual colleges went after private money without a district-wide
coordinated effort. During 1997 the confluence of a newly elected chair of the foundation
and a newly hired executive director resulted in major changes in organization and the
strategy of the foundation. The changes in the configuration and numbers of staff are
described in the organizational structure section above.
In 1999 the two-year $2 million pilot of the $30 million scholarship program
began with 693 students in the district colleges. The scholarship program provides
$ 1,000 each year for tuition and books deposited to student accounts at the district
colleges. To identify potential candidates the foundation and colleges are reaching down
into the high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools to market the scholarships
and their criteria. Each college in the district has customized its retention and marketing
approach.
The scholarship program funds a degree or certificate program for county high
school graduates with at least a B average or passing grade on the state-required Texas
Academic Skills Program (TASP). Qualification for the Pell Grant, the Texas Grants
Program, or other financial assistance programs is detennined before students are
determined eligible for the district scholarship funds. If state or federal funds are
available the student's award status is transferred to those public funding sources. In the
plan to build the $30 million endowment for the program, the district ensured that all
dollars donated to the program are used for students. All administrative costs are covered
by the district except for the costs of administering the program on campus. College D
has no new money budgeted for new staff for counseling and case management for the
scholarship students. Case management services are required for retention and success of
first in family to attend college students. A human development course is part of the

139
services for scholarship participants. College found money for the counseling and case
management from the student services budget. Each of the colleges in the district has
created its own system for managing and funding the management of the district
scholarship program.
The executive director of the district foundation reported, “The scholarship
program gave us a calling card to speak with prospective donors, corporate givers, and
potential corporate contacts for training. Corporate leaders saw the remediation and
dropout rates in our schools and colleges and wanted to provide an incentive for change.
Our message is developing a qualified workforce and educated citizenry.”
The vice president for corporate and workforce training is a member of the
district resource development council. His participation gives the foundation executive
director access to information on prospective corporate donors. The executive director of
the foundation has been included in college planning meetings, social events, and copied
into presidential and administrative memos and information loops since 1997. This has
“helped ideas to move to the right pockets to make things happen.”
In 2000 the district foundation had yet to conduct its first capital campaign or
annual major donor campaign. The focus from 1997-2000 was on a high visibility for its
banner scholarship program. The foundation executive made an attempt to deliver
funding for an annual project to College D for 1998-2000. “Even though we are not yet
doing capital campaigns, I want to show the College that that the foundation is their
partner.”
College D administrators did not report gains in faculty and academic officers
responsibility for income acquisition and management. There was a trend toward greater

140
awareness of enrollment number and performance indicators as future predictors of
funding.
Community college performance-based funding is not in place in Texas. The
colleges report the following nine indicators to the state: (a) rate at which students
completed courses attempted, (b) number and types of degrees and certificates awarded,
(c) percentage of graduates who passed licensing exams related to the degree or
certificate awarded, (d) number of students or graduates who transfer to or are admitted
to a public university, (e) passing rates for students required to be tested under Section
51.306, (f) percentage of students enrolled who are academically disadvantaged, (g)
percentage of students enrolled who are economically disadvantaged, (h) racial and
ethnic composition of the district’s student body, and (i) percentage of student contact
hours taught by full-time faculty.
During the period of the study College D was preparing for these nine
performance-based funding indicators. College D’s president is pushing regular use of
these key performance indicators for early warning of trends. “For 5 years we have
known that it’s [performance-based funding] coming. We already justify things we do on
these nine indicators. It is becoming part of our decision making.” The practice of
administrators providing numbers on a monthly basis is starting to infuse down through
the organization. Financial aid staff and faculty members are beginning to look at income
and enrollment numbers every month.
11AM Continuum
College B has all of the key activities of advancement and they are coordinated.
The activities of the alumni affairs subfunction were described as minimal. All of the

141
elements of strategic management were documented. External scanning was enhanced as
described above. The elements of a strategic planning system were evident. Institutional
planning was tied to the budgeting process in 1998-1999.
External scanning was found at the institutional level and the departmental level
with infonnal meetings used to share the data. This informal approach was developed
from a self-study College D perfonned as part of its PACESETTER application. “We
made our vice president of community and economic development our outside person.
She comes to us [the administrators] and makes sure that we know what’s going on in the
community. Did you know that Alcatel is doing this?” The foundation executive director
echoed the belief that there was no need to do formal scanning. “We get our scanning
from 50 ‘who’s who’ of the district on the boards of the colleges and the foundation
board. We already have the players, CEOs, and civic leaders.”
The integrated human resources/student services/financial services system,
Colleague, was implemented in 1999. This management software was used to enter unit
objectives into the system. Each department’s objectives within the advancement
function are tied to College D’s mission. The system allows the College to generate key
performance indicator data. The planning system had ties to College D’s budgeting cycle.
As a planning tool, Colleague was used in conjunction with a program review
system to score every program annually. The assistant dean of institutional research and
the vice president for student learning in particular, use these scores in planning.
Attention to a shared understanding of the college mission was very high. In addition to
interview and document data, the researcher also observed new employees reciting the
college mission at orientation, administrators discussing the mission at regular meetings,

142
and printing of the mission on every door to every building on the campus. “The mission
of [College D] is teaching, learning, community building.”
In 1998 College D published its five strategic planning priorities for student
learning developed for the period 1999-2004. They are (a) response to community, (b)
student success, (c) employee success, (d) technology, and (e) institutional effectiveness.
The president and administrators showed a shared understanding of the obvious as well
as subtle connections of the priorities to income acquisition strategies. The first two
priorities have action plans that will result in recruiting and retaining more students,
hence more funding for contact hours. The third priority of employee success reflects the
intent to reduce turnover. With the help of the learning institute retention is expected to
increase. College D administrators also expect to gain organizational knowledge in
human resource best practice that can be shared with corporate clients in contract
training. The technology priority is a response to the competition with other higher
education institutions for best equipment and curriculum development. Using grants that
position College D to be a mentor to other colleges in IT curriculum development has
leveraged other grant dollars. The institutional effectiveness priority pushed the college
community to become more data driven as the integration of planning, budgeting, and
performance results are considered.
Faculty members have become more inclined to consider the numbers and ask
questions like, "1 lost eight students in my program but other programs in the college did
not. Why did this happen?” The five strategic priorities have become a strong influence
over management activities. Administrators now ask, “under which priority does this
advancement initiative fit?”

143
Evaluation of progress on the performance indicators and the five strategic
priorities was also seen in fiscal year 1999-2000 documents for Southern Association of
the States accreditation and Continuous Quality Improvement projects. There was a
strong emphasis on tracking and improving retention during that year. College D won a
grant from the Kellogg Foundation to implement findings of its study to benchmark
curriculum development and teaching practices with its developmental studies math and
ESOL programs.
College D recognized employees whose efforts to institutionalize changes in the
income acquisition and management system were exceptional. The most public award is
the “employee of the month.” On the last Tuesday of every month a parade of
administrators and faculty members brandishing flags and swords wander around campus
to the sound of marching music. The parade descends upon the honored employee. If the
awardee is teaching class the president gives the proclamation in front of the students.
Gifts such as movie passes, a universal parking permit, plants from the horticulture
program, and a college mug are presented. A photo of the employee of the month is
placed in the college newsletter. An employee may only receive this honor once.
The innovator of the year is for faculty members. The honoree receives
recognition at the annual convocation with a formal plaques and a humorous video
relating to their contribution. The faculty member of the year is granted the honor of
giving the graduation speech. Other recognition events include a thank you board in the
administration building and regular notes of thanks published in the college newsletter.
After each registration period the registrar’s staff receive special gifts, snacks and thanks
for their heightened efforts. The foundation staff devised a reward system for the district
college employees that have used the foundation private dollars in exemplary ways.

144
College B began at Stage III of the IIAM Continuum Model in fiscal year 1996
and moved to Stage IV by 2000. College B experienced greater integration of its income
acquisition and management system. Organizational effectiveness was enhanced by this
greater integration. In creating management practice to increase its capacity to acquire
income College D used systems thinking. Thinking comprehensively allowed senior
administrators to see whether obstacles were new or part of another systemic problem.
The obstacle to moving to Stage V was the lack of a marketing plan within the
income acquisition and management system. This may be an impediment to advancement
initiatives, profit making for corporate training, and a strong, positive institutional image
with some target audiences. It may also be an impediment to mutual understanding
among all college units regarding centralized messages and identified target audiences.
Conclusions
One principle of effective strategic management is consistency of purpose.
College D's advancement initiatives were tied to strategic initiatives allied with its
mission. College D managed change in its income acquisition and management system to
create greater integration by using the 8 best practices described in Chapter 2, pp.45-46.
The study found that organizational structure was changed to match management
capability. Functional and operating strategies for advancement were coordinated.
Objectives and performance standards were made public and agreed upon at the
departmental level for all of the key advancement activities except marketing, corporate
relations, and government relations. Organizational learning principles were adopted. A
reward structure was created. Each of these actions stimulated and supported the others.

145
As mentioned above, College D’s strategic plan lacked a written marketing
analysis component. A competitive analysis was not written and distributed for college
personnel to anticipate community needs. With a divisional structure and decentralized
responsibility for marketing the only way to ensure that all administrators can know the
results expected, who is responsible, and how marketing activities for each unit support
advancement initiatives is to put the marketing plan in writing. This is not to say that
individual units did not use targeted marketing. In particular, the corporate services and
workforce development training division used web content, e-mail, and free samples to
sell training to targeted government agencies, nonprofit agencies, and corporations.
If an integrated marketing plan is created unit directors indicated that they would
like to have simple tools to assist in its implementation. They would like a college fact
sheet or pocket profile with basic information that students, faculty, administrators can
use as a marketing piece. An annual report with financial information, information
related to college performance, and an integrated college marketing message would be a
helpful tool for fundraising, resource development, image building, and alumni outreach.
A decrease in state appropriation as a percentage of the operating budget and loss
of a state grant drove College D to integrate its income acquisition and management
system. A strategic planning system was created that allowed for transparency of
management. “We are now seeing each other’s departmental and divisional plans. It used
to be that just the president saw them.” College D’s president still has the big job of
integrating the systems and plans but now administrators and faculty are aware of how
they can support integration of income acquisition and management.

146
Summary
This chapter reported the changes in sources of income as a percentage of the
operating budget for all four colleges. It described the strategies for income acquisition
and management for each of the fund sources. It answered research questions 1 through
4. Chapter 5 is the comparative case conclusions.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Comparative Case Conclusions
The problem that prompted this study is the need for a description of how (a)
organizational structure, (b) administrative management activities, and (c) faculty
management activities have changed in community colleges in response to the decrease
in proportional funding by the state government of college operations. The purpose is to
identify the qualitative elements of the change process and their perceived impact upon
the organizational structure and management activities at four institutions. Income
acquisition and management systems were compared at four community colleges. The
institutional systems were placed at a stage along the Integrated Income Acquisition and
Management (HAM) Continuum. The change process at the four colleges is described in
regard to altered management activities and organizational structure within the income
acquisition and management system and the advancement function.
Chapter 5 presents a comparative case analysis of the case studies in Chapter 4.
The HAM Continuum is modified. Using the methodology described in Chapter 3, the
emergent themes are presented to describe the responses to changes in funding in the four
community colleges. The findings for each of the four research questions are presented
with examples from the college cases. Findings are described as consistent or
inconsistent with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.

148
Research Question 1
How has organizational structure changed? All four colleges had changes in the
organizational structure of their senior management and the key activities of the
advancement function in response to the change in proportional funding of college
operations by the state government. The change in governmental funding was seen as a
precipitator of organizational change.
At each of the four institutions studied, the president’s role in fund raising and
resource development grew to include much greater involvement with relationship
building, fundraising planning, resource development planning, and image building. The
president is seen as responsible for creating the context for the changes in the income
acquisition and management systems, building the commitment for advancement
initiatives and income acquisition initiatives, and achieving a balance between current
management performance and desired changes in the income acquisition and
management systems. A key theme was the president as the ultimate integrator. The
presidents described themselves as becoming less controlling over the 5-year period.
They moved to a greater focus on monitoring. The senior administrators concurred that
each president’s focus has changed to a greater emphasis on performance indicators.
The organizational structure of the four colleges was changed to further the
integration of the key advancement activities. The process of changing the organizational
structure followed three themes. The themes are decentralization, integration of
foundation and institutional planning, and commitment of resources to advancement.
The theme of decentralization
In moving away from a more hierarchical structure, the intent of the
administrators was to move away from a structure that was designed to maintain a

149
system, a process, or a routine way of doing things to manage for stability. In the quest to
manage for change, the four colleges made efforts to build decision makers at all levels
during the period studied. Senior administrators in three of the four colleges expressed
the need to develop organizational structures that could support more nimble strategies
and speed in response to market changes.
To function well, decentralization of the advancement units requires awareness of
the larger income acquisition and management system in which administrators, faculty,
and staff operate and plan. Also required is a sense of one’s responsibility to this larger
system. In all four schools the formal structure was changed to decentralize decision¬
making and control of the key advancement activities. For example, with the inception of
contract training to business and industry as a profit center, the four schools decentralized
corporate relations and marketing activities. In order to encourage faculty participation in
grant writing and management. College A, B, and D decentralized resource development
activities often using project-based teams. Some advancement activities were kept in
close rein by the president. College A's director of alumni affairs/annual campaign
became a direct report to the president. Both College B's and College C's foundation
directors became staff reports to the president. College D's head of public relations was
given a reporting relationship to the president. These preferred presidential staff positions
correspond to Underwood and Hammond's (1999) findings.
The community colleges in the study have organizational charts that portray
graphically the relative status of each administrative position; however, many exceptions
were made for fundraising, resource development, and revenue generation operations
where the president was comfortable with a team approach rather than a hierarchical one.
In all cases, administrative councils were designed to make decisions about advancement

150
goals and strategies. With such names as the president’s council, the college council, the
economic development council, the planning council, the presence of these groups is an
organizational approach to integration. Although the councils do not have managerial
lines of authority they are policy-making and advisory groups used to share power. Over
the period of the study, the senior management of the colleges became less concerned
with individual ownership of ideas. One vice-president said that during the council
meetings, “We put the idea on the table and we try to shoot it down [to see how good it
is.]”
Decentralization is an organizational approach to better communicate
organizational knowledge. The college administrators in the study attempted to change
organizational structure if it obstructed horizontal and vertical communication of
knowledge about income acquisition and management. During the period of the case
studies, the colleges used similar approaches to communicate how parts of the system
relate. The use of intranet, formal and informal communication loops, newly evolved
councils, and, in two colleges, software designed for linking planning and budgeting
were instituted. These approaches also assisted the colleges in determining the causes of
income acquisition and management problems in different parts of the system from
where the symptoms emerged especially in grant management. The councils described
under this theme are an avenue for discovering obstructions and their causes and
proscribing fixes, even though their power and authority are not reflected on the
organizational chart. They are evidence of the lessening of boundaries around
information. All four colleges found that decentralization and tools of information
technology resulted in more information access and increased sharing of errors as well as
successes. Speed of infonnation sharing increased for grant management, organizational

151
learning of advancement competencies, external scanning, and frequent monitoring of
costs and income for early intervention.
Conversely, without written objectives and plans for three of the key
advancement activities, the colleges perceived barriers to information access and sharing
of interdependent objectives for income acquisition and management. The four colleges
in the study reported that they did not have written plans for the key advancement
activities of marketing, communications, and government relations. In spite of the
multiple indicators of new forms of organizing of structure, process, and lessening of
boundaries to create more flexibility, capacity for knowledge creation, and collaboration
seen in all four cases, the lack of written plans for these key advancement activities was
described as a stumbling block.
Structure was decentralized in all cases. Some colleges formally adopted project
forms of organizing where the structure was built around team members’ strengths to
implement particular strategies. This was especially adopted for corporate sponsored
training and the administrative councils. Process changes were seen in the creation of
new relationships and interdependencies with departments and advancement staff where
communication channels were opened. The communication patterns and
interdependencies of administrators involved w ith income acquisition and management
became web like. Each of the four colleges invested heavily in information technology
infrastructure for the Internet, a college intranet, and in two cases, online planning
software. All of the colleges conducted capital campaigns or construction bond
campaigns during the period of the study. These approaches follow Phair and King’s
(1998) restructuring argument that current restructuring in community colleges is due to
(a) the ascendancy of marketing, (b) the growing role and impact of technology, and (c)

152
the necessity of capital campaigns. Boundaries within college departments and with
external audiences were decreased by the development of strategic alliances with other
advancement departments or external competitors. Each of the advancement functions
became more focused although not all had written plans.
The theme of foundation planning integrated with institutional planning
All colleges moved to a greater integration of foundation planning and
institutional planning. The president of College A was made a permanent member of the
foundation’s executive committee and the foundation executive director joined the
institutional planning committee to ensure a match between fundraising initiatives and
institutional priorities. At College B the first strategic plan for the foundation was
integrated with the college plan in 1996, and the foundation mission and priorities
became aligned with the college’s annual planning statements. At College C the
foundation director became a member of the college council, institutional effectiveness
committee, and a participant in budget hearings. College D’s district foundation was
restructured in 1997 with completely new board members and staff to meet the skills and
competencies of its new strategic direction. The College D foundation director is a direct
report to the district chancellor and is included in College D's planning meetings and
copied into presidential and senior management memos and information loops.
The theme of resource commitment to advancement
All four colleges showed a willingness on the part of administrators to commit
staff and budget resources to institutional fundraising and resource development goals
during the period of the study. As more dollars were spent on fundraising and resource
development activities, line as well as staff administrative positions were added to
advancement units’ budgets. College A’s foundation increased the number of donor

153
recognition and alumni events, added three new positions, and assumed the costs for
donor research, a planned giving initiative, and its first capital campaign all funded with
private dollars in the foundation operating budget. It is the only community college in
New York State that does not use state funding for foundation salaries and expenses. The
director of institutional research slot, vacant for two years at College A due to financial
constraints, was filled in 1998. College B’s foundation added a development specialist in
9
1998 to augment the coordination of special events, alumni relations, and the
management of technology grants and scholarships. The advancement department has
taken on support services of annual campaign printing and publications and some
planning for foundation special events. After a fallow period, College C’s foundation
hired a director in 1996. College D added three new direct reports to the foundation
executive director in 1998 and another position in 1999 to augment communications and
marketing activities.
Community college administrators have discretion over designing and
coordinating organizational structure and management activities. These decisions about
design to carry out advancement activities have an impact on the effectiveness of the
organization. As the importance and influence of private support in the life of higher
education have expanded, so too have the structures that obtain and manage these dollars.
The college administrators in this study designed organizational structures to implement
income acquisition and management strategies. The need to fit structure to strategy is
well accepted (Jackson & Glass, 2000; Knight Higher Education Collaborative, 2000;
Thompson & Strickland, 2001; Tromble, 1998). The density of this fit requires attempts
at centralizing strategy and decentralizing operations (Baker, 1998; Bimbaum, 2001;

154
Howell, 2000; Peterson et al., 1997; Pettigrew & Fenton, 2000; Schmidtlein & Milton,
1990; Tierney, 1998).
Research Question 2
How have the management activities of administrators changed? The literature
review in Chapter 2 of this study put forth the view that the strategic management of the
advancement function toward income acquisition and management is as essential as the
strategic management of any other college function. The presidents in the four colleges in
this study have come to this awareness. The presidents vastly increased their roles and
time spent on fundraising and resource development in response to the change in
proportional funding by the state government of college operations. As mentioned in the
question 1 findings above, College A’s president became a permanent member of the
foundation executive committee and has taken on the public role of chief fund raiser. By
the last year of the study. College B’s president was spending 25% of his time on
foundation initiatives between planning and monitoring of capital campaigns, visiting
with major donors, closing deals on large gifts, and speaking engagements delivering
messages about support of the college through the foundation. College C’s president
began to meet with prospects and donors on a regular basis as well as host regular events
for the planned giving initiative. College D’s president has taken a visible national role in
promoting the college’s model programs that has resulted in grant funding for the college
and multi-college projects.
Every one of the four foundations was restructured and changed the purpose and
direction of the foundation to create emphases on new development activities, such as
prospect research, recognition, alumni events, planned giving, and grants from specific

155
organizations. The purpose of College A’s foundation shifted from supporting indigent
students to supporting the maintenance of quality programs and funding specific projects.
The purpose of College B’s foundation is less focused on management of student
residence facilities. Now raising money for excellence is paramount through
scholarships, endowed chairs, instructional equipment, faculty development, special
projects and capital campaigns. College C’s foundation has moved from a single focus on
scholarships to include new activities to leverage private dollars for new programs,
covering cost differentials between programs, and picking up the check for cuts in state
funding for lab equipment, computers, and library resources. College D’s foundation
changed strategic direction to initiate a $30 million scholarship campaign tied to dropout
prevention.
The colleges spent more dollars on fundraising and resource development. They
hired more advancement staff and increased the interaction between administrators who
have responsibility for acquiring government sponsored grants and private dollars. The
management activities of the four colleges changed to facilitate the integration of the key
advancement activities within the themes of integrated planning, transparency of
management, linking planning and budgeting, and strategic cycles. Greater integration of
advancement activities is required to compete and win program grants attached to
institutional priorities than is required to raise money for individual student scholarships.
The theme of integrated planning
As mentioned previously in the findings for Question 1, each of the four
foundations’ planning activities became more integrated with college planning. Structure
was decentralized and communication barriers were lessened. College wide councils and

156
project-based teams were created. College administrators attained greater understanding
of other advancement units’ responsibilities, goals, and strategies. At College A
standardized forms were created for advancement activities. This fostered greater
communication and attention to the thought process of how grant proposals may impact
other departments and college priorities. College B used project-based teams to write
grant proposals and push resource development into all the layers of the institution while
placing work plans online. College C placed all units’ work plans online along with their
operating costs. Projects funded by the foundation are regularly reported online. College
D founded an organizational learning institute to orient employees to the goals and
priorities of the college and to build collective organizational competencies.
College D’s approach to integration by focusing on the use of core competencies
requires defining the required competencies in each unit. Administrators cannot make use
of their colleagues’ core competencies if they are not aware of them. Evidence of the
other three colleges focusing on core competencies for the advancement function was not
reported, observed, or found in document search.
The theme of transparency of management
Transparency of income acquisition and management objectives along with the
priorities of the institution increased. Administrators, faculty, and staff came to consider
the objectives and priorities as common knowledge as a result of the presidents’
increased focus on performance indicators driven by state public policy. College A
responded to categorical funding cuts and drops in enrollment and the need for stronger
advancement capabilities with earlier forecasting data, college wide prioritization
processes for spending, and standards for reporting and accountability for evaluation of
grant projects. At College B planning reports became more accessible and vice-

157
presidents and grants and contracts specialists gained technical expertise and the
responsibility of consulting with faculty and staff in the technical aspects of grants. At
College C making the case for construction bonds led to greater internal and external
scanning, while the foundation executive worked with all units to identify individual and
corporate donor prospects. College D identified pressure points in the learning systems
and income acquisition and management systems and offered orientation and training for
all employees through the new organizational learning institute. Increased data bases,
sharing of reporting, planning, and implementation data were described by the
administrators responsible for the institutional research function. These new practices
and changes in managerial systems assisted the college community in understanding the
reasons for advancement initiatives.
The theme of linkimz planning and buduetinu
As stated above, transparency of planning objectives and institutional priorities
increased in the colleges studied. However, in all cases the financial knowledge of the
institution was less known. The college administrators expressed the need for linking the
institutional planning and budgeting processes. Academic priorities lead the budget
process in these schools, and budgets are used to inform units about resource availability,
new directions, shifts in allocations, and problems. In working toward tying planning to
the budget, College A implemented a cost analysis system to assist administrators in
having more lead time to adjust to unanticipated fluctuations in revenue particularly in
the contract training and workforce development units. College A’s governance system
has shifted to support the use of the college’s executive council for quick approval of
priority items outside of the formal budget process. College B was in the midst of linking
budgeting and planning through its online planning software. College C put the

158
foundation executive on the institutional effectiveness committee and budgeting
committee. College C’s online planning software gives administrators access to planning
cycle documents and operating costs. In 1999 College D began using an integrated
human resources/student services/financial services management and planning software
program. It gives key performance indicator data.
The theme of strategic cycles
Strategy cycles for all of the colleges in the study have shortened as a result of
public policy and external events. Proficient strategy implementation is the result of
much organizational learning. As strategy cycles for income acquisition and management
shorten, colleges need an organizational knowledge of different strategies for each of the
income sources, e.g., strategies to acquire funding for the fixed costs of buildings,
equipment, and personnel; strategies to acquire dollars for technology; strategies to
acquire funding for degree programs; and strategies to acquire funding for transitory
programming in continuing education, workforce development, and contract training.
College A’s strategies for income acquisition may be grouped into three
categories. The first set of strategies, “generating increased tuition revenue,” was
dependent upon the increased competencies and activity of the marketing function of the
college. Increasing enrollment of international students, dual enrollment students,
distance-learning students, and out-of-state students as well as increasing nonsponsor
county chargebacks required a ramping up of marketing activities. Maintaining a range
of 21% to 39% of the county’s yield of high school graduates while competing with other
colleges required more frequent marketing initiatives. Selling customized contract
training to business and industry at a profit while selling joint ventures with online
training companies and other organizations required new sources of marketing data and

159
new corporate relations activities. The second set of strategies, “advancement
initiatives,” was dependent upon increased competencies and activities of resource
development and government relations for public agency, state consortia, and federal
block grants and member item funding. The foundation initiatives were dependent upon
increased competencies and activities in marketing and corporate relations for grants
from private foundations and gifts from individuals for capital campaigns and lab and
equipment costs not covered by state programs for applied science certification
programs. The third set of strategies, “new fees,” saw greatest success with the
technology fees.
College B's strategies for income acquisition are grouped into the categories of
“image building,” “advancement initiatives,” and “partnerships.” The image building
strategies were dependent upon increased reliance on marketing competencies. The
activities to support image building were (a) outsourcing sophisticated activities and
materials for capital campaigns and (b) adding the cost of the development and
implementation of marketing activities for new programs into the grant proposals for the
programs. The second set of strategies, "advancement initiatives," was dependent upon
increased competencies in resource development, foundation fund raising, and corporate
relations to support (a) capital campaigns and participation in the state match program,
(b) department budgets through endowed chairs, (c) dual enrollment programs, (d)
growth in technology infrastructure, (e) purchase of instructional equipment, (f) facilities
maintenance, (g) scholarships, and (h) faculty and staff development. The activities to
support the advancement initiatives included land purchases for reimbursement by the
state and a capital campaign for an entrepreneurial center for contract training. The third
set of strategies, “partnerships,” required reliance on the government relations and

160
corporate relations activities for the creation of joint use facilities with a neighboring
university and county library.
College C’s strategies for income acquisition are grouped into three categories.
The set “image building” was dependent upon increased competencies in marketing,
government relations, and corporate relations to succeed in passing three campaigns for
$100 million in bond referendums for new buildings, to aggressively recruit to attain high
FTE numbers for state funding, and to increase profit revenue from corporate training. To
implement the image building strategies, the college set an institutional goal of writing
and publishing a marketing plan. The strategies in the set “advancement initiatives” also
required greater competencies and activity in the marketing and corporate relations
functions. Activities included the raising of private dollars as leverage for starting new
programs that would generate FTE (hence generate state funding) and the raising of
private dollars for lab and other instructional equipment purchases. For the fundraising
activities, the foundation required more assistance from other units for marketing and
corporate relations activities. The “revenue from training” strategy added the activities of
selling customized contract training and an entrepreneurial center. The occupational
extension directorate became an incubator for vocational courses that would generate
FTE formula funding.
College D’s strategies for income acquisition are grouped into the three
categories of “target marketing,” “advancement initiatives,” and “revenue from training.”
The targets and marketing activities included recruiting transfer students for FTE funding
and tuition, recruiting older adults for continuing education course fees, and selling
corporate training to Fortune 100 companies. Using more sophisticated environmental
scanning and collection of marketing data were activities in this strategy set. The second

161
set relied on the resource development activities of using public grants to leverage
private dollars for programs with the best practice of justifying program expenses with
student tuition costs, not line item budgets. The newly created organizational learning
institute offered workshops on grant proposal writing. The foundation raised private
dollars for scholarships for at-risk students to promote college aspiration. “Revenue from
training” included the activity of selling customized corporate training to support the
college operating budget.
The findings for Question 2 give empirical evidence of some best practice in
strategic management for higher education described in the literature review in
Chapter 2. Managerial judgment and action were used to implement strategies to align
the institutional income acquisition activities with the funding environment and
institutional mission and goals. These practices served to increase the integration of the
colleges’ income acquisition and management systems and are evidence of support for
the theoretical bases for the HAM Continuum.
Research Question 3
How have the management activities of faculty changed? The analysis of data
from interviews with senior administrators and advancement officers at the colleges
found that a greater percentage of faculty members at each of the schools participated in
identifying grant and individual donor prospects, writing grant proposals, and managing
grant activities at the end of the study period. The management activities of faculty
changed following the themes of expanded development responsibility and infonnation
sharing.

162
The theme of expanded development responsibility
Emphasis on resource development and external relations is becoming a larger
part of academic vice-presidents’ and deans’ portfolios. Training in orientation to
advancement and technical aspects of proposal writing is becoming more available in the
four schools to strengthen interest and participation among faculty members.
After a task analysis, vice-presidents for academic afifairs/instruction/leaming
reported that they are spending more time on grant management. At College A the time
spent on grant management and proposal writing by the academic vice-president doubled
to 6 weeks per year over the 5-year period of the study. In addition to the increased
number of grants sought, the management activities of statistical reporting, accountability
reporting, and evaluation reporting of grant projects are more widely required by grant
makers than in the past.
At an average of 4 hours per week spent on grant management, the chief
academic administrator at College B used about same amount of time as his counterpart
in College A—6 weeks per year. College B’s vice-president for academic affairs
managed grants for professional development, curriculum development, equipment
acquisition, supplemental pay for instructors, and start up costs for new programs.
During the 5 years of the study, more grants from private sources have become his
management responsibility. His favorite project was begun in the period of the study. He
led the grant proposal process and grant management of Department of Education
funding for infrastructure and curriculum development for local scientists to work with
College B’s instructors and K-12 teachers to create peer-led teaching teams. College B’s
chief academic officer worked very closely with the associate vice-president for planning
and program development and the grant specialist in that division to educate faculty

163
about how to leverage private matching dollars with public grants. In the last year of the
study, they identified their challenge of motivating faculty to apply for grants to support
institutional priorities, especially applied science programs with high-demand, well
paying job opportunities.
The resource development activities of College C are the responsibility of the
foundation staff. Some grants management responsibility is coordinated by the dean of
vocational/technical education under the vice-president for instruction. All grant
proposals, public and private, are coordinated through the foundation executive director.
The president’s endorsement is required for each proposal. Although the vice-president
of instruction did not write grant proposals, the time he spent on grant management
increased by 400% from 1996 to 2000. With the addition of 14 new programs in
the 5 years of the study, the management activities of reviewing grant proposals for
alignment to college mission and of evaluating grant expenditures took as much of the
vice-president’s time as scheduling rooms for instruction.
At College D the dean of institutional advancement oversees grant proposals and
management of all public and private grants. He also writes many of the proposals. The
district foundation does not solicit public grant dollars for program enhancement. From
1996 to 2000 College D’s vice-president for student services doubled the time he spent
managing federal and state grants. During 1999 and 2000 he took on the responsibilities
of the case management system for the student services of the foundation’s ambitious
$30 million scholarship program.
Growth in number of faculty involved in identifying individuals as donor
prospects and grant prospects, writing grant proposals, and managing grants. At College
A, annual institutional goals included increasing grant proposal output from academic

164
program faculty. With the increased efforts of foundation and sponsored grants staff to
raise awareness of the availability of public and private grant dollars and the adoption of
a standardized form. 20 of the 160 full-time faculty members were recruited and have
written grant proposals during the 5 years of the study. Most of the faculty members new
to proposal writing were especially interested in strengthening the college’s service
learning program. To develop the advancement skills of the proposal writers scattered
across divisions and departments, College A administrators have encouraged committee
work and the formation of a teaching and learning center to offer training in technical
competencies.
College B faculty became more involved with grant proposal writing from 1996
to 2000. Their advocacy of and participation in advancement was sparked by an endowed
chair initiative. After the institution of an annual ceremony for the recipients of the
endowed chairs, faculty member advancement activity spiked. Faculty members gave
many prospect names to the foundation staff to be solicited for $100,000 endowed chair
gifts that could be used for curriculum development. Faculty referred annual campaign
donors to the foundation to pledge planned gifts. The number of faculty grant proposals
for the enhancement of high-tech programs increased.
College C’s mini-grant program for professional development receives dollars
from the campus annual campaign. The average mini-grant is $1,000 and requires a two-
page application. In 1996, 5% of faculty members wrote mini-grant applications. By
1997 the percentage had doubled. By 2000 20% of faculty members wrote applications
and implemented mini-grants.

165
At College D, the program directors work with the dean of institutional
advancement on proposals for program grants. No data was given on faculty
involvement.
The theme of information sharing
More sharing of advancement resources and infonnation and more training for
faculty in resource development occurred. Administrators and faculty identified a need
for training systems that supported institutional memory and learning organization
concepts while faculty were gaining expertise in grant proposal prospecting, writing and
management and tying grant activities with institutional strategic planning. College A
achieved greater cohesiveness in faculty and foundation teamwork by using committees.
Throughout the period of the study it has been the practice of College B’s vice-
presidents for academic affaire, associate vice-president for planning and program
development, deans, and faculty as well as grant specialists to serve as readers for
organizations making grant proposals in order to become more proficient in writing
winning proposals. Faculty members view the associate vice-president and his staff as
consultants in the prospect, writing, and evaluation aspects of grant management. During
the 5 years of the study, the vice-president for academic affairs and the associate vice-
president regularly recognize deans and faculty members who have written proposals and
managed grants. College C foundation director gives workshops on applying for mini¬
grants.
College D’s dean of institutional advancement, along with several vice-
presidents, sits on the resource development council fonned in 1998. The organizational
learning institute began to offer workshops on writing grant proposals in 2000. The
workshops are offered in the fall before action plans and budgets are submitted to the

166
college councils. Beginning in 1998, the dean of institutional advancement spearheads
the efforts to assist program directors in College D’s strategy of asking for tuition for
targeted groups of students in all grant proposals for program development. This practice
frees the directors from the ties of line item budgeting while generating contact hour for
FTE funding. The dean also assists program directors in finding ways to use public grants
to leverage private matching dollars.
The new activities documented under these themes are approaches to change the
standards of dean, program director, and faculty involvement and to gauge the
understanding among faculty and staff of the college financial position and indicators of
institutional effectiveness/performance. The comparative case study findings support the
literature in Chapter 2 and, in particular, Matsoukas’ (1996) research finding that a
successful community college grant office should be integrated with college planning
and management with faculty and staff participation. Resource development is not an
ancillary service.
This study supports Miller and Seagren’s (1997) research suggesting that (a)
community college department heads and faculty have become more open to an
expanded role in resource development tasks and planning because of an increased
awareness and understanding on their part of community college income acquisition and
management challenges and (b) there is a need for an aggressive professional
development programs to provide applied training in resource development for faculty
and staff. The academic vice-presidents, deans, and faculty in the four colleges in this
study became more aware of the need for new income acquisition and management
strategies as their colleges experienced a decrease in proportional funding by state
government for college operations with increased revenue from student tuition and fees,

167
government grants, contracts, and advancement initiatives supplanting the decreased
proportion of state funds.
Research Question 4
Where do the colleges systems stand on a continuum from a disaggregated system
of income acquisition and management to a totally integrated system? Have they moved
left or right along the continuum during the bounded instance of the study? Movement to
more integration was experienced by all four of the colleges during the bounded instance
of the study. In 1996 all four colleges had every one of the key activities associated with
the advancement function (albeit some described by administrators as weak) and some
were coordinated. All four colleges began at Stage III of the IIAM Continuum in the first
year of the 5-year study. By 2000 all four of the colleges showed greater presidential
support of the advancement function, especially fundraising; but College A fell short of
showing a strategic management system as illustrated in Figure 2-1. All four of the
colleges created stronger links between planning, budgeting, and financial management
of their institutions. Organizational effectiveness was enhanced by this greater
integration. College B, College C, and College D had a strategic management system and
some elements of Stage V but, without written plans, lacked some interdependencies and
mutual understanding of the advancement activities and objectives. A strategic
management system provides the context defining the college’s goals and objectives.
Yes, the colleges experienced enormous integration. When the funding pattern
changed, the organizational structure and management activities changed to create
greater integration of the advancement function. It is being done and it can be done. If a

168
college has not integrated its income acquisition and management system and wishes to,
the experiences of these colleges provide a road map on how to move to a more
integrated stage. The 8 steps recommended from this study are
1. Establish a foundation.
2. Integrate foundation planning with college planning.
3. Integrate foundation activities with other advancement function activities.
4. Scan the environment.
5. Write mission plans, goals, and objectives for the key advancement activities.
Include an integrated marketing plan.
6. Develop skills/competencies/capabilities to support the goals of the plan, e.g.,
training in resource development or writing plans for marketing, communications,
or government relations.
7. Use a strategic management system to centralize strategies of income acquisition
and management while decentralizing operations.
8. Use the president or a leadership team headed by the president to champion
integration of income acquisition and management.
Modifications to HAM Continuum Theory
As explained in Chapters 2 and 3, comparative case studies can suggest what to
do or what not to do in a particular situation. They can examine a specific instance while
illuminating a general problem. Comparative case studies can test theory.
Following the methodology of the comparative case study, modifications to the
HAM Continuum are indicated by the comparative analysis. In all four cases it was found
that the key activities associated with advancement were not organized under one
administrator’s authority or control. Setting institutional goals and strategy for the key
advancement activities and evaluating effectiveness was a responsibility of college
councils. This is clearly seen in College D’s economic development council which sets

169
marketing and communications priorities with college-wide input and input from the
foundation executive director. This comparative case study found that in all of the
colleges there existed a council of senior management with input from the total
institution that functioned as a fonnal strategic and operational management (and
therefore controlling) decision-making body not reflected on the organizational charts of
the four colleges. These councils had oversight of advancement activities. As in the sixth
factor described in the literature review (Chapter 2), these horizontal structures had
become more formalized to integrate and sustain changes in the income acquisition and
management systems of the colleges. Organizational structure is a device to instruct
organizational members about how to act to reach organizational goals and structure is
more than what can be written down about how things are supposed to work. “People are
extraordinarily clever at circumventing any structure to accomplish what they prefer”
(Cohen, 2000, p. 179).
Therefore evidence b of Stages IV and V of the 1IAM Continuum is modified to
state, “all directors of the key activities report to an administrator who oversees, or an
institutional council that oversees, all of the advancement activities and the president
provides top level support for the advancement function.” Table 5-1 is the modified
IIAM Continuum. Table 5-2 compares the movement of the colleges on the IIAM
Continuum during the period of the study.
In consideration of alternative theories to the IIAM Continuum as a model, a
limitation of this study may be that the four schools in this study are not indicative of the
majority of community colleges. College A’s income acquisition and management
system, the least integrated of the four, is a very high functioning institution and is very
far along the continuum at Stage HI. Aggregating the income acquisition and

170
Table 5-1. IIAM Continuum
(Stage I Disaggregated)— —
(More Aggregated Stage V)
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
Stage IV
Stage V
College has some
College has
College has
College has all of the
College has all of the
of the key
all of the key
all of the key
key activities
key activities associated
activities
activities
activities
associated with the
with the advancement
associated with the
associated
associated
advancement function
function and they are all
advancement
with the
with the
and they are all are
are integrated as
function and they
advancement
advancement
integrated as
evidenced by
are not coordinated
function and
function and
evidenced by
a) institutional strategic
they are not
some are
a) institutional
management system*
Marketing y/n
coordinated
coordinated
strategic management
b) all directors of the
system*
key activities report to
Institutional
b) all directors of the
an administrator who
Research y/n
key activities report
oversees, or an
to an administrator
institutional council that
Media Relations
who oversees, oran
oversees, all of the
y/n
institutional council
advancement activities
that oversees, all of
and the president
Community
the advancement
provides top level
Affairs y/n
activities and the
support for the
president provides top
advancement function
Corporate
level support for the
c) key activities are
Relations y/n
advancement function
interdependent and
c) key activities are
administrators share and
Government
interdependent and
use strategic
Relations y/n
administrators share
management
and use strategic
information from the
Resource
management
other key activities'
Development
information from the
systems
y/n
other key activities'
d) the college
systems
evaluation system
Foundation
rewards and recognizes
y/n
innovating ideas, team
building, continuous
Alumni Affairs
views of process
y/n
changes, and attention
to learning organization
Publications
practices that lead to
y/n
mission-based high
performance
* Institutional Strategic Management System has (a) Mission and Objectives, (b)
Strategic Analysis including internal and external scanning, (c) Strategy Formulation, (d)
Strategy Implementation, and (e) Strategy Evaluation.

171
Table 5-2. Comparing the Stages of the Colleges
College A
College B
College C
College D
Movement on the HAM
III-III
III-IV
III - IV
III - IV
Continuum 1996 -2000
management system from Stage III to IV may be the most complex and difficult of the
moves to a next stage because of the increased proficiencies and time required to build
capacity.
Summary of Findings
The four cases describe the changes in the ways that the colleges did business and
how and why they made decisions regarding the integration of income acquisition and
management. Evidence was seen of the eight recommended factors in Chapter 2 for
implementing and sustaining the integration of the income acquisition and management
systems. Of these eight factors, four were present in all four cases. These four factors
acted as leverage points to help create and sustain the integration of the income
acquisition and management systems: (a) persistent and top level support of the president
and senior administrators, (b) a systems perspective, (c) team management, and(d)
continuous views of process changes to achieve higher level of competencies in the
activities within the advancement function. The four cases describe the advancement
initiatives during the period of the study. The documentation of parallel strategies for
resource development and fundraising (e.g., emphasis on institutional image building)
and the broadening of advancement strategies (e.g., planned giving, corporate relations
activities, special events) support Schuyler’s (1997) research on fundraising in
community colleges.

172
The benefit of concerted changes in organizational structure, management
activities, and greater integration of the advancement activities was more income from
targeted revenue streams. The colleges raised more private dollars and received more
grants from public agencies. The four colleges created a flatter organizational structure to
identify and respond to changing market needs and the needs of target audiences.
External scanning activities increased as the image of the college was seen as most
important for fundraising. Empirical evidence for the ascendancy of marketing and the
need for greater competencies and planning for this function were found. These findings
support the higher education research cited in Chapter 2, which describe the ascendancy
of the marketing function in community colleges.
Management Implications
Using the HAM Continuum Model, community colleges may do an analysis to
detennine in which stage their institution is operating along the HAM continuum.
Management development activities can be used to move a college to a more integrated
stage.
The overriding income acquisition and advancement obstacle to movement to
greater integration for each of the colleges studied was that they had not centralized
strategic planning for marketing activities to the audiences of government, community,
and corporate decision makers to achieve income acquisition and management goals
while they decentralized operations. With no written college-wide plans for marketing,
communications, and government relations, it is difficult to choose and implement
strategies. The authority for and lines between marketing and community/public affairs
are blurred as tools of institutional image and identity. A lack of written communications,

173
marketing, and government relations plans, and, in one case, no strategic plan may be an
impediment to advancement initiatives and a strong, positive institutional reputation with
some target audiences. The colleges relied on the quality of external relationships for
government allocations, grants, private donations, collaborative projects, corporate
contracts, and recruitment of students, faculty, and trustees. Administrators described the
use of marketing activities, but many did not have marketing budgets. Confusion was
described over the lack of consistent institutional marketing messages.
These findings indicate a weaker sense of direction in the strategic management
of three of the key advancement activities. These three advancement activities are highly
reliant on marketing competencies/proficiencies. The need for written purpose and goal
statements with ties to the institutional plan for the overall advancement function and its
respective units’ is underscored here.
Institutional policies can be alive but invisible. Policies may be implicit—not
written nor even intended but part of day-to-day operations. To create incentives and
clear confusion, policies should be put in written form. Written policies should include
the results expected. In the four cases the advancement policies and strategies for
marketing, communications, and government relations were alive but not written. The
only way for all the administrators, faculty, and staff working within the income
acquisition and management system to know the policies and have a shared
understanding is to put these policies in writing.
Based upon the empirical evidence in this study and the research reviewed in
Chapter 2, marketing must become a core competency of the advancement function in
community colleges. College leaders must determine the level of proficiency required to
implement strategies to fulfill their institution’s income acquisition and management

174
goals and institutional priorities. The findings in this study also support community
college and public management literature that recommends that administrators use
inclusive approaches to sustain integration of their income acquisition and management
systems (Alfred & Carter, 1999; Cohen et al., 1994; Deegan & Smith as cited in Baker,
1994; Pettigrew, 2000; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1997; Rowley & Sherman, 2001;
Tierney, 1998). The consideration of how formal strategic goals will be received by
faculty and staff (who may or may not better understand the connection to students and
markets), students, target markets, and other constituents involves some understanding of
the use of marketing activities.
Interviews at each of the four colleges found the perception of the college’s lack
of investment and capacity in advancement, particularly in marketing and resource
development. Although some cuts in administrative positions were documented, this
perception is countered by the finding that all of the colleges increased staffing for
resource development, foundation fundraising, and other advancement activities as
income acquisition efforts increased. Not enough capacity to do the jobs in advancement
was the problem, not the amount of money spent. College administrators gave
comparisons of the budgets and number of staff at local public universities that are seen
as competitors for grants and donated dollars to describe their perceptions of lack of
capability. These perceptions indicate a need for capacity building grants to community
colleges on a state or regional level to build competency in marketing, resource
development, and fundraising.
The success of strategies for advancement and income acquisition and
management in community colleges relies on strong governmental relations. The
activities of government relations are used to manage complex programs of assistance

175
and regulation and to influence emerging legislation to support the community college
mission (MacArthur, 2000). In all four cases the senior administrators, faculty, staff, and
students did not have a unifonn notion of “What is the college doing to affect public
policy decision-making regarding funding for community colleges and how can I help
the efforts?”
The comparative case analysis found that for each of the 5 years covered in the
study at least 50% of the annual institutional goals of the four colleges were image
building, marketing, and planning goals. The study found that the colleges’ parallel
strategies (a) emphasis on institutional image and (b) broadening of advancement
strategies, require greater marketing competencies and strategic management of
marketing. Some administrators reported ambivalence over the heightened attention to
marketing. Senior management of the colleges may need to determine if there is a values
conflict within the college community over the decision to make marketing a core
competency of the institution and to allocate the necessary resources to marketing
activities.
This study tested the HAM Continuum as a model. It documented the use of best
practice in higher education strategic management (as identified in Chapter 2 and used as
a framework for the HAM Continuum) in all of the four colleges. The following best
practices were described by administrators, observed, and discovered in document
searches. These best practices were found in the advancement and management
approaches to integrate the income acquisition and management systems in the four
colleges
In considering their responses to the change in proportional funding of college
operations by the state government, senior administrators at the colleges
employed systems thinking to plan and create strategies for income acquisition
and management.
1.

176
2. Senior administrators used and respected informal governance structures to (a)
preserve relationships between units, (b) prevent administrative fiat, (c) show
support for horizontal work groups and communication, and (d) gain input from
the entire college community. For oversight of some advancement activities,
senior management created a hybrid of formal and informal councils to
implement and sustain desired changes in the income acquisition and
management system.
3. Senior administrators encouraged individual departments and work units to
customize innovations and ideas for strategy implementation to draw in
commitment of operational levels.
4. Administrators attempted to benchmark the performance of their units with other
community colleges. They questioned whether their units were staying abreast of
best practice in their field.
5. Senior management valued academic quality priorities over cost containment
priorities.
6. The president and administrators gave top-level support for integration of the
income acquisition and management system and its components of resource
development and fundraising initiatives.
7. The colleges created partnerships and collaborations whereby they could serve as
brokers of contract training and grant administrators.
8. The colleges used public funding to leverage private dollars. The giving of
monetary donations, grants, and property from private sources was encouraged
and influenced by the positional advantage the colleges gained from choosing and
acquiring public grants with objectives that were similar to the private
contributors’ aims.
The four case studies documented the processes of approaches to integrate the
income acquisition and management systems shared by the four colleges. The findings
are relevant to community college administrators in similar situations. In this study of the
key advancement activities of the community college income acquisition and
management system, similar problems, opportunities, and strategies were found. The
colleges that succeeded in implementing the same strategies are alike because general
strategic management principles prevail. The senior managers interviewed in this study
were strategic decision-makers. The cases described the movement of the colleges

177
toward greater integration of their income acquisition and management systems as well
as advancement strategies that required the integration of the goals, policies, and
management activities of advancement subfunctions.
Public Policy Implications
Public community colleges can no longer rely on state legislative appropriations,
local funding, and tuition to meet student needs through from their operating budgets. It
is necessary to compete for grants from public and private sources. The colleges must
have direct relationships with federal and state agencies that fund community college
programs. Community colleges must raise money from individuals, private foundations,
and corporations to maintain state standards of excellence in learning, teaching, student
services and operations. Public policy closure has taken place on the issue of mixed
support systems. Community colleges are expected to and must assume responsibility for
resource development and fundraising. The general public as well as business and
industry must understand the public policy, as they will be asked for contributions. The
study found that all four colleges in the study integrated their income acquisition and
management systems to acquire income from new sources.
To acquire these new income streams community colleges must function as
nonprofit organizations seeking contributions and as private entities selling services. Any
new public policy considerations for community colleges will have to take into account
these nonprofit management and private sector management aspects in order to increase
the likelihood of other forms of support for the colleges’ general operating budgets and
the success of advancement efforts.

178
Recommendations for Further Study
Further study is needed on the use of the HAM Continuum as a model and on the
generalizability of the IIAM Continuum and the comparative case study findings to
similar contexts. The four case studies within the comparative case study and the overall
comparative case study were based upon the usefulness of the IIAM Continuum as a
theoretical model that (a) classified the observed and known into a scheme, (b) was used
as an explanatory device for describing possible relationships between events, (c) served
as a predictive tool from which the user can determine possible outcomes, and (d)
operated as a basis for further research and the extension of knowledge. For future
studies testing this model, producing a rival theory and studying more than four cases
may decrease possible threats to internal and external validity. The extent to which the
study's findings may be applicable to similar contexts increases the ability to make
predictions that observed community college administrators will respond to public policy
which decreases the relative percentage of government funding for college operating
budgets by integrating advancement activities within the income acquisition and
management systems. Reliability will be increased by the production of similar findings
with similar cases. The external validity of this study can be increased if the theoretical
model can be tied to other studies of the income acquisition and management systems of
the four schools.
Further replication of the case findings in this study will increase the validity.
Other case studies may support the theories underpinning the IIAM Continuum and the
IIAM Continuum as a model.
Research is needed to acquire an operational body of knowledge on community
college organizational structures, the differences in designs, the effectiveness of their

179
designs in support of income acquisition and management systems. This study did not
examine the integration of a community college’s the income acquisition and
management system with the values and the culture of the institution. Studies measuring
and describing this integration could help administrators to implement advancement and
income acquisition strategies.
Questions to guide further research may be clustered into the areas of income
acquisition and management proficiencies, public policy affecting income acquisition
strategies, and the ascendancy of marketing. In regard to proficiencies, surveys may be
used to ask the questions,
1. Do most community colleges have the required competencies and proficiencies to
raise money to achieve or maintain state standards of excellence?
2. For those colleges that do not have the required capability to raise money will the
state invest in raising the colleges’ advancement capability?
3. Is there a critical mass of money raised, operational budget size, and advancement
competencies that correlate with a college’s move from Stage III to IV on the
IIAM Continuum?
4. Do colleges that function at Stage IV or V of the IIAM Continuum acquire more
income?
5. A literature search and the experiences of the four colleges in this study indicate
that although the purposes of the college foundations have changed to greater
integrate foundation priorities with college priorities, the foundation staff are less
likely to initiate program grants than the staff of the grant offices of the colleges.
Is this finding generalizable to all community colleges?
Quantitative studies can be used to indicate the differences in success at these stages.
A longitudinal study could look at national trends, such as,
1. Will those colleges whose state policies allow more latitude in the types of
income acquisition and management strategies have the advantages of growing
more quickly in capacity and excellence, recruiting the best faculty and
administrators, and growing in endowment income. Will this create an equity
problem?

180
A survey study can give greater understanding of public policy impact on community
college income acquisition and management to answer,
2. What are the public policies that inhibit or encourage the nonprofit income
acquisition management and the private sector income acquisition and
management of community colleges?
3. What are the public policies that inhibit or encourage integration of college
foundation fundraising and other advancement activities within the income
acquisition and management systems of community colleges?
In addition, a query could be made into the implications to the I1AM Continuum
Model when community colleges acquire 20% or more of their operating income from
profit centers and private donations. If, and when, colleges meet this threshold what does
this do to the HAM Continuum Model?
Implications for Theory and Practice
As community colleges move to greater integration along the UAM Continuum, it
is important to stress that the colleges’ use of marketing principles and greater marketing
competencies does not mean that they are part of the market economy. Scholars and
practitioners must continue to define how much strategic freedom community colleges
have in income acquisition and management. Community colleges use marketing
practices as ways of creating and sustaining exchange relationships for recruiting,
influencing public policy, fundraising, and selling contract courses. As seen in the four
cases in this study, the administrators did not often refer to these exchange relationships
as “marketing,” and yet they are aware of the importance of the management of these
relationships to fulfill the community college mission. When some of the marketing units
report to the advancement function, some to enrollment management, some to corporate
training, some to academic deans, and some to the president, it is hard to define the
integrated team. It is critical that community colleges create structures and strategic

181
management systems that identify target markets and audiences within the mission and
allocate resources to implement strategies to fulfill income acquisition and management
goals.
Community college leaders should be on the lookout for best practice and theory
that illuminate income acquisition and management strategy for each of the income
sources. This comparative case study found that the institutional strategies of how to
grow, how to gain competitive advantage, how to choose program offerings, how to gain
and use technology, and how to develop professionals/faculty/staff are inextricably
linked to the income acquisition and management strategy whether or not this
relationship is identified on an organization chart, in a governance structure, or in a
strategic plan.

APPENDIX A
CRITERIA FOR COLLEGES IN STUDY
The selection plan answered the question, “What group of colleges will help us to
understand the problem?” The characteristics chosen were:
1. evidence of a public agency or private sector fund raising initiative from fyl996
to fy2000 as a response to a change in state funding as a percentage of the
operating budget,
2. a stable presidency over the 5-year period,
3. an institutional structure which includes the advancement subfimctions listed in
Appendix B,
4. an urban environment of a district campus or single institution with one or more
campuses.
5. an enrollment range of 6,000 to 20,000 for fy2000,
6. an operations budget ranging from $26 million to $58 million for fy2000,
7. the presence of academic literature on community college advancement and its
context in the college’s state, and
8. active membership in the Council for Resource Development.
These characteristics give balance, variety, and an opportunity to learn. The cases
are designed to illuminate the strategy and management of the colleges appropriate to
their various settings as well as the economic and political situations in the community
college advancement bellwether states of Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.
The amount of dollars raised was not used as a characteristic for selection because a
relatively larger amount may not be indicative of integration if the college has one or
more unusually fortuitous years in the bounded instance of the study.
In order to determine which colleges meet the criteria a benchmark profile was
done to compare attributes of the schools. The four colleges chosen fit the 8 criteria listed
above.
182

APPENDIX B
KEY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH
ADVANCEMENT FUNCTION
Comprehensive community colleges have these functions arranged in a variety of
organizational structures:
Academic Affairs
Instruction
Remedial/Developmental Education
Continuing Education
Workforce Development
Student Affairs
Administration
Enrollment/Registration
Academic Counseling
Social Services
Student Activities/Athletics
Advancement
Institutional Research
Marketing
Resource Development
Government Relations
Community Affairs
Corporate Relations
Media Relations
Alumni Affairs
Foundation
Publications
Business Administration
Business and Finance
Human Resources
Purchasing
Plant Maintenance
Auxiliary Services
183

APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY PROTOCOLS
Field Data Collection
Research purpose:
Fieldwork is conducted for five purposes:
1. To describe the organization, management activities and role of administrators
and faculty vis-á-vis community institutional advancement initiatives in selected
four community colleges
2. To explain why the situations are as they are: Identify environmental,
management, and political factors that influence the way income is acquired and
managed in the low and high aggregated systems per the IIAM continuum
3. Identify incentives and disincentives to cooperation across units within a
community college
4. Document how income acquisition and management activities were planned,
implemented, and sustained.
5. Identify similarities and differences across four community college units and
reasons for the similarities and differences.
Specific objectives:
1. Develop semi-structured instrument - The Case Study Interview Guide see
Appendix C.
2. Reliability of data dependent upon quality and clarity of structured questions.
Questions juried by: Dr. John Hall, Dr. Dale Campbell, Dr. Barbara Keener
3. Prepare for fieldwork.
• fieldwork should be minimally obtrusive
• maintain confidentiality to the maximum extent possible
• Previsit preparation includes clearances, consent, scheduling, sample
interview questions
4. Obtain answers to questions in field interview guide (data collection instrument
see Appendix C) for individual interviews and focus groups
5. Clarify, transcribe and code data
6. Detailed notes on observations
184

185
7. Review documents
a. for unknown, different, or changing definitions of numeric data elements:
• make a feasible adjustments to make data more comparable
• focus on percentage changes rather than absolute values
• keep a record of data definition problems that have not been fully
solved and estimate the impacts of these problems on the final
research findings
b. numeric data checks for reasonableness:
• assign ranges of possible values to each data element, and check to
see if any of the data fall outside of these ranges
• check consistency across data elements
c. deal directly with those persons most familiar with the data
d. put request in writing and provide clear, full descriptions of data needed
e. send data back to originators for verification
8. Code data for each case, triangulate and analyze
9. Coding protocols:
10. Triangulation protocols:
11. Analysis protocols:
• limit analysis to specific categories and factors included in the semi-structured
instrument
• limit context description to data collected in observations, interviews, focus
groups, document review and literature review on college
12. Write first case analysis and conclusions
13. Write second case analysis and conclusions
14. Write third case analysis and conclusions
15. Write fourth case analysis and conclusions
16. Write comparative case analysis and conclusions
Logistics
Each site - 3 day visit: five one hour interviews each day or
three focus groups per day and observation
One day review records, data collection

APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY INTERVIEW GUIDE
Reliability of Data
In using a semi-structured instrument the reliability of data dependent upon
quality and clarity of structured questions. This interview guide was juried by:
1. Dr. H. John Hall
2. Dr. Dale F. Campbell
3. Dr. Barbara J. Keener
Comparability of data depends upon how well questions capture variations in
terminology across units and different types of respondents. This study used a purposive
respondent selection because the focus of the field interviews was to describe activities
of management.
Collection of Data
1. Begin each interview with a brief statement re: purpose of study. Have signed
consent for each participant and provide participant with a copy.
2. Break the ice with a first question about the background of respondent.
3. Record responses verbatim. Transcribe on interview form (repeat question/coding
numbers used in interview guide).
4. Note interviewer’s impressions, observations, or interpretations separately in
brackets.
5. Clean notes same day (subject codes, themes, legible, meaningful, clarity)
6. Follow-up phone call within week if needed for clarity.
7. Send thank you note.
8. Use same procedures for handling and storing data for each case study.
186

187
Data on Context Obtained from Document Review
Theme: explanation of causalities, intentions, and motivations
• Advancement Mission, Goals, Objectives as related to institutional Mission,
Purpose, Values, and Planning
• Formal organizational structure/staffmg configuration changes 1995-2000
• Job descriptions, competencies, expertise, experience
• Evidence of decision making process for advancement initiative
Interview Guide
There are interview guides with different questions for different participant
groups:
1. Interview Guide for Presidents
2. Interview Guide for Administrators
3. Interview Guide for Vice President of Academic Affairs
4. Interview Guide for Chief Business Officer
5. Interview Guide for Resource Development Staff

APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW GUIDES
Interview Guide: President
A. Has there been a change in funding patterns?
B. Percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 1996 to fy 2000 for
these income categories:
State funds
Local government funds
Federal funds
Tuition and student fees
Private funds
C. What caused the changes? Decision making process - why these responses to
changes in magnitudes above?
Theme 1: Context
1.01 How are the mission and goals of the various advancement activities related to the
mission and goals of the institution?
1.02 Is each of the advancement activities carried out on each campus?
1.03 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of fund
raising for private dollars?
1.04 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of
acquisition of public dollars?
1.05 Has there been a change in reporting lines? Does this change allow for more
effective and efficient integration of the operations of the advancement activities?
Has there been a redesign of workflow?
1.06 Describe, any organizational structure/staffing configuration changes in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl996 to fy2000. For
example, title changes such as Director to Dean to VP of Advancement or the
creation of a foundation.
188

189
1.07 Which administrators consider the planning and implementation of resource
development activities important for the college?
1.08 Has the President taken on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the
acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.09 Has the VP of Academic Affairs taken on a greater role in fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?
1.10 Have the Media Relations, Community Affairs, and/or Marketing Directors taken
on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the acquisition of public
dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.11 Has the foundation director taken on a greater role in the fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?
1.12 Has the foundation director become more involved in the strategic planning of the
college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.13 Has the person responsible for federal grants management taken on a greater role
in a) the fund raising of private dollars, b) the acquisition of public dollars, or c)
the strategic planning of the college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.19 Have management practice and management skills changed as a result of the
changes in sources of funding? For example, acquiring and managing private
dollars or expertise in investment policies, etc.
1.25 What are the most pressing problems you face in income acquisition and
management?
1.26 What do you think is going well with your income acquisition and management
system?
Theme 2: IIAM Continuum
2.03 How are the Board of Trustees members involved in institutional advancement
planning and evaluation?
2.04 What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the institution’s planning and
evaluation of the advancement activities?
2.07 Describe the extent to which the organization of the college reflects fund raising
priorities and acquisition of public dollars priorities.

190
2.08 Describe the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the college to attain
private funds and public dollar goals.
2.09 Describe how responsibility for attaining private and public dollars are
communicated. What is the form of accountability for the income acquisition
activities?
2.15 Describe how the college seeks additional sources of funding from the state
government and if applicable, local government. Is there a sense of reconceiving
identity and relationship with these government agencies?
2.16 Describe the extent to which the college seeks additional sources of funding
through government grant proposals. Not state legislative appropriations
2.17 Describe the ability of the college to gain financial support from individuals,
groups, businesses, corporations, and private foundations.
2.19 Where do I find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with academic
planning?
2.20 As a percentage of the operating budget, are the percentages of all the sources of
income satisfactory? Why?
2.21 Is the integration of all the advancement activities satisfactory? Why?
2.22 Are tuition and student fees at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
2.23 How are institutional responses to drop in enrollment tied to advancement
activities and financial controls? E.g. short term vs. long term investments in
marketing?
2.24 Are federal Pell Grants at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
Theme 3: Literature on integrating advancement function and strategic planning
3.01 What are the trends in this college toward the fund raising activities becoming
more of a core function? How has this changed the job of the
President
Business Officer
Marketing Director
PR director
Academic VP/Deans, etc.

191
3.02 Since fy 1996 have you or your staff spent more time on external scanning and
review of strategic plans with stakeholders? Who is involved in external scanning
activities now? Evidence of college having a thorough media relations, corporate
relations, and public affairs plan based on good data? E.g corporate and local
agency collaborations, cross-institutional partnerships. Speakers bureau activity
3.04 As state public support decreases as a percentage of the budget are you observing
these responses:
Partnering with other agencies to gain more leverage?
Reconceiving identity and relationships with public agencies - less support so
public agencies have less say in mission?
3.05 State the importance of Pell Grants and student loans to the overall institutional
budget.
3.08 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of state legislature for annual allocation? For matching $ program?
3.09 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional program and objectives
of local government agencies?
Theme 4: Sustaining advancement initiatives
4.01 Describe changes in your administrative role from fyl996 to fy2000 vis-á-vis
fund raising and acquisition of public dollars.
4.07 Which of your staff are responsible for advancement? What are their
responsibilities? Is this written in their job descriptions?
4.08 How do you orient and develop your administrator’s skills to the advancement
function?
4.09 How do you orient and develop your faculty’s skills to the advancement function?
4.10 Where do I find evidence of reward and recognition systems for admin, staff, and
faculty working on advancement activities?
4.11 Where would I find evidence of continuous views of change processes in the
college income acquisition and management planning?

192
Interview Guide: VP Academic Affairs
A. Has there been a change in funding patterns?
B. What are the percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 1996 to
fy 2000 for these income categories:
State funds
Local government funds
Federal funds
Tuition and student fees
Private funds
Theme 1: Context
1.01 How are the mission and goals of the various advancement activities related to the
mission and goals of the institution?
1.02 Is each of the advancement activities carried out on each campus?
1.03 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of fund
raising for private dollars?
1.04 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of
acquisition of public dollars?
1.05 Has there been a change in reporting lines? Does this change allow for more
effective and efficient integration of the operations of the advancement activities?
Has there been a redesign of workflow?
1.06 Describe, any organizational structure/staffing configuration changes in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl996 to fy2000. For
example, title changes such as Director to Dean to VP of Advancement or the
creation of a foundation.
1.07 Which administrators consider the planning and implementation of resource
development activities important for the college?
1.08 Has the President taken on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the
acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.09 Has the VP of Academic Affairs taken on a greater role in fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?

193
1.10 Have the Media Relations, Community Affairs, and/or Marketing Directors taken
on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the acquisition of public
dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.11 Has the foundation director taken on a greater role in the fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?
1.12 Has the foundation director become more involved in the strategic planning of the
college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.13 Has the person responsible for federal grants management taken on a greater role
in a) the fund raising of private dollars, b) the acquisition of public dollars, or c)
the strategic planning of the college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.14 Are faculty more involved in writing grant proposals as a result of the changes in
funding sources? How?
1.15 Are the faculty more involved in implementing programs funded by grants as a
result of the changes in funding sources? Why? How? For example, in response
to change in state appropriation or new service and academic need.
1.16 Who initiated cooperative work on fundraising between faculty and resource
development staff?
1.19 Have management practice and management skills changed as a result of the
changes in sources of funding? For example identification skills, expertise in
investment policies, etc.
1.25 What are the most pressing problems you face in income acquisition and
management?
1.26 What do you think is going well with your income acquisition and management
system?
Theme 2: HAM Continuum
2.01 How are administrators involved in the planning and evaluation of advancement
activities?
2.02 How are faculty involved in the planning of advancement activities and their
evaluation? Is there a feeling of protecting core operating responsibilities of
teaching and learning or is there a feeling of integrating new faculty
responsibilities for grants proposal writing, implementation and management?

194
2.06 Describe the extent to which planning advancement activities result in actions
plans and resource allocations.
2.07 Describe the extent to which the organization of the college reflects fund raising
priorities and acquisition of public dollars priorities.
2.08 Describe the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the college to attain
private funds and public dollar goals.
2.09 Describe how responsibility for attaining private and public dollars are
communicated. What is the form of accountability for the income acquisition
activities?
2.10 What is the administrative emphasis on participatory decision making about
income acquisition?
2.11 From which of these categories of private sources of dollars has your college
received dollars?
Individuals alumni private foundations a business
an industry a corporate foundation other
2.12 Describe the extent to which the budget allocation for the advancement activities
reflects the college’s mission and priorities.
2.13 Describe the communication of resource allocation decisions to employees. Have
communication activities changed between the President’s cabinet or faculty
teams to adapt to income acquisition goals?
2.16 Describe the extent to which the college seeks additional sources of funding
through government grant proposals. Not state legislative appropriations.
2.17 Describe the ability of the college to gain financial support from individuals,
groups, businesses, corporations, and private foundations.
2.19 Where do I find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with academic
planning?
2.20 As a percentage of the operating budget, are the percentages of all the sources of
income satisfactory? Why?
2.21 Is the integration of all the advancement activities satisfactory? Why?
2.22 Are tuition and student fees at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?

195
2.23 How are institutional responses to drop in enrollment tied to advancement
activities and financial controls? E.g. short term vs. long term investments in
marketing?
2.24 Are federal Pell Grants at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
Theme 3: Literature on integrating advancement function with planning and strategic
management
3.01 What are the trends in this college toward the fund raising activities becoming
more of a core function? How has this changed the job of the
President
Business Officer
Marketing Director
PR director
Academic VP/Deans
Other
3.02 How are income acquisition activities becoming more a part of the academic
ofcr’s core job as a result of the change in income sources? For example time
spent by deans, department heads, faculty on grants management increased. So
how much time does VP spend on managing grant funded projects, deciding
which faculty will be involved in proposals, writing, implementation and
evaluation?
What percent of your time do you spend on program objectives, job descriptions,
scheduling changes and calendars, plans, public statements re: advancement
initiatives?
What artifacts best reflect this? E.g. meeting minutes where academic vp or
designee informs fdtn staff re: curriculum development for Microsoft grant
proposal. Evidence that emphasis on resource development and external relations
is becoming a larger part of VP, Dean portfolio?
3.07 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of federal government grantors?
3.08 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of state legislature for annual allocation? For matching $ program?
3.09 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional program and objectives
of local government agencies?

196
Theme 4: Sustaining advancement initiatives
4.02 Describe changes in your academic/faulty role from fyl 996 to fy2000 vis-á-vis
advancement activities e.g. Are private dollars used for supplemental pay for
instructors, sabbaticals, professional development, start up costs for new
programs, acquisition of equipment, curriculum development?
4.03 Great ideas can fail if leaders do not support them. Can you give evidence of
persistent and top level support for advancement initiatives? E.g How was the
purpose of the initiative communicated? E.g., President’s commitment to an
advancement effort, defining and incorporating resource development goals with
college goals? Board involvement with resource development?
4.04 Were new ideas for fund raising for private dollars and attaining more public
funds customized? How were ideas solicited? Did you experiment with new ideas
recommended by colleagues? An example of winning top-down support for
experimental adoption of the new ideas? How much time devoted to making
customized ideas work? Examples of management commitment and follow-up?
4.05 Were new ideas that gained top level support compatible with the beliefs and
values of the institution? Were they compatible with the history, culture, past
successes and failures, and resources of the institution?
4.06 Which of your staff are responsible for advancement? What are their
responsibilities? Is this written in their job descriptions?
4.09 How do you orient and develop your faculty’s skills to the advancement function?
4.13 Describe the quality of reporting/management information systems for the
income acquisition and management system(s)
4.14 Describe the quality of training and technical assistance for the income
acquisition and management system(s).

197
Interview Guide: Administrators
A. Has there been a change in funding patterns?
B. What are the percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 1996 to
fy 2000 for these income categories:
State funds
Local government funds
Federal funds
Tuition and student fees
Private funds
Theme 1: Context
1.01 How are the mission and goals of the various advancement activities related to the
mission and goals of the institution?
1.02 Is each of the advancement activities carried out on each campus?
1.03 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of fund
raising for private dollars?
1.04 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of
acquisition of public dollars?
1.05 Has there been a change in reporting lines? Does this change allow for more
effective and efficient integration of the operations of the advancement activities?
Has there been a redesign of workflow?
1.06 Describe, any organizational structure/staffing configuration changes in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl 996 to fy2000. For
example, title changes such as Director to Dean to VP of Advancement or the
creation of a foundation.
1.07 Which administrators consider the planning and implementation of resource
development activities important for the college?
1.08 Has the President taken on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the
acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.09 Has the VP of Academic Affairs/Deans taken on a greater role in fund raising of
private dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in
funding sources?

198
1.10 Have the Media Relations, Community Affairs, and/or Marketing Directors taken
on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the acquisition of public
dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.11 Has the foundation director taken on a greater role in the fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?
1.12 Has the foundation director become more involved in the strategic planning of the
college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.13 Has the person responsible for federal grants management taken on a greater role
in a) the fund raising of private dollars, b) the acquisition of public dollars, or c)
the strategic planning of the college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.19 Have management practice and management skills changed as a result of the
changes in sources of funding? For example, acquiring and managing private
dollars or expertise in investment policies, etc.
1.20 Describe how and why the number of full and part time staff changed in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl996 to fy 2000.
1.21 What were the major advancement initiatives from fyl996 to fy2000? List the
resource development activities, fund raising activities by type, number, pr or
marketing activities and how tied to budget and inst. goals.
1.22 Has more money been budgeted for the external and internal scanning activities
as a result of the changes in revenue sources? What is the budget for the activities
within each of the activities within the Advancement function?
1.25 What are the most pressing problems you face in income acquisition and
management?
1.26 What do you think is going well with your income acquisition and management
system?
Theme 2: HAM Continuum
2.01 How are administrators involved in the planning and evaluation of advancement
activities?
2.02 How are faculty involved in the planning of advancement activities and their
evaluation? Is there a feeling of protecting core operating responsibilities of
teaching and learning or is there a feeling of integrating new faculty
responsibilities for grants proposal writing, implementation and management?

199
2.03 What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the institution’s planning and
evaluation of the advancement activities?
2.04 Is the planning and evaluation of advancement activities a continuous process? If
yes, describe extent.
2.07 Describe the extent to which the organization of the college reflects fund raising
priorities and acquisition of public dollars priorities.
2.08 Describe the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the college to attain
private funds and public dollar goals.
2.09 Describe how responsibility for attaining private and public dollars are
communicated. What is the form of accountability for the income acquisition
activities?
2.10 What is the administrative emphasis on participatory decision making about
income acquisition?
2.11 From which of these categories of private sources of dollars has your college
received dollars?
Individuals alumni private foundations a business
an industry a corporate foundation other
2.12 Describe the extent to which the budget allocation for the advancement activities
reflects the college’s mission and priorities.
2.13 Describe the effectiveness of the budget revision process for the advancement
activities.
2.14 Describe the communication of resource allocation decisions to employees. Have
communication activities changed between the President’s cabinet or faculty
teams to adapt to income acquisition goals?
2.15 Describe how the college seeks additional sources of funding from the state
government and if applicable, local government. Is there a sense of reconceiving
identity and relationship with these government agencies?
2.16 Describe the extent to which the college seeks additional sources of funding
through government grant proposals. Not state legislative appropriations
2.17 Describe the ability of the college to gain financial support from individuals,
groups, businesses, corporations, and private foundations.
2.18 Where do 1 find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with academic
planning?

200
2.19 As a percentage of the operating budget, are the percentages of all the sources of
income satisfactory? Why?
2.21 Is the integration of all the advancement activities satisfactory? Why?
2.22 Are tuition and student fees at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
2.23 How are institutional responses to drop in enrollment tied to advancement
activities and financial controls? E.g. short term vs. long term investments in
marketing?
Theme 3: Literature on integrating advancement function with planning and strategic
management
3.01 What are the trends in this college toward the fund raising activities becoming
more of a core function? How has this changed the job of the President
Business Officer
Marketing Director
PR director
Academic VP/Deans
, etc.
3.02 Since fyl996 have you or your staff spent more time on external scanning and
review of strategic plans with stakeholders? Who is involved in external scanning
activities now? Evidence of college having a thorough media relations, corporate
relations, and public affairs plan based on good data? E.g corporate and local
agency collaborations, cross-institutional partnerships. Speakers bureau activity
3.04 As state public support decreases as a percentage of the budget are you observing
these responses:
Partnering with other agencies to gain more leverage?
Reconceiving identity and relationships with public agencies—less support so
public agencies have less say in mission?
3.05 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of corporate donors?
3.06 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of federal government grantors?
3.07 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of state legislature for annual allocation? For matching $ program?
3.08 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional program and objectives
of local government agencies?

201
Theme 4: Sustaining advancement initiatives
4.01 Describe changes in your administrative role from fyl996 to fy2000 vis-á-vis
fund raising and acquisition of public dollars.
4.03 Great ideas can fail if leaders do not support them. Can you give evidence of
persistent and top level support for advancement initiatives? E.g How was the
purpose of the initiative communicated? e.g., President’s commitment to an
advancement effort, defining and incorporating resource development goals with
college goals? Board involvement with resource development?
4.04 Were new ideas for fund raising for private dollars and attaining more public
funds customized? How were ideas solicited? Did you experiment with new ideas
recommended by colleagues? An example of winning top-down support for
experimental adoption of the new ideas? How much time devoted to making
customized ideas work? Examples of management commitment and follow-up?
4.05 Were new ideas that gained top level support compatible with the beliefs and
values of the institution? Were they compatible with the history, culture, past
successes and failures, and resources of the institution?
4.06 How do you know when an objective has been completed? Clear definitions of
management activities and objectives? How do you assess relative advantages of
objective or activity over other alternatives? With whom do you benchmark?
4.07 Which of your staff are responsible for advancement? What are their
responsibilities? Is this written in their job descriptions?
4.08 How do you orient and develop your administrator’s skills to the advancement
function?
4.11 Where would 1 find evidence of continuous views of change processes in the
college income acquisition and management planning?
4.12 Where would I find evidence of coherent planning and budgeting e.g. goals,
objectives, assessment
4.13 Describe the quality of reporting/management information systems for the
income acquisition and management system(s)
4.14 Describe the quality of training and technical assistance for the income
acquisition and management system(s).

202
Interview Guide: Resource Development Staff
A. Has there been a change in funding patterns?
B. What are the percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 1996 to
fy 2000 for these income categories:
State funds
Local government funds
Federal funds
Tuition and student fees
Private funds
Theme 1: Context
1.01 How are the mission and goals of the various advancement activities related to the
mission and goals of the institution?
1.02 Is each of the advancement activities carried out on each campus?
1.03 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of fund
raising for private dollars?
1.04 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of
acquisition of public dollars?
1.05 Has there been a change in reporting lines? Does this change allow for more
effective and efficient integration of the operations of the advancement activities?
Has there been a redesign of workflow?
1.06 Describe, any organizational structure/staffing configuration changes in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl 996 to fy2000. For
example, title changes such as Director to Dean to VP of Advancement or the
creation of a foundation.
1.07 Which administrators consider the planning and implementation of resource
development activities important for the college?
1.08 Has the President taken on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the
acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.09 Has the VP of Academic Affairs taken on a greater role in fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?

203
1.10 Have the Media Relations, Community Affairs, and/or Marketing Directors taken
on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the acquisition of public
dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.11 Has the foundation director taken on a greater role in the fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?
1.12 Has the foundation director become more involved in the strategic planning of the
college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.13 Has the person responsible for federal grants management taken on a greater role
in a) the fund raising of private dollars, b) the acquisition of public dollars, or c)
the strategic planning of the college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.14 Are faculty more involved in writing grant proposals as a result of the changes in
funding sources? How?
1.15 Are the faculty more involved in implementing programs funded by grants as a
result of the changes in funding sources? Why? How? For example, in response
to change in state appropriation or new service and academic need.
1.16 Who initiated cooperative work on fundraising between faculty and resource
development staff?
1.17 Are there competency requirements or preferred qualifications, and what are they,
for resource development staff? e.g expertise or length of time in field, CFRE
certified,
1.19 Have management practice and management skills changed as a result of the
changes in sources of funding? For example, acquiring and managing private
dollars or expertise in investment policies, etc.
1.20 Describe how and why the number of full and part time staff changed in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl996 to fy 2000.
1.21 What were the major advancement initiatives from fyl 996 to fy2000? List the
resource development activities, fund raising activities by type, number, pr or
marketing activities and how tied to budget and inst. goals.
1.22 Has more money been budgeted for the external and internal scanning activities
as a result of the changes in revenue sources? What is the budget for the activities
within each of the activities within the Advancement function?
1.23 What were the percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 96 to
fy 2000 for these income categories:
state funds

204
local government funds
federal funds
tuition and student fees
private funds
1.24 For the declines in operating budget (percentages in question, 1.23) what were the
institutional responses to the funding decline? (analysis - for the selected colleges
how do the types of income decline and responses to the decline compare with the
types and responses in the lit? In the continuum?)
1.25 What are the most pressing problems you face in income acquisition and
management?
1.26 What do you think is going well with your income acquisition and management
system?
Theme 2: HAM Continuum
2.01 How are administrators involved in the planning and evaluation of advancement
activities?
2.02 How are faculty involved in the planning of advancement activities and their
evaluation? Is there a feeling of protecting core operating responsibilities of
teaching and learning or is there a feeling of integrating new faculty
responsibilities for grants proposal writing, implementation and management?
2.03 How are the Board of Trustees members involved in institutional advancement
planning and evaluation?
2.04 What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the institution’s planning and
evaluation of the advancement activities?
2.05 Is the planning and evaluation of advancement activities a continuous process? If
yes, describe extent.
2.06 Describe the extent to which planning advancement activities result in actions
plans and resource allocations.
2.07 Describe the extent to which the organization of the college reflects fund raising
priorities and acquisition of public dollars priorities.
2.08 Describe the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the college to attain
private funds and public dollar goals.

205
2.09 Describe how responsibility for attaining private and public dollars are
communicated. What is the fonn of accountability for the income acquisition
activities?
2.10 What is the administrative emphasis on participatory decision making about
income acquisition?
2.11 From which of these categories of private sources of dollars has your college
received dollars?
Individuals alumni private foundations a business
an industry a corporate foundation other
2.12 Describe the extent to which the budget allocation for the advancement activities
reflects the college’s mission and priorities.
2.13 Describe the effectiveness of the budget revision process for the advancement
activities.
2.14 Describe the communication of resource allocation decisions to employees. Have
communication activities changed between the President’s cabinet or faculty
teams to adapt to income acquisition goals?
2.16 Describe the extent to which the college seeks additional sources of funding
through government grant proposals. Not state legislative appropriations.
2.18 Where do I find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with the
advancement function (resource dev, marketing, government affairs, media
relations, community affairs, inst research, foundation, alumni affairs, corporate
relations, publications)?
2.19 Where do I find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with academic
planning?
2.20 As a percentage of the operating budget, are the percentages of all the sources of
income satisfactory? Why?
2.21 Is the integration of all the advancement activities satisfactory? Why?
2.22 Are tuition and student fees at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
2.23 How are institutional responses to drop in enrollment tied to advancement
activities and financial controls? E.g. short term vs. long term investments in
marketing?

206
2.24 Are federal Pell Grants at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
Theme 3: Literature on integrating advancement function with planning and strategic
management
3.01 What are the trends in this college toward the fund raising activities becoming
more of a core function? How has this changed the job of the
President
Business Officer
Marketing Director
PR director
Academic VP/Deans
Other
3.02 Since fy 1996 have you or your staff spent more time on external scanning and
review of strategic plans with stakeholders? Who is involved in external scanning
activities now? Evidence of college having a thorough media relations, corporate
relations, and public affairs plan based on good data? E.g corporate and local
agency collaborations, cross-institutional partnerships. Speakers bureau activity
3.04 As state public support decreases as a percentage of the budget are you observing
these responses:
Partnering with other agencies to gain more leverage?
Reconceiving identity and relationships with public agencies - less support so
public agencies have less say in mission?
3.05 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of corporate donors?
3.05.1 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of federal government grantors?
Theme 4: Sustaining advancement initiatives
4.01 Describe changes in your administrative role from fyl996 to fy2000 vis-á-vis
fund raising and acquisition of public dollars.
4.03 Great ideas can fail if leaders do not support them. Can you give evidence of
persistent and top level support for advancement initiatives? E.g How was the
purpose of the initiative communicated? E.g., President’s commitment to an

207
advancement effort, defining and incorporating resource development goals with
college goals? Board involvement with resource development?
4.04 Were new ideas for fund raising for private dollars and attaining more public
funds customized? How were ideas solicited? Did you experiment with new ideas
recommended by colleagues? An example of winning top-down support for
experimental adoption of the new ideas? How much time devoted to making
customized ideas work? Examples of management commitment and follow-up?
4.06 How do you know when an objective has been completed? Clear definitions of
management activities and objectives? How do you assess relative advantages of
objective or activity over other alternatives? With whom do you benchmark?
4.09 How do you orient and develop your faculty’s skills to the advancement function?
4.10 Where do I find evidence of reward and recognition systems for admin, staff, and
faculty working on advancement activities?
4.13 Describe the quality of reporting/management information systems for the
income acquisition and management system(s).

208
Interview Guide: Chief Business Officer
A. Has there been a change in funding patterns?
B. What are the percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 1996 to
fy 2000 for these income categories:
State funds
Local government funds
Federal funds
Tuition and student fees
Private funds
Theme 1: Context
1.01 How are the mission and goals of the various advancement activities related to the
mission and goals of the institution?
1.02 Is each of the advancement activities carried out on each campus?
1.03 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of fund
raising for private dollars?
1.04 Has there been a move to a more decentralized or centralized system of
acquisition of public dollars?
1.05 Has there been a change in reporting lines? Does this change allow for more
effective and efficient integration of the operations of the advancement activities?
Has there been a redesign of workflow?
1.06 Describe, any organizational structure/staffing configuration changes in the
departments that include advancement activities from fyl996 to fy2000. For
example, title changes such as Director to Dean to VP of Advancement or the
creation of a foundation.
1.07 Which administrators consider the planning and implementation of resource
development activities important for the college?
1.08 Has the President taken on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the
acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.09 Has the VP of Academic Affairs taken on a greater role in fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?

209
1.10 Have the Media Relations, Community Affairs, and/or Marketing Directors taken
on a greater role in fund raising of private dollars or the acquisition of public
dollars as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.11 Has the foundation director taken on a greater role in the fund raising of private
dollars or the acquisition of public dollars as a result of the changes in funding
sources?
1.12 Has the foundation director become more involved in the strategic planning of the
college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.13 Has the person responsible for federal grants management taken on a greater role
in a) the fund raising of private dollars, b) the acquisition of public dollars, or c)
the strategic planning of the college as a result of the changes in funding sources?
1.19 Have management practice and management skills changed as a result of the
changes in sources of funding? For example, acquiring and managing private
dollars or expertise in investment policies, etc.
1.22 Has more money been budgeted for the external and internal scanning activities
as a result of the changes in revenue sources? What is the budget for the activities
within each of the activities within the Advancement function?
1.23 What were the percentage changes in operating budget during the period fy 96 to
fy 2000 for these income categories:
state funds
local government funds
federal funds
tuition and student fees
private funds
1.24 For the declines in operating budget (percentages in question, 1.23) what were the
institutional responses to the funding decline? (analysis - for the selected colleges
how do the types of income decline and responses to the decline compare with the
types and responses in the lit? In the continuum?)
1.25 What are the most pressing problems you face in income acquisition and
management?
1.26 What do you think is going well with your income acquisition and management
system?

210
Theme 2: I1AM Continuum
2.04 What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the institution’s planning and
evaluation of the advancement activities?
2.06 Describe the extent to which planning advancement activities result in actions
plans and resource allocations.
2.07 Describe the extent to which the organization of the college reflects fund raising
priorities and acquisition of public dollars priorities.
2.08 Describe the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the college to attain
private funds and public dollar goals.
2.10 what is the administrative emphasis on participatory decision making about
income acquisition?
2.11 From which of these categories of private sources of dollars has your college
received dollars?
Individuals alumni private foundations a business
an industry a corporate foundation other
2.12 Describe the extent to which the budget allocation for the advancement activities
reflects the college’s mission and priorities.
2.13 Describe the effectiveness of the budget revision process for the advancement
activities.
2.14 Describe the communication of resource allocation decisions to employees. Have
communication activities changed between the President’s cabinet or faculty
teams to adapt to income acquisition goals?
2.15 Describe how the college seeks additional sources of funding from the state
government and if applicable, local government. Is there a sense of reconceiving
identity and relationship with these government agencies?
2.16 Describe the extent to which the college seeks additional sources of funding
through government grant proposals. Not state legislative appropriations.
2.17 Describe the ability of the college to gain financial support from individuals,
groups, businesses, corporations, and private foundations.
2.18 Where do I find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with the
advancement function (resource dev, marketing, government affairs, media

211
relations, community affairs, inst research, foundation, alumni affairs, corporate
relations, publications)?
2.19 Where do I find evidence and artifacts of fiscal planning integrated with academic
planning?
2.20 As a percentage of the operating budget, are the percentages of all the sources of
income satisfactory? Why?
2.21 Is the integration of all the advancement activities satisfactory? Why?
2.22 Are tuition and student fees at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
2.23 How are institutional responses to drop in enrollment tied to advancement
activities and financial controls? E.g. short term vs. longterm investments in
marketing?
2.24 Are federal Pell Grants at a satisfactory percentage of the operating budget?
Why?
Theme 3: Literature on integrating advancement function with planning and strategic
management
3.01 What are the trends in this college toward the fund raising activities becoming
more of a core function? How has this changed the job of the
President
Business Officer
Marketing Director
PR director
Academic VP/Deans
other
3.05 State the importance of Pell Grants and student loans to the overall institutional
budget.
3.06 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of corporate donors?
3.08 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional programs and objectives
of state legislature for annual allocation? For matching $ program?
3.09 What is the process of aligning objectives of institutional program and objectives
of local government agencies?

212
Theme 4: Sustaining advancement initiatives
4.01 Describe changes in your administrative role from fy 1996 to fy2000 vis-á-vis
fund raising and acquisition of public dollars.
4.03 Great ideas can fail if leaders do not support them. Can you give evidence of
persistent and top level support for advancement initiatives? E.g How was the
purpose of the initiative communicated? E.g., President’s commitment to an
advancement effort, defining and incorporating resource development goals with
college goals? Board involvement with resource development?
4.05 Were new ideas that gained top level support compatible with the beliefs and
values of the institution? Were they compatible with the history, culture, past
successes and failures, and resources of the institution?
4.12 Where would I find evidence of coherent planning and budgeting e.g. goals,
objectives, assessment
4.13 Describe the quality of reporting/management information systems for the
income acquisition and management system(s)

REFERENCES
Adams, K., Keener, B., & McGee, A. (1994, August/September). Going public with
private fundraising: Community colleges gamer fairer share of support.
Community College Journal, 65, 39-42.
Alfred, R. (1996). Competition for limited resources: Resources, prospects, and
strategies. In D. Honeyman, J. Wattenbarger, Jr., & K. Westbrook (Eds.), A
struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 209-228).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Alfred, K., & Carter, P. (1999). Organizational change and development in community
colleges. In J. Smart & G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research. Vol. 14 (pp. 240-286). New York: Agathon.
Baker, G. A., Ill (Ed.). (1994). A handbook on the community college in America: Its
History, mission, and management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Baker, G. A., III. (1998). Managing change: A model for community college leaders.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417775)
Baker, G. A., Ill, Biggerstaff, C., Tagle, T. M., Roe, M., Gillett-Karam, R., Pena, E.,
Nelson, M., Barber, P., & Clark, A. (1992). Cultural leadership: Inside America's
community colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and
Junior Colleges.
Banks, D., & Mabry, T. (1988). Community college foundations. Los Angeles: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges.
Barker, T., & Smith, H. (1997, Summer). Strategic planning: Evolution of a model.
Innovative Higher Education, 21(4), 287-306.
Baxter, V. (1987). Role of leadership in the development of successful California
community college foundations: A case study of five California community
college foundations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50 (08A), 2361.
Bimbaum, R. (2001). Management fads in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
213

214
Braswell, J. A., & May, M. L. (2000, March 29-April 1). Closing the loop without the
loop closing on you! A paper presented at the Chair Academy's 9th Annual
International Conference for Community and Technical College Chairs, Deans
and other organizational leaders, San Jacinto, TX.
Breneman, D. W. (1997). "The changing landscape." In P. M. Callan & J. E. Finney
(Eds.), Public and private financing of higher education: Shaping public policy
for the future (pp. 30-59). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The
Oryx Press.
Breneman, D. W., & Nelson, S. C. (1981). Financing community colleges: An economic
perspective. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Brittingham, B. E., & Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). Campus green: Fund raising in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: School
of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED321706)
Burlingame, D. F„ & Hulse, L. J. (1991). Taking fund raising seriously: Advancing the
profession and practice of raising money. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Butterfield, B. S., & Wolfe, S. (1997). Envision your future and make it so: A strategic
planning workbook for higher education human resource professionals.
Washington, DC: College and University Personnel Association.
Cain, M. S. (1999). The community college in the twenty-first century: A systems
approach. New York: University Press of America.
Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (1997). Public and private financing of higher education:
Shaping public policy for the future. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on
Education and The Oryx Press.
Cameron, K. S. (1986). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors.
Management Science, 32, 87-112.
Cameron, K., & Whetten, D. (1984). Models of the organizational life cycle:
Applications to Higher education. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), College and University
Organization: Insights from the Behavioral Sciences (pp. 31-57). New York: New
York University Press.
Campbell, D. F., Leverty, L., & Sayles, K. (1996). Funding for community colleges:
Changing patterns of support. In D. Honeyman, J. Wattenbarger, Jr., & K.
Westbrook (Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next
century (pp. 172-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Carbone, R. F. (1986). An agenda for research on fund raising. College Park:
Clearinghouse for Research on Fund Raising, University of Maryland.

215
Chaffee, E. (1982). Case studies in college strategy. Boulder, CO: National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems.
Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10,
89-98.
Chaffee, E. E. (1989). Strategy and effectiveness in systems of higher education. In J.
Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp.
1-30). New York: Agathon Press.
Cohen, A. R. (2000). Initiating change: The anatomy of structure as a starting point. In
M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 177-192). Boston,
Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., Bensimon, E. M., Richardson, R. C., Jr., Wolverton, M.,
Vaughn, G. B., Piland, W. E., Tschechtelin, J. D., Eaton, J. S., Hale, E.,
Moriarity, D. F., Lorenzo, A. L., Janzen, B. E., Kanter, M. J., Bers, Trudy H.,
Waddell, G„ Dassance, C. R., Losak, J., Angel, D., Brader, J., Parsons, M. H.,
Vineyard, E. E., Smith, A. B., Barber, J. A., Andrews, H. A., de los Santos, A. G.,
Jr., Finger, S., Dziech, B. W., & Palmer, J. C. (1994). Managing community
colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). (1989). Initiating a
fund raising program: A model for the community college. Alexandria, VA:
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. Chicago: Aldine.
Dickinson, R. (1999). The changing role of community college faculty: Implications in
the literature. Community College Review, 26(4), 23-27.
Dolence, M. G., & Norris, M. (1995). Transforming higher education: A vision for
learning. Society of College and University Planning (SCUP) monograph 7. Ann
Arbor, MI: Society of College and University Planning.
Duffy, E. (1982). Characteristics and conditions of a successful community college
foundation. In W. H. Sharron, Jr. (Ed.), The community college foundation (pp.
67-86). Washington DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1990). Fund raising outcomes and institutional
characteristics in ten types of higher education institutions. The Review of Higher
Education, 13, 539-556.

216
Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1991). Effective business practices in fund raising. In
D. F. Burlingame & L. J. Hulse (Eds.), Taking fund raising seriously: Advancing
the profession and practice of raising money (pp. 124-143). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Education Commission of the States. (2000). State funding for community colleges: A 50
state survey. Denver, CO: Center for Community College Policy.
Eisenhardt. K. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and
comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627.
Eldredge, R. G. (1999). The advancement president in higher education. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 60 (08a), 2751.
Evelyn, J. (1999, October 18). The battle of the boards. Community College Week,
12(5), 8.
Ferlie, E., Ashbumer, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public
management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galbraith, J. R. (2000). The role of fonnal structures and processes. In M. Beer & N.
Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the Code of change (pp. 139-160). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Gatewood, A. C. (1994). A comparative analysis and evaluation of community college
nonprofit foundations in North Carolina (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, (04A), 0815.
Glandon, B., & Keener, B. J. (1994, December). Going public with private fund-raising:
Profiles, patterns, and perceptions of community college foundation performance.
Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Glass, J. C., Jr., & Jackson, K. L. (1998a). Integrating resource development and
institutional planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
22(8), 715-740.
Glass, J. C. Jr., & Jackson, K. L. (1998b). A new role for community college presidents:
Private fund raiser and development team leader. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 22(6), 575-591.
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. Orlando: Academic Press.
Gold, M. (1999). The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

217
Greer, L. B. (1999). Strategic planning in community and technical colleges: A survey of
four southern states (Doctoral dissertation. University of Central Florida,
Orlando). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (03A), 0630. (AAG9923710)
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rhinehart
& Winston.
Hathaway, R. S. (1995, Oct.) Assumptions underlying quantitative and qualitative
research: Implications for institutional research. Research in Higher Education,
36(5), 535-562.
Hecht, I.., Higgerson, M., Gmelch, W„ & Tucker, A. (1999). The department chair as
academic leader. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
Honeyman, D. S., Williams, M. L., & Wattenbarger, J. L. (1991). Community college
financing. Washington, DC: American Association of Junior and Community
Colleges.
Howell, E. (2000). Strategic planning for a new century: Process over product. ERIC
Digest (ED-99-CO-0010). Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community
Colleges, University of California at Los Angeles.
Jackson, K. L. (1997). Emerging trends and critical issues impacting private fundraising
by North Carolina community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (08A), 2975.
Jackson, K. L., & Glass, J. C., Jr. (2000). Emerging trends and critical issues affecting
private fund raising among community colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 24(9), 739-755.
Jenkins, L. W. (1997). Inception, growth, and development of a community college
foundation: A case study (Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University,
Raleigh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (10A), 3817.
Jenkins, L. W., & Glass, J. C., Jr. (1999). Inception, growth, and development of a
community college foundation: Lessons to be learned. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 23(6), 593-612.
Johnson, J. (1986). Advancement strategies for two-year colleges. In A.W. Rowland
(Ed.), Handbook of insititutional advancement: A modem guide to executive
management, institutional relations, fund-raising, alumni administration,
government organizational change and culture in community colleges (2nd ed.,
pp. 706-721). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnstone, D. B. (1997). Public and private partnerships: Leveraging private giving with
public policies and public revenue. In M. K. Murphy (Ed.), The advancement
president and the academy (pp. 66-75). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

218
Keener, B. J. (1982). The foundation's role in resource development. In W. H. Sharron,
Jr. (Ed.), The Community College Foundation (pp. 3-17). Washington DC:
National Council for Resource Development.
Keener, B. J. (1989). The development plan. In G. J. Ryan & N. J. Smith (Eds.),
Marketing and development for community colleges (pp. 149-158). Washington,
DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).
Keener, B. J., Carrier, S. M., & Meaders, S. J. (2002). Resource development in
community colleges: A national overview. Community College Journal of
Research & Practice (26), 7-23.
Keener, B. J., Ryan, G. J., & Smith, N. J. (1991). Paying attention: How to market
resource development. Community, Technical and Junior College Journal, 61,
34-37.
Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, N.J:
Lawrence Earlbaum.
Knight Higher Education Collaborative. (2000). Planning and fundraising: From
bureaucratic to strategic management [Occasional paper]. Exemplars, 9, 3.
Koelkebeck, G. (1994). The evaluation of public community college readiness for private
sector fund raising (Doctoral dissertation. Fielding Graduate Institute, Santa
Barbara, CA). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (03A), 0803.
(AA19525968)
Koltai, L. (1993). Community colleges: Making winners out of ordinary people. In A.
Levine (Ed.), Higher learning in America, 1980-2000 (pp. 100-113). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lauffer, A. (1984). Strategic marketing for not for profit organizations. New York:
MacMillan.
Leslie, D., & Fretwell, E. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: Creating and managing
resilient colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1980). Group decision and social change. In J. A. Shtogren (Ed.), The
structure of competence-The theories and facts about managing people (pp.
332-353). The Woodlands, TX: Teleometrics International.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lively, K. (2000). Giving to higher education breaks another record. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 46, 35-41.

219
Loessin, B. A., & Duronio, M. A. (1989, May). A model for fund raising effectiveness.
Paper presented at the Annual Forum, Association for Institutional Research,
Baltimore, MD.
Lovelock, C. H., & Weinberg, C. B. (1984). Marketing for public and nonprofit
managers. San Francisco: John Wileys.
MacArthur, K. M. (2000). Advancement in community colleges. In P. Buchanan (Ed.),
Handbook of Institutional advancement (3rd ed., pp. 487-490). Washington, DC:
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).
Matsoukas, G. E. (1996). Relationship of community college internal organizational
structure to effective grantsmanship. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 20(3), 277-288.
Mayer, A. E. (1999). Advancement information resources management: An information
understanding profession in support of philanthropy. Master's research paper,
Kent State University, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED435391)
McClenny, B. F., & Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Integrating academic planning and budgeting.
In D. F. Campbell (Ed.), New directions for community colleges, No. 50:
Strengthening financial management (pp. 7-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merisotis, J. P., & Wolanin, T. R. (2000). Community college financing: Strategies and
challenges. New expeditions Issues Paper No. 5. Washington, DC: American
Association Community Colleges. Retrieved July 31, 2000, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourceCenter/
Projects_Partnerships/Current/NewExpeditions/IssuePapers/CCFinancing.htm
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. T., & Seagren, A. T. (1997). Community college finance: Department chair
perceptions of selected financial issues and responsibilities. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 21(1), 34-47.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.
Mook, D. G. (1983, April). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist,
38(4), 379-387.
Myran, G. A. (1983). Strategic management in the community college. In G. A. Myran
(Ed.), New directions for community colleges, No. 44: Strategic management in
the community college (pp. 7-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

220
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (1999). Community
colleges and the State University of New York: A study of the statewide
governance of the SUNY Community Colleges. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS.
Nichols, J. O. (1996). A practitioners handbook for insititutional effectiveness and
student outcomes assessment implementation. New York: Agathon.
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA). (1998,
August). Community college revenues and expenditures. Program evaluation and
justification review (Report No. 88-07). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Legislature.
Oster, S. M. (1995). Strategic management for nonprofit organizations: Theory and
cases. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., Mets, L. A., Brinkman, P., Chaffee, E. E., Clark, B. R.,
Cohen, D. W., Dey, E. L., El-Khawas, E., Epper, R. M., Ewell, P. T., Fink, L,
Finnegan, D. E., Galloway, F. J., Goldstein, H. A., Graves, W. H., Gumport, P. J.,
Haas, R. M., Hartle, T. W., Henshaw, R. G., Hedinger, R. B., Hurtado, S.,
Jacobson, S. W., Jones, D. P., Keller, G., Larson, R. S., Loessin, B. A., Luger, M.
L, Márchese, T. J., Mingle, J. R., Morgan, A. W., Morrison, J. L., Neumann, A.,
Oberlin, J. L., Parker, A. S., Pusser, B., van Vught, F., & Wilson, I. (1997).
Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on
redesigning postsecondary institutions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Pettigrew, A. M. (Ed.). (1988). The management of strategic change. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2000). Linking change processes to outcomes, in M. Beers & N.
Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 243-265). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pettigrew, A. M., & Fenton, E. M. (Eds.). (2000). The innovating organization. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pezzullo, T. R., & Brittingham, B. E. (1990). The study of money: What we need to
know and what we need to know about college fund raising. Currents, 16, 44-49.
Phair, J. T., & King, R. (1998). Organizational charts and job descriptions for the
advancement office. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and Support
of Education (CASE).
Phillippe, K., & Eblinger, R. (1998). Community college foundations: Funding the
community college future. AACC Research Brief. Washington, DC: Community
College Press, American Association of Community Colleges.

221
Phillippe, K., & Patton, M. (1999). National profile of community colleges: Trends and
statistics (3rd ed). Washington, DC: Community College Press, American
Association of Community Colleges.
Richardson, R. C., Jr., & de los Santos, G. E. (2001). State governance structures and
two-year colleges. In B. K. Townsend & S. B. Twombly (Eds.), Community
colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 39-55). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Robison, S. (1982). The development of the two-year college foundation and techniques
of success. In W. H. Sharron, Jr. (Ed.), The Community College Foundation
(pp. 31-48). Washington DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Roueche, J. E., & Baker, G. A., III. (1987). Access to excellence: The open door college.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.
Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M.G. (1997). Strategic change in colleges and
universities: Planning to survive and prosper. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, G. J. (1988). Corporate and foundation giving to community colleges. Rochester,
NY: Office of Institutional Advancement, Monroe Community College.
Ryan, G. J. (1989a). The community college foundation today. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 17(4), 15-20.
Ryan, G. J. (1989b). Excellence in educational fund raising at America's community
colleges and a key resource guide for educational fund raising. Rochester, NY:
Office of Institutional Advancement, Monroe Community College.
Ryan, G. J. (1989c). A guide to key resources. New Directions for Community Colleges,
17(4), 85-110.
Ryan, G. J. (1993). The fund-raising and economic development linkage. In G. J. Ryan
(Ed.), Partners in economic development: Community college strategies for
collaboration (pp.59-64). Washington, DC: American Association of Community
Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356017)
Ryan, G. J., & Smith, N. (Eds.). (1989). Marketing and development for community
colleges. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of
Education (CASE).

222
Schmidtlein, F. A. (1990). Responding to diverse institutional issues: Adapting strategic
planning concepts. In F. A. Schmidtlein & T. FI. Milton (Eds.), New directions
for institutional research. No. 67: Adapting strategic planning to campus realities
(pp. 83-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidtlein, F. A., & Milton, T. H. (1990). A review of literature on higher education
institutional planning. College Park: Center for Postsecondary Governance and
Finance; University of Maryland.
Schuyler, G. (1997, March). Fundraising in community college foundations. ERIC Digest
(ED405943). Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sevier, R. A. (1998). Integrated marketing for colleges, universities, and schools: A
step-by-step planning guide. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and
Support of Education (CASE).
Sevier, R. A. (1999). Integrated marketing communication: A practical guide to
developing comprehensive communication strategies. Washington, DC: Council
for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).
Sevier, R. A. (2000). Developing an integrated marketing plan. In P. M. Buchanon (Ed.),
Handbook of Institutional advancement (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Council for
the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).
Sharon, W. H., Jr. (Ed.). (1982). The Community College Foundation. Washington, DC:
National Council for Resource Development.
Shaw, K. M. (2001). Refraining remediation as a systemic phenomenon: A comparative
analysis of remediation in two states. In B. K. Townsend & S. B. Twombly
(Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 193-221). Westport,
CT: Ablex.
Sherman, R. S., & Webb, R. B. (1995). Qualitative research in education: Focus and
methods. New York: The Falmer Press.
Smith, B. (1985). The adult majority: Redefining the two-year institution. Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, A. A., Jr., & Strickland, A. J., III. (2001). Strategic management: Concepts
and cases (12th ed.) New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

223
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1998). The responsive university: Restructuring for high
perfonnance. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (Eds.). (2001). Community colleges: Policy in the
future context. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Tromble, W. W. (1998). Excellence in advancement: Applications for higher education
and nonprofit organizations. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
U. S. Department of Education. (1999, September). Helping students prepare for college
through "GEAR UP." Retrieved August 31, 2001, from http:www.ed.gov/geamp
Underwood, J. C., & Hammons, J. O. (1999). Past, present, and future variations in
community college organizational structure. Community College Review, 26(4),
39-60.
Van Maanen, J., Dabbs, J. M., Jr., & Faulkner, R. R. (1982). Varieties of qualitative
research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Vaughn, G. B. (1986). The community college presidency. New York: American Council
on Education/MacMillan.
Wattenbarger, J. L. (1976). The role of the professional educator as the college
development educator. (Resource Paper No. 7). Washington, DC: National
Council on Resource Development.
Wattenbarger, J. L. (1994). Resource development in the community college: The
evolution of resource policy development for community colleges as related to
support from local, state, and federal governments. In G. A. Baker, III (Ed.), A
handbook on the community college in America (pp. 333-339). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Weinstein, S. (1999). The complete guide to fund raising management. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (1998). Policy
indicators for higher education. Boulder, CO: Author.
Williams, A. H. (1988). Decision making in foundations: A story (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor). (University Microfilm No. 87022, 358).
Williams, C. (2000). $25 trillion and counting. Community College Journal, 70(4), 8.
Williams, J. E. (1998). Linking strategic planning, budgeting, and financial resource
allocation in California community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of
La Verne, California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (01 A), 93.
(AAG9923710).

224
Wolverton, M. (1998). Champions, agents and collaborators: Leadership keys to
successful systemic change. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 20(1), 19-29.
Worth, M. J. (1993). Educational fund raising. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
Worth, M. J., & Asp, J. W., II. (1994). The development officer in higher education:
Toward an understanding of the role. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
4. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development.
Yee, J. (1998, June). Forces motivating institutional reform. ERIC Digest. Los Angeles:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ms. Birmingham has 20 years of experience in the nonprofit sector and higher
education with competencies in finance, fund development, marketing, board training
and development, public relations and community affairs, program development and
evaluation, and general management. As an instructor of business and management and
of education she has developed courses in nonprofit management and finance, small
business management, human resource management, marketing/public relations,
leadership, business law, and foundations of education.
As senior associate for The Research Group, a private consulting firm she has
with her husband, Kathryn writes strategic plans, fund development plans, and
communications plans and evaluates nonprofit and educational programs and grants
management. Her publications include journalism, educational research, and published
plans.
As assistant director of Community College Business Officers, Birmingham
developed curriculum for their Leadership Academy, planned the annual conference, and
provided for marketing and membership services. She received the 2001 Building
Learning Communities Award for her leadership and contributions to the University of
Florida Higher Education Administration program from 1999-2001.
As director of the Public Relations Department for St. Johns River Community
College and Florida School of the Arts, Ms. Birmingham oversaw all media relations,
225

226
marketing, and a 12% enrollment growth from 1998-99. Ms. Birmingham was an
executive with the American Red Cross for 12 years.
Her interests include big game fishing, folk art, travel, and contemporary novels.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
F. Campbell,
Professor of Educatioi
and Foundations
Leadership, Policy
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
David S. Hone
Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy
and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
r
Barbara J. Keener
Lecturer of Educational Leadership, Policy
and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08555 1611



xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ED4NVN8CU_PW48HC INGEST_TIME 2013-10-24T20:27:26Z PACKAGE AA00017703_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES