Citation
The relationship of selected institutional variables to community college foundation revenue

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of selected institutional variables to community college foundation revenue
Creator:
Carrier, Sharon McEntee
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 118 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College presidents ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Communities ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Endowments ( jstor )
Funding ( jstor )
Fundraising ( jstor )
Geodetic position ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
School surveys ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2002.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sharon McEntee Carrier.

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:
029641946 ( ALEPH )
51947295 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION REVENUE













By

SHARON McENTEE CARRIER


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


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002



















to my
mother and father














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through it.

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

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

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

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

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

Development for their suggestions and support.

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

encouragement and inspiration.

Amanda Cosat and Sherry Meaders deserve my special acknowledgment and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

her humor, wisdom, and unwavering confidence in me.









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

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

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

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

thanks for their support, understanding, and love.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

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

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

CHAPTER

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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













LIST OF TABLES


Table page

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

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

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

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

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

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














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

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION REVENUE

By

Sharon McEntee Carrier

December 2002

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

This study examined the annual revenue gained by community college

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

foundation performance. Systems theory provided the conceptual framework for

analyzing the foundation subsystem's interconnections and interdependencies with its

next higher system level, the college.

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

geographic location; college size; and college endowment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

college endowment, foundation board member, and college size.

Conclusions regarding the significant and insignificant variables were presented,

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

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

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

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

relationship of foundation operating budgets to foundation revenues can be compared

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

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

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














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Philanthropic giving to community colleges is a relatively recent and increasingly

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

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

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

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

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

service providers, community colleges could suffer potentially detrimental effects over

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

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

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

1998b).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

university (Rennebohm, 1981).

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

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

administrative and investment decisions, and encouraged volunteer involvement and

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

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

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

foundations have forged productive partnerships, provided discretionary funds, and

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

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

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

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

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

operations (Moore, 2000).









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

public funds positively influenced the establishment of community college foundations,

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

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

professional recognition and support of community college resource development

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

Statement of the Problem

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

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

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

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

knowing which organizational patterns, program characteristics, and techniques are

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

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

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

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

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

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

The existing literature regarding philanthropy and higher education mostly

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

important factors (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

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

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

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

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

been linked to effectiveness when comparing resource development programs of various

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1994).

Philanthropic support of public community colleges and the elements within these

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

comprehensive data on community college foundation performance has precluded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

has yet to be analyzed.

Purpose of the Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

statistically significant and positive relationship between the foundation revenue and each

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

The research questions guiding the study were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

Definition of Terms

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

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

development officer generally has responsibility for identifying, developing, and

cultivating public and private funding opportunities that support institutional mission and

needs; initiating and maintaining advocacy relationships with constituents both internal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

institutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

submitting grant applications; and providing gift stewardship and monitoring of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1993b).

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

(Worth, 1993b, p. 417).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1978).

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

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

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

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

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

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

1978b).









Delimitations and Limitations

Delimitations

This research was conducted with the following delimitations:

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

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

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

Limitations

This research was conducted acknowledging the following limitations:

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

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

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

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









Significance of the Study

Contemporary discussions of leadership and organizational effectiveness point to

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

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

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

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

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

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

1994; Murray, 1987).

Research in the field of resource development for community colleges is

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

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

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

Additionally, an appropriate theoretical framework for discussing fund raising and

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

issues (Jackson & Glass, 2000).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

and foundation subsystem had a significant and positive relationship to foundation

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

understanding of community college resource development.

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

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

understand relevant organizational analysis as applied to their institutions and the

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

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

fund-raising potential for community colleges nationwide.

Overview of the Methodology

Resource development professionals in the Council for Resource Development

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

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

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

researcher, developed a survey questionnaire to provide information about community

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

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

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

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

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









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

subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Association of Community Colleges (AACC) combined, representing approximately

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

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

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

responded.

Summary

Philanthropic support of public community colleges and the elements within these

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

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

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

advancement (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

outcome variable measuring foundation performance was the amount of foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

foundation could be associated with increased foundation revenue.

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

community colleges that held membership in the Council for Resource Development

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

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

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

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









development function connected only with funds gained in connection with private

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

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

reported by the respective community colleges. Additional information was obtained

from CRD membership directories and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System (IPEDS).

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

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

community colleges and private fund raising, outcome measures defining successful

foundation performance, foundation revenue sources, and variables associated with

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

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

implications, as well as suggestions for further research.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

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

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

outcome measures defining successful foundation performance, foundation revenue

sources, and variables associated with successful foundation performance.

Systems Theory

Fund-raising questions and methodologies can be explored using organizational

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

underlying structures generate certain behavioral patterns that affect organizational

performance (Senge, 1990).

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systems theory examines organizational structures, relationships, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledging that there are various levels of systems and interconnections

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

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

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

over lower ones (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Fund raising and development can be analyzed through a conceptual framework

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









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

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

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

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

foundation subsystem through the inputs, interconnections, and interdependencies that

exist between them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1990, p. 206).

Institutional Advancement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

integrated with the other college offices since intrainstitutional cooperation is imperative

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1994).









Historically, the community college movement started with William Rainey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

students (Witt et al., 1994).

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

practical realities of its community.

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

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

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

college (Witt et al., 1994).

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

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

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

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

statewide planning became increasingly important and enrollments soared. Great

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

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

Significant support of community colleges through the Kellogg Foundation began in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

programs (Phillippe & Patton, 2000).

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

opportunities, community colleges have served the educational needs of students

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

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

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

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

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

certificates (Phillippe & Patton, 2000).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Colleges and Private Fund Raising

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cooperative programs and contract learning opportunities with business and industry

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

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

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

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

1989).

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

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

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









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

Service, foundations have encouraged tax-deductible contributions from individual

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

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

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

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

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

improvement (Keener, 1982).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome Measures Defining Successful Foundation Performance

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

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

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









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

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

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

give to the institution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

autonomy by effectively managing communications between a charitable organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the main performance indicator in development obviously remains the total

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).









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

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

exploratory study, the perceptions of college administrators regarding the characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenner, 1987).

Foundation Revenue Sources

Individuals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

(Smith, 1991).

Community Organizations and Corporations

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

potential sources for community college resource development have been corporate and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson, 1998a).

External Foundations

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

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

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

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

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

While competition for foundation support is steep-approximately one million

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

relationships, geographical proximity, philosophical alignment, and historical affiliation

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









State Matching Programs

States that have passed legislation for matching programs typically allow for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

institutions including community colleges (Schmidt, 1997).

Endowment Interest and Investments

Associated with foundation performance is the wise management of endowments

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

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

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

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

for community colleges (Riggs & Helweg, 1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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









Variables Associated with Successful Foundation Performance

Allocation of Resources to the Foundation Operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

Not surprisingly, community college chief development officers reported

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building relationships beyond the organization primarily is a function of an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1988).









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research has shown that a distinguishing feature of effective nonprofit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

president can make (Hesburgh, 1980).

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 530).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boards demonstrate leadership and commitment to the betterment of the community

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

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

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

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

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

1998b).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief development officers from institutions cited as highly effective in fund

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

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

underscores the important responsibility chief development officers have in establishing

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

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

profession (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b).

Having a chief development officer or individual responsible for external resource

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

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

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









survey found that the community college development officer or foundation executive

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

While development staff perform most development functions, board members

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

1994). Trustees and regents of public colleges and universities increasingly have an

important role in raising private funds for their institutions (Nason, 1989); however, it has

been reported that community college trustees have not participated actively in providing

fund-raising support (Ryan, 1989). While public trustees have responsibilities in

overseeing adequate funding, they often are elected or appointed for reasons other than

their fund-raising potential or personal wealth; it is important, therefore, for public

institutions to create independent foundation boards to act in a fiduciary capacity to

donors and to avoid possible conflicts of interest for the governing trustees (Sader, 1986).

For community colleges with small governing boards, one proposed model is to

have each trustee serve on separate foundation committees (Katsinas, Herrmann, &

Traylor, 1990). Another recommendation is for the foundation board to include one or

more of the institution's trustees (Fisher & Koch, 1996; Simic, 1998). The prevalent

community college model is to create separate foundation boards (Ryan, 1989). In fact,

most public institutions delegate fund raising to a foundation board (Legon, 1989).

The literature suggests that the strength of the foundation's board of directors

contributes to the community college foundation's success (Sharron, 1982; Hunter, C. B.,

1987). A study of public colleges of various types in New York found that an uninvolved

foundation board versus an involved one was the difference between colleges that were

considered underproductive versus overproductive (Webb, 1982).









An important first step in creating an involved and interested board is serious

consideration of board composition (Bryant, 1988). In a national survey of resource

development personnel from 418 public community colleges, careful selection of board

members was the suggestion most frequently cited to assure foundation success; the

pitfall most often cited was not choosing the right foundation board members

(Degerstedt, 1982). The college president should pay special attention to the selection of

the foundation board (Fisher & Koch, 1996) but not necessarily be involved in the

selection of foundation board members (Katsinas et al., 1990).

With the help of a nominating committee, foundation board members must be

chosen carefully to include "only those who can give and get money, or who can help in

public relations" (Gale, 1989, p. 104). A study of community colleges in North Carolina

found the most important criteria in selecting foundation board members to be the

willingness to give or procure funds for the college and an interest in, and support of, the

college's mission and goals (Bryant, 1988). Through their relationships in the private

sector, community college foundation members can convey with credibility the college's

action plans (Conrad et al., 1986).

Meeting Institutional Strategic Goals

Linking institutional planning to resource development goals and strategies

underscores institutional commitment to fund raising (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993).

Institutional priorities should provide the basis for resource development efforts since

each funding request is a statement of institutional identity and direction (Brittingham &

Pezzullo, 1990). Put bluntly, "mission justifies fund raising" (Payton et al., 1991). In fact,









if gifts detract from an institution's mission, priorities, or desired direction, they should

be rejected (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

Besides mission, institutional autonomy and ethics may also be at stake if the

implications of resources are not assessed in accordance with principles established

through consensus (Parsons, 1994). Moreover, an institution could lose control of its

power to determine and pursue its own goals if too much internal autonomy is given up to

external donors (Kelly, 1991).

Connecting college planning and research to development efforts and seeking

external funding only in support of the college's mission and goals have been cited as

necessary elements for the pubic community college resource development program to

thrive, especially in an era of diminishing state appropriations (Blong & Bennett, 1991;

Daniel, 1985). Following good managerial practices-including "matching effort to

strategic advantage and institutional mission" and conducting institutional

evaluation-are advised for the resource development operation (Brittingham &

Pezzullo, 1990, p. 25). If the impact on the direction of the community college and its

constituencies are disregarded in the quest for external funds, it can result in "skewed

programming and a disappointed clientele who cannot be served when external dollars

are no longer available" (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 15). Successful fund raising

for community colleges largely depends on planning and taking strategic advantage of

community support gained through excellent institutional reputation (Ryan, 1994).

Community colleges are realizing the important role of involving resource

development in institutional planning (Daniel, 1991). In fact, it is quite possible for

funding proposal development to occur simultaneously with strategic planning and









reaccreditation efforts (Groff, 1985). The ability to plan well, due to the college's

comprehensive planning, management, and evaluation system, was cited as a primary

reason for one community college's successful resource development (Hooks & Kelley,

1990).

The foundation must be involved in and stay current with institutional planning

and priorities for the foundation to fulfill its purpose and have the greatest impact

(Keener, 1982). Among the top conditions cited by development personnel as being

critical to community college foundation success were an organized, planned effort and a

clear statement of purpose for the resource development function (Glandon & Keener,

1994).

Rather than being subject to haphazard growth, the community college foundation

should be part of an intentional plan with realistic expectations (Deegan, 1989). If

integrated into a total institutional plan to achieve desired ends, the foundation serves as a

proactive part of the plan instead of being used as a reactive device (Wattenbarger, 1982).

Ultimately, the evaluation of an advancement program must be linked to achieving the

educational objectives of the institution (Leslie, 1969). Thus, the successful performance

of a college foundation must be evaluated relative to the college's goals (Robison, 1982).

College Geographic Location

The success of the college foundation also can be influenced by the institution's

potential for fund-raising success. Fund-raising potential may take into consideration the

institution's geographic location and access to resources. In a study of private

undergraduate colleges, access to the total pool of resources available was more

important than geographic proximity in helping to determine which colleges were









overproductive and underproductive in realizing their fund-raising potential (Pickett,

1977). A national study of state colleges and universities found a significant relationship

between total voluntary support and an institution's location in an urban area (Hunter, F.

D., 1987).

Because the community college mission, generally, is to serve the local

population, community college foundation activities are focused primarily on particular

geographic locations as compared to four-year institutions that may have a more regional

or national reach; however, this proximity to the local community provides community

colleges with unique development opportunities (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). In a study of

public two-year colleges in the Northeast, size of the service area was found to be a

significant variable for foundations with successful fund-raising programs (Ironfield,

1991). Likewise, population of the service area and size of the civilian labor force were

significant variables in predicting total annual income for community college foundations

in North Carolina (Gatewood, 1994). Larger service areas characteristic of urban

locations and regions with healthy economies were associated with successful fund-

raising programs in a national study of public community colleges (Hunter, C. B., 1987).

A large urban area with multiple businesses and industries provides advantages

for selecting foundation board members and soliciting corporate contributions (Bulpitt,

1982). Companies supporting community colleges see them as integral to the community,

providing training programs that meet company needs and supplying new employees,

whose children also benefit from college programs (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

One model demonstrating community college fund-raising potential characterized

colleges with high potential as being located in an urban or large suburban population,









colleges with medium potential as being in a mid-size to small suburban population, and

colleges with low potential as being in a rural population (Ryan, 1993). While access to

wealth through geographic location may help explain a college's increased fund-raising

effectiveness and foundation success, geographic location is not likely to be changed for

this reason (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

College Size

Regardless of the topic of analysis regarding colleges or their organizational

structure, institutional size appears repeatedly in research studies as an important, if not

the most important, variable in differentiating public institutions (Cohen & Brawer,

1996). For public two-year institutions, specifically, size of institutional enrollment has

been cited as the "most distinguishing characteristic" and the "driving variable for

differentiating public institutions from one another" (U.S. Department of Education,

2001, p. 24).

Larger colleges have the advantage of making more of an impact on the

community and reaching more potential supporters (Pickett, 1986). In terms of student

enrollment, college size has been related to the community college's establishment of a

foundation, with smaller institutions being less likely to have established one (Angel &

Gares, 1989; Degerstedt, 1982). The same model that showed high, medium, and low

fund-raising potential for community colleges by geographic location also associated

significant enrollment with high fund-raising potential, moderate enrollment with

medium potential, and small enrollment with low potential (Ryan, 1993). However, like a

college's geographic location, college size would not likely be changed to enhance fund-

raising potential (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).









A 1997 national survey of community colleges found a direct relationship

between fall enrollment and foundation value (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). Other studies

have concluded that two-year colleges with greater full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment

receive more private support (Maples, 1980) and experience greater foundation success,

whether the enrollments are in credit or noncredit programs (Glandon, 1987).

It should be noted that enrollment calculations, especially FTE formulas, vary.

Among the two-year colleges reporting data to the National Association of College and

University Business Officers' 17th annual Comparative Financial Statistics Study, a full-

time course load for students ranged from 30 to 48 credit hours (Meeker, 1995). One

method used for estimating FTE enrollment is to combine the actual full-time enrollment

with one-third of the part-time enrollment (Watkins, 2000). In a research study to provide

a new classification system for two-year postsecondary institutions, the enrollment

measure used was the annual (12-month) unduplicated headcount (U.S. Department of

Education, 2001).

College Endowment

At its sixth annual meeting in 1926, the American Association of Junior Colleges

considered a question concerning the "Amount of Endowment Necessary for a Standard

Junior College" (American Association of Junior Colleges, 1926, p. 38). The question

had been posed a year earlier by the accrediting body of the North Central Association,

whose commission on higher education wanted AAJC to provide a recommendation on

the question of endowment as a source of permanent income for junior colleges. The

AAJC committee members charged to research the issue reported to the AAJC that the

endowment amount set for four-year colleges was arbitrarily determined and that an









income requirement would more appropriately be based on student instructional costs.

They further stated that a college's endowment should not be considered apart from the

organization and administration of its educational program and that accreditation

approval should be based on the educational program and not the endowment amount.

The AAJC proceedings recorded the lively debate of the endowment question, taxation,

expenditure per student, and other financial sustainability issues and, thereby, provided a

glimpse of how two-year college pioneers staked new ground in the landscape of higher

education. Ultimately, AAJC passed the committee's recommendations for presentation

to the North Central Association. These recommendations called for further information

to be gained regarding instructional costs and more careful consideration of colleges that

potentially were in jeopardy of losing accreditation because they did not meet the

endowment requirement (American Association of Junior Colleges, 1926).

In recent decades, as community colleges administrators have sought increased

financial sustainability from alternative revenue sources, endowment income has been

viewed as another source of potential revenue. An endowment size of $50,000 was

considered significant in 1986; however, in 1993, foundation endowments for 165

community colleges exceeded $1 million (Adams et al., 1994).

Endowment size has been cited as a variable that can help to predict fund-raising

effectiveness for postsecondary institutions (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Dean, 1985;

Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Pickett, 1977). It has been stated that endowment size can

indicate the successful history of the institution in raising funds or operating in general,

and, thus, serve to forecast its continued success (Pickett, 1986). For community colleges,

however, the research regarding endowments has been scant (Clements, 1990). One









national study found that a greater percentage of administrators from two-year colleges

with foundations having a net worth of $1 million or more rated the endowment as

critical to foundation success as compared to the group responding from colleges with

foundations with less than $1 million (Glandon & Keener, 1994). Another national study

found that public community colleges with successful development programs used

endowment growth as a fund-raising strategy (Hunter, C. B., 1987). A study limited to

community colleges in Illinois and Iowa found no significant relationship between the

income from private gifts and college endowment (Clements, 1990).

Like some other institutional characteristics, endowment size is not a variable that

is easily manipulated as a way to increase fund-raising success (Duronio & Loessin,

1993); "advising a college president to increase the size of the endowment as a way to

improve the effectiveness of fund raising is no advice at all" (Brittingham & Pezzullo,

1990). Managing money wisely, however, is a significant function of the college

foundation and the community college foundation board (Katsinas et al., 1990). Outside

counsel also has been employed by community colleges to provide assistance in wisely

investing endowment funds (Ryan, 1994).

Summary

Systems theory has provided a framework and a broader context for

understanding community college foundation performance. By acknowledging that there

are various levels of systems and interconnections among open systems, it is possible to

examine the foundation as a subsystem, whose specific environment will greatly affect its

success and survival.









From their earliest development, community colleges answered the demands of a

growing populace, industrialization, and democratization. Due to the unique mission of

two-year colleges, to offer "opportunity with excellence," their resource needs exceed

what is afforded through public financial support, tuition, and fees (Parell, 1988).

Studies in higher education philanthropy and research on private support for

community colleges have shown that certain institutional and programmatic factors

support fund-raising effectiveness. These factors include the college's allocation of

resources to the fund-raising operation; critical roles played by the college president,

chief resource development officer, and foundation board member; importance of

evaluating the college's foundation in terms of meeting institutional strategic goals;

college geographic location; college size; and college endowment.

Chapter 3 follows with the design of the study, which includes a description of the

instrumentation, research population, procedure for data collection, statement of

variables, descriptive profiles, and research hypotheses.















CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This chapter presents the instrumentation, research population, procedure for data

collection, statement of variables, descriptive profiles, and research hypotheses.

Instrumentation

In the fall of 1999, initial discussions among resource development professionals

in the Council for Resource Development prompted interest in a survey that would

provide an understanding of the status of external funding efforts in both grants offices

and foundation offices in community colleges nationwide. With support from CRD,

Dr. Barbara Keener, Graduate Faculty in the College of Education, University of Florida,

led a research team, including this researcher, in the development of a survey

questionnaire. The research project received financial support from the Clements Group,

an institutional advancement and resource development consulting firm, and endorsement

by the American Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). A review of the

literature and previously administered survey instruments in the field of resource

development guided the research team's development of questions to include in the

survey instrument.

The primary purpose of the survey instrument was to provide baseline data for an

analysis of community college resource development functions, characteristics, and

performance in both grants and foundation operations. The survey items germane to this

researcher's study were those having to do with the annual revenue of community college









foundations and selected variables associated in the literature with successful foundation

performance.

For external validation of the survey, a review panel with expertise in community

college resource development provided assistance in reviewing survey questions and

potential problems. These ten content experts, primarily members of the CRD Executive

Board (see Appendix A), received a cover letter, survey draft, and evaluation form by

e-mail on March 21, 2000, including a request for their response by March 28, 2000 (see

Appendices B and C). In early April 2000, a synopsis of changes was compiled and

reviewed by the University of Florida research team. Based on the input of the content

experts, the research team made extensive changes to the survey instrument throughout

April of 2000.

On May 4, 2000, a second panel of reviewers, consisting of the CRD Board of

Directors and other individuals with expertise in resource development and community

colleges (see Appendix D), received the second draft of the survey instrument.

Instructions in a cover letter asked for return of the evaluation form and any additional

comments by May 15, 2000 (see Appendices E and F). Numerous revisions were made

based on the input from the nine reviewers who provided detailed responses. A research

protocol for the study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review

Board (IRB), which granted its approval in June 2000. The IRB approved the protocol

and the statement of informed consent, which appeared on the front page of the survey.

The statement explained the conditions of the research study and assured participants of

the confidentiality of their identity.









Research Population

Resource development professionals whose institutions were members of the

CRD and/or AACC were invited to participate in the research team's study. The CRD

and AACC membership lists provided a research population of approximately 1,100

community colleges. Of the total universe of 2,068 two-year postsecondary institutions, it

was determined that 1,029 are public, 309 are private not-for-profit, and 730 are private

for-profit institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). For this researcher's study,

the population.was limited to the two-year United States public community colleges that

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

between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). It

was determined that between 1998 and 2001 the annual average number of two-year

United States public community colleges belonging to CRD was 650.

Procedure for Data Collection

In July of 2000, CRD mailed to the membership of CRD and AACC, combined, a

cover letter addressed to the "Resource Development Professional" (see Appendix G) and

the final survey questionnaire (see Appendix H). Instructions stated that completed

surveys should be mailed or faxed to the survey team at the University of Florida by

August 15, 2000. In January 2001, a second survey was mailed to the CRD and AACC

members who had not responded. Collection of survey results continued through

February of 2001. A research assistant was hired to enter the data into an Excel

spreadsheet template according to detailed instructions prepared by the research team;

data entry was completed by March of 2001.









Statement of Variables

Since the purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United

States public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated

with successful foundation performance, the researcher focused on Section I (College

Profile) and Section III (Foundation/Private Gift Development) of the survey instrument.

The outcome variable was the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from

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

programs, and endowment interest and investments (see Appendix H, survey questions

#53a, #53b, #53c, #53d, #53e, #53f, #53g, and #52a).

Selected explanatory variables consisted of the foundation operating budget,

including salaries and benefits (see Appendix H, survey question #49); the degree to

which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation board member

individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation operation (see

Appendix H, survey questions #60a, #60d, #60c); the degree to which meeting

institutional strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation

operation (see Appendix H, survey question #57b); the college geographic location (see

Appendix H, survey question #15a, #15b, and #15c); the college size or credit enrollment

in nonduplicated student headcount (see Appendix H, survey question #12); and the

college endowment (see Appendix H, survey question #51). In cases where the

respondent did not complete survey question #12 for the fall 1998 enrollment, this

information was obtained through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS) (U.S. Department of Education, 1998b).









Descriptive Profiles

A total of 380 colleges returned the survey instrument. Of the 380 survey

respondents, 45 states and one U.S. territory were represented. Of the 380 total surveys

returned, 362 (56%) were from the target population of 650 two-year United States public

community colleges that were members in the Council for Resource Development (CRD)

one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001).

Applying the CRD Regional Structure (CRD, 2000) to the 362 respondents from

the target population, Table 1 presents a profile of the sample by the 10 CRD regions and

demonstrates the national scope of the sample.

Table 1

Profile of Sample by CRD Region

CRD Region n Percent
Region I 16 4.4
Region II 31 8.6
Region III 28 7.7
Region IV 77 21.3
Region V 64 17.7
Region VI 43 11.9
Region VII 25 6.9
Region VIII 13 3.6
Region IX 43 11.9
Region X 22 6.1
N= 362

Tables 2 and 3 provide the sample profile by college structure and geographic

location. Nearly 90% of the sample indicated being from a single community college









campus or a multi-campus district. Almost 57% designated either urban or suburban for

the geographic location of the institution; rural was the predominant geographic location

for just over 43% of the sample.

Table 2

Profile of Sample by College Structure
College Structure n Percent
Multi-College District 36 9.9
Multi-Campus District 146 40.3
Single Community College Campus 177 48.9
Other 3 .8
N = 362


Table 3

Profile of Sample by Geographic Location
Geographic Location n Percent

Rural 156 43.1
Urban 105 29.0
Suburban 101 27.9

N=362

The Katsinas classification system for community colleges, that was based on

1990 United States Census data and 1993 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System (IPEDS) information, bears an interesting comparison to the geographic profiles

of the sample. Of the 1,074 publicly controlled institutions in the Katsinas typology, 766

(71.3%) were rural, 103 (9.6%) were urban, and 205 (19.1%) were suburban (Katsinas,

1996).









Of the 350 sample respondents who reported on the year the college was

established, 118 (34%) were founded between 1852 and 1959, and 232 (66%) were

founded between 1960 and 1999. The 1960s represented the decade of greatest growth

for 50% of these respondents.

Of the sample, 342 (94.5%) indicated that a foundation or private gift

development office existed at their institutions, 17 (4.7%) answered that there was not

such an office, and 3 (.8%) did not respond. Regarding whether the grants office was

separate from the foundation or private gift development office, 195 (53.9%) answered

"yes," 88 (24.3%) answered "no," 72 (19.9%) answered "not applicable," and 7 (1.9%)

did not respond.

The date of establishment for foundation offices ranged from 1944 to 2000, as

shown in Table 4. The highest number of foundation offices established (122 or 33.7%)

occurred during the 1980s.

Table 4

Profile of Sample by Foundation Office Establishment Decade
Decade n Percent
1940 1 .28
1950 2 .55
1960 29 8.01
1970 93 25.70
1980 122 33.70
1990 64 17.68
2000 (Year Only) 3 .83
Total 314
Missing 48 13.26









Regarding the responsibility for the resource development function, 285 (78.7%)

of the sample answered "yes" to having a chief resource development officer or person

with similar responsibilities at their institution; 74 (20.4%) answered "no," and 3 (.8%)

did not respond. A total of 291 (80.4%) indicated the reporting line for the chief resource

development officer or person with similar responsibilities: 13 (3.6%) reported to the

chancellor, 58 (16%) to the district president, 141 (39%) to the campus president, 46

(12.7%) to a vice-president, and 33 (9.1%) to "other."

Research Hypotheses

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0

software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model

described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the

outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The proposed regression model was as

follows: Foundation Revenue = b(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of

college president) + b(critical role of chief development officer) + b(critical role of

foundation board member) + b(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +

b(college geographic location) + b(college size) + h(college endowment).

The following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the amount of the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 2:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the college
president is rated as playing a critical role in the institution's foundation
operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest
in the proposed regression model.









Hypothesis 3:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the chief resource
development officer is rated as playing a critical role in the institution's
foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 4:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the foundation
board member is rated as playing a critical role in the institution's
foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 5:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which meeting
institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in evaluating the
institution's foundation operation when controlling for the other
explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 6:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the more urban the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.

Hypothesis 7:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the greater the college size when
controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed
regression model.

Hypothesis 8:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the larger the college endowment
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model.

Summary

As part of a research team from the University of Florida, the researcher

developed a survey instrument, which was externally validated by review panels with

expertise in community college resource development. Resource development









professionals whose institutions were members of the CRD and/or AACC were sent a

cover letter and survey questionnaire by mail in July 2000. A follow-up mailing was sent

in January of 2001. While the CRD and AACC membership lists provided a research

population of 1,100 community colleges, the population for this study was further refined

to include only the 650 two-year United States public community colleges that held

membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more years between

1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).

The researcher focused on selected variables associated in the literature with

successful foundation performance to determine if they would have a statistically

significant and positive relationship to the amount of annual foundation revenue. The

outcome variable was the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from individuals,

community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching programs,

and endowment interest and investments. Selected explanatory variables consisted of the

foundation operating budget; the degree to which the president, chief resource

development officer, and foundation board member individually were rated as playing a

critical role in the foundation operation; the degree to which meeting institutional

strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation operation;

the college geographic location; the college size; and the college endowment.

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed to determine the extent to

which the proposed regression model described the sampling data and to examine the

degree of association between the outcome variable and the explanatory variables.

Chapter 4 follows with an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 provides conclusions

and implications, as well as suggestions for further research.














CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter includes an introduction that restates the study's purpose and

research questions, a summary of the research population surveyed, and the descriptive

and multiple regression results.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States

public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the

literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount

of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,

corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and

investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;

the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation

board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation

operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an

important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;

the college size; and the college endowment.

The proposed regression model was as follows: Foundation Revenue =

h(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of college president) + b(critical role of

chief development officer) + b(critical role of foundation board member) + b(importance









of meeting institutional strategic goals) + b(college geographic location) + b(college size)

+ b(college endowment).

The research questions guiding the study were as follows:

1. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?

2. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the college president is rated as playing a critical role in the
institution's foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

3. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the chief resource development officer is rated as playing a critical role
in the institution's foundation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

4. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the foundation board member is rated as playing a critical role in the
institution's foundation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model?

5. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in
evaluating the institution's foundation operation when controlling for the
other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model?

6. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?

7. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college size
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model?

8. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
endowment when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in
the proposed regression model?









Research Population

A total of 380 colleges returned the survey instrument. Of the 380 survey

respondents, 45 states and one U.S. territory were represented. Of the 380 total surveys

returned, 362 (56%) were from the target population of 650 two-year U.S. public

community colleges that were members in the Council for Resource Development (CRD)

one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001).

Descriptive Results

The descriptive statistics of the measures included in the analysis for the overall

sample are shown in Table 5.

In Table 5, the average response is simply the total score reported in terms of the

scale of the item response (i.e., the total score divided by the number of items of the

scale). For example, because the responses regarding the roles of the college president,

chief development officer, and foundation board member are on a 4-point Likert scale, an

average response of 3.708 for President suggests that, on average, the responses were

between the two categories, "4-very critical" and "3-critical." Likewise, an average

response of 3.556 for Chief Development Officer and 3.684 for Foundation Board

Member suggests that, on average, the responses were between the two categories "4-

very critical" and "3-critical." For Institutional Strategic Goals, or the importance of

meeting institutional strategic goals as a factor in evaluating the foundation operation, the

average response of 3.330 shown in Table 5 suggests that, on average, the responses were

between the two categories, "4-very important" and "3-important." For each of these

variables-President, Chief Development Officer, Foundation Board Member, and









Institutional Strategic Goals-there was general concurrence on the critical nature or

importance of each to the foundation operation as indicated by the high mean scores.

As reported in Table 5, the average foundation revenue was $1,010,694.1. The

average foundation operating budget was $232,479.08. College endowments averaged

$2,220,436.6, and the average college size was 9,251.075 students.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics of Outcome and Explanatory Variables


Variables
Foundation Revenue
Foundation Operating Budget
President
Chief Development Officer
Foundation Board Member
Institutional Strategic Goals
GEO-Rural
GEO-Urban
Size
Endowment
N = 362


M
1,010,694.1
232,479.08
3.708
3.556
3.684
3.330
.290
.431
9,251.075
2,220,436.6


SD
1,894,879.981
463,595.589
.669
.925
.672
.889
.454
.496
11,049.240
3,669,468.619


Multiple Regression Results

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0

software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model

described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the

outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The significance level for all statistical

tests was fixed at a = .05. The "missing listwise" option was selected for treating records

with missing data.


--


w









The R2 of .514 for the model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p <

.001, suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the

foundation revenue variance. The adjusted R2 was .499. The high magnitude of the R2

indicated a strong joint association that holds for the population. The regression equation

for the model was as follows: Foundation Revenue = -2,748,994 + .0818(foundation

operating budget) + 263,786.41(critical role of college president) + -178,650.7(critical

role of chief development officer) + 471,995.79(critical role of foundation board

member) + 172,199.36(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +

29,818.832(college geographic location: X1 = rural) + 190,597.98(college geographic

location: X2 = urban) + 16.696(college size) + .357(college endowment).

Table 6 reports the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), the standardized

regression coefficients (g), the observed t-values, and the squared semi-partial

correlations (r2). The explanatory variable for geographic location was categorical and,

therefore, dummy coded, resulting in two dummy coded variables, Xi where rural was

coded 1 and X2 where urban was coded 1. The category of suburban served as the

reference category. Three of the explanatory variables were statistically significant:

Foundation Board Member (b = 471,995.79, t(274) = 2.360, 2 = .019); Size (b = 16.696,

t(274) = 2.054, 2 = .041; and Endowment (b = .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000).

The interpretation of the unstandardized regression coefficient of any explanatory

variable is a function of the scale of measurement of that variable. For continuous

variables, the interpretation of the regression coefficient can be made in terms of rate and

direction of change. The regression coefficient indicates the expected unit change in the

outcome variable for each unit change in any one explanatory variable, while holding the









other ones constant. For instance, as reported in Table 6, the regression coefficient of

16.696 for Size suggests that for each additional credit student enrolled, there is an

average increase of $16.70 in Foundation Revenue. Likewise, the regression coefficient

of .357 for Endowment suggests that each dollar increase in endowment funds leads to an

average .36-cent increase in Foundation Revenue. Finally, the regression coefficient of

471,995.79 for Foundation Board Member suggests that for each unit increase (from "not

applicable," to "not critical," to "critical," to "very critical") in the resource development

professional's perception of the foundation board member's role, there is an average

increase of $471,996 in Foundation Revenue. Obviously, such perceptions are subjective

and would not, in themselves, create a difference in foundation revenue except as

indicators of greater board commitment, activity, and support.

Table 6

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients. Standardized Regression Coefficients, t-test
Statistics, and Semi-Partial r-squares

Variables b Std Error P t p
Intercept -2,748,994.00 926,553.53 -2.967 .003
F. Oper. Budget .0818 .222 .017 .368 .713 .00
President 263,786.41 213,864.91 .059 1.233 .218 .01
Chief Dev. Off. -178,650.7 107,932.48 -.074 -1.655 .099 .01
F. Board. 471,995.79 200,015.03 .110 2.360 .019* .02
Mmbr.
Inst. Str. Goals 172,199.36 118,003.64 .064 1.459 .146 .01
GEO-Rural 29,818.832 229,578.74 .007 .130 .897 .00
GEO-Urban 190,597.98 209,741.81 .048 .909 .364 .00
Size 16.696 8.127 .099 2.054 .041* .02
Endowment .357 .025 .679 14.211 .000* .42
*1 < .05.









Somewhat unanticipated were the statistically insignificant results for the

following explanatory variables: Foundation Operating Budget (b = .0818, t(274) = .368,

p = .713), President (b = 263,786.41, t(274) = 1.233, p = .218); and Institutional Strategic

Goals (b = 172,199.36, t(274)= 1.459, p = .146).

To determine the relative contribution of each explanatory variable, the squared

semi-partial correlation was calculated for each. The squared semi-partial correlation (r2)

represents the proportion of total variance (i.e., of the outcome variance) that is

associated with any one explanatory variable over and above that of the others. The

magnitude of 2 can be examined in terms of effect size where r = .26 is considered to be

large, r2 = .13 is considered to be medium, and r2 = .0196 is considered to be small

(Cohen, 1988). Effect sizes of .01 or lower are considered negligible, at best.

According to these criteria, for the three statistically significant variables, the

effect size of Endowment (1r = .42) was large, and the effect sizes of Foundation Board

Member (r2 = .02) and Size (r = .02) were small, as shown in Table 6. The explanatory

variables having negligible effect sizes were President (r = .01), Chief Development

Officer ( = .01), Institutional Strategic Goals (r= .01), Foundation Operating Budget (r2

= .00), Geographic Location of Urban (r2= .00), and Geographic Location of Rural ( =

.00).

Summary

The R2 of .514 for the model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p <

.001, suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the

foundation revenue variance. The adjusted R2 was .499. The high magnitude of the R2

indicated a strong joint association that holds for the population. Three of the explanatory






66

variables were statistically significant: Foundation Board Member (b = 471,995.79,

t(274) = 2.360, p = .019); Size (b = 16.696, t(274) = 2.054, p = .041; and Endowment (b

= .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000). For the three statistically significant variables, the

effect size of Endowment (e = .42) was large, and the effect sizes of Foundation Board

Member (r2 = .02) and Size (r2 = .02) were small.

Chapter 5 follows with conclusions and implications, as well as suggestions for

further research.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This chapter summarizes the study's purpose and analysis of data. It provides

conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further research.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States

public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the

literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount

of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,

corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and

investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;

the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation

board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation

operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an

important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;

the college size; and the college endowment.

The proposed regression model was as follows: Foundation Revenue =

b(foundation operating budget) + b(critical role of college president) + b(critical role of

chief development officer) + b(critical role of foundation board member) + b(importance

of meeting institutional strategic goals) + b(college geographic location) + b(college size)

+ b(college endowment).









Analysis

A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0

software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model

described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the

outcome variable and the explanatory variables. It was found that the R2 of .514 for the

model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p < .001, suggesting that the

explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the foundation revenue

variance. The adjusted R2 was .499. The high magnitude of the R2 indicated a strong joint

association that holds for the population. The regression equation for the model was as

follows: Foundation Revenue = -2,748,994 + .0818(foundation operating budget) +

263,786.41(critical role of college president) + -178,650.7(critical role of chief

development officer) + 471,995.79(critical role of foundation board member) +

172,199.36(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) + 29,818.832(college

geographic location: X1 = rural) + 190,597.98(college geographic location: X2 = urban) +

16.696(college size) + .357(college endowment).

Three of the explanatory variables were statistically significant: Foundation Board

Member (b = 471,995.79, t(274) = 2.360, p = .019); Size (b = 16.696, t(274) = 2.054, p =

.041; and Endowment (b = .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000). For the three statistically

significant variables, the effect size of Endowment (r2 = .42) was large, and the effect

sizes of Foundation Board Member (r2 = .02) and Size (r2 = .02) were small. The

explanatory variables having negligible effect sizes were President (r= .01), Chief

Development Officer (r= .01), Institutional Strategic Goals (r= .01), Foundation









Operating Budget (r2= .00), Geographic Location of Urban (r = .00), and Geographic

Location of Rural (r2 = .00).

Conclusions

It was concluded that the regression model accounted for approximately half of

the variance in foundation revenue, indicating a good overall fit of the selected

explanatory variables to the outcome variable and a strong joint association that holds for

the population. Of the explanatory variables included in the model, those having a

positive and significant relationship to foundation revenue were college endowment, role

of the foundation board member, and college size.

Of greatest influence in the model was the college endowment. That there was a

significant and positive relationship between endowment size and foundation revenue

reinforced existing research of postsecondary institutions (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990;

Dean, 1985; Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Pickett, 1977) and, specifically, two national

studies of community colleges (Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987).

Literature regarding community college endowments is limited, due, in part, to

their historically recent inception and growth. For example, an endowment size of

$50,000 was considered substantial in 1986; however, in 1993, foundation endowments

for 165 community colleges exceeded $1 million (Adams et al., 1994). The 1998-1999

endowments for the community colleges in this sample averaged over $2.2 million.

The healthy economic environment and the 18% and 11% average stock market

investment returns for higher education endowments in 1998 and 1999, respectively,

(Van der Werf, 1999a; Pulley, 2000), could also help to account for the significant and

positive relationship between foundation revenue and endowment in this study. Since









endowment interest and investments were part of the foundation revenue comprising the

outcome variable, institutions with larger endowments were more likely to experience

larger interest and investment gains during the 1998-1999 fiscal reporting period of this

survey. Robust economic conditions and investment earnings also may have encouraged

additional generosity and support on the part of individuals, corporations, and

foundations and, thus, affected the community college foundation revenue gained and

reported in this study.

Of secondary influence in the model was the role of the foundation board member

as perceived by the resource development professional responsible for the foundation

operation. The role of the foundation board member was significantly and positively

related to the foundation revenue. The average response of 3.684 for the role of the

foundation board member suggested that most survey respondents viewed the foundation

board member's role as "very critical" or "critical." These findings concurred with the

literature regarding the importance of the foundation board for successful community

college foundations (Degerstedt, 1982; Hunter, C. B., 1987; Sharron, 1982). In a national

survey of resource development personnel from 418 public community colleges, careful

selection of board members was the suggestion most frequently cited to assure foundation

success; the pitfall most frequently cited was not choosing the right foundation board

members (Degerstedt, 1982).

College size proved to be positively and significantly related to foundation

revenue. This result followed prior research findings that institutional size is an important

variable in researching public institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). The finding

supported previous literature that linked greater college size to the community college's









establishment of a foundation (Degerstedt, 1982; Angel & Gares, 1989) and to more

successful community college foundations and development programs (Glandon, 1987;

Maples, 1980; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998; Ryan, 1993).

The statistically insignificant finding for foundation operating budget ran counter

to the literature supporting resource allocation as an important variable for fund-raising

success (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Glennon, 1985;

Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Jenner, 1987; Johnson, J. J., 1986; Leslie, 1969;

Levis, 1991; Luck, 1974; Luck & Tolle, 1978; Maples, 1980; Miller, 1991; Pickett,

1977). In general, institutional spending is reported most consistently as the variable best

correlated with fund-raising effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).

That no significant relationship was found between foundation operating budget

and foundation revenue may have been the result of how this information was requested

in the survey instrument and of possible misunderstanding on the part of respondents.

Survey respondents were to indicate the total annual foundation operating budget and to

include the salaries and benefits of foundation personnel. Of the 300 respondents to this

survey item, 275 (92%) reported a foundation operating budget of less than $500,000; the

remaining 25 (8%) reported a foundation operating budget from $500,000 to 4.5 million.

That 13 of these respondents indicated having no foundation operating budget and that 10

respondents reported budgets from 1 to 4.5 million raises questions as to whether these

data were reported consistently. Differences in how foundation operations are funded

may have compounded the problem. The literature suggests that funding for foundation

operations can come exclusively from the host institution, from foundation-generated

resources alone, or some combination (Hedgepeth, 1999; Simic, 1998). Perhaps some









respondents excluded budgetary contributions from the host institution or included all

foundation assets in response to this question. Such misinterpretation may have

confounded a relationship between the foundation operating budget and foundation

revenue.

This study also found no statistically significant relationship between the critical

role of the president and foundation revenue. While this finding concurred with one

national study of state colleges and universities (Hunter, F. D., 1987), it contradicted the

literature specifically regarding two-year colleges (Bock & Sullins, 1987; Duffy, 1979;

Glandon & Keener, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998b; Glennon, 1985; Ironfield, 1991;

Jackson & Glass, 2000; Keener, 1982; Keener et al., 1991; Mosier, 1980; Robinson,

1989; Ryan, 1988, 1989).

While no significant relationship existed between the amount of foundation

revenue and the role played by the president, survey respondents, on average, thought the

president played a "very critical" or "critical" role in the institution's foundation

operation. The statistically insignificant finding may be explained, in part, by the limited

range of responses at the high end (M = 3.708) of the 4-point Likert scale.

It has been suggested that fund raising has not been a high priority for community

college presidents (Ryan, 1993) and that the president's understanding, advocacy, and

support of the advancement function may be more critical than his or her personal

solicitation of funds (Ryan, 1994). Additionally, it has been stated that the president's

leadership capacity in the area of advancement largely will determine fund-raising

success for most community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998b). While these issues

deserve further exploration, this study's findings are inconclusive regarding the









relationship between the amount of foundation revenue gained and the role of the

community college president.

Research has shown that having a chief development officer or individual

responsible for external resource development is characteristic of successful foundations

(Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987). Having a chief development officer or

individual responsible for external resource development was characteristic of

community college foundations with values of $1 million or more in a 1992 national

survey (Glandon & Keener, 1994). Another national survey in 1997 found that the

community college development officer or foundation executive director played the most

active role in soliciting funds (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). While the relationship

between foundation revenue and the chief resource development officer's role was

statistically insignificant in this study, the finding remains inconclusive. At least 20% of

the respondents in the sample did not have a chief resource development officer (or a

person with similar responsibilities) at the institution, in which case "not applicable" or

"1" on the Likert scale would have been noted on the survey. Still, the high average

response (M = 3.556) on the 4-point Likert scale suggested that most survey respondents

rated the role of the chief development officer as "very critical" or "critical" to the

foundation operation.

Connecting college and development planning has been cited as necessary for

successful community college resource development (Blong & Bennett, 1991; Daniel,

1985; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hooks & Kelley, 1990; Keener, 1982; Robison, 1982;

Ryan, 1994; Wattenbarger, 1982). That a statistically significant relationship was not

found between meeting of institutional strategic goals and foundation revenue in this









study may be misleading. Asked to indicate the importance that meeting institutional

strategic goals had in evaluating the foundation operation, survey respondents,

understandably, may have based their answers to this item on whether the foundation was

formally or informally evaluated. While the foundation may have used institutional

strategic goals for planning and guiding operational decisions, the lack of a formal or

informal evaluation component may have contributed to a lower response regarding the

importance of this item. Still, on average, the responses were between the categories

"very important" and "important," an indication that meeting institutional strategic goals

was meaningful to most foundation operations. The relationship of foundation revenue to

the foundation's meeting of institutional strategic goals, however, remains inconclusive.

In this study, no statistically significant relationship was found between

foundation revenue and an urban versus a suburban location. Likewise, no statistically

significant relationship was found between foundation revenue and a rural versus a

suburban location. While geographic location did not prove to be a significant variable in

this study, the literature suggested that an urban location could enhance success in

development operations (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Bulpitt, 1982; Gatewood, 1994;

Hunter, C. B., 1987; Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Ryan, 1993). Fund-raising

potential still may be linked to an institution's location and access to resources, yet the

college's geographic location, alone, may not provide the depth of information needed to

determine such access to resources. Measures of regional social and economic conditions

would enhance the understanding of environmental factors potentially affecting the

college system and foundation subsystem.









Implications

A systems framework can be used to examine structures, roles, and

interrelationships affecting community college foundation revenue. In examining system

relationships, it should be remembered that systems that are critical to the success of

higher systems are those that thrive (Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). This dynamic reinforces

the importance of considering the college system when analyzing the foundation.

Furthermore, the system or subsystem's existence should be questioned, the function

diagnosed, and the desired results planned relative to interrelated systems and their

demands (Van Gigch, 1978).

Philanthropy, entrepreneurship, and grantsmanship will be necessary for

decreasing overall dependency of decreasing revenue from more traditional sources

(Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). To meet the challenges of long-term viability, community

colleges will need leaders who can present compelling evidence of institutional and

student success in the community while showing that public funds are falling short of

important needs (Johnson, J. A., 1986). Leaders with vision and systemic solutions will

be needed for these future challenges (Clements, 1996). These leaders must recognize the

necessity and potential of a foundation and the elements that contribute to a foundation's

success. If discrepancies exist between variables of significance in theory and those in

practice, especially if foundation revenue is less than expected, college leaders and

managers might forego minor tweaking of the current system as the more limited

approach to solving systems problems, and, instead, redesign the system as the more

effective way to solve problems inherent in the system (Van Gigch, 1978).









Based on the significance between the critical role of the foundation board

member and foundation revenue in this study, encouraging board leadership will be

essential so that foundation board members are empowered to act in ways that will best

support the college. It will be important for community college leaders not only to

reconsider foundation board composition and selection, as has been suggested (Bryant,

1988; Gale, 1989) but also to examine board commitment and the barriers to increased

responsibility and self-direction.

Leadership, in successful organizational cultures, is shared systemwide and from

all levels (Wallin & Ryan, 1994). Challenging underlying assumptions and methods of

doing things will be necessary as foundation board members move forward (Hedgepeth,

1999). Creating a more proactive foundation board may involve an overhaul of the

foundation bylaws and a revamping of foundation structures for more direct oversight of

vital foundation functions such as raising, investing, and disbursing foundation funds

(Katsinas et al., 1990).

Development professionals should determine whether board members fully

understand their roles prior to joining the foundation board. A job description to clarify

responsibilities, a comprehensive and carefully designed orientation program, and a

continuing education program that includes self-assessment are ways in which board

members can be made aware of their roles, responsibilities, and contributions (Legon,

1989). In any case, foundation board members should see their role as a serious fiduciary

one (Robertson, 1982), and they should take an "active, intentional, and conscious role in

determining their functions and the manner in which they will be implemented"

(Hedgepeth, 1999, p. 6).









The positive and significant relationship between college endowment and

foundation revenue indicates that endowments have added resource development

potential for community colleges that have begun to make them a priority. The finding

underscores the importance of building a tradition of successful fund-raising practices

and sound resource management policies. The more successfully endowed funds are

invested and managed, the stronger the base of support for future foundation

performance. Managing money wisely is a significant function of the college foundation,

and community college foundation board members should consider having an

endowment and asset committee to oversee this important service to the college (Katsinas

et al., 1990). Outside counsel might also be employed to provide assistance in wisely

investing endowment funds (Ryan, 1994). Whether such funds are externally or internally

managed, community colleges should develop an effective investment policy to guide

investment decisions and to provide optimal investment returns (Kapraun & Heard,

1993).

This study's finding that geographic location did not have a significant

relationship to foundation revenue confirms that geographic location alone should not

deter community colleges, particularly those in rural and suburban areas, from looking to

the community as a "reservoir of support" for a better performing foundation (Degerstedt,

1982, p. 63). Similarly, college size, while significantly and positively related to

foundation revenue, had only a small effect and should not preclude smaller institutions

from implementing a resource development program or enhancing one currently in place.









Suggestions for Further Research

"Philanthropy is about leadership" (Payton et al., 1991, p. 14). Further

investigation of the link between leadership and foundation revenue in public higher

education is recommended. A follow-up survey regarding the president's role at various

system levels-external and internal to the college-is necessary to examine, more

specifically, the relationship of the community college president's role to successful

resource development. Multiple perspectives regarding the community college

president's role in development could be obtained from presidents, chief development

officers, foundation directors, and foundations board chairs for comparison relative to

foundation revenue.

Further research also is needed to study the relationship of resource allocation to

foundation revenue and operations. The literature suggests that funding for foundation

operations can come exclusively from the host institution, from foundation-generated

resources alone, or some combination of the two (Hedgepeth, 1999; Simic, 1998). An in-

depth study that accurately identifies the funding sources and budget allocations for

community college foundation operations, as well as the amounts dedicated to salaries

and benefits, would provide important data for consistent comparison of foundation

operating budgets to foundation revenues across institutions. It should be noted that

interpretation of such questions by survey respondents can vary widely, so survey

questions should be worded carefully, with definitions provided as necessary, so that

respondents provide information as accurately and consistently as possible.

External influences on the college system and foundation subsystem should be

considered in a follow-up study to determine what remaining variance in the model can









be accounted for by variables associated with such external influences. Initial studies

have included regional economic measures along with variables internal to two-year

colleges (Clements, 1990; Gatewood, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987). Ideally, variables

indicative of social and economic conditions should be tested through multiple regression

analysis with a national sample to determine if a relationship exists between community

and regional wealth and foundation revenue. From a systems perspective, determining the

degree to which the external environment beyond the college system relates to foundation

revenue would further advance the theoretical understanding of community college

resource development. In practice, certain external factors, of course, would be beyond

the control of college administrators (Sharron, 1982).

Leadership among community college foundation board members is another

suggested area of study. The characteristics of the foundation board, in particular, should

be examined to determine if board size, selection methods, and composition relate to

foundation revenue. Also, further study should focus on foundation revenue relative to

the strategic functioning of the foundation board. Such examination should include the

degree of foundation board autonomy and empowerment; the level and quality of the

foundation board's interaction with the college president, chief resource development

officer, and foundation director; and the foundation board's engagement in training and

self-assessment activities. Various models for structuring and empowering the foundation

board might be explored through case studies that could lead to greater understanding of

enhanced foundation performance.

Additional research is needed regarding community college endowments.

Quantitative and qualitative studies of colleges that have built impressive endowments









could reveal strategies and models for others to follow. Endowment purposes, spending

rates, and investment practices might be examined relative to revenue fluctuations. In

such studies, institutional size should be considered among other variables. Replication of

the current study in less-positive economic times, with a depressed stock market, might

reveal different results regarding the relationship between the endowment and foundation

revenue.

Finally, donor motivation, including perceptions of the college's quality and

success as related to endowment size, could be studied in relation to the foundation's

revenue and, particularly, the attainment of major gifts and future bequests. In assessing

development results, especially major gifts that require long-term commitment and

consistent nurturing of relationships, longitudinal studies would be helpful in tracking

community college donor relationships cultivated over several years.














APPENDIX A
PERSONS INCLUDED IN FIRST REVIEW PANEL
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION


Marilyn Appelson
Director of College Development &
Foundation
Oakton Community College
Des Plaines, Illinois

William Atkins
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Nassau Community College
Garden City, New York

Mary Brumbach
Executive Director of Resource &
Economic Development
Brookhaven College
Farmers Branch, Texas

David Canine
Vice President for Institutional
Advancement
Richland College
Dallas, Texas

Mike Gaudette
Director of College Advancement
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Coos Bay, Oregon


Perry Hammock
Director of Resource Development &
Foundation
Ivey Tech State College
Indianapolis, Indiana

Elaine Ironfield
Vice President
The Clements Group
Salt Lake City, Utah

Karen Luke Jackson
Consultant
Hendersonville, North Carolina

Sonja Jackson
Grants Writer
Polk Community College
Winter Haven, Florida

Susan Kelley
Vice President for Resource Development
& Government Relations
Valencia Community College
Orlando, Florida















APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL









March 21, 2000


Dear Survey Review Content Expert,

Thank you for serving on the panel of reviewers for the Community College External
Funding Survey. Our research team from the University of Florida is conducting this
national survey with the Council for Resource Development and additional support from
the Clements Group. The study results will provide much needed data on the status of
resource development in community colleges and on success factors pertinent to
community college external funding from grants, contracts, and private giving. These
results will be useful to trustees, presidents, development officers, human resource
personnel, and other decision makers who can positively influence external funding
efforts and outcomes.

You were selected as a member of the review panel because of your expertise in
community college resource development. Your cooperation in evaluating the first draft
of the enclosed survey will greatly assist the research team in identifying potential survey
problem areas such as ambiguous or difficult questions, irrelevant items, missing
questions, terms that need clarification, or survey format.

After reviewing the survey, please complete the attached evaluation form. You may add
comments directly on the email version of the survey draft. If returning the revised survey by
email, please make your changes in a different color (blue or red), use the strikeout feature
(delete), and add your comments at the end of the survey or on the evaluation form. If returning
the survey by fax or regular mail, please write directly on the printed survey. List any terms that
are used in the survey that you believe need a specific definition for a clear understanding in
answering the survey questions.

The research team will use your comments to refine the survey prior to its review by the Council
for Resource Development (CRD) Board in April and its national distribution in May. To keep to
this timetable, it is very important that you return the completed evaluation form and survey draft
by March 28, 2000 to the research team, attention Barbara Keener, via email to
bkeener@coe.ufl.edu or fax to 352-392-3664.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,


Barbara Keener, Ed.D.
Graduate Faculty
Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations
University of Florida

Sharon M. Carrier Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida University of Florida














APPENDIX C
EVALUATION FORM FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL









COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY


Evaluation Form

1. From the list below, please check the ONE person who should receive the survey
mailing for distribution at the college.


Chancellor
District President
Campus President
Resource Development Officer

Comments:



2. Are the survey instructions clear?


Yes


Grants/Contracts Officer
Foundation Officer
Chief Business Officer
Human Resource Officer


No How could they be improved?


3. Are the survey questions understandable?


Yes


No List the item number of any unclear survey
questions and state how these questions could be improved:


4. Are the survey questions easy to answer?


Yes


No Identify questions/items that would be
particularly difficult to answer and briefly explain why.


5. Will the information requested be difficult to access or calculate?

SYes Identify which questions ask for information that would be difficult to
access or calculate.
No









6. Is the format of the survey appropriate for the information being requested?


No Please comment on how the format could be
improved.


7. Estimate the time needed to answer the complete survey.


Minutes


8. What additional questions or items would you include to accomplish the survey
purpose?






9. What terms need to be defined or further clarified?








10. Will the answers to this survey result in the support of the survey's purpose?


Yes


No Please explain why.


Please make additional comments on the survey and return this form and survey by
March 28, 2000 to the attention of Barbara Keener, via e-mail bkeener@coe.ufl.edu
or by fax: (352) 392-3664.


Name:


Date:


Thank you for serving as a Content Expert Survey Reviewer and for providing your
critique of this important national survey. Your comments will assist the research team
in validating this survey for the benefit of community college resource development.














APPENDIX D
PERSONS INCLUDED IN SECOND REVIEW PANEL
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION


Marilyn Appelson
Director of College Development &
Foundation
Oakton Community College
Des Plaines, Illinois

Steven Budd
Dean of Institutional Advancement
Greenfield Community College
Greenfield, Massachusetts

Joan Edwards
Vice President of Planning and
Development
College of Southern Idaho
Twin Falls, Idaho

Kathleen Guy
Executive Director, Foundation
Northwestern Michigan College
Traverse City, Michigan

Bob Kiser
Director of Resource Development
Elgin Community College
Elgin, Illinois


Ann Munz
Director, Grants Development
Pellissippi State Technical Community
College
Knoxville, Tennessee

Theresa Roffino
Dean, Planning & Development
Bill J. Priest Institute for Economic
Development
Dallas, Texas

Annee Tara
Director of Planning, Development &
Public Relations
Central Maine Technical College
Auburn, Maine

Doug Van Nostran
Director of Grants
William Rainey Harper College
Palatine, Illinois














APPENDIX E
COVER LETTER FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL









May 3, 2000


Dear CRD Board Member and Guest Reviewer,

Thank you for serving on the panel of reviewers for the Community College External Funding
Survey. Our research team from the University of Florida is conducting this national survey with
support from the Council for Resource Development and the Clements Group and with the
endorsement of the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). The study results will
provide needed data on the status of resource development in community colleges. These results
will be useful to trustees, presidents, development officers, human resource personnel, and other
decision makers who can positively influence external funding efforts and outcomes.


You were selected as a member of the review panel because of your expertise in community
college resource development. Your cooperation in evaluating the enclosed survey will greatly
assist the research team in identifying potential survey problems such as ambiguous or difficult
questions, irrelevant items, and terms needing clarification.

After reviewing the survey, please complete the attached evaluation form. You may add
comments directly on the email version of the survey draft. If returning the revised survey by
email, please make your changes in a different color (blue or red), use the strikeout feature
(delete), and add your comments at the end of the survey or on the evaluation form. If returning
the survey by fax or regular mail, please write directly on the printed survey.

The research team will use your comments to refine the survey prior to its national distribution in
July. To keep to this timetable, it is very important that you return the completed evaluation form
and survey draft by May 15, 2000. If you are sending your comments by email, please directly
reply to the email address: crd@aacc.nche.edu. If you are faxing your comments, please send
them to the University of Florida, attention Barbara Keener, at fax number: 352-392-3664. If you
have questions, please call Barb at 352-392-2391, ext. 275.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,



Barbara Keener, Ed.D. Perry Hammock, Ph.D.
Graduate Faculty Vice President, Research
Department of Educational Leadership, Council for Resource Development
Policy and Foundations Ivy Tech State College
University of Florida

Sharon M. Carrier Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida University of Florida




Full Text
109
Heimovics, R. D., Herman, R. D., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (1993). Executive leadership and
resource dependence in nonprofit organizations: A Frame Analysis. Public
Administration Review. 53(5). 419-427.
Hesburgh, T. (1980). Presidential leadership: The keystone for advancement. In A. W.
Rowland (Series Ed.) & J. L. Fisher (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional
advancement: No. 8, Presidential leadership in advancement activities (pp. 1-8). San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Hooks, W., & Kelley, S. (1990, May). The effective linkage of planning and resource
development: A process that works (Resource Paper No. 43). Washington, DC:
National Council for Resource Development.
Hunter, C. B. (1987). Fund-raising from private sources in public community colleges
using not-for-profit foundation boards. Dissertation Abstracts International. 48 (10),
2499A. (UMI No. AAG87-29205)
Hunter, F. D. (1987). Private fund raising by American Association of State Colleges and
Universities member institutions. Dissertation Abstracts International. 48 (10),
2552A. (UMI No. AAG87-24398)
Ironfield, E. B. (1991). Characteristics of two-year public colleges and foundations with
successful fund-raising programs. Dissertation Abstracts International. 52 (09),
3160A. (UMI No. AAG92-07414)
Jackson, K. L., & Glass, C. J., Jr. (2000). Emerging trends and critical issues affecting
private fund-raising among community colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice. 24(9J. 729-744.
Jackson, K. L., & Keener, B. J. (2002). Introduction to community college resource
development: Creating preferred futures. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice. 26(1 T 1-6.
Jacobson, H. K. (1978a). The evaluation process: its importance to the manager. In A. W.
Rowland (Series Ed.) & H. K. Jacobson (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional
advancement: No. 1. Evaluating advancement programs (pp. 1-16). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Jacobson, H. K. (1978b). Framework for evaluation: indicators of effort, performance,
effects. In A. W. Rowland (Series Ed.) & H. K. Jacobson (Vol. Ed.), New directions
for institutional advancement: No. 1. Evaluating advancement programs (pp. 17-63).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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(61. 593-612.


19
system. Likewise, organizational structure can be viewed as a dynamic system of
interrelated activities, occurring as a chain of events that cyclically returns to its point of
origin, providing both closure and the opportunity for the cycle to be repeated. Social
organizations, because they share properties common with other open systems, can be
examined according to the constructs of system theory and the characteristics of open
systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978). A college or university typifies the type of organization to
which the concepts of systems theory apply (Perry, 1978).
Systems theory examines organizational structures, relationships, and
interdependence and takes into account how an organizations inputs from other
structures in its environment can determine that organizations vitality and what kinds of
relationships an organization must have to ensure its own survival. Rather than viewing
an organization as a self-contained and closed system, the open-systems model allows for
the influence of rapid societal change and the resulting changes within the organization.
That an organizations environmental properties and their influence are integral to a
social systems functioning is a necessary precept for applying the open-systems
framework in organizational analysis (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Acknowledging that there are various levels of systems and interconnections
among them in an open system, a primary strategy suggested in organizational analysis is
to look upward in the system. The next higher, more complex, system level provides
valuable understanding due to the hierarchical dominance of higher system level actions
over lower ones (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Fund raising and development can be analyzed through a conceptual framework
based on systems theory (Clements, 1990; Kelly, 1998; Koelkebeck, 1994; Murray,


6
opportunities for donors, and focuses on meeting the needs of a college by meeting the
needs of its students and surrounding community (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 15).
While the community college foundation is the nucleus for the colleges
resource development efforts, integration of these efforts with the colleges management
and advancement functions is necessary: Resource development cannot be visualized as
a separate area, striving solely to procure external dollars for random college purposes
(Keener, 1982, p. 5). Most research available on public community college fund-raising
effectiveness focuses on characteristics within the foundation, but it is the community
college and the forces therein that help shape the success of the foundation (Koelkebeck,
1994).
Philanthropic support of public community colleges and the elements within these
colleges that encourage such support have not been fully examined. A lack of
comprehensive data on community college foundation performance has precluded
accurate analysis of the value added by these foundations (Craft & Guy, 2002). The only
consistent national data for resource development activity in higher education are gained
through the Voluntary Support of Education annual survey conducted by the Council for
Aid to Education (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). While the Council has conducted the annual
Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey since 1954-1955, participation has never
been more than half of all higher-education institutions and has varied greatly by
institutional type (Council for Aid to Education, 2000). In 1998 and 1999, only 75 public
community colleges participated in the VSE survey, and in 2000, only 73 reported
(Council for Aid to Education, 2000; Council for Aid to Education, 2001). The National
Center for Education Statistics, Council for Resource Development, and American


103
60. How critical are the following roles in the institutions foundation operation? Please rate each:
Very Not Not
Critical Critical Critical Applicable
a. President
b. College Trustee
c. Foundation Board Member
d. Chief Resource Development Officer
e. Chief Affairs Officer
f. Chief Business Officer
g. Chief Student Affairs Officer
h. Grants Officer
i. Faculty
j. Student
k. Alumnus
l. Consultant
m. Consortia
n. Volunteer
o. Legal/Paralegal
p. Other
Thank you for participating in this important community college survey.


42
reaccreditation efforts (Groff, 1985). The ability to plan well, due to the colleges
comprehensive planning, management, and evaluation system, was cited as a primary
reason for one community colleges successful resource development (Hooks & Kelley,
1990).
The foundation must be involved in and stay current with institutional planning
and priorities for the foundation to fulfill its purpose and have the greatest impact
(Keener, 1982). Among the top conditions cited by development personnel as being
critical to community college foundation success were an organized, planned effort and a
clear statement of purpose for the resource development function (Glandon & Keener,
1994).
Rather than being subject to haphazard growth, the community college foundation
should be part of an intentional plan with realistic expectations (Deegan, 1989). If
integrated into a total institutional plan to achieve desired ends, the foundation serves as a
proactive part of the plan instead of being used as a reactive device (Wattenbarger, 1982).
Ultimately, the evaluation of an advancement program must be linked to achieving the
educational objectives of the institution (Leslie, 1969). Thus, the successful performance
of a college foundation must be evaluated relative to the colleges goals (Robison, 1982).
College Geographic Location
The success of the college foundation also can be influenced by the institution's
potential for fund-raising success. Fund-raising potential may take into consideration the
institutions geographic location and access to resources. In a study of private
undergraduate colleges, access to the total pool of resources available was more
important than geographic proximity in helping to determine which colleges were


29
cost and productivity indicators, which can and should guide the efforts of development
managers (Leslie, 1978). Still, those in development work most often measure their
programs effectiveness on the basis of dollars raised (Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Fisher,
1989a; Hunter, F. D., 1987). It is important to remember, however, in assessing
development results, that major gifts require time to nurture relationships and that
consistent support over time generates the best results; likewise, deferred or planned gifts
often involve considerable time from donor intent to receipt of the gift by the institution,
making analysis in terms of cost effectiveness extremely difficult (Evans, 1989).
Overall, there are three approaches to the study of fund-raising effectiveness that
have been practiced: (a) studies using measures of perceived effectiveness, (b) studies
employing objectively defined effectiveness, and (c) studies in which effectiveness is
adjusted for potential (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p. 19). The first approach derives
an operational definition of effectiveness based on the frequency of responses to various
survey items from professionals who rate or rank a list of institutional characteristics.
Such judgments are based on perceptions, which may or may not relate to actual fund
raising effectiveness. The second and more desirable approach employs a more objective
measure of effectiveness, such as total dollars raised, and examines institutional
characteristics in relation to this measure. The third and best approach accounts for an
institutions potential to raise funds by including some measure of this potential in the
consideration of effectiveness. Such studies adjust effectiveness to account for an
institutions potential for raising funds as compared with actual fund-raising results
(Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).


69
Operating Budget (= .00), Geographic Location of Urban (= .00), and Geographic
Location of Rural (= .00).
Conclusions
It was concluded that the regression model accounted for approximately half of
the variance in foundation revenue, indicating a good overall fit of the selected
explanatory variables to the outcome variable and a strong joint association that holds for
the population. Of the explanatory variables included in the model, those having a
positive and significant relationship to foundation revenue were college endowment, role
of the foundation board member, and college size.
Of greatest influence in the model was the college endowment. That there was a
significant and positive relationship between endowment size and foundation revenue
reinforced existing research of postsecondary institutions (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990;
Dean, 1985; Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Pickett, 1977) and, specifically, two national
studies of community colleges (Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hunter, C. B 1987).
Literature regarding community college endowments is limited, due, in part, to
their historically recent inception and growth. For example, an endowment size of
$50,000 was considered substantial in 1986; however, in 1993, foundation endowments
for 165 community colleges exceeded $1 million (Adams et al., 1994). The 1998-1999
endowments for the community colleges in this sample averaged over $2.2 million.
The healthy economic environment and the 18% and 11% average stock market
investment returns for higher education endowments in 1998 and 1999, respectively,
(Van der Werf, 1999a; Pulley, 2000), could also help to account for the significant and
positive relationship between foundation revenue and endowment in this study. Since


62
Institutional Strategic Goalsthere was general concurrence on the critical nature or
importance of each to the foundation operation as indicated by the high mean scores.
As reported in Table 5, the average foundation revenue was $1,010,694.1. The
average foundation operating budget was $232,479.08. College endowments averaged
$2,220,436.6, and the average college size was 9,251.075 students.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Outcome and Explanatory Variables
Variables
n
M
SD
Foundation Revenue
318
1,010,694.1
1,894,879.981
Foundation Operating Budget
300
232,479.08
463,595.589
President
343
3.708
.669
Chief Development Officer
340
3.556
.925
Foundation Board Member
342
3.684
.672
Institutional Strategic Goals
342
3.330
.889
GEORural
362
.290
.454
GEOUrban
362
.431
.496
Size
362
9,251.075
11,049.240
Endowment
310
2,220,436.6
3,669,468.619
N = 362
Multiple Regression Results
A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0
software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model
described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the
outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The significance level for all statistical
tests was fixed at a = .05. The missing listwise option was selected for treating records
with missing data.


to my
mother and father


39
survey found that the community college development officer or foundation executive
director played the most active role in soliciting funds (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).
While development staff perform most development functions, board members
must support the process and commit to its importance for the organization (Boguch,
1994). Trustees and regents of public colleges and universities increasingly have an
important role in raising private funds for their institutions (Nason, 1989); however, it has
been reported that community college trustees have not participated actively in providing
fund-raising support (Ryan, 1989). While public trustees have responsibilities in
overseeing adequate funding, they often are elected or appointed for reasons other than
their fund-raising potential or personal wealth; it is important, therefore, for public
institutions to create independent foundation boards to act in a fiduciary capacity to
donors and to avoid possible conflicts of interest for the governing trustees (Sader, 1986).
For community colleges with small governing boards, one proposed model is to
have each trustee serve on separate foundation committees (Katsinas, Herrmann, &
Traylor, 1990). Another recommendation is for the foundation board to include one or
more of the institutions trustees (Fisher & Koch, 1996; Simic, 1998). The prevalent
community college model is to create separate foundation boards (Ryan, 1989). In fact,
most public institutions delegate fund raising to a foundation board (Legn, 1989).
The literature suggests that the strength of the foundations board of directors
contributes to the community college foundations success (Sharron, 1982; Hunter, C. B.,
1987). A study of public colleges of various types in New York found that an uninvolved
foundation board versus an involved one was the difference between colleges that were
considered underproductive versus overproductive (Webb, 1982).


3
Community colleges were the last division of higher education to engage in fund
raising (Anderson & Snyder, 1993; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). While the oldest
established community college foundations have been traced back to Long Beach City
College in 1922, Santa Monica City College in 1955, and Vincennes University in 1949,
Illinois Highlands Community College, which established its foundation in 1962, is
often cited as establishing the first foundation, most likely because its story was
documented in The Junior College Journal (Robison, 1982).
It was not until later, however, that the establishment of community college
foundations gained momentum, with over 80% of these foundations being established
after the late 1960s (Robison, 1982). This growth paralleled that of community colleges,
which, in 1960, served 11% of the total enrollment in higher education as compared with
35% of the total by 1979 (Breneman & Nelson, 1981). Passage of the 1965 Higher
Education Act, tax-exemption rulings by the Internal Revenue Service, and the decline in
public funds positively influenced the establishment of community college foundations,
rare before the 1970s, but commonplace by 1980 (Angel & Gares, 1989).
In the 1970s, professional organizations began addressing the need for
professional recognition and support of community college resource development
personnel and their efforts. The newly chartered National Council for Resource
Development (NCRD), an affiliate organization of the then-named American Association
of Community and Junior Colleges (AAJC), provided training and assistance to its
constituents, and, in 1974, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education
(CASE) allowed community college membership (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Smith, 1993).
By 1988, NCRD recorded over one thousand members and the emergence of a new


10
prospective donors and other funding sources; preparing and making solicitations or
submitting grant applications; and providing gift stewardship and monitoring of
externally funded projects through reports and personal communication with the donor or
funding source (Boguch, 1994; Keener, 1982; Worth, 1993a, 1993b).
EndowmentAn institutions endowment refers to funds that are invested with
the expectation that the principal will remain intact and that the income generated will
support institutional needs, programs, and activities (Worth, 1993b).
External fundingIn community colleges, external funding is a hybrid activity
that merges grants writing and donor relations expertise with planning, instructional
methods and programs, and advocacy (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 19).
FoundationA foundation that is institutionally related exists solely for the
purpose of raising, managing, and disbursing funds to support the programs of a specific
(usually public) college or university (Worth, 1993b, p. 417).
Fund raisingRequiring communicative and interpersonal skills, fund raising is
episodic in nature and constitutes an institutions gift solicitation programs and
activities focused on meeting particular objectives or goals (Worth, 1993a, p. 7,
1993b).
Institutional advancementIn its broadest sense, institutional advancement is a
state of mind that must pervade all aspects of the institutions life. It is an attitude of
optimism and ambition that drives an institutions desire to grow and improve in a
competitive environment (Worth, 1993a, p. 5). It encompasses all those programs and
activities undertaken by a college or university to develop understanding and support
from all its publics for its educational goals (Rowland, 1977, p. xi). The term usually


APPENDIX E
COVER LETTER FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL


47
national study found that a greater percentage of administrators from two-year colleges
with foundations having a net worth of $1 million or more rated the endowment as
critical to foundation success as compared to the group responding from colleges with
foundations with less than $1 million (Glandon & Keener, 1994). Another national study
found that public community colleges with successful development programs used
endowment growth as a fund-raising strategy (Hunter, C. B., 1987). A study limited to
community colleges in Illinois and Iowa found no significant relationship between the
income from private gifts and college endowment (Clements, 1990).
Like some other institutional characteristics, endowment size is not a variable that
is easily manipulated as a way to increase fund-raising success (Duronio & Loessin,
1993); advising a college president to increase the size of the endowment as a way to
improve the effectiveness of fund raising is no advice at all (Brittingham & Pezzullo,
1990). Managing money wisely, however, is a significant function of the college
foundation and the community college foundation board (Katsinas et al., 1990). Outside
counsel also has been employed by community colleges to provide assistance in wisely
investing endowment funds (Ryan, 1994).
Summary
Systems theory has provided a framework and a broader context for
understanding community college foundation performance. By acknowledging that there
are various levels of systems and interconnections among open systems, it is possible to
examine the foundation as a subsystem, whose specific environment will greatly affect its
success and survival.


22
interacting parts operating to advance the interest of the community college within an
even larger social and economic community system (Koelkebeck, 1994, p. 70).
Raising funds and community awareness are not simply functions of a foundation,
nor are they isolated functions separate from the larger system (Koelkebeck, 1994). The
community college can be examined as part of the larger system, providing context and
support for the resource development function, a subsystem within it (Clements, 1990).
The community college is the bedrock on which the foundation will rest. Therefore, it is
the community college and the forces therein that will help shape the success of the
foundation (Koelkebeck, 1994, p. 69).
The Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education
Democratization, industrialization, and the demands of a growing populace were
major factors contributing to the development of the community college. When local
governments won the control to fund secondary education (Stuart v. School District No. 1
of the Village of Kalamazoo, 1874) it led to a 600% increase in the number of high-
school enrollments during the next 30 years. Americas elite colleges proved too
expensive or exclusive for these new graduates, and the classical education of these
institutions was also insufficient preparation for the new industrial society. The
increasing number of students enrolling in the universities (52,000 in 1870 to 238,000 at
the turn of the century) necessitated the creation of additional colleges flexible enough to
meet the changing times. By the end of the 19th century, the new junior college
(including both the six-year high school and the two-year decapitated private college)
was beginning to serve such a need (Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollattscheck, & Suppiger,
1994).


107
Dittman, D. A. (1981). Criteria forjudging staff size and functions. In F. C. Pray (Ed.),
Handbook for educational fund raising: A guide to successful principles and
practices for colleges, universities, and schools (pp. 226-231). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Duffy, E. F. (1979). Evaluative criteria for community college foundations. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 40 (08), 4371A. (UMI No. AAG80-02851)
Dunlop, D. R. (1989). Major gifts. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl, The president and fund
raising (pp. 173-186). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1991a). 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.
Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1991b). Effective fund raising in higher education: Ten
success stories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1993). Management effectiveness in fundraising. In D.
R. Young, R. M. Hollister, V. A. Hodgkinson, & Associates (Eds.), Governing,
leading, and managing nonprofit organizations: New insights from research and
practice (pp. 170-190). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, G. A. (1989). Financing the development program. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl,
The president and fund raising (pp. 140-146). New York: American Council on
Education and Macmillan.
Fisher, J. L. (1982). The two-year college president and institutional advancement. In P. S.
Bryant & J. A. Johnson (Series Eds.) & A. W. Rowland (Vol. Ed.), New directions
for institutional advancement: No. 15. Advancing the two-year college (pp. 11-21).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, J. L. (1989a). Establishing a successful fund-raising program. In J. L. Fisher & G.
H. Quehl, The president and fund raising (pp. 3-17). New York: American Council
on Education and Macmillan.
Fisher, J. L. (1989b). A history of philanthropy. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl, The
president and fund raising (pp. 18-32). New York: American Council on Education
and Macmillan.
Fisher, J. L., & Koch, J. V. (1996). Presidential leadership: Making a difference. Phoenix,
AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Francis, N. C. (1980). Fund raising at a developing institution. In A. W. Rowland (Series
Ed.) & J. L. Fisher (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional advancement: No. 8.
Presidential leadership in advancement activities (pp. 65-72). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.


7
Association of Community Colleges have provided additional information, as have the
various scholarly works discussed in this study, but much about the condition,
effectiveness, and impact of resource development efforts in public community colleges
has yet to be analyzed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States
public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the
literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount
of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,
corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and
investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;
the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation
board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation
operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an
important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;
the college size; and the college endowment. The proposed regression model was as
follows: Foundation Revenue = b(foundation operating budget) + (critical role of
college president) + (critical role of chief development officer) + (critical role of
foundation board member) + (importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +
(college geographic location) + (college size) + (college endowment).
Related literature, as discussed in Chapter 2, suggests that there should be a
statistically significant and positive relationship between the foundation revenue and each
of the following variables: the amount of the foundation operating budget, the degree to


I could not have completed this doctoral program without Dr. Henry Nash Carrier,
my husband, whose love and support, devotion to family, and self-sacrifice made it
possible for me to pursue my dreams. Our children, Chelsea Katherine and Nathan
Henryages 8 and 10 upon completion of my doctoral programdeserve my heartfelt
thanks for their support, understanding, and love.
v


8
which the college president is rated as critical to the foundation operation, the degree to
which the chief resource development officer is rated as critical to the foundation
operation, the degree to which the foundation board member is rated as critical to the
foundation operation, the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as
an important foundation evaluation factor, the more urban the college geographic
location, the greater the college size, and the larger the college endowment.
The research questions guiding the study were as follows:
1. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?
2. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the college president is rated as playing a critical role in the
institutions foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?
3. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the chief resource development officer is rated as playing a critical role
in the institutions foundation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?
4. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the foundation board member is rated as playing a critical role in the
institutions foundation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model?
5. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in
evaluating the institutions foundation operation when controlling for the
other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model?
6. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?
7. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college size
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model?


5
is that the majority of the literature regarding community colleges does not account for
the diversity in institutional size, geographic location, and governance among community
colleges (Katsinas, 1996). Likewise, the success of fund-raising programs is not often
analyzed with attention to institutional size, location, degree level, mission, and other
important factors (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
Differences in institutional type have been shown to be important in identifying
the characteristics of effective fund-raising operations (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b). The
number and wealth of alumni (capacity), the maturity of the fund-raising program
(history), and the institutional priority-including resource commitment (effort)have
been linked to effectiveness when comparing resource development programs of various
institutional types (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). While community colleges have
adopted elements from the senior institution models of institutional advancement, these
institutions, with their fully staffed development offices, sizable endowments, and strong
alumni support, are not characteristic of most community colleges (Glass & Jackson,
1998a; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). Additionally, some development activities typical to
four-year colleges may not be applicable to community colleges (Luck & Tolle, 1978).
Overall, community colleges have not placed an emphasis on traditional alumni
activities, and their development staffing assignments have consisted of one-person and
part-time support (Smith, 1993). Instead of relying on alumni allegiance, community
colleges have turned to the community itself for resources and foundation viability
(Conrad, Davis, Duffy, & Whitehead, 1986; Degerstedt, 1982). Seeking external funding
for community colleges ideally involves a balanced approach that leverages public
dollars with private, builds on established business relationships to create major gift


APPENDIX C
EVALUATION FORM FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL


98
SECTION n. GRANT DEVELOPMENT
Section II (questions #24 #39) is to be completed by the person
primarily responsible for external grant funding.
Please base all responses on the 1998-99 fiscal year (or the equivalent).
24. The grant officers association is with the:
a. O Community College Central/District Office
b. [H College in a Multi-College District
c. D Campus in a Multi-Campus District
d. Single Community College Campus
e. Other
25. If there is a grants office, what year was it established? N/A
26. How many persons are assigned to the grants operation?
Professional: a. Full Time b. Part Time
Paraprofessional: a. Full Time b. Part Time
Clerical: a. Full Time b. Part Time
Office Volunteer:
27. Indicate the following information about the person primarily responsible for grants:
Title Full or Part Years in Years with Years in
Time Position Institution Development
28.What title did this person hold IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the current position?
29. Indicate by degree type the highest level of education completed by this person:
a. O Doctorate b. O Masters c. HU Bachelors d. HU Other
30. Indicate applicable certifications held by this person:
31. To whom does this person report within the college structure?
32. Estimate the total percentage of grants operation time spent on any or all of these functions:
N/A
a. Consortia/Partnership Development
%
h. Grant Proposal Writing
%
b.
Contract Development
%
i. Private Fundraising
%
c.
Data Management
%
j. Public Relations
%
d.
Fiscal Management
%
k. Special Events
%
e.
Funding Research
%
1. Strategic Planning
%
f.
Government Relations
%
m. Workshops/Training
%
g-
Grants Management
%
n. Other
%
TOTAL =
100%
33. Total 1998-99 grants office OPERATING budget (include salary/benefits): $


72
respondents excluded budgetary contributions from the host institution or included all
foundation assets in response to this question. Such misinterpretation may have
confounded a relationship between the foundation operating budget and foundation
revenue.
This study also found no statistically significant relationship between the critical
role of the president and foundation revenue. While this finding concurred with one
national study of state colleges and universities (Hunter, F. D., 1987), it contradicted the
literature specifically regarding two-year colleges (Bock & Sullins, 1987; Duffy, 1979;
Glandon & Keener, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998b; Glennon, 1985; Ironfield, 1991;
Jackson & Glass, 2000; Keener, 1982; Keener et al., 1991; Mosier, 1980; Robinson,
1989; Ryan, 1988, 1989).
While no significant relationship existed between the amount of foundation
revenue and the role played by the president, survey respondents, on average, thought the
president played a very critical or critical role in the institutions foundation
operation. The statistically insignificant finding may be explained, in part, by the limited
range of responses at the high end (M = 3.708) of the 4-point Likert scale.
It has been suggested that fund raising has not been a high priority for community
college presidents (Ryan, 1993) and that the presidents understanding, advocacy, and
support of the advancement function may be more critical than his or her personal
solicitation of funds (Ryan, 1994). Additionally, it has been stated that the presidents
leadership capacity in the area of advancement largely will determine fund-raising
success for most community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998b). While these issues
deserve further exploration, this studys findings are inconclusive regarding the


57
Hypothesis 3:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the chief resource
development officer is rated as playing a critical role in the institutions
foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.
Hypothesis 4:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the foundation
board member is rated as playing a critical role in the institutions
foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.
Hypothesis 5:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which meeting
institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in evaluating the
institutions foundation operation when controlling for the other
explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model.
Hypothesis 6:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the more urban the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model.
Hypothesis 7:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the greater the college size when
controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed
regression model.
Hypothesis 8:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the larger the college endowment
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model.
Summary
As part of a research team from the University of Florida, the researcher
developed a survey instrument, which was externally validated by review panels with
expertise in community college resource development. Resource development


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 EKKDORI3W_ZCZZ5M INGEST_TIME 2013-10-09T23:46:13Z PACKAGE AA00017704_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


33
Variables Associated with Successful Foundation Performance
Allocation of Resources to the Foundation Operation
Fund-raising success has been linked with an organizations resource allocation to
the fund-raising operation (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b;
Glennon, 1985; Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Jenner, 1987; Johnson, J. J., 1986;
Leslie, 1969; Levis, 1991; Luck, 1974; Luck & Tolle, 1978; Maples, 1980; Miller, 1991;
Pickett, 1977). Certainly, institutional spending is reported most consistently as the
variable best correlated with fund-raising effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
Revenue budgets must be adequate to the task, consistent, long term, and in keeping
with performance expectations; clearly, foundation management time spent in searching
for operating funds and negotiating predictable budget revenues could be better spent in
acquiring major gifts (Hedgepeth, 1999, p. 7).
Resource allocation to the development function affects staff size (Glennon,
1985). Personnel is the largest cost of a development program (Wisdom, 1989).
Resources in terms of budget and staffing allow for an institutions increased fund-raising
effort and are indicative of institutional priority and commitment (Brittingham &
Pezzullo, 1990; Jacobson, 1978b). Research demonstrates that fund-raising productivity
positively relates to the number of professional advancement staff in four-year
institutions (Hunter, F. D., 1987; Pickett 1977). The high correlation between dollars
raised and the number of development staff may be due to the time and personal attention
that good development work requires (Wisdom, 1989). Understandably, staffing of
development offices will vary relative to the age of the college, gift-income potential,
number of constituents to be served, and other factors (Dittman, 1981).


101
SECTION III. FOUNDATION/PRIVATE GIFT DEVELOPMENT
Section III (questions #40 #60) is to be completed by the person
primarily responsible for the foundation operation.
Please base all responses on the 1998-99 fiscal year (or the equivalent).
40. The foundation officers association is with the:
a. ED Community College Central/District Office
b. ED College in a Multi-College District
c. EH Campus in a Multi-Campus District
d. ED Single Community College Campus
e. ED Other
40. If there is a foundation office, what year was it established? N/A
42. How many persons are assigned to the foundation operation?
Professional: a. Full Time b. Part Time
Clerical: a. Full Time b. Part Time
Volunteer (other than board member):
43. Indicate the following information about the person primarily responsible for the foundation
operation:
Title Full or Part Years in Years with Years in
Time Position Institution Development
44.What title did this person hold IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the current position?
45. Indicate by degree type the highest level of education completed by this person:
a. ED Doctorate b. ED Masters c. ED Bachelors d. ED Other
46. Indicate applicable certifications held by this person:
47. To whom does this person report within the college structure?
48. Estimate the total percentage of foundation operation time spent on any or all of these functions:
N/A
a.
Alumni Relations/Activities
%
j-
Planned Giving
%
b.
Annual Fund
%
k.
Prospect Research
%
c.
Capital Campaign
%
1.
Public Relations
%
d.
Data Management
%
m.
Scholarship Programs
%
e.
Endowment Fund(s)
%
n.
Special Events
%
f.
Fiscal Management
%
0.
Strategic Planning
%
g-
Foundation Board Relations
%
p-
W orkshops/T raining
%
h.
Grants
%
q-
Other
%
i.
Major Gifts
%
TOTAL =
100%
49. Total 1998-99 foundation OPERATING budget (include salary/benefits): $ _
50. Total 1998-99 ASSETS in the foundation (excluding the operating budget): $


116
Van der Werf, M. (1999a, February 19). A bull market gave colleges 18% return on
endowments in 1998. The Chronicle of Higher Education [On-line]. Available:
http://chronical.com/. Accessed 27 June 2001.
Van der Werf, M. (1999b, April 9). For community colleges, fund raising has become
serious and successful. The Chronicle of Higher Education [On-line]. Available:
http://chronical.com/. Accessed 27 June 2001.
Vaughan, G. B. (1994). Effective presidential leadership: Twelve areas of focus. In A. M.
Cohen, F. B. Brawer, & Associates (Eds.), Managing community colleges: A
handbook for effective practice (pp. 60-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vaughan, G. B., Mellander, G. A., & Blois, B. (1994). The community college
presidency: Current status and future outlook. Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
Wallin, D. L., & Ryan, J. R. (1994). Order out of chaos: Leadership for the 21st century.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 18(6), 527-538.
Watkins, T. (2000). Public community college revenues 1989-94. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice. 24(21. 95-106.
Wattenbarger, J. L. (1982). The case for the community college foundation. In W. H.
Sharron, Jr. (Ed.), The community college foundation (pp. 19-28 ). Washington, DC:
National Council for Resource Development.
Webb, C. H. (1982). A policy-relevant study of development programs at representative
institutions within the State University of New York. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 43 (05), 1385A. (UMI No. AAG82-24489)
Wheatley, M. G. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization
from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wisdom, P. E. (1989). Another look at costs. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl, The president
and fund raising (pp. 147-159). New York: American Council on Education and
Macmillan.
Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L., Gollattscheck, J. F., & Suppiger, J.E. (1994). Americas
community colleges: The first century. Washington, DC: The American Association
of Community Colleges.
Woodbury, K. B., Jr. (1989). Foundations. In G. J. Ryan & N. J. Smith (Eds.), Marketing
and development for community colleges (pp. 171-180). Washington, DC: Council
for Advancement and Support of Education.
Worth, M. J. (1993a). Defining institutional advancement, development, and fund raising.
In M. J. Worth (Ed.), Educational fund raising: Principles and practice (pp. 3-9).
Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.


112
McNamara, D. L. (1988). Characteristics of an effective two-year college private fund
raising program. Dissertation Abstracts International. 50 (05), 1191 A. (UMI No.
AAG89-15020)
Meeker, B. (1995). State and local appropriations rise: Results of the comparative
financial statistics study. NACUBO Business Officer. 28(10), 22-24.
Merisotis, J. P., & Wolanin, T. R. (2000). Community college financing: Strategies and
challenges (New Expeditions Issue Paper No. 5). Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
Miller, S. D. (1991). The relationship of selected factors with success in private sector
resource acquisition at Appalachian higher education institutions. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52, (09), 3198A. (UMI No. AAG92-01077)
Moore, A. H. (2000, January). Public-policy influences on public college and university
foundations (Occasional Paper No. 40). Washington, DC: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Mosier, R. (1980, June). The role of the college president in resource development
(Resource Paper No. 24). Washington, DC: National Council for Resource
Development.
Murphy, M. (1986). Raising funds from foundations. In A. W. Rowland (Ed.), Handbook
of institutional advancement: A modem guide to executive management,
institutional relations, fund-raising, alumni administration, government relations.
publications, periodicals, and enrollment management (2nd ed., pp. 278-291). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, D. J. (1987). The guaranteed fund-raising system: A systems approach to
planning and controlling fund raising. Boston: American Institute of Management.
Nason, J. (1989). Trustee responsibilities (The AGB Pocket Publications Series No. 1).
Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Parnell, D. (1988). Introduction. In D. Mitzel (Ed.), Resource development in the two-year
college (xvii-xx). Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Parsons, M. H. (1994). Budgeting and resource allocation. In A. M. Cohen, F. B. Brawer,
& Associates (Eds.), Managing community colleges: A handbook for effective
practice (pp. 341-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Payton, R. L., Rosso, H. A., & Tempel, E. R. (1991). Toward a philosophy of fund raising.
In D. F. Burlingame & L. J. Hulse (Eds.), Taking fund raising seriously: Advancing
the profession and practice of raising money (pp. 3-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


51
Research Population
Resource development professionals whose institutions were members of the
CRD and/or AACC were invited to participate in the research teams study. The CRD
and AACC membership lists provided a research population of approximately 1,100
community colleges. Of the total universe of 2,068 two-year postsecondary institutions, it
was determined that 1,029 are public, 309 are private not-for-profit, and 730 are private
for-profit institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). For this researchers study,
the population was limited to the two-year United States public community colleges that
held membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more years
between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). It
was determined that between 1998 and 2001 the annual average number of two-year
United States public community colleges belonging to CRD was 650.
Procedure for Data Collection
In July of 2000, CRD mailed to the membership of CRD and AACC, combined, a
cover letter addressed to the Resource Development Professional (see Appendix G) and
the final survey questionnaire (see Appendix H). Instructions stated that completed
surveys should be mailed or faxed to the survey team at the University of Florida by
August 15, 2000. In January 2001, a second survey was mailed to the CRD and AACC
members who had not responded. Collection of survey results continued through
February of 2001. A research assistant was hired to enter the data into an Excel
spreadsheet template according to detailed instructions prepared by the research team;
data entry was completed by March of 2001.


79
be accounted for by variables associated with such external influences. Initial studies
have included regional economic measures along with variables internal to two-year
colleges (Clements, 1990; Gatewood, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987). Ideally, variables
indicative of social and economic conditions should be tested through multiple regression
analysis with a national sample to determine if a relationship exists between community
and regional wealth and foundation revenue. From a systems perspective, determining the
degree to which the external environment beyond the college system relates to foundation
revenue would further advance the theoretical understanding of community college
resource development. In practice, certain external factors, of course, would be beyond
the control of college administrators (Sharron, 1982).
Leadership among community college foundation board members is another
suggested area of study. The characteristics of the foundation board, in particular, should
be examined to determine if board size, selection methods, and composition relate to
foundation revenue. Also, further study should focus on foundation revenue relative to
the strategic functioning of the foundation board. Such examination should include the
degree of foundation board autonomy and empowerment; the level and quality of the
foundation boards interaction with the college president, chief resource development
officer, and foundation director; and the foundation boards engagement in training and
self-assessment activities. Various models for structuring and empowering the foundation
board might be explored through case studies that could lead to greater understanding of
enhanced foundation performance.
Additional research is needed regarding community college endowments.
Quantitative and qualitative studies of colleges that have built impressive endowments


APPENDIX F
EVALUATION FORM FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL


APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 9
Delimitations and Limitations 12
Delimitations 12
Limitations 12
Significance of the Study 13
Overview of the Methodology 14
Summary 15
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 18
Systems Theory 18
Institutional Advancement 20
The Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education 22
Community Colleges and Private Fund Raising 25
Outcome Measures Defining Successful Foundation Performance 27
Foundation Revenue Sources 30
Individuals 30
Community Organizations and Corporations 31
External Foundations 31
State Matching Programs 32
Endowment Interest and Investments 32
Variables Associated with Successful Foundation Performance 33
Allocation of Resources to the Foundation Operation 33
Roles of President, Chief Development Officer, and Foundation
Board Member 34
vi


48
From their earliest development, community colleges answered the demands of a
growing populace, industrialization, and democratization. Due to the unique mission of
two-year colleges, to offer opportunity with excellence, their resource needs exceed
what is afforded through public financial support, tuition, and fees (Parnell, 1988).
Studies in higher education philanthropy and research on private support for
community colleges have shown that certain institutional and programmatic factors
support fund-raising effectiveness. These factors include the colleges allocation of
resources to the fund-raising operation; critical roles played by the college president,
chief resource development officer, and foundation board member; importance of
evaluating the colleges foundation in terms of meeting institutional strategic goals;
college geographic location; college size; and college endowment.
Chapter 3 follows with the design of the study, which includes a description of the
instrumentation, research population, procedure for data collection, statement of
variables, descriptive profiles, and research hypotheses.


76
Based on the significance between the critical role of the foundation board
member and foundation revenue in this study, encouraging board leadership will be
essential so that foundation board members are empowered to act in ways that will best
support the college. It will be important for community college leaders not only to
reconsider foundation board composition and selection, as has been suggested (Bryant,
1988; Gale, 1989) but also to examine board commitment and the barriers to increased
responsibility and self-direction.
Leadership, in successful organizational cultures, is shared systemwide and from
all levels (Wallin & Ryan, 1994). Challenging underlying assumptions and methods of
doing things will be necessary as foundation board members move forward (Hedgepeth,
1999). Creating a more proactive foundation board may involve an overhaul of the
foundation bylaws and a revamping of foundation structures for more direct oversight of
vital foundation functions such as raising, investing, and disbursing foundation funds
(Katsinas et al., 1990).
Development professionals should determine whether board members fully
understand their roles prior to joining the foundation board. A job description to clarify
responsibilities, a comprehensive and carefully designed orientation program, and a
continuing education program that includes self-assessment are ways in which board
members can be made aware of their roles, responsibilities, and contributions (Legn,
1989). In any case, foundation board members should see their role as a serious fiduciary
one (Robertson, 1982), and they should take an active, intentional, and conscious role in
determining their functions and the manner in which they will be implemented
(Hedgepeth, 1999, p. 6).


60
of meeting institutional strategic goals) + b(college geographic location) + (college size)
+ b(college endowment).
The research questions guiding the study were as follows:
1. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?
2. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the college president is rated as playing a critical role in the
institutions foundation operation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?
3. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the chief resource development officer is rated as playing a critical role
in the institutions foundation when controlling for the other explanatory
variables of interest in the proposed regression model?
4. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which the foundation board member is rated as playing a critical role in the
institutions foundation when controlling for the other explanatory variables
of interest in the proposed regression model?
5. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the degree to
which meeting institutional strategic goals is rated as an important factor in
evaluating the institutions foundation operation when controlling for the
other explanatory variables of interest in the proposed regression model?
6. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
geographic location when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model?
7. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college size
when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in the
proposed regression model?
8. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
endowment when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in
the proposed regression model?


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Sharon McEntee Carrier is assistant provost for planning and special projects at
Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. She began her professional career in 1980 as an
adjunct instructor of humanities at Brevard Community College, Florida, and, in 1983,
started teaching at Rollins Colleges branch campus in Brevard County. In 1988, she
received the Christa McAuliffe Outstanding Teacher Award from Rollins. That same
year, she was hired as assistant to the dean at Rollins Brevard. She was later promoted to
director of public relations and student services, assistant dean, and associate dean, and,
in 2000-2001, served as interim dean of the Rollins Brevard campus.
A native Floridian, Sharon was bom in Gainesville on January 3, 1958, and was
raised in Cocoa. She graduated from Brevard Community College in 1977. She earned
her bachelor of arts degree with a major in studio art and a minor in art history from
Florida State University in 1979. She continued her studies at Florida State and, in 1981,
was awarded the master of arts degree in humanities, with an emphasis on the
contemporary era and a concentration in art history. Sharon began her doctoral studies in
higher education administration with the University of Florida in 1998.
118


35
Leadership of the college president repeatedly has appeared in the literature as a
factor contributing to the success of fund raising in various types of higher education
institutions (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Fisher, 1989a; Glennon, 1985; Miller, 1991;
Rowland, 1977; Webb, 1982). A national study of state universities and colleges,
however, found no significant relationship between total voluntary support and the
presidents involvement in fund raising (Hunter, F. D., 1987). Behaving like their private
college counterparts have been expected to for years, presidents of public colleges spend
more time on fund raising than they did in the past (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).
Research has shown that a distinguishing feature of effective nonprofit
organization chief executives is their political skill and engagement with external groups,
including governments, to offset reduced resources and to manage other threats to
organizational stability and viability (Heimovics, Herman, & Jurkiewicz, 1993).
Likewise, presidents of public colleges must use political skill in sustaining their
institutions with support from state government resources (Sweet, 1980).
The president must take the primary initiative for interesting others in making an
investment in the institution (Fisher, 1989b). Because people give money to realize the
fulfillment of a vision, the presidents main job is to describe his or her vision for the
institution and get others to make it theirs (Conklin, 1989, p. 93). The persuasive and
persistent articulation of this vision, so that it is shared by all internal and external
constituencies, is the most significant contribution to institutional advancement that a
president can make (Hesburgh, 1980).
As an institutions chief institutional advancement officer, the president plays a
significant role in defining and reflecting the institutions goals and objectives and


71
establishment of a foundation (Degerstedt, 1982; Angel & Gares, 1989) and to more
successful community college foundations and development programs (Glandon, 1987;
Maples, 1980; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998; Ryan, 1993).
The statistically insignificant finding for foundation operating budget ran counter
to the literature supporting resource allocation as an important variable for fund-raising
success (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Glennon, 1985;
Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Jenner, 1987; Johnson, J. J., 1986; Leslie, 1969;
Levis, 1991; Luck, 1974; Luck & Tolle, 1978; Maples, 1980; Miller, 1991; Pickett,
1977). In general, institutional spending is reported most consistently as the variable best
correlated with fund-raising effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
That no significant relationship was found between foundation operating budget
and foundation revenue may have been the result of how this information was requested
in the survey instrument and of possible misunderstanding on the part of respondents.
Survey respondents were to indicate the total annual foundation operating budget and to
include the salaries and benefits of foundation personnel. Of the 300 respondents to this
survey item, 275 (92%) reported a foundation operating budget of less than $500,000; the
remaining 25 (8%) reported a foundation operating budget from $500,000 to 4.5 million.
That 13 of these respondents indicated having no foundation operating budget and that 10
respondents reported budgets from 1 to 4.5 million raises questions as to whether these
data were reported consistently. Differences in how foundation operations are funded
may have compounded the problem. The literature suggests that funding for foundation
operations can come exclusively from the host institution, from foundation-generated
resources alone, or some combination (Hedgepeth, 1999; Simic, 1998). Perhaps some


COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY
Evaluation Form
1.From the list below, please check the ONE person who should receive the survey
mailing for distribution at the college.
Chancellor Grants/Contracts Officer
District President Foundation Officer
Campus President Chief Business Officer
Resource Development Officer Human Resource Officer
Comments:
2.Are the survey instructions clear?
Yes No How could they be improved?
3.Are the survey questions understandable?
Yes No List the item number of any unclear survey
questions and state how these questions could be improved:
4.Are the survey questions easy to answer?
Yes No Identify questions/items that would be
particularly difficult to answer and briefly explain why.
5.Will the information requested be difficult to access or calculate?
Yes Identify which questions ask for information that would be difficult to
access or calculate.
No
85


96
COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY
SECTION I. COLLEGE PROFILE
Section I (questions #1 #23) is to be completed by the designated college contact person
who will oversee the distribution, completion, and return of the survey.
Please base all responses on the 1998-99 fiscal year (or the equivalent).
1. Institution:
2. Year college was established:
3. Address:
3. City: 5. State: 6. Zip:
7. Designated contact person for this survey:
8. Title:
9. Telephone: ( ) 10. Fax: ( )
11. Email:
12. Fall 1998 Credit Enrollment (non-duplicated headcount):
13. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE):
14. Total 1998-99 institutional OPERATING (and/or GENERAL FUND) Budget: $
15. Identify the geographic setting of the institution: a. CH Rural b. CH Urban c. HD Suburban
16.The college structure represents a:
a. Multi-College District
b. O Multi-Campus District
c. d Single Community College Campus
d. H] Other
17.The contact persons association is with the:
a. Community College Central/District Office
b. College in a Multi-College District
c. CD Campus in a Multi-Campus District
d. CD Single Community College Campus
e. O Other
18.Is there a Chief Resource Development Officer (or person with similar responsibilities)?
Yes No
19.If yes for #18, to whom does this person report?
a. O Chancellor
b. O District President
c. Campus President
d. O Vice-President (please specify what
area)
e. O Other
20.Is there a GRANTS office? Yes No


13
Significance of the Study
Contemporary discussions of leadership and organizational effectiveness point to
the importance of examining an organizations performance as part of an entire system
rather than a function of isolated factors (Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1994). Such
discussions have their origin in systems theory, which was applied by social scientists to
examine organizational structures, relationships, and interdependence (Katz & Kahn,
1978). Systems theory has been suggested as an appropriate framework for research
pertaining to fund raising and development (Clements, 1990; Kelly, 1998; Koelkebeck,
1994; Murrey, 1987).
Research in the field of resource development for community colleges is
relatively new (Jenkins & Glass, 1999). Comprehensive national data on community
college resource development have been lacking, and the existing data do not fully
represent the increased levels of support over the last decade (Jackson & Keener, 2002).
Additionally, an appropriate theoretical framework for discussing fund raising and
development, especially at community colleges, has lagged behind other educational
issues (Jackson & Glass, 2000).
The justification exists, therefore, to examine the performance of community
college foundation operations from a conceptual framework based on systems theory.
Fundamental to systems theory is the understanding that there are various levels of
systems and interconnections among them and that information regarding the higher,
more complex, system level is valuable in understanding what happens in the system
below it (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Also important is that system inputs, processes, roles, and
relationships are integral to system outcomes (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Van Gigch, 1978).


27
separately incorporated entities with 501(c)(3) approval from the Internal Revenue
Service, foundations have encouraged tax-deductible contributions from individual
donors, civic organizations, and companies; developed portfolios of stocks, bonds, real
estate, and other investments; held, managed, and leased property; and established and
secured income from various college auxiliaries (Woodbury, 1989). Roles of community
college foundations also have included service to the college in planning and budgeting,
faculty enrichment, student financial aid, student activities, and community outreach and
improvement (Keener, 1982).
The strongest case for resource development in community colleges has been in
establishing the close connection with and service to the community, providing a formal
means for citizens to participate in the growth and development of their community
college (Robertson, 1981, p. 341). Due to the generic nature of state funding formulas, it
has been difficult to differentiate and support the local needs of community colleges
through traditional funding methods (Lorenzo, 1994). The college foundation has allowed
fund-raising programs to be established so that institutional needs and donor interests can
be addressed with flexibility (Conrad et al., 1986). It is a means of engaging influential
individuals in ways that are meaningful to the institution (Simic, 1998). Hence, the
foundation has served the purpose of fostering community support and revenue necessary
for sustaining special projects (Bock & Sullins, 1987).
Outcome Measures Defining Successful Foundation Performance
A debate exists in the literature over the use of dollars raised as the best measure
of success for foundations affiliated with institutions of higher education (Koelkebeck,
1994). By definition, an institutionally related foundation exists to raise funds to support


58
professionals whose institutions were members of the CRD and/or AACC were sent a
cover letter and survey questionnaire by mail in July 2000. A follow-up mailing was sent
in January of 2001. While the CRD and AACC membership lists provided a research
population of 1,100 community colleges, the population for this study was further refined
to include only the 650 two-year United States public community colleges that held
membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more years between
1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).
The researcher focused on selected variables associated in the literature with
successful foundation performance to determine if they would have a statistically
significant and positive relationship to the amount of annual foundation revenue. The
outcome variable was the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from individuals,
community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching programs,
and endowment interest and investments. Selected explanatory variables consisted of the
foundation operating budget; the degree to which the president, chief resource
development officer, and foundation board member individually were rated as playing a
critical role in the foundation operation; the degree to which meeting institutional
strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation operation;
the college geographic location; the college size; and the college endowment.
A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed to determine the extent to
which the proposed regression model described the sampling data and to examine the
degree of association between the outcome variable and the explanatory variables.
Chapter 4 follows with an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 provides conclusions
and implications, as well as suggestions for further research.


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion in 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.
/Ah
Dale F. Campbell, Chjtfr
Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy, and
Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion in 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.
Ui LiM-J / ,
arbara J. Keener, Coclpair
Lecturer in Educational Leadership, Policy, and
Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion in conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Pnilosophy.
DaAbd S. Honeyman
Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy, and
Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion in 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.
Anne Seraphine
Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology
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 Doctor of Philosophy.
December 2002
Dean! College of Education
Dean, Graduate School


46
income requirement would more appropriately be based on student instructional costs.
They further stated that a colleges endowment should not be considered apart from the
organization and administration of its educational program and that accreditation
approval should be based on the educational program and not the endowment amount.
The AAJC proceedings recorded the lively debate of the endowment question, taxation,
expenditure per student, and other financial sustainability issues and, thereby, provided a
glimpse of how two-year college pioneers staked new ground in the landscape of higher
education. Ultimately, AAJC passed the committees recommendations for presentation
to the North Central Association. These recommendations called for further information
to be gained regarding instructional costs and more careful consideration of colleges that
potentially were in jeopardy of losing accreditation because they did not meet the
endowment requirement (American Association of Junior Colleges, 1926).
In recent decades, as community colleges administrators have sought increased
financial sustainability from alternative revenue sources, endowment income has been
viewed as another source of potential revenue. An endowment size of $50,000 was
considered significant in 1986; however, in 1993, foundation endowments for 165
community colleges exceeded $1 million (Adams et al., 1994).
Endowment size has been cited as a variable that can help to predict fund-raising
effectiveness for postsecondary institutions (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Dean, 1985;
Duronio & Loessin, 1993; Pickett, 1977). It has been stated that endowment size can
indicate the successful history of the institution in raising funds or operating in general,
and, thus, serve to forecast its continued success (Pickett, 1986). For community colleges,
however, the research regarding endowments has been scant (Clements, 1990). One


March 21, 2000
Dear Survey Review Content Expert,
Thank you for serving on the panel of reviewers for the Community College External
Funding Survey. Our research team from the University of Florida is conducting this
national survey with the Council for Resource Development and additional support from
the Clements Group. The study results will provide much needed data on the status of
resource development in community colleges and on success factors pertinent to
community college external funding from grants, contracts, and private giving. These
results will be useful to trustees, presidents, development officers, human resource
personnel, and other decision makers who can positively influence external funding
efforts and outcomes.
You were selected as a member of the review panel because of your expertise in
community college resource development. Your cooperation in evaluating the first draft
of the enclosed survey will greatly assist the research team in identifying potential survey
problem areas such as ambiguous or difficult questions, irrelevant items, missing
questions, terms that need clarification, or survey format.
After reviewing the survey, please complete the attached evaluation form. You may add
comments directly on the email version of the survey draft. If returning the revised survey by
email, please make your changes in a different color (blue or red), use the strikeout feature
(delete), and add your comments at the end of the survey or on the evaluation form. If returning
the survey by fax or regular mail, please write directly on the printed survey. List any terms that
are used in the survey that you believe need a specific definition for a clear understanding in
answering the survey questions.
The research team will use your comments to refine the survey prior to its review by the Council
for Resource Development (CRD) Board in April and its national distribution in May. To keep to
this timetable, it is very important that you return the completed evaluation form and survey draft
by March 28, 2000 to the research team, attention Barbara Keener, via email to
bkeener@coe.ufl.edu or fax to 352-392-3664.
Again, thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Barbara Keener, Ed.D.
Graduate Faculty
Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations
University of Florida
Sharon M. Carrier Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida University of Florida
83


May 3, 2000
Dear CRD Board Member and Guest Reviewer,
Thank you for serving on the panel of reviewers for the Community College External Funding
Survey. Our research team from the University of Florida is conducting this national survey with
support from the Council for Resource Development and the Clements Group and with the
endorsement of the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). The study results will
provide needed data on the status of resource development in community colleges. These results
will be useful to trustees, presidents, development officers, human resource personnel, and other
decision makers who can positively influence external funding efforts and outcomes.
You were selected as a member of the review panel because of your expertise in community
college resource development. Your cooperation in evaluating the enclosed survey will greatly
assist the research team in identifying potential survey problems such as ambiguous or difficult
questions, irrelevant items, and terms needing clarification.
After reviewing the survey, please complete the attached evaluation form. You may add
comments directly on the email version of the survey draft. If returning the revised survey by
email, please make your changes in a different color (blue or red), use the strikeout feature
(delete), and add your comments at the end of the survey or on the evaluation form. If returning
the survey by fax or regular mail, please write directly on the printed survey.
The research team will use your comments to refine the survey prior to its national distribution in
July. To keep to this timetable, it is very important that you return the completed evaluation form
and survey draft by May 15, 2000. If you are sending your comments by email, please directly
reply to the email address: crd@aacc.nche.edu. If you are faxing your comments, please send
them to the University of Florida, attention Barbara Keener, at fax number: 352-392-3664. If you
have questions, please call Barb at 352-392-2391, ext. 275.
Again, thank you for your participation
Sincerely,
Barbara Keener, Ed.D.
Graduate Faculty
Department of Educational Leadership,
Policy and Foundations
University of Florida
Sharon M. Carrier
Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida
Perry Hammock, PhD.
Vice President, Research
Council for Resource Development
Ivy Tech State College
Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida
89


COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY
Evaluation Form
1. Are the survey instructions clear?
Yes No How could they be improved?
2. Are the survey questions understandable?
Yes No Identify unclear survey questions and state
how these questions could be improved.
3. Are the survey questions easy to answer?
Yes No Identify survey questions that would be
particularly difficult to answer and briefly explain why.
4. What terms need to be defined or further clarified?
5.What questions/items should be deleted?
6.What questions/items should be added?
Please make additional comments on the survey.
Return this form and any additional survey comments by
May 15, 2000, to CRD at crd@aacc.nche.edu
or by fax to Barbara Keener at
fax number (352) 392-3664.
Name:
Date:
Thank you for serving as a Survey Reviewer and for providing your critique of this
important national survey. Your comments will assist the research team in validating
the survey for the benefit of community college resource development.
91


40
An important first step in creating an involved and interested board is serious
consideration of board composition (Bryant, 1988). In a national survey of resource
development personnel from 418 public community colleges, careful selection of board
members was the suggestion most frequently cited to assure foundation success; the
pitfall most often cited was not choosing the right foundation board members
(Degerstedt, 1982). The college president should pay special attention to the selection of
the foundation board (Fisher & Koch, 1996) but not necessarily be involved in the
selection of foundation board members (Katsinas et al., 1990).
With the help of a nominating committee, foundation board members must be
chosen carefully to include only those who can give and get money, or who can help in
public relations (Gale, 1989, p. 104). A study of community colleges in North Carolina
found the most important criteria in selecting foundation board members to be the
willingness to give or procure funds for the college and an interest in, and support of, the
colleges mission and goals (Bryant, 1988). Through their relationships in the private
sector, community college foundation members can convey with credibility the colleges
action plans (Conrad et al., 1986).
Meeting Institutional Strategic Goals
Linking institutional planning to resource development goals and strategies
underscores institutional commitment to fund raising (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993).
Institutional priorities should provide the basis for resource development efforts since
each funding request is a statement of institutional identity and direction (Brittingham &
Pezzullo, 1990). Put bluntly, mission justifies fund raising (Payton et al., 1991). In fact,


54
campus or a multi-campus district. Almost 57% designated either urban or suburban for
the geographic location of the institution; rural was the predominant geographic location
for just over 43% of the sample.
Table 2
Profile of Sample by College Structure
College Structure
n
Percent
Multi-College District
36
9.9
Multi-Campus District
146
40.3
Single Community College Campus
177
48.9
Other
3
.8
N = 362
Table 3
Profile of Sample bv Geographic Location
Geographic Location
n
Percent
Rural
156
43.1
Urban
105
29.0
Suburban
101
27.9
N = 362
The Katsinas classification system for community colleges, that was based on
1990 United States Census data and 1993 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) information, bears an interesting comparison to the geographic profiles
of the sample. Of the 1,074 publicly controlled institutions in the Katsinas typology, 766
(71.3%) were rural, 103 (9.6%) were urban, and 205 (19.1%) were suburban (Katsinas,
1996).


65
Somewhat unanticipated were the statistically insignificant results for the
following explanatory variables: Foundation Operating Budget (b = .0818, t(274) = .368,
P = .713), President (b = 263,786.41, t(274) = 1.233, p = .218); and Institutional Strategic
Goals (b= 172,199.36, t(274) = 1.459, p = .146).
To determine the relative contribution of each explanatory variable, the squared
semi-partial correlation was calculated for each. The squared semi-partial correlation (r)
represents the proportion of total variance (i.e., of the outcome variance) that is
associated with any one explanatory variable over and above that of the others. The
magnitude of can be examined in terms of effect size where = .26 is considered to be
large, r_ = .13 is considered to be medium, and ty = .0196 is considered to be small
(Cohen, 1988). Effect sizes of .01 or lower are considered negligible, at best.
According to these criteria, for the three statistically significant variables, the
effect size of Endowment ( = .42) was large, and the effect sizes of Foundation Board
Member ( = .02) and Size ( = .02) were small, as shown in Table 6. The explanatory
variables having negligible effect sizes were President (= .01), Chief Development
Officer (= .01), Institutional Strategic Goals (= .01), Foundation Operating Budget (
= .00), Geographic Location of Urban (= .00), and Geographic Location of Rural (=
.00).
Summary
The of .514 for the model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p <
.001, suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the
foundation revenue variance. The adjusted was .499. The high magnitude of the
indicated a strong joint association that holds for the population. Three of the explanatory


61
Research Population
A total of 380 colleges returned the survey instrument. Of the 380 survey
respondents, 45 states and one U.S. territory were represented. Of the 380 total surveys
returned, 362 (56%) were from the target population of 650 two-year U.S. public
community colleges that were members in the Council for Resource Development (CRD)
one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001).
Descriptive Results
The descriptive statistics of the measures included in the analysis for the overall
sample are shown in Table 5.
In Table 5, the average response is simply the total score reported in terms of the
scale of the item response (i.e., the total score divided by the number of items of the
scale). For example, because the responses regarding the roles of the college president,
chief development officer, and foundation board member are on a 4-point Likert scale, an
average response of 3.708 for President suggests that, on average, the responses were
between the two categories, 4-very critical and 3-critical. Likewise, an average
response of 3.556 for Chief Development Officer and 3.684 for Foundation Board
Member suggests that, on average, the responses were between the two categories 4-
very critical and 3-critical. For Institutional Strategic Goals, or the importance of
meeting institutional strategic goals as a factor in evaluating the foundation operation, the
average response of 3.330 shown in Table 5 suggests that, on average, the responses were
between the two categories, 4-very important and 3-important. For each of these
variablesPresident, Chief Development Officer, Foundation Board Member, and


23
Historically, the community college movement started with William Rainey
Harpers national plan for creating junior colleges. Harper divided the upper and lower
divisions of the University of Chicago, created the associate degree, and advocated six-
year high schools and freestanding two-year colleges affiliated with the university.
Californias Upward Extension Law of 1907 allowed high schools to extend their upper
two years. The Ballard Act, passed by the California legislature in 1917, funded junior
colleges on a per-student basis. Additional funding in California was appropriated
through a special committee headed by Senator H. C. Jones. The District Junior College
Law (1921), based on Joness report, boosted the California junior college movement and
became the nations model for public college districts. The law made it possible for
districts to fund and administer junior colleges. Local control, through district boards of
education, also contributed to the rise of vocational and adult education. Additionally, in
the 1920s, with booming industrialization and mass production of goods, farmers were
leaving rural America for towns and citiescreating an even greater demand for a low-
cost education. The local college served as a focal point for these towns. By the end of
the 1920s, the United States had 450 junior colleges that enrolled almost 70,000 total
students (Witt et al., 1994).
The American Council on Education (ACE) provided national guidance on the
subject of junior colleges by defining them, in 1921, according to nine standards. The
following year, the newly established American Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC),
provided the first nationwide definition of the junior college and, with it, the idea that it
would offer a different curriculum based on the expanding and changing needs of the
community (Witt et al., 1994). Such a definition contained the essential idea that the


2
1996; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996). Compounding the problem has been the rejection, on the
part of voters, of any new tax proposals (Lorenzo, 1994; Parsons, 1994).
In response to unsteady tax-dollar support and cuts in state appropriations, public
colleges and universities increasingly have sought and relied upon support from the
private sector (Moore, 2000). Private support of higher education, of course, is not a new
phenomenon. Colleges have engaged in efforts to secure funds to operate since the first
documented mission in 1641 to send three clergymen to England on Harvards behalf
(Cutlip, 1965/1990). The Kansas University Endowment Association, established in
1893, was the first institutionally affiliated foundation to be established for support of a
university (Rennebohm, 1981).
Foundations, most often associated with institutions created under state statute,
have allowed such institutions a vehicle for fund raising, provided flexibility in
administrative and investment decisions, and encouraged volunteer involvement and
leadership (Rennebohm, 1981). The statutory restrictions that apply to college staff and
governing boards do not apply to foundations, which have organizational and legal
independence from the colleges they serve to enhance (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). These
foundations have forged productive partnerships, provided discretionary funds, and
served as safety nets and as catalysts for change (Moore, 2000). The primary reason that
most of the older foundations were established, however, was for the purpose of
channeling gifts to create a margin of excellence for these institutions (Rennebohm,
1981, p. 317). Over the past decade, however, college and university foundations
originally created to enhance excellence now support endowments and day-to-day
operations (Moore, 2000).


25
provide much of the nations workforce education, training, and welfare-to-work
programs (Phillippe & Patton, 2000).
By offering local accessibility, low tuition costs, open admissions, and remedial
opportunities, community colleges have served the educational needs of students
regardless of their economic status, educational background, and skills (Gillett-Karam,
Roueche, & Roueche, 1991). For example, in 1996-1997, community colleges provided
educational opportunities for 44% of all U.S. undergraduate credit students (fall
headcount), at an average annual tuition of $1,569 (in constant 1997-1998 dollars), and
awarded more than 450,000 associate degrees and over 170,000 one- to two-year
certificates (Phillippe & Patton, 2000).
The financial bargain, in terms of government spending per full-time equivalent
(FTE) student, is with the public two-year institutions. General education revenue, in
constant 1997 dollars, per FTE student in public two-year institutions in 1995 was $6,137
($4,313 from government appropriations and $1,824 in tuition and fees). In comparison,
revenue per FTE student in public four-year colleges was $10,839 ($7,279 in government
appropriations and $3,560 in tuition and fees). For public universities, FTE student
revenue was $12,140 ($7,714 in government appropriations and $4,426 in tuition and
fees) (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a).
Community Colleges and Private Fund Raising
By the 1990s, community college presidents responding to a national survey
identified a lack of resources as being among their three critical problem areas (Deegan,
1992). Due to the unique mission of two-year colleges, to offer opportunity with
excellence, their resource needs exceed what is afforded through public financial


12
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations
This research was conducted with the following delimitations:
1. The population for this study was limited to two-year United States public
community colleges that held membership in the Council for Resource
Development (CRD) one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for
Resource Development, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).
2. Data in regard to community college foundation operations were obtained
primarily through the use of a survey instrument, which was completed by a
resource development professional at each institution.
3. This study examined the resource development function connected only with
funds gained in connection with private giving and foundation operations, not
the grant development, contract operations, property holdings, or auxiliary
functions of the colleges.
Limitations
This research was conducted acknowledging the following limitations:
1. The results of this study may be generalized only to United States public
community colleges that were members of the CRD one or more years
between 1998 and 2001.
2. This study relied on the 1998-1999 data reported by individual resource
development professionals who responded to the survey instrument; data
obtained through the survey instrument were based on the knowledge,
perceptions, records and/or estimates of the responding resource development
professional at the respective community colleges. Additional information
was obtained from CRD membership directories and the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
3. The outcome variable used for quantitative analysis throughout this study was
the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from individuals, community
organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching programs,
and endowment interest and investments. A review of the literature reveals
that while total annual dollars raised may be one way to measure a
foundations success, there are other methods.
4. The influence of economic factors, including socio-economic conditions, tax
laws, or the fluctuation of public support that might affect philanthropic
giving, were factors beyond the scope of this study.


CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter includes an introduction that restates the studys purpose and
research questions, a summary of the research population surveyed, and the descriptive
and multiple regression results.
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States
public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the
literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount
of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,
corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and
investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;
the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation
board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation
operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an
important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;
the college size; and the college endowment.
The proposed regression model was as follows: Foundation Revenue =
(foundation operating budget) + (critical role of college president) + (critical role of
chief development officer) + (critical role of foundation board member) + (importance
59


117
Worth, M. J. (1993b). Glossary. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), Educational fund raising: Principles
and practice (pp. 413-420). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx
Press.


50
foundations and selected variables associated in the literature with successful foundation
performance.
For external validation of the survey, a review panel with expertise in community
college resource development provided assistance in reviewing survey questions and
potential problems. These ten content experts, primarily members of the CRD Executive
Board (see Appendix A), received a cover letter, survey draft, and evaluation form by
e-mail on March 21, 2000, including a request for their response by March 28, 2000 (see
Appendices B and C). In early April 2000, a synopsis of changes was compiled and
reviewed by the University of Florida research team. Based on the input of the content
experts, the research team made extensive changes to the survey instrument throughout
April of 2000.
On May 4, 2000, a second panel of reviewers, consisting of the CRD Board of
Directors and other individuals with expertise in resource development and community
colleges (see Appendix D), received the second draft of the survey instrument.
Instructions in a cover letter asked for return of the evaluation form and any additional
comments by May 15, 2000 (see Appendices E and F). Numerous revisions were made
based on the input from the nine reviewers who provided detailed responses. A research
protocol for the study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review
Board (IRB), which granted its approval in June 2000. The IRB approved the protocol
and the statement of informed consent, which appeared on the front page of the survey.
The statement explained the conditions of the research study and assured participants of
the confidentiality of their identity.


45
A 1997 national survey of community colleges found a direct relationship
between fall enrollment and foundation value (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). Other studies
have concluded that two-year colleges with greater full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment
receive more private support (Maples, 1980) and experience greater foundation success,
whether the enrollments are in credit or noncredit programs (Glandon, 1987).
It should be noted that enrollment calculations, especially FTE formulas, vary.
Among the two-year colleges reporting data to the National Association of College and
University Business Officers 17th annual Comparative Financial Statistics Study, a full
time course load for students ranged from 30 to 48 credit hours (Meeker, 1995). One
method used for estimating FTE enrollment is to combine the actual full-time enrollment
with one-third of the part-time enrollment (Watkins, 2000). In a research study to provide
a new classification system for two-year postsecondary institutions, the enrollment
measure used was the annual (12-month) unduplicated headcount (U.S. Department of
Education, 2001).
College Endowment
At its sixth annual meeting in 1926, the American Association of Junior Colleges
considered a question concerning the Amount of Endowment Necessary for a Standard
Junior College (American Association of Junior Colleges, 1926, p. 38). The question
had been posed a year earlier by the accrediting body of the North Central Association,
whose commission on higher education wanted AAJC to provide a recommendation on
the question of endowment as a source of permanent income for junior colleges. The
AAJC committee members charged to research the issue reported to the AAJC that the
endowment amount set for four-year colleges was arbitrarily determined and that an


July 2000
Dear Resource Development Professional,
Thank you for participating in this important study being conducted by the Council for
Resource Development, the Association of Community College Trustees, and the
University of Florida College of Education, with additional support from the Clements
Group. The study results will provide a more complete view of COMMUNITY
COLLEGE resource development and a more accurate picture of contributions to
COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
This survey is divided into three sections: College Profile, Grant Development, and
Foundation/Private Gift Development. The College Profile section should be
completed by a designated college contact person who will oversee the distribution,
completion, and return of the survey. Section II is designed to be answered by the
person responsible for external grants. Section 111 is designed to be answered by the
person responsible for the college foundation operation. If one person is responsible
for both grants and foundation operations, that person should complete Sections II
and III.
Please answer the questions as accurately as possible. Note that all questions pertain to
fiscal year 1998-99 (or the equivalent). It may be helpful to use an annual report or other
financial summary as you respond to the survey. Please return the completed survey by
August 15, 2000. The return address and fax number are provided below. The survey
will be analyzed and a report prepared. If you wish to receive a copy of the report, please
indicate this interest on the survey by checking the box at the end of Section I.
Thank you for your help in providing the information needed for this study.
Sincerely,
Barbara Keener, Ed.D.
Graduate Faculty
Department of Educational Leadership,
Policy and Foundations
University of Florida
Perry Hammock, CFRE
Research Project Liaison
Council for Resource Development
Sharon M. Carrier
Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida
Sherry J. Meaders
Doctoral Graduate Student
University of Florida
Please return all sections of the survey by AUGUST 15, 2000.
Mail to: Dr. Barbara Keener, University of Florida, College of Education,
P.O. Box 117049, Gainesville, FL 32611-7049 or fax to: (352) 392-3664.
93


55
Of the 350 sample respondents who reported on the year the college was
established, 118 (34%) were founded between 1852 and 1959, and 232 (66%) were
founded between 1960 and 1999. The 1960s represented the decade of greatest growth
for 50% of these respondents.
Of the sample, 342 (94.5%) indicated that a foundation or private gift
development office existed at their institutions, 17 (4.7%) answered that there was not
such an office, and 3 (.8%) did not respond. Regarding whether the grants office was
separate from the foundation or private gift development office, 195 (53,9%) answered
yes, 88 (24.3%) answered no, 72 (19.9%) answered not applicable, and 7 (1.9%)
did not respond.
The date of establishment for foundation offices ranged from 1944 to 2000, as
shown in Table 4. The highest number of foundation offices established (122 or 33.7%)
occurred during the 1980s.
Table 4
Profile of Sample by Foundation Office Establishment Decade
Decade
n
Percent
1940
1
.28
1950
2
.55
1960
29
8.01
1970
93
25.70
1980
122
33.70
1990
64
17.68
2000 (Year Only)
3
.83
Total
314
Missing
48
13.26


56
Regarding the responsibility for the resource development function, 285 (78.7%)
of the sample answered yes to having a chief resource development officer or person
with similar responsibilities at their institution; 74 (20.4%) answered no, and 3 (.8%)
did not respond. A total of 291 (80.4%) indicated the reporting line for the chief resource
development officer or person with similar responsibilities: 13 (3.6%) reported to the
chancellor, 58 (16%) to the district president, 141 (39%) to the campus president, 46
(12.7%) to a vice-president, and 33 (9.1%) to other.
Research Hypotheses
A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0
software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model
described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the
outcome variable and the explanatory variables. The proposed regression model was as
follows: Foundation Revenue = b(foundation operating budget) + (critical role of
college president) + (critical role of chief development officer) + (critical role of
foundation board member) + (importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +
(college geographic location) + (college size) + (college endowment).
The following hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the amount of the foundation
operating budget when controlling for the other explanatory variables of
interest in the proposed regression model.
Hypothesis 2:
There should be a statistically significant and positive relationship
between the foundation revenue and the degree to which the college
president is rated as playing a critical role in the institutions foundation
operation when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest
in the proposed regression model.


38
a part of the administrative executive team, with a direct reporting line to the president, is
the most desirable position of the chief development officer (Webb, 1982). As such, the
chief development officer is better positioned to participate in institutional planning, to
assist in establishing funding priorities, and to contribute valuable information about
funding conditions (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Leslie, 1969). Additionally, as the
institutions fund-raising specialist, the chief development officer is in a critical boundary
role, working closely with the president, college officers, and governing board;
interpreting the organization to its publics; and establishing linkages with other systems
(Kelly, 1991; Leslie, 1969). Consequently, the development officer has been identified as
one of the new power brokers on campus and in prestige positions at both public and
private institutions (Gilley et al., 1986, pp. 84, 86).
Chief development officers from institutions cited as highly effective in fund
raising emphasized the importance of fund-raising programs designed for long-term
benefits. The value in viewing fund raising as a long-range, developmental process
underscores the important responsibility chief development officers have in establishing
well-organized fund-raising programs, with excellent information management systems,
to offset the negative impact of high staff turnover characteristic in the fund-raising
profession (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b).
Having a chief development officer or individual responsible for external resource
development was characteristic of community college foundations with values of $ 1
million or more in a 1992 national survey (Glandon & Keener, 1994) and of successful
foundations in an earlier study (Hunter, C. B., 1987). Furthermore, a 1997 national


52
Statement of Variables
Since the purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United
States public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated
with successful foundation performance, the researcher focused on Section I (College
Profile) and Section III (Foundation/Private Gift Development) of the survey instrument.
The outcome variable was the 1998-1999 foundation revenue gained from
individuals, community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state matching
programs, and endowment interest and investments (see Appendix H, survey questions
#53a, #53b, #53c, #53d, #53e, #53f, #53g, and #52a).
Selected explanatory variables consisted of the foundation operating budget,
including salaries and benefits (see Appendix H, survey question #49); the degree to
which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation board member
individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation operation (see
Appendix H, survey questions #60a, #60d, #60c); the degree to which meeting
institutional strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation
operation (see Appendix H, survey question #57b); the college geographic location (see
Appendix H, survey question #15a, #15b, and #15c); the college size or credit enrollment
in nonduplicated student headcount (see Appendix H, survey question #12); and the
college endowment (see Appendix H, survey question #51). In cases where the
respondent did not complete survey question #12 for the fall 1998 enrollment, this
information was obtained through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) (U.S. Department of Education, 1998b).


Meeting Institutional Strategic Goals 40
College Geographic Location 42
College Size 44
College Endowment 45
Summary 47
3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 49
Instrumentation 49
Research Population 51
Procedure for Data Collection 51
Statement of Variables 52
Descriptive Profiles 53
Research Hypotheses 56
Summary 57
4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 59
Introduction 59
Research Population 61
Descriptive Results 61
Multiple Regression Results 62
Summary 65
5 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH 67
Introduction 67
Analysis 68
Conclusions 69
Implications 75
Suggestions for Further Research 78
APPENDIX
A PERSONS INCLUDED IN FIRST REVIEW PANEL FOR SURVEY
INSTRUMENT VALIDATION 81
B COVER LETTER FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL 83
C EVALUATION FORM FOR FIRST REVIEW PANEL 85
D PERSONS INCLUDED IN SECOND REVIEW PANEL FOR SURVEY
INSTRUMENT VALIDATION 87
E COVER LETTER FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL 89
vii


20
1987). In applying systems theory to an organizational analysis of community college
foundations and their performance, one would need to go beyond the examination of the
college foundation and its functions alone. The next higher level of the organizationthe
community college itselfcan be examined as the dominant system affecting the
foundation subsystem through the inputs, interconnections, and interdependencies that
exist between them.
A systems approach can be used to assess an organizations internal and external
environments in order to determine its preparedness for fund raising, with the variables in
the system seen in relationship to their contribution to the entire system (Murray, 1987).
In an open-systems framework, one can differentiate an organizations general and
specific environments, with the specific environment being that part of the environment
that is directly relevant to the organization in achieving its goals and consisting of those
critical constituencies that most influence effectiveness of the organization (Robbins,
1990, p. 206).
Institutional Advancement
Understanding that college fund raising is only one part of an interrelated
institutional effort is fundamental to the concept of institutional advancement, a
commitment made by and involving the entire institution (Rowland, 1977). The first
articulation of the need for an integrated coordination of efforts for institutional
advancement was made in a report following the 1957 joint conference between the
American Alumni Council (AAC) and the American College Public Relations
Association (ACPRA). The report was entitled, The Advancement of Understanding and
Support of Higher Education, and known simply as the Greenbrier Report, and the


64
other ones constant. For instance, as reported in Table 6, the regression coefficient of
16.696 for Size suggests that for each additional credit student enrolled, there is an
average increase of $16.70 in Foundation Revenue. Likewise, the regression coefficient
of .357 for Endowment suggests that each dollar increase in endowment funds leads to an
average .36-cent increase in Foundation Revenue. Finally, the regression coefficient of
471,995.79 for Foundation Board Member suggests that for each unit increase (from not
applicable, to not critical, to critical, to very critical) in the resource development
professionals perception of the foundation board members role, there is an average
increase of $471,996 in Foundation Revenue. Obviously, such perceptions are subjective
and would not, in themselves, create a difference in foundation revenue except as
indicators of greater board commitment, activity, and support.
Table 6
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients. Standardized Regression Coefficients, t-test
Statistics, and Semi-Partial r-squares
Variables
b
Std Error
£
t
B
~r~
Intercept
-2,748,994.00
926,553.53
-2.967
.003
F. Oper. Budget
.0818
.222
.017
.368
.713
.00
President
263,786.41
213,864.91
.059
1.233
.218
.01
Chief Dev. Off.
-178,650.7
107,932.48
-.074
-1.655
.099
.01
F. Board.
471,995.79
200,015.03
.110
2.360
.019*
.02
Mmbr.
Inst. Str. Goals
172,199.36
118,003.64
.064
1.459
.146
.01
GEORural
29,818.832
229,578.74
.007
.130
.897
.00
GEOUrban
190,597.98
209,741.81
.048
.909
.364
.00
Size
16.696
8.127
.099
2.054
.041*
.02
Endowment
.357
.025
.679
14.211
.000*
.42
*£ < .05.


28
the institutions programs (Worth, 1993b). Foundation success or effectiveness, then, can
take on multifaceted definitions that account for the amount of funds raised, the
sustainability of foundation efforts, and the degree of support the foundation is able to
give to the institution.
Although fund-raising results often are measured in terms of revenues raised,
determining fund-raising success must take into consideration the purpose for which
funds are raised: Fund-raising units doing good without raising money, or raising money
without doing good, are neither successful nor acceptable (Duronio & Loessin, 1991a,
p. 129). One researcher contends that fund-raisings primary purpose is not to raise
money, butas a part of public relationsto enhance and protect organizational
autonomy by effectively managing communications between a charitable organization
and the donor publics in its environment (Kelly, 1991, p. 320). Such a focus might well
involve an analysis of the relationships or changing relationships between the institution
and its constituents or a study of perceptions regarding institutional image (Jacobson,
1978b). Another scholar states that the public relations program exists to enhance the
ability to generate resources for the academic program (Fisher, 1989a, p. 13). This view
would tend to justify using the amount of funds raised as an evaluation of all institutional
advancement efforts. A combination of these prevailing views would include evaluating
fund raising by the number and amount of gifts received and a programs performance
by the quality, quantity, frequency, continuity, and effectiveness of its initiatives with
each prospective giver (Dunlop, 1989, p. 185).
While the main performance indicator in development obviously remains the total
amount of gifts obtained, the evaluation of advancement effectiveness should involve


Bomstein, R. (1989). The capital campaign: Benefits and hazards. In J. L. Fisher & G. H.
Quehl, The president and fund raising (pp. 202-211). New York: American Council
on Education and Macmillan.
Breneman, D. W., & Nelson, S. C. (1981). Financing community colleges. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Brittingham, B. E., & Pezullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fund raising in higher
education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: School of
Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.
Brumbach, M. A. (1994, December). The chief development officer: A job analysis.
Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Brumbach, M. A., & Bumphus, W. G. (1993). The fundamentals of community college
fund raising. Community College Journal, 63(6). 14-19.
Bryant, D. W. (1988). Organization of community college foundation boards.
Community/Junior College Quarterly. 12(1), 65-71.
Bulpitt, M. (1982). The multi-unit urban district and the foundation. In W. H. Sharron, Jr.
(Ed.), The community college foundation (pp. 193-210). Washington, DC: National
Council for Resource Development.
Clements, C. R. (1996). The institutional advancement process: Preparing for the 21st
century. Community College Journal. 66(5). 27-30.
Clements, M. A. (1990). An assessment of the effectiveness of development programs in
public community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (12), 4001 A.
(UMI No. AAG91-12409)
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Conklin, R. W. (1989). The role of public relations. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl, The
president and fund raising (pp. 91-101). New York: American Council on Education
and Macmillan.
Conrad, L., Davis, B., Duffy, E., & Whitehead, J. (1986). What can community colleges
do to increase private giving? Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal,
57(2), 34-37.
Council for Aid to Education (2000). 1999 Voluntary support of education. New York:
Council for Aid to Education.


Ill
Legn, R. D. (1989). The fund-raising role (The AGB Pocket Publications Series No. 6).
Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Leslie, J. W. (1969). Focus on understanding and support: A study in college
management. Washington. DC: American College Public Relations Association.
Leslie, J. W. (1978). Selected indicators chart trends. In A. W. Rowland (Series Ed.) & H.
K. Jacobson (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional advancement: No. 1.
Evaluating advancement programs (pp. 65-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leslie, D., & Fretwell, E. K., Jr. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: Creating & managing
resilient colleges & universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levis, W. C. (1991). Investing more money in fund raisingwisely. In D. F. Burlingame
& L. J. Hulse (Eds.), Taking fund raising seriously (pp. 257-271). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Loessin, B. A., Duronio, M. A., & Borton, G. L. (1986). Measuring and expanding
sources of private funding. In P. T. Terenzini & M. W. Peterson (Series Eds.) & J. A.
Dunn (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional research: No. 51. Enhancing the
management of fund raising (pp. 15-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lorenzo, A. L., (1994). Business and financial administration. In A. M. Cohen, F. B.
Brawer, & Associates (Eds.), Managing community colleges: A handbook for
effective practice (pp. 186-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lorenzo, A. L., & LeCroy, N. A. (1994). A framework for fundamental change in the
community college. Community College Journal. 64(41. 14-19.
Luck, M. F. (1974). The characteristics of foundations and fund-raising in public
comprehensive two-year colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35 (12),
7685A. (UMI No. AAG75-13246)
Luck, M. F., & Tolle, D. J. (1978). Community college development: Alternative fund
raising strategies. Indianapolis: R&R Newkirk.
Luskin, B. J., & Warren, I. K. (1985). Strategies for generating new financial resources. In
A. M. Cohen, F. B. Brawer, & Associates, (Series Eds.) & D. F. Campbell (Vol.
Ed.), New directions for community colleges: No. 50. Strengthening financial
management (pp. 73-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maples, C. C. (1980). An analysis of development programs at selected two-year
institutions in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International. 41 (08),
3357A. (UMI No. AAG81-04080)
McCabe, R. H. (1996). Strengthening financial resources is an educational priority.
Community College Journal. 665L 24-26.


73
relationship between the amount of foundation revenue gained and the role of the
community college president.
Research has shown that having a chief development officer or individual
responsible for external resource development is characteristic of successful foundations
(Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hunter, C. B., 1987). Having a chief development officer or
individual responsible for external resource development was characteristic of
community college foundations with values of $1 million or more in a 1992 national
survey (Glandon & Keener, 1994). Another national survey in 1997 found that the
community college development officer or foundation executive director played the most
active role in soliciting funds (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). While the relationship
between foundation revenue and the chief resource development officers role was
statistically insignificant in this study, the finding remains inconclusive. At least 20% of
the respondents in the sample did not have a chief resource development officer (or a
person with similar responsibilities) at the institution, in which case not applicable or
1 on the Likert scale would have been noted on the survey. Still, the high average
response (M = 3.556) on the 4-point Likert scale suggested that most survey respondents
rated the role of the chief development officer as very critical or critical to the
foundation operation.
Connecting college and development planning has been cited as necessary for
successful community college resource development (Blong & Bennett, 1991; Daniel,
1985; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Hooks & Kelley, 1990; Keener, 1982; Robison, 1982;
Ryan, 1994; Wattenbarger, 1982). That a statistically significant relationship was not
found between meeting of institutional strategic goals and foundation revenue in this


102
51. Of the total ASSETS indicated in #50, what is the amount of ENDOWED funds? $
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
a.
b.
d.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
i.
1.
58.
List
the total 1998-99 earned INCOME from the following:
a.
Endowed Interest/Investments
$
c. Property Sale $
b.
Property Rental
$
d. Other
$
List
the total contributions realized
from the following SOURCES in 1998-99:
a.
Individuals: received (Living)
$
e. Foundations
$
b.
Individuals: received (Bequests)
$
f. State Match
$
c.
Community/Civic Organizations
S
g. Other
$
d.
Corporations
$
List
the contributions generated by
each of the following fund-raising METHODS in
a.
Annual Fund
$
b.
Capital Campaign
$
c.
Planned Gifts
$
d.
State Match
$
e.
Special Events
$
f.
Other
$
Current value of all deferred gifts pledged to the institution in 1998-99: $
Specify board member contributions to the college in 1998-99:
Number of Percent Board
Board Members Who Donated Total
a. College Board of Trustees % $
b. Foundation Board % $
Indicate the importance of the following factors in EVALUATING the foundation operation:
Very Not Not
Important Important Important Applicable
Increase in individual giving
Meeting institutional strategic goals
Membership in professional
organizations
Number of new donors
Number of repeat donors
Number of scholarships awarded
Number of special events held
Percent revenue increase over prior year
Total dollars raised
Other
Has the foundation operation adopted a code of ethics advocated by a professional organization?
Yes No
59. If yes for #58, indicate the code of ethics adopted:
a. CH Council for Resource Development
b. O Council for the Advancement and Support of Education
c. HU National Society of Fund Raising Executives
d. CD Other


26
support, tuition, and fees (Parnell, 1988). Improving the financial support for community
colleges is a priority that requires organizational changes including the roles of the
president, administrators, and staff (McCabe, 1996). Finding other sources of external
funding is necessary to uphold the mission of the nations access colleges, and the most
promising source for such support is the private sector (Conrad et al., 1986, p. 35).
This critical realization, which began in the 1970s, led to the encouragement of
resource development efforts from the then-named American Association of Community
and Junior Colleges (AACJC) and its affiliate, the National Council for Resource
Development (NCRD) (Smith, 1993). Already, the movement had begun to establish
institutional foundations, which were sanctioned by two-year college districts or trustees
and created to help their institutions fulfill their mission and achieve their goals (Sharron,
1978). Originally, these foundations collected and dispersed funds annually, providing
funds for facilities and projects, without developing endowments (Woodbury, 1989).
Relations with the private sector were further enhanced during the 1980s when
cooperative programs and contract learning opportunities with business and industry
became the focus for community college leaders nationwide (Deegan & Tillery, 1985). In
a national survey conducted in 1987, community college presidents cited the creation of a
college foundation as the entrepreneurial concept most used and second only to contract
training programs in terms of having a very successful impact on the institution (Deegan,
1989).
In the face of inadequate funding through student tuition and tax revenues,
community college foundations have been leading the way in obtaining private resources
for the growing needs at their institutions (Adams, Keener, & McGee, 1994). As


34
As a fairly new endeavor for community colleges, development was approached
on a low-cost, test basis (Conrad et al., 1986, p. 36). Understaffing of community
college development offices was common; historically, one person was charged with the
entire development function (Conrad et al., 1986). More recently, staffing assignments
have consisted of one-person and part-time support (Smith, 1993).
Not surprisingly, community college chief development officers reported
increased staffing as a priority for increasing fund-raising effectiveness (Ryan, 1989).
The prevailing view is that community colleges that provide appropriate staffing and
resources to their development function and that treat development as a critical
institutional functionequal to other operational unitsare the most successful
(Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993; Ryan, 1994).
Roles of President, Chief Development Officer, and Foundation Board Member
Building relationships beyond the organization primarily is a function of an
organizations officers and can predict an organizations effectiveness and survival (Katz
& Kahn, 1978). For success, the colleges development program must be an
administrations top priority and should involve its key people in the management team
(Luskin & Warren, 1985). Community college foundations, examined from a systems
perspective, should be analyzed in the context of their specific systems environments,
including the roles most critically affecting foundation performance. For two-year
colleges, the three most significant roles to the resource development program are the
president, chief development officer, and key volunteers or board members (McNamara,
1988).


APPENDIX H
COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY


21
two groups responsible for it later merged to form the Council for Advancement and
Support of Education (CASE) (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
It has been stated that the institutional advancement program is only as effective
as the institution itself (Rowland, 1978). For maximum effectiveness, fund development
must be part of an organizational culture that is nurtured and institutionalized (Boguch,
1994). As an essential college function, institutional advancement requires integration
with the colleges philosophical, administrative, organizational, and operational
mainstream (Jacobson, 1978a). Successful philanthropy depends on sound management,
with attention to systems and people, and, for colleges and university leaders, a keen
awareness of how fund raising relates to an institutions finances and the funding of
higher education in general (Francis, 1980). Fund raising itself is part of a larger system
of philanthropy and is inextricably tied to philanthropic values, purposes, and methods
(Payton et al., 1991, p. 4).
The resource development function must be considered and treated as an integral
part of the total college operation, not as an appendage as has often been the case for
community colleges (Daniel, 1985). Community college development offices must be
integrated with the other college offices since intrainstitutional cooperation is imperative
for effectiveness of fund-raising efforts (Keener, Ryan, & Smith, 1991). Besides
foundation operations, institutional advancement in two-year colleges often includes
grants and contracts, research and planning, staff and program development, government
relations and legislative affairs, public and media relations, alumni outreach, special
events, and publications (Smith, 1991). To be successful, the entire institutional
advancement effort of the community college must be viewed as a system of mutually


108
Gatewood, A. C. (1994). A comparative analysis and evaluation of community college
nonprofit foundations in North Carolina. Dissertation Abstracts International. 55
(04), 815A. (UMI No. AAG94-25463)
Gale, R. L. (1989). The role of the governing board. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl, The
president and fund raising (pp. 102-108). New York: American Council on
Education and Macmillan.
Gillett-Karam, R., Roueche, S., & Roueche, J. (1991). Underrepresentation and the
question of diversity: Women and minorities in the community college. Washington,
DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.
Gilley, J. W., Fulmer, K. A., & Reithlingshoefer, S. J. (1986). Searching for academic
excellence: Twenty colleges and universities on the move and their leaders. New
York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
Glandon, B. L. (1987). Critical components of successful two-year college foundations.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48 (02), 289A. (UMI No. AAG87-10854)
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
instructional planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 22(81.
715-739.
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(61. 575-590.
Glennon, M. (1985). Fund raising in small colleges: Strategies for success. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46 (01), 81A. (UMI No. AAG85-06762)
Groff, W. H. (1985, June). Institutional advancement and the role of the resource
development office (Resource Paper No. 32). Washington, DC: National Council for
Resource Development.
Hagerman, R. L. (1978). A study of public two-year colleges to determine organizational
and other characteristics associated with successful resource development.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 39 (05), 2711 A. (UMI No. AAG78-20515)
Hedgepeth, R. C. (1999). Creating a successful affiliated foundation. Foundation relations.
Board basics (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 597)


80
could reveal strategies and models for others to follow. Endowment purposes, spending
rates, and investment practices might be examined relative to revenue fluctuations. In
such studies, institutional size should be considered among other variables. Replication of
the current study in less-positive economic times, with a depressed stock market, might
reveal different results regarding the relationship between the endowment and foundation
revenue.
Finally, donor motivation, including perceptions of the colleges quality and
success as related to endowment size, could be studied in relation to the foundations
revenue and, particularly, the attainment of major gifts and future bequests. In assessing
development results, especially major gifts that require long-term commitment and
consistent nurturing of relationships, longitudinal studies would be helpful in tracking
community college donor relationships cultivated over several years.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful for my dissertation chair Dr. Dale F. Campbell and cochair
Dr. Barbara J. Keener. From the beginning of my graduate studies at the University of
Florida, Dr. Campbell inspired me to think about the future educational needs of students,
the valuable role of community colleges, and the leadership needed in higher education. I
am indebted to Dr. Keener, who initiated this research study and sustained it through her
continued enthusiasm, guidance, and support. I greatly appreciate my two dissertation
committee members, Dr. Anne Seraphine and Dr. David Floneyman. From Dr. Seraphine,
I gained the confidence and skills I needed for quantitative research; I am thankful for her
teaching and advising. I also thank Dr. David Honeyman, whose pragmatic suggestions
helped me to structure this dissertation and whose sense of humor helped me to get
through it.
I wish to acknowledge Dr. James Wattenbarger. During classes, he shared the
history of community colleges as his own personal story, and, in conversations, he could
be counted on for his sage advice and common sense. Dr. Karen Luke Jackson was also
very helpful to me as I developed this study. I am grateful for her inspiration and
generosity. I thank the professionals associated with the Council for Resource
Development for their suggestions and support.
At Rollins College, there are many people to thank. I appreciate the
encouragement I received from facultyespecially Dr. Edward J. Harrell, Dr. Larry Holt,
and Dr. Sandra Mclntireand staff, particularly, Marianne Bartman and Laura Salmen.


110
Jenner, P. J. (1987). Factors associated with success of resource development programs at
California community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International. 47 (11). 3953A.
(UMI No. AAG87-06350)
Johnson, J. A. (1986). Advancement strategies for two-year colleges. In A. W. Rowland
(Ed.), Handbook of institutional advancement: A modem guide to executive
management, institutional relations, fund-raising, alumni administration, government
relations, publications, periodicals, and enrollment management (2nd ed., pp. 706-
721). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, J. J. (1986). A profile of selected high- and low-performing nonprofit
foundations in public community, technical, and junior colleges in the United States.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (08), 2863A. (UMI No. AAG86-20625)
Kapraun, E. D., & Heard, D. A. (1993). Financing community colleges: Threats and
opportunities. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 352 081)
Katsinas, S. G. (1996). Preparing leaders for diverse institutional locations. In A. M.
Cohen and F. B. Brawer (Series Eds.) & J. C. Palmer & Stephen G. Katsinas (Vol.
Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No. 95. Graduate and continuing
education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 15-25). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Katsinas, S. G., Herrmann, S. E., & Traylor, H. J. (1990). Challenges for community
college foundations. AGB Reports, 32(41. 23-26.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Keener, B. J. (1982). The foundations 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., Ryan, G. J., & Smith, N. J. (1991). Paying attention pays off: How to
market resource development. Community. Technical, and Junior College Journal.
62(1), 34-37.
Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund-raising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Koelkebeck, G. R. (1994). The evaluation of public community college readiness for
private sector fund-raising. Dissertation Abstracts International. 56 (03), 803A.
(UMI No. AAI95-25968)


100
n. Volunteer
o. Legal/Paralegal
p. Other


78
Suggestions for Further Research
Philanthropy is about leadership (Payton et al., 1991, p. 14). Further
investigation of the link between leadership and foundation revenue in public higher
education is recommended. A follow-up survey regarding the presidents role at various
system levelsexternal and internal to the collegeis necessary to examine, more
specifically, the relationship of the community college presidents role to successful
resource development. Multiple perspectives regarding the community college
presidents role in development could be obtained from presidents, chief development
officers, foundation directors, and foundations board chairs for comparison relative to
foundation revenue.
Further research also is needed to study the relationship of resource allocation to
foundation revenue and operations. The literature suggests that funding for foundation
operations can come exclusively from the host institution, from foundation-generated
resources alone, or some combination of the two (Hedgepeth, 1999; Simic, 1998). An in-
depth study that accurately identifies the funding sources and budget allocations for
community college foundation operations, as well as the amounts dedicated to salaries
and benefits, would provide important data for consistent comparison of foundation
operating budgets to foundation revenues across institutions. It should be noted that
interpretation of such questions by survey respondents can vary widely, so survey
questions should be worded carefully, with definitions provided as necessary, so that
respondents provide information as accurately and consistently as possible.
External influences on the college system and foundation subsystem should be
considered in a follow-up study to determine what remaining variance in the model can


COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
The Council for Resource Development, the Association of Community College
Trustees, and the University of Florida College of Education, with support from the
Clements Group, are surveying the nations 1,200 community colleges to provide current
information about community college resource development. Your colleges participation
is critical to this project. The survey results will enhance the efforts of two-year colleges,
build credibility with funders and donors, and provide a more accurate picture of the
investments being made in community colleges.
INSTRUCTIONS
The survey is divided into three sections and may require up to three different
respondents. (If one person is responsible for both grants and Foundation operations, that
person should complete Sections II and III.)
Section I College Profile
To be completed by a designated college contact person who will oversee the
distribution, completion, and return of the survey
Section II Grant Development
To be completed by the person responsible for the external grants
Section III Foundation/Private Gift Development
To be completed by the person responsible for the Foundation operation
Please note that all monetary figures requested are based on the 1998-99 fiscal year
(or the equivalent). For accuracy and ease in answering, it may be helpful to use an
annual report or other financial summary as you respond to the survey.
If you have questions, please contact the research team at bkeener@coe.ufl.edu or phone
352-392-2391, ext. 275. Please return the survey by AUGUST 15, 2000. Mail to Dr.
Barbara Keener, University of Florida, College of Education, P.O. Box 117049,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7049 or fax to 352-392-3664.
In keeping with universitys informed consent process, we wish to make you aware of your rights
and the conditions of this research study: Specifically, there is no risk to you as a participant in
this study. Your participation is completely voluntary, and there is no penalty for not
participating. It will take approximately fifty minutes to complete the entire survey. You do not
have to answer any question you do not wish to answer, and you have the right to withdraw from
the study at any time without consequences. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent
provided by law, and your individual or college name will not be associated with or used in any
report of the survey results. There is no compensation from your participation in this study. The
benefit to participating will be the knowledge you gain about your college as a result of answering
the survey questions. If you have any questions about the research procedures, you may contact
Dr. Barbara Keener at the University of Florida, College of Education, Norman Hall 200E, P.O.
Box 117049, Gainesville, FL 32611-7049 (phone: 352-392-2391, ext. 275). Any questions or
concerns about research participants rights may be directed to the University of Florida
Institutional Review Board office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-
2250 (phone: 352-392-0433).
95


17
development function connected only with funds gained in connection with private
giving and foundation operations, not the grant development, property holdings, contract
operations, or auxiliary services of the colleges, and was based on the 1998-1999 data
reported by the respective community colleges. Additional information was obtained
from CRD membership directories and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS).
Chapter 2 follows with a review of relevant literature to include systems theory,
institutional advancement, the role of community colleges in higher education,
community colleges and private fund raising, outcome measures defining successful
foundation performance, foundation revenue sources, and variables associated with
successful foundation performance. Chapter 3 describes the design of the study, and
Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 provides conclusions and
implications, as well as suggestions for further research.


113
Perry, R. R. (1978). Goal-oriented research: An institutions paradigm. In P. Jedamus
(Series Ed.) & R. H. Fenske (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional research:
Vol. 5. No. 3. Using goals in research and planning (pp. 49-59). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Phillippe, K., & Eblinger, I. R. (1998). Community college foundations: Funding the
community college future (AACC Research Brief 98-3). Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
Phillippe, K. A., & Patton, M. (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends &
statistics. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press, American
Association of Community Colleges.
Pickett, W. L. (1977). An assessment of the effectiveness of fund raising policies of
private undergraduate colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International. 38 (07), 3983A.
(UMI No. AAG77-28048)
Pickett, W. L. (1986). Fund-raising effectiveness and donor motivation. In A. W. Rowland
(Ed.), Handbook of institutional advancement: A modem guide to executive
management, institutional relations, fund-raising, alumni administration, government
relations, publications, periodicals, and enrollment management (2nd ed., pp. 231 -
239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pulley, J. F. (2000, February 18). Endowments earned 11% in 1999, down from 18% the
prior year. The Chronicle of Higher Education [On-line]. Available:
http://chronical.com/. Accessed 27 June 2001.
Rennebohm, R. B. (1981). Uses of the in-house foundation. In F. C. Pray (Ed.), Handbook
for educational fund raising: A guide to successful principles and practices for
colleges, universities, and schools (pp. 316-321). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riggs, R. O., & Helweg, O. J. (1996). Investment policy for community college
foundations: Are commodity futures prudent? Community College Journal of
Research and Practice. 203I. 219-231.
Robbins, S. E. (1990). Organization theory: Structure, design, and applications (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, D. G. (1989). The president and institutional advancement. In G. J. Ryan & N.
J. Smith (Eds.), Marketing and development for community colleges (pp. 15-20).
Washington, DC: Council for Advancement and Support of Education.
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.


15
gleaned from experts in community college resource development and literature on the
subject.
Ten content experts, primarily members of the CRD Executive Board (see
Appendix A), provided external validation by reviewing the drafted survey questionnaire
and providing extensive comments, which the research team incorporated into the survey
instrument. A second panel of nine reviewers, consisting mainly of CRD Board of
Directors (see Appendix D), reviewed the second draft of the survey instrument and
provided detailed responses for further refinement of the survey. In July of 2000, CRD
mailed the final cover letter and survey to the membership of CRD and the American
Association of Community Colleges (AACC) combined, representing approximately
1,100 community colleges. Completed surveys were requested by August 15, 2000, and
were mailed or faxed to the survey team at the University of Florida. A second mailing of
the survey was sent in January 2001 to the CRD and AACC members who had not
responded.
Summary
Philanthropic support of public community colleges and the elements within these
colleges that encourage such support have not been fully examined. The literature
regarding resource development in higher education mostly pertains to four-year
institutions with long histories of giving and well-established offices of institutional
advancement (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).
Differences in institutional type have been shown to be important in identifying
the characteristics of effective fund-raising operations (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b).
While community colleges have adopted elements from the senior institution models of


68
Analysis
A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, using the SPSS v.10.0
software package, to determine the extent to which the proposed regression model
described the sampling data and to examine the degree of association between the
outcome variable and the explanatory variables. It was found that the Rof .514 for the
model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, p < .001, suggesting that the
explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the foundation revenue
variance. The adjusted R_ was .499. The high magnitude of the R7 indicated a strong joint
association that holds for the population. The regression equation for the model was as
follows: Foundation Revenue = -2,748,994 + ,0818(foundation operating budget) +
263,786.41 (critical role of college president) + -178,650.7(critical role of chief
development officer) + 471,995.79(critical role of foundation board member) +
172,199.36(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) + 29,818.832(college
geographic location: Xi = rural) + 190,597.98(college geographic location: X2 = urban) +
16.696(college size) + ,357(college endowment).
Three of the explanatory variables were statistically significant: Foundation Board
Member (b 471,995.79, t(274) = 2.360, p .019); Size (b = 16.696, t(274) = 2.054, p =
.041; and Endowment (b = .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000). For the three statistically
significant variables, the effect size of Endowment ( = .42) was large, and the effect
sizes of Foundation Board Member ( = .02) and Size ( = .02) were small. The
explanatory variables having negligible effect sizes were President (= .01), Chief
Development Officer (= .01), Institutional Strategic Goals (= .01), Foundation


LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1 Profile of Sample by CRD Region 53
2 Profile of Sample by College Structure 54
3 Profile of Sample by Geographic Location 54
4 Profile of Sample by Foundation Office Establishment Decade 55
5 Descriptive Statistics of Outcome and Explanatory Variables 62
6 Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standardized Regression
Coefficients, t-test Statistics, and Semi-Partial r-squares 64
ix


77
The positive and significant relationship between college endowment and
foundation revenue indicates that endowments have added resource development
potential for community colleges that have begun to make them a priority. The finding
underscores the importance of building a tradition of successful fund-raising practices
and sound resource management policies. The more successfully endowed funds are
invested and managed, the stronger the base of support for future foundation
performance. Managing money wisely is a significant function of the college foundation,
and community college foundation board members should consider having an
endowment and asset committee to oversee this important service to the college (Katsinas
et al., 1990). Outside counsel might also be employed to provide assistance in wisely
investing endowment funds (Ryan, 1994). Whether such funds are externally or internally
managed, community colleges should develop an effective investment policy to guide
investment decisions and to provide optimal investment returns (Kapraun & Heard,
1993).
This studys finding that geographic location did not have a significant
relationship to foundation revenue confirms that geographic location alone should not
deter community colleges, particularly those in rural and suburban areas, from looking to
the community as a reservoir of support for a better performing foundation (Degerstedt,
1982, p. 63). Similarly, college size, while significantly and positively related to
foundation revenue, had only a small effect and should not preclude smaller institutions
from implementing a resource development program or enhancing one currently in place.


14
Grounding this study in systems theory, this researcher analyzed the foundation
subsystems interconnections and interdependencies with its next higher system level, the
college. This researcher hoped to determine if key variables within the college system
and foundation subsystem had a significant and positive relationship to foundation
revenue. Ultimately, the significance of the study would be to advance the theoretical
understanding of community college resource development.
As community colleges continue to seek additional external funding, it is
incumbent upon trustees, presidents, and chief resource development officers to
understand relevant organizational analysis as applied to their institutions and the
implications of such research for policy, administration, and implementation. Attention to
key variables for resource development in community colleges may provide for greater
fund-raising potential for community colleges nationwide.
Overview of the Methodology
Resource development professionals in the Council for Resource Development
(CRD) prompted interest in a survey that would provide an understanding of the status of
external funding efforts in both grants offices and foundation offices in community
colleges nationwide. In response, a University of Florida research team, including this
researcher, developed a survey questionnaire to provide information about community
college resource development. The survey was based on a review of the relevant
literature pertaining to resource development in higher education and, particularly,
community colleges. The Council for Aid to Educations annual Voluntary Support of
Education survey was used as a point of departure, but major revisions were made to
adapt the survey to the conditions and realities common among community colleges as


86
6.Is the format of the survey appropriate for the information being requested?
Yes No Please comment on how the format could be
improved.
7. Estimate the time needed to answer the complete survey. Minutes
8. What additional questions or items would you include to accomplish the survey
purpose?
9.What terms need to be defined or further clarified?
10.Will the answers to this survey result in the support of the surveys purpose?
Yes No Please explain why.
Please make additional comments on the survey and return this form and survey by
March 28, 2000 to the attention of Barbara Keener, via email bkeener@coe.ufl.edu
or by fax: (352) 392-3664.
Name:
Date:
Thank you for serving as a Content Expert Survey Reviewer and for providing your
critique of this important national survey. Your comments will assist the research team
in validating this survey for the benefit of community college resource development.


114
Robertson, A. J. (1981). Special opportunities and problems of community colleges. In F.
C. Pray (Ed.), Handbook for educational fund raising: A guide to successful
principles and practices for colleges, universities, and schools (pp. 340-346). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Robertson, A. (1982). The role of the community college foundation. In W. H. Sharron, Jr.
(Ed.), The community college foundation (pp. 89-99). Washington, DC: National
Council for Resource Development.
Rowland, A. W. (1977). Perspectives on institutional advancement. In A. W. Rowland
(Ed.), Handbook of institutional advancement (pp. 522-538). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Rowland, A. W. (1978). Introduction to the series: An overview. In A. W. Rowland
(Series Ed.) & H. K. Jacobson (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional
advancement: No. 1. Evaluating advancement programs (vii-xii). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, G. J. (1988). Excellence in educational fund-raising at Americas community
colleges. Communitv/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice. 12, 311-
327.
Ryan, G. J. (1989). Reasons for success. In J. L. Catanzaro & A. D. Arnold (Series Eds.)
& A. M. Cohen & F. B. Brawer (Vol. Eds.), New directions for community colleges:
No. 68. Alternative funding sources (pp. 15-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Ryan, G. J. (1994). The presidents role in fund raising. In R. J. Pappas (Ed.), Strategic
marketing for presidents (pp. 81-87). Washington, DC: American Association of
Community Colleges.
Sader, C. H. (1986, March). The role of elected trustees of public institutions in successful
development programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 266 841)
Schmidt, P. (1997, December 5). More states use matching grants to encourage giving to
public colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education [On-line]. Available:
http://chronical.com7. Accessed 27 June 2001.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.


I also appreciate the expertise kindly provided to me by Dr. James Eck. Without the
support I received from Dr. Patricia Lancaster, I would not have been able to take all the
classes required for my degree while working full time. I thank her for providing me with
the opportunities to advance in my career and for being a valued mentor and loyal friend.
I also thank Dr. James Malek for his trust and belief in me, for the professional
opportunities he has afforded me, and for his integrity and magnanimous example. I
value the tremendous benefit I have had of learning from Dr. Rita Bomstein, Rollins
Colleges thirteenth president, who exemplifies what presidential commitment to
philanthropy can do to enhance a college. I greatly appreciate her personal
encouragement and inspiration.
Amanda Cosat and Sherry Meaders deserve my special acknowledgment and
thanks. As study partners in the doctoral program, we developed a close and lasting
friendship. Together, we shared intellectual development, laughter, personal trials, and
professional triumphs. I am indebted to them for their understanding and support and for
making the journey enjoyable. To my doctoral cohort peers, who know the true meaning
of commitment, I am grateful for the learning and personal bonds we still share.
I wish to express my love and appreciation for my late father, William James
McEntee, who, as an educator, set my path and gave me the strength to pursue this
degree; my mother, Agnes Bentley McEntee, whose love and belief in me will forever
sustain me; my sister, Arleen McEntee, who often helped me by listening and offering
her insight and advice; and my sister, Linda McEntee Kallner, who lifted my spirits with
her humor, wisdom, and unwavering confidence in me.
IV


24
junior college would be different from other forms of higher education, that it would
adapt to its dynamic environment, and that it would be responsive to the ideals and
practical realities of its community.
During the Depression, an even greater need existed for inexpensive education
vocational and terminal programs. The Commission of Seven Report in 1932 emphasized
the importance of technical and vocational education and the value of the two-year
college (Witt et al., 1994).
The Presidents Commission of Higher Education, known as the Truman
Commission, issued an influential report in 1947, suggesting a name change from junior
college to community college to account for the enhanced functions taken on by two-
year institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 13). After the Truman Commissions report,
statewide planning became increasingly important and enrollments soared. Great
expansion was due, in large measure, to important legislation including the GI Bill in
1944, the Veterans Readjustment Act in 1952, and the Community College Act in 1957.
Significant support of community colleges through the Kellogg Foundation began in
1958, with the Associate Degree in Nursing project in California, Florida, NewYork, and
Texas. As a forerunner of the future expansion in distance education, the first television
course was offered in 1956 (Witt et al., 1994).
Living up to the early ideals espoused for them, Americas community colleges
continue to provide social benefits that traditionally have not been the focus of other
forms of higher education. Sixty-eight percent of the students starting college at age 30 or
older begin their studies at a community college (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Additionally,
community colleges enroll almost half of the U.S. undergraduate minority population and


30
Studies pertaining to the success of two-year college resource development
programs have defined and measured success in these various ways. In one early
exploratory study, the perceptions of college administrators regarding the characteristics
of and conditions for a successful foundation were analyzed to develop evaluative criteria
(Duffy, 1979). Other methods of gauging success have included measuring the amount of
funds raised overallor per studentin a given period of time, examining total assets or
net worth, or analyzing the enhanced capacity of the college (Clements, 1990; Glandon &
Keener, 1994; Hagerman, 1978; Koelkebeck, 1994; Luck & Tolle, 1978). Measures of
revenue relative to potential, satisfaction ratings, and cost-effectiveness also have been
used as determinants of success (Gatewood, 1994; Hagerman, 1978; Koelkebeck, 1994;
Jenner, 1987).
Foundation Revenue Sources
Individuals
Due to the qualities unique to community colleges, the more conventional
approaches to cultivating fund-raising support through alumni class reunions, annual
giving programs, and parents groups have not been applicable, thus presenting a need to
find different constituencies and means for resource development (Robertson, 1981).
Rather than taking a restricted view of alumni, community colleges have the opportunity
to include all community members as alumni (Keener et al., 1991). Potential donors in
the institutions geographical area include those who are given the opportunity to
understand the colleges important role in the community (Loessin, Duronio, & Borton,
1986). When their experience as donors is positive, these individuals are in a position to


53
Descriptive Profiles
A total of 380 colleges returned the survey instrument. Of the 380 survey
respondents, 45 states and one U.S. territory were represented. Of the 380 total surveys
returned, 362 (56%) were from the target population of 650 two-year United States public
community colleges that were members in the Council for Resource Development (CRD)
one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001).
Applying the CRD Regional Structure (CRD, 2000) to the 362 respondents from
the target population, Table 1 presents a profile of the sample by the 10 CRD regions and
demonstrates the national scope of the sample.
Table 1
Profile of Sample by CRD Region
CRD Region
n
Percent
Region I
16
4.4
Region II
31
8.6
Region III
28
7.7
Region IV
77
21.3
Region V
64
17.7
Region VI
43
11.9
Region VII
25
6.9
Region VIII
13
3.6
Region IX
43
11.9
Region X
22
6.1
N = 362
Tables 2 and 3 provide the sample profile by college structure and geographic
location. Nearly 90% of the sample indicated being from a single community college


goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; college
geographic location; college size; and college endowment.
The population was limited to two-year United States public community colleges
that held membership in the Council for Resource Development (CRD) one or more
years between 1998 and 2001. Data were obtained primarily through a survey instrument,
which was completed by a resource development professional at each institution.
A simultaneous multiple regression test was performed, and it was concluded that
the regression model accounted for approximately half of the variance in foundation
revenue, indicating a good overall fit of the selected explanatory variables to the outcome
variable and a strong joint association that holds for the population. Of the explanatory
variables, those having a significant and positive relationship to foundation revenue were
college endowment, foundation board member, and college size.
Conclusions regarding the significant and insignificant variables were presented,
and implications were addressed from a systems perspective. Further research was
recommended regarding the presidents role at various system levelsexternal and
internal to the collegeas related to resource development. A more in-depth analysis of
how community college foundation operations are funded was suggested so that the
relationship of foundation operating budgets to foundation revenues can be compared
consistently across institutions. Follow-up studies were recommended to examine
foundation revenue relative to external influences on the college, endowment investment
policies and spending rates, foundation board functions, and donor motivation.
xi


F EVALUATION FORM FOR SECOND REVIEW PANEL 91
G SURVEY COVER LETTER 93
H COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXTERNAL FUNDING SURVEY 95
REFERENCES 104
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 118
viii


THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION REVENUE
By
SHARON McENTEE CARRIER
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2002


CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
This chapter presents the instrumentation, research population, procedure for data
collection, statement of variables, descriptive profiles, and research hypotheses.
Instrumentation
In the fall of 1999, initial discussions among resource development professionals
in the Council for Resource Development prompted interest in a survey that would
provide an understanding of the status of external funding efforts in both grants offices
and foundation offices in community colleges nationwide. With support from CRD,
Dr. Barbara Keener, Graduate Faculty in the College of Education, University of Florida,
led a research team, including this researcher, in the development of a survey
questionnaire. The research project received financial support from the Clements Group,
an institutional advancement and resource development consulting firm, and endorsement
by the American Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). A review of the
literature and previously administered survey instruments in the field of resource
development guided the research teams development of questions to include in the
survey instrument.
The primary purpose of the survey instrument was to provide baseline data for an
analysis of community college resource development functions, characteristics, and
performance in both grants and foundation operations. The survey items germane to this
researchers study were those having to do with the annual revenue of community college
49


31
strengthen the colleges relationship with other influential members of the community
(Smith, 1991).
Community Organizations and Corporations
With its obvious case for support being an investment in ones community,
potential sources for community college resource development have been corporate and
business partners as well as citizen groups (Conrad et al., 1986; Robertson, 1981).
Provisions in federal tax laws, since 1935, have encouraged corporations to give in return
for substantial tax deductions (Cutlip, 1965/1990). Effective targeting of corporate
prospects, vendors, training contractors, and major employers holds particular fund
raising promise for two-year colleges (Ryan, 1988, 1993). Inviting business leaders to
leam about the institution, to serve as foundation board members, and matching corporate
interests with college needs can have positive results for resource development (Glass &
Jackson, 1998a).
External Foundations
External philanthropic foundations, too, have been another source of revenue for
community colleges. Although two-year colleges have been excluded from consideration
in past foundation grant policies (Ryan, 1988), foundations have begun to award large
gifts to two-year colleges (Van der Werf, 1999b). By 1962, there were approximately
15,000 foundations making grants to organizations in the United States (Cutlip, 1990).
While competition for foundation support is steepapproximately one million
foundation proposals are submitted annually and only 7% are fundedpersonal
relationships, geographical proximity, philosophical alignment, and historical affiliation
are ways in which opportunities for such support are increased (Murphy, 1986).


APPENDIX A
PERSONS INCLUDED IN FIRST REVIEW PANEL
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION
Marilyn Appelson
Director of College Development &
Foundation
Oakton Community College
Des Plaines, Illinois
William Atkins
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Nassau Community College
Garden City, New York
Mary Brumbach
Executive Director of Resource &
Economic Development
Brookhaven College
Farmers Branch, Texas
David Canine
Vice President for Institutional
Advancement
Richland College
Dallas, Texas
Mike Gaudette
Director of College Advancement
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Coos Bay, Oregon
Perry Hammock
Director of Resource Development &
Foundation
Ivey Tech State College
Indianapolis, Indiana
Elaine Ironfield
Vice President
The Clements Group
Salt Lake City, Utah
Karen Luke Jackson
Consultant
Hendersonville, North Carolina
Sonja Jackson
Grants Writer
Polk Community College
Winter Haven, Florida
Susan Kelley
Vice President for Resource Development
& Government Relations
Valencia Community College
Orlando, Florida
81


REFERENCES
Adams, K., Keener, B., & McGee, A. (1994). Going public with private fund raising:
Community colleges gamer fairer share of support. Community College Journal.
65(1), 39-42.
Alfred, R. L. (1996). Competition for limited resources: Realities, prospects, and
strategies. In D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger, Jr., and K. C. Westbrook (Eds.),
A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 209-228).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
American Association of Junior Colleges. (1926). American Association of Junior
Colleges: Sixth annual meeting. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, J. M., & Snyder, T. (Comp.). (1993). The community college foundation
manual & guide. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Network of Community College
Foundations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 369)
Angel, D., & Gares, D. (1989). The community college foundation today: A history,
characteristics, and assets. In A. M. Cohen & F. B. Brawer (Series Eds.) & J. L.
Catanzaro & A. D. Arnold (Vol. Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No.
68. Alternative funding sources (pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beehler, M. C. (1993). The changing role of the community college president in
Washington state. Community College Review. 20(4). 17-26.
Bender, L., & Daniel, D. (1986). Rethinking funding strategies: Integrated planning and
resource development for the small two-year college of 1990. American Association
of Community and Junior College Journal. 57(11. 22-25.
Blong, J., & Bennett, B. (1991). Empty wells: Resource development in tough times.
Community. Technical, and Junior College Journal. 62(1). 30-33.
Bock, D. E., & Sullins, W. R. (1987). The search for alternative sources of funding:
Community colleges and private fund-raising. Community College Review. 15(3).
13-20.
Boguch, J. (1994). Organizational readiness for successful fund development: A
systematic and holistic approach. In R. E. Fogal & D. F. Burlingame (Series Eds.) &
R. C. Hedgepeth (Vol. Ed.), New directions for philanthropic fundraising: No. 5.
Nonprofit organizational culture: What fundraisers need to know (pp. 67-80). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
104


99
34.
35.
36.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
i.
j-
k.
l.
37.
38.
39.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
i.
j-
k.
l.
m.
List the total dollar 1998-99 revenue in grant funding from the following sources:
a. Federal Government $
b. State Government $
c. Local Government $
d. Corporations $
e. Foundations $
f. Other $
For the largest grant received in 1998-99, specify the source: and
the total dollar amount: $ ; if multiple-year grant, indicate 1998-99
amount: $ .
Indicate the importance of the following factors in EVALUATING the institutions grants
operation:
Very Not
Important Important Important
Expenditure per student
Meeting institutional strategic goals
Membership in professional
organizations
Number of new sources of funding
Number of students served
Percent of grant funds to institutional
Percent of grant revenue increase
over prior year
Percent of grants awarded
Performance on awarded projects
Total dollars awarded
Total number of grants awarded
Other
Has the grants operation adopted a code of ethics advocated by a professional organization?
Yes No
If yes for #37, indicate the code of ethics adopted:
a. O Council for Resource Development
b. O Council for the Advancement and Support of Education
c. National Society of Fund Raising Executives
d. [H Other
How critical are the following roles in the institutions grants operation? Please rate each:
Very Not Not
Critical Critical Critical Applicable
President
College Trustee
Chief Resource Development Officer
Chief Academic Officer
Chief Student Affairs Officer
Chief Business Officer
Grants Officer
Grants Paraprofessional
Foundation Director
Faculty
Consultant
Student
Consortia
Not
Applicable


43
overproductive and underproductive in realizing their fund-raising potential (Pickett,
1977). A national study of state colleges and universities found a significant relationship
between total voluntary support and an institutions location in an urban area (Hunter, F.
D 1987).
Because the community college mission, generally, is to serve the local
population, community college foundation activities are focused primarily on particular
geographic locations as compared to four-year institutions that may have a more regional
or national reach; however, this proximity to the local community provides community
colleges with unique development opportunities (Glass & Jackson, 1998a). In a study of
public two-year colleges in the Northeast, size of the service area was found to be a
significant variable for foundations with successful fund-raising programs (Ironfield,
1991). Likewise, population of the service area and size of the civilian labor force were
significant variables in predicting total annual income for community college foundations
in North Carolina (Gatewood, 1994). Larger service areas characteristic of urban
locations and regions with healthy economies were associated with successful fund
raising programs in a national study of public community colleges (Hunter, C. B., 1987).
A large urban area with multiple businesses and industries provides advantages
for selecting foundation board members and soliciting corporate contributions (Bulpitt,
1982). Companies supporting community colleges see them as integral to the community,
providing training programs that meet company needs and supplying new employees,
whose children also benefit from college programs (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
One model demonstrating community college fund-raising potential characterized
colleges with high potential as being located in an urban or large suburban population,


70
endowment interest and investments were part of the foundation revenue comprising the
outcome variable, institutions with larger endowments were more likely to experience
larger interest and investment gains during the 1998-1999 fiscal reporting period of this
survey. Robust economic conditions and investment earnings also may have encouraged
additional generosity and support on the part of individuals, corporations, and
foundations and, thus, affected the community college foundation revenue gained and
reported in this study.
Of secondary influence in the model was the role of the foundation board member
as perceived by the resource development professional responsible for the foundation
operation. The role of the foundation board member was significantly and positively
related to the foundation revenue. The average response of 3.684 for the role of the
foundation board member suggested that most survey respondents viewed the foundation
board members role as very critical or critical. These findings concurred with the
literature regarding the importance of the foundation board for successful community
college foundations (Degerstedt, 1982; Hunter, C. B., 1987; Sharron, 1982). In a national
survey of resource development personnel from 418 public community colleges, careful
selection of board members was the suggestion most frequently cited to assure foundation
success; the pitfall most frequently cited was not choosing the right foundation board
members (Degerstedt, 1982).
College size proved to be positively and significantly related to foundation
revenue. This result followed prior research findings that institutional size is an important
variable in researching public institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). The finding
supported previous literature that linked greater college size to the community colleges


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter reviews systems theory, institutional advancement, the role of
community colleges in higher education, community colleges and private fund raising,
outcome measures defining successful foundation performance, foundation revenue
sources, and variables associated with successful foundation performance.
Systems Theory
Fund-raising questions and methodologies can be explored using organizational
theory (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Contemporary discussions of organizational
effectiveness point to the importance of examining an organizations performance as part
of an entire system, rather than a function of isolated factors (Senge, 1990; Wheatley,
1994). The structural dynamics of Marxian theory, the subsystems focus of Talcott
Parsons and the structural functionalists, Allportian event-structure theory, and
Bertalanffys general system theory contributed to the interest in a social psychology
based on social organization and structure (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In turn, systems thinking
is a vital leadership function and a powerful tool in understanding and addressing how
underlying structures generate certain behavioral patterns that affect organizational
performance (Senge, 1990).
First applied in the fields of biology and the physical sciences, systems theory was
later adapted by social scientists. Not unlike biological organisms, organizations import
energy from their external environment, transform this energy into some product
characteristic of the system, export the product into the environment, and reenergize the
18


9
8. What is the relationship between the foundation revenue and the college
endowment when controlling for the other explanatory variables of interest in
the proposed regression model?
Definition of Terms
For purposes of this study, the following definitions were used:
Chief resource development officerIn a community college, the chief resource
development officer generally has responsibility for identifying, developing, and
cultivating public and private funding opportunities that support institutional mission and
needs; initiating and maintaining advocacy relationships with constituents both internal
and external to the college; and supervising and managing staff, foundation operations,
investments, budgets, and other resources essential to these functions (Brumbach, 1994).
Community collegeThe community college is defined as any institution
accredited to award the Associate in Arts or the Associate in Science as its highest
degree including private and public comprehensive two-year colleges and technical
institutes (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 5). Community college is the term used in this
study to describe the responding institutions, which included multi-college districts,
multi-campus districts, single community colleges, junior colleges, and technical
institutes.
DevelopmentA sophisticated and continuous process, development or fund
development requires broad understanding of the institution, long-term relationship
building, and commitment to the institutions financial and physical growth. More
commonly called resource development in the community colleges, the process
emanates from the institutions academic plan, in which the institutions priorities and
needs are identified. It includes identifying, cultivating, informing, and involving


11
includes the professional specialties of educational fund raising, alumni relations, public
relations and publications, student recruitment and marketing, and government relations
(Worth, 1993b, p. 417).
PhilanthropyThe term philanthropy refers to the tradition in which
individuals contribute, for reasons, of altruism, their time and financial resources to
nonprofit institutions, with the goal of improving society (Worth, 1993b, p. 418). Unlike
charity, which is an immediate act of goodness directed toward cases of human suffering
and unfortunate conditions, philanthropy is voluntary giving, service, and association
meant to elevate humankind over an extended period of time (Fisher, 1989b).
PresidentThe college president refers to the chief executive officer of an
educational institution. For purposes of analysis in this study, distinctions are not made
among the titles of president, campus president, district president, or chancellor.
Public collegeA public college is an institution partially or fully supported
by public funds made available by state, county, and/or local taxes (Luck & Tolle,
1978).
Voluntary supportThis term describes all gifts and noncontractual grants given
to colleges and universities, defined in accordance with accounting standards established
by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the National Association
of College and University Business Officers (Worth, 1993b, p. 420). Voluntary
support, as defined, excludes income from investments and endowed funds as well as
support from local, state, and federal governments and government agencies (Jacobson,
1978b).


41
if gifts detract from an institutions mission, priorities, or desired direction, they should
be rejected (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
Besides mission, institutional autonomy and ethics may also be at stake if the
implications of resources are not assessed in accordance with principles established
through consensus (Parsons, 1994). Moreover, an institution could lose control of its
power to determine and pursue its own goals if too much internal autonomy is given up to
external donors (Kelly, 1991).
Connecting college planning and research to development efforts and seeking
external funding only in support of the colleges mission and goals have been cited as
necessary elements for the pubic community college resource development program to
thrive, especially in an era of diminishing state appropriations (Blong & Bennett, 1991;
Daniel, 1985). Following good managerial practicesincluding matching effort to
strategic advantage and institutional mission and conducting institutional
evaluationare advised for the resource development operation (Brittingham &
Pezzullo, 1990, p. 25). If the impact on the direction of the community college and its
constituencies are disregarded in the quest for external funds, it can result in skewed
programming and a disappointed clientele who cannot be served when external dollars
are no longer available (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993, p. 15). Successful fund raising
for community colleges largely depends on planning and taking strategic advantage of
community support gained through excellent institutional reputation (Ryan, 1994).
Community colleges are realizing the important role of involving resource
development in institutional planning (Daniel, 1991). In fact, it is quite possible for
funding proposal development to occur simultaneously with strategic planning and


115
Sharron, W. H. Jr. (1978). The development and organization of the community college
foundation (NCRD Resource Paper No. 18). Washington, DC: National Council for
Resource Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 162 696)
Sharron, W. H. Jr. (1982). The case for the community college foundation. In W. H.
Sharron, Jr. (Ed.), The community college foundation (pp. 299-321). Washington,
DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Simic, C. (1993). Fund raising and the development of university foundations. In R. T.
Ingram & Associates, Governing public colleges and universities: A handbook for
trustees, chief executives, and other campus leaders (pp. 178-195). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Simic, C. R. (1998). The role of the foundation board. Foundation relations. Board basics.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 596)
Smith, N. J. (1991, September). Interdisciplinary approaches: Organizing for effective
community college advancement (Resource Paper No. 47). Washington, DC:
National Council for Resource Development.
Smith, N. J. (1993). Raising funds for community colleges. In M. J. Worth (Ed.),
Educational fund raising: Principles and practice (pp. 347-356). Phoenix, AZ:
American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Stuart v. School District No. 1 of the Village of Kalamazoo (30 Mich. 69 1874).
Sweet, D. E. (1980). Minding our own business. In A. W. Rowland (Series Ed.) & J. L.
Fisher (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional advancement: No. 8, Presidential
leadership in advancement activities (pp. 37-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Education (1998a). National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
The condition of education. 1998. NCES 98013 [On-line]. Available:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=98013. Accessed 10 July 2001.
U.S. Department of Education (1998b). National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Fall Enrollment 1998-99
(Final Release. January 20021 [On-line], Available: http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/ef9899/.
Accessed 15 August 2002.
U.S. Department of Education (2001). National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). A
classification system for 2-vear postsecondary institutions. NCES2001-167 [On
line], Available: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001167.
Accessed 30 August 2002.
Van Gigch, J. P. (1978). Applied general systems theory (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and
Row.


16
institutional advancement, these senior institutions, with their fully staffed development
offices, sizable endowments, and strong alumni support, are not necessarily characteristic
of community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998a; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998).
Certain variables, however, emerge from the literature on development and may
be applicable to examining community college foundation performance. In this study, the
outcome variable measuring foundation performance was the amount of foundation
revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations, corporations,
external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and investments.
The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget; the degree to
which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation board member
individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation operation; the degree to
which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an important factor in evaluating
the foundation operation; the college geographic location; the college size; and the
college endowment. Through this study, the researcher hoped to determine the
relationship of the selected explanatory variables to foundation revenue in a given year
and whether greater levels and integration of these key variables within the college and
foundation could be associated with increased foundation revenue.
The population for this study was limited to two-year United States public
community colleges that held membership in the Council for Resource Development
(CRD) one or more years between 1998 and 2001 (Council for Resource Development,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). Data in regard to community college foundation operations
were obtained primarily through the use of a survey instrument, which was completed by
a resource development professional at each institution. This study examined the resource


74
study may be misleading. Asked to indicate the importance that meeting institutional
strategic goals had in evaluating the foundation operation, survey respondents,
understandably, may have based their answers to this item on whether the foundation was
formally or informally evaluated. While the foundation may have used institutional
strategic goals for planning and guiding operational decisions, the lack of a formal or
informal evaluation component may have contributed to a lower response regarding the
importance of this item. Still, on average, the responses were between the categories
very important and important, an indication that meeting institutional strategic goals
was meaningful to most foundation operations. The relationship of foundation revenue to
the foundations meeting of institutional strategic goals, however, remains inconclusive.
In this study, no statistically significant relationship was found between
foundation revenue and an urban versus a suburban location. Likewise, no statistically
significant relationship was found between foundation revenue and a rural versus a
suburban location. While geographic location did not prove to be a significant variable in
this study, the literature suggested that an urban location could enhance success in
development operations (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Bulpitt, 1982; Gatewood, 1994;
Hunter, C. B., 1987; Hunter, F. D., 1987; Ironfield, 1991; Ryan, 1993). Fund-raising
potential still may be linked to an institutions location and access to resources, yet the
colleges geographic location, alone, may not provide the depth of information needed to
determine such access to resources. Measures of regional social and economic conditions
would enhance the understanding of environmental factors potentially affecting the
college system and foundation subsystem.


37
understanding of institutional advancement and, consequently, provide less support to it
than to other divisions of the college (Fisher, 1982). The forecast is that community
college presidents increasingly will see the raising of private funds to be an important
part of their job (Vaughan et al., 1994).
The community college presidents understanding of the advancement process,
combined with advocacy and support for it, may, in fact, be more important than his or
her personal solicitation of funds (Ryan, 1994). Critical to the success of the development
program, the community college presidents high visibility and service on community
boards demonstrate leadership and commitment to the betterment of the community
(Smith, 1993). Understanding the colleges relationship with similar institutions and its
role in meeting societys needs is necessary for a presidents effective leadership
(Vaughan, 1994). Presidents who can inspire change and commitment, appeal to higher
ideals, and focus on new possibilities demonstrate transformational leadership, which has
its origins in systems thinking and is associated with philanthropy (Glass & Jackson,
1998b).
In a study across 10 different institutional types, highly effective fund-raising
programs were found to have several common characteristics including the fund-raising
leadership demonstrated not only by the president but by the chief development officer as
well (Duronio & Loessin, 1991b). The chief development officer has been identified as
critical to fund-raising effectiveness (Fisher, 1989a).
An executive-level position within the administration and involvement in the
institutions strategic planning have been tied to the successful leadership of the chief
development officer (Bomstein, 1989; Duronio & Loessin, 1991b; Fisher, 1989a). Being


32
State Matching Programs
States that have passed legislation for matching programs typically allow for
donations, above a certain level, to public-college endowments to be matched, 50% to
100%, with state funds. As many as 27 states, including Connecticut, Florida, Maine,
Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Virginia, have instituted public-private matching
fund programs for scholarships, endowed professorships, and other purposes (Moore,
2000). These state matching programs have enhanced the fund-raising capacity of
community colleges (Craft & Guy, 2002). Despite some states problems in honoring the
promise of matching state funds, the programs have encouraged donor support of
institutions including community colleges (Schmidt, 1997).
Endowment Interest and Investments
Associated with foundation performance is the wise management of endowments
and other invested funds. Since some states restrict how organizations that receive state
support can invest their funds, having a foundation increases investment flexibility for
greater growth potential (Rennebohm, 1981; Simic, 1993). More aggressive investment
policies for endowment funds have been advocated as an important new revenue source
for community colleges (Riggs & Helweg, 1996).
Community college revenues from endowments have increased 48% from 1979-
1980 to 1995-1996 in constant dollars, which equates to a 16% increase per student
(Merisotis & Wolanin, 2000). In 1998, a strong stock market handsomely rewarded
colleges that had aggressively invested their endowments and provided to colleges with
more moderate investments an impressive 18% rate of return, on average (Van der Werf,
1999a). In 1999, endowments earned 11% as the market flattened (Pulley, 2000).


APPENDIX G
SURVEY COVER LETTER


97
21. Is there a FOUNDATION/PRIVATE GIFT DEVELOPMENT office? Yes No
22. Is the grants office separate from the foundation/private gift development office?
Yes No NA
23. Briefly describe the institutions RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT structure:
Please return all sections of the survey by AUGUST 15, 2000.
Mail to: Dr. Barbara Keener, University of Florida, College of Education,
P.O. Box 117049, Gainesville, FL 32611-7049 or fax to: (352) 392-3664.
n Please send a copy of the survey report to the contact person listed above in #7.


4
profession on two-year campuses across the county (Parnell, 1988, p. xviii). By 1990, it
was predicted that resource development will be an integral part of the day-to-day
operations of the college as well as an integral part of planned change and renewal of the
institution (Bender & Daniel, 1986, p. 23). It is forecasted that the role of institutional
advancement in community colleges will become increasingly important (Parsons, 1994).
Statement of the Problem
Until recent history, scholarly attention has not focused on fund raising and its
theoretical context; such scholarship and reflection are necessary to inform higher
education fund-raising practices (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Payton, Rosso, &
Tempel, 1991). College presidents, governing boards, and fund raisers are interested in
knowing which organizational patterns, program characteristics, and techniques are
associated with more effectiveness (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). The escalating costs
involved in fund raising, along with the tremendous benefits that an organization can
realize through fund-raising success, make it critical to discern what factors influence
fund-raising results (Duronio & Loessin, 1993). Understanding the larger environment
within which fund raising takes place is necessary for a balanced and enlightened
approach to fund raising (Payton et al., 1991).
The existing literature regarding philanthropy and higher education mostly
pertains to those four-year institutions with long histories of giving and well-established
offices of institutional advancement (Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). The scarcity of
research for community college resource development efforts may be due, in part, to the
relative youth of community college foundations, as compared with their older
counterparts in four-year institutions (Jenkins & Glass, 1999). Compounding the problem


APPENDIX D
PERSONS INCLUDED IN SECOND REVIEW PANEL
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION
Marilyn Appelson
Director of College Development &
Foundation
Oakton Community College
Des Plaines, Illinois
Steven Budd
Dean of Institutional Advancement
Greenfield Community College
Greenfield, Massachusetts
Joan Edwards
Vice President of Planning and
Development
College of Southern Idaho
Twin Falls, Idaho
Kathleen Guy
Executive Director, Foundation
Northwestern Michigan College
Traverse City, Michigan
Bob Kiser
Director of Resource Development
Elgin Community College
Elgin, Illinois
Ann Munz
Director, Grants Development
Pellissippi State Technical Community
College
Knoxville, Tennessee
Theresa Roffino
Dean, Planning & Development
Bill J. Priest Institute for Economic
Development
Dallas, Texas
Annee Tara
Director of Planning, Development &
Public Relations
Central Maine Technical College
Auburn, Maine
Doug Van Nostran
Director of Grants
William Rainey Harper College
Palatine, Illinois
87


36
serving as the major link to the institutions various publics (Rowland, 1977, p. 530). The
president, positioned between the internal and external forces of the college, is the nexus
in a complex and ever changing environment (Beehler, 1993). The presidents primary
role in raising major gifts is to model and give voice to the institutions values (Dunlop,
1989). Likewise, in a capital campaign, the president is the institutions chief fund
raiser who must carry the banner of the institution and act as chief spokesperson and
advocate (Bomstein, 1989, pp. 202-203). So central is the role of the president to the
success or failure of an institutional advancement program that his or her lack of
participation and support can negate any efforts made in this direction (Rowland, 1977,
p. 530).
In general, fund raising has not been a high priority for community college
presidents (Ryan, 1993). To be sure, tension exists for community college presidents who
must decide how much time to devote to fund raising while meeting the other demands of
their position (Vaughan, Mellander, & Blois, 1994). Yet, the role of the president has
been cited as important for success in fund raising for community colleges (Bock &
Sullins, 1987; Duffy, 1979; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Glass & Jackson, 1998b; Glennon,
1985; Ironfield, 1991; Jackson & Glass, 2000; Keener, 1982; Keener et al., 1991; Mosier,
1980; Robinson, 1989; Ryan, 1988, 1989).
The presidents leadership capacity in the area of advancement largely will
determine fund-raising success for most community colleges (Glass & Jackson, 1998b).
It is not surprising, therefore, that searches for community college presidents now include
fund raising among the desired candidate criteria (Gilley, Fulmer, & Reithlingshoefer,
1986). Community college presidents who are newly appointed, however, often lack an


106
Council for Aid to Education (2001). Voluntary support of education. 2000 [On-line],
Available: http://www.cae.org/VSE/vse2000/t03.htm. Accessed 29 August 2002.
Council for Resource Development (1998). 1998-1999 Membership directory & resource
guide. Washington, DC: Council for Resource Development.
Council for Resource Development (1999). 1999-2000 Membership directory.
Washington, DC: Council for Resource Development.
Council for Resource Development (2000). 2000-2001 Membership directory.
Washington, DC: Council for Resource Development.
Council for Resource Development (2001). 2001-2002 Membership directory.
Washington, DC: Council for Resource Development.
Craft, W. M., & Guy, K. E. (2002). Community college fundraising prospects for the
future. Community College Journal. 72(4). 28-32.
Cutlip, S. M. (1965/1990). Fund raising in the United States: Its role in Americas
philanthropy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Daniel, D. E. (1985, November). Future trends in resource development (Resource Paper
No. 34). Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.
Daniel, D. (1991). Making the commitment to resource development. Community,
Technical, and Junior College Journal, 62(1). 6-7.
Dean, J. O. (1985). Educational fund-raising in church-affiliated colleges: A predictive
and prescriptive model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (T2T 3615A. (UMI
No. AAG86-00753)
Deegan, W. L. (1989). Entrepreneurial management: A fourth concept of college
management for the decade ahead. In T. OBanion (Ed.), Innovation in the
community college (pp. 200-214). New York: American Council on Education and
Macmillan.
Deegan W. L. (1992). Proven techniques: The use of major management concepts in
community colleges. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 62(51. 26-
30.
Deegan, W. L., & Tillery, D. (1985). Renewing the American community college:
Priorities and strategies for effective leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Degerstedt, L. M. (1982). The strategies and perceptions of community colleges and the
foundation: A national perspective. In W. H. Sharron, Jr. (Ed.), The community
college foundation (pp. 49-66). Washington, DC: National Council for Resource
Development.


CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This chapter summarizes the studys purpose and analysis of data. It provides
conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further research.
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the annual revenue of United States
public community college foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the
literature with successful foundation performance. The outcome variable was the amount
of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999 from individuals, community organizations,
corporations, external foundations, state matching programs, and endowment interest and
investments. The explanatory variables of interest were the foundation operating budget;
the degree to which the president, chief resource development officer, and foundation
board member individually were rated as playing a critical role in the foundation
operation; the degree to which meeting institutional strategic goals was rated as an
important factor in evaluating the foundation operation; the college geographic location;
the college size; and the college endowment.
The proposed regression model was as follows: Foundation Revenue =
(foundation operating budget) + (critical role of college president) + (critical role of
chief development officer) + (critical role of foundation board member) + (importance
of meeting institutional strategic goals) + (college geographic location) + (college size)
+ (college endowment).
67


44
colleges with medium potential as being in a mid-size to small suburban population, and
colleges with low potential as being in a rural population (Ryan, 1993). While access to
wealth through geographic location may help explain a colleges increased fund-raising
effectiveness and foundation success, geographic location is not likely to be changed for
this reason (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
College Size
Regardless of the topic of analysis regarding colleges or their organizational
structure, institutional size appears repeatedly in research studies as an important, if not
the most important, variable in differentiating public institutions (Cohen & Brawer,
1996). For public two-year institutions, specifically, size of institutional enrollment has
been cited as the most distinguishing characteristic and the driving variable for
differentiating public institutions from one another (U.S. Department of Education,
2001, p. 24).
Larger colleges have the advantage of making more of an impact on the
community and reaching more potential supporters (Pickett, 1986). In terms of student
enrollment, college size has been related to the community colleges establishment of a
foundation, with smaller institutions being less likely to have established one (Angel &
Gares, 1989; Degerstedt, 1982). The same model that showed high, medium, and low
fund-raising potential for community colleges by geographic location also associated
significant enrollment with high fund-raising potential, moderate enrollment with
medium potential, and small enrollment with low potential (Ryan, 1993). However, like a
colleges geographic location, college size would not likely be changed to enhance fund
raising potential (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).


66
variables were statistically significant: Foundation Board Member (b = 471,995.79,
t(274) = 2.360, g = .019); Size (b = 16.696, t(274) = 2.054, £ .041; and Endowment (b
= .357, t(274) = 14.211, 2 = .000). For the three statistically significant variables, the
effect size of Endowment ( = .42) was large, and the effect sizes of Foundation Board
Member = .02) and Size ( = .02) were small.
Chapter 5 follows with conclusions and implications, as well as suggestions for
further research.


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Philanthropic giving to community colleges is a relatively recent and increasingly
essential activity (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Financial support of public community
colleges, historically, has come from local and state taxes and tuition fees (Wattenbarger,
1982). Due to declining state and local tax support, public community colleges have had
to rely more on additional external revenue sources for basic operations (Merisotis &
Wolanin, 2000; Phillippe & Eblinger, 1998). It has been suggested, however, that, as
service providers, community colleges could suffer potentially detrimental effects over
time through increased dependence on private funds to balance their budgets (Bock &
Sullins, 1987). Yet, the role of resource development in community colleges is an
important means of diversifying the community college funding base (Glass & Jackson,
1998b).
The percent of all state appropriations to higher education in the early 1990s
ranged from 12% to 15% and by mid-decade had fallen to about 8% to 11%. Contributing
factors including the recession of the early 1990s, a fiscally conservative stance at all
government levels, a near moratorium on raising taxes, and increasing public demand for
services caused states to absorb the additional burden for funding public programs.
Increased spending for medical services, corrections, K-12 education, welfare, and
various public agencies compressed the funds available for higher education (Alfred,
1


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION REVENUE
By
Sharon McEntee Carrier
December 2002
Chair: Dale F. Campbell
Cochair: Barbara J. Keener
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
This study examined the annual revenue gained by community college
foundations in relation to selected variables associated in the literature with successful
foundation performance. Systems theory provided the conceptual framework for
analyzing the foundation subsystems interconnections and interdependencies with its
next higher system level, the college.
The outcome variable was the amount of foundation revenue gained in 1998-1999
from individuals, community organizations, corporations, external foundations, state
matching programs, and endowment interest and investments. The explanatory variables
were the foundation operating budget; degree to which the president, chief resource
development officer, and foundation board member individually were rated as playing a
critical role in the foundation operation; degree to which meeting institutional strategic
x


LD
1780
20 02
i
Hill


75
Implications
A systems framework can be used to examine structures, roles, and
interrelationships affecting community college foundation revenue. In examining system
relationships, it should be remembered that systems that are critical to the success of
higher systems are those that thrive (Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). This dynamic reinforces
the importance of considering the college system when analyzing the foundation.
Furthermore, the system or subsystems existence should be questioned, the function
diagnosed, and the desired results planned relative to interrelated systems and their
demands (Van Gigch, 1978).
Philanthropy, entrepreneurship, and grantsmanship will be necessary for
decreasing overall dependency of decreasing revenue from more traditional sources
(Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). To meet the challenges of long-term viability, community
colleges will need leaders who can present compelling evidence of institutional and
student success in the community while showing that public funds are falling short of
important needs (Johnson, J. A., 1986). Leaders with vision and systemic solutions will
be needed for these future challenges (Clements, 1996). These leaders must recognize the
necessity and potential of a foundation and the elements that contribute to a foundations
success. If discrepancies exist between variables of significance in theory and those in
practice, especially if foundation revenue is less than expected, college leaders and
managers might forego minor tweaking of the current system as the more limited
approach to solving systems problems, and, instead, redesign the system as the more
effective way to solve problems inherent in the system (Van Gigch, 1978).


63
The R of .514 for the model was statistically significant, F(9,274) = 32.260, £ <
.001, suggesting that the explanatory variables were jointly associated with 51.4% of the
foundation revenue variance. The adjusted Rr was .499. The high magnitude of the Ff
indicated a strong joint association that holds for the population. The regression equation
for the model was as follows: Foundation Revenue = -2,748,994 + ,0818(foundation
operating budget) + 263,786.41 (critical role of college president) + -178,650.7(critical
role of chief development officer) + 471,995.79(critical role of foundation board
member) + 172,199.36(importance of meeting institutional strategic goals) +
29,818.832(college geographic location: Xi = rural) + 190,597.98(col!ege geographic
location: X2= urban) + 16.696(college size) + ,357(college endowment).
Table 6 reports the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), the standardized
regression coefficients (|3), the observed t-values, and the squared semi-partial
correlations (). The explanatory variable for geographic location was categorical and,
therefore, dummy coded, resulting in two dummy coded variables, Xi where rural was
coded 1 and X2 where urban was coded 1. The category of suburban served as the
reference category. Three of the explanatory variables were statistically significant:
Foundation Board Member (b = 471,995.79, t(274) = 2.360, p = .019); Size (b = 16.696,
t(274) = 2.054, p = .041; and Endowment (b = .357, t(274) = 14.211, p = .000).
The interpretation of the unstandardized regression coefficient of any explanatory
variable is a function of the scale of measurement of that variable. For continuous
variables, the interpretation of the regression coefficient can be made in terms of rate and
direction of change. The regression coefficient indicates the expected unit change in the
outcome variable for each unit change in any one explanatory variable, while holding the



PAGE 1

7+( 5(/$7,216+,3 2) 6(/(&7(' ,167,787,21$/ 9$5,$%/(6 72 &20081,7< &2//(*( )281'$7,21 5(9(18( %\ 6+$521 0F(17(( &$55,(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

WR P\ PRWKHU DQG IDWKHU

PAGE 3

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f§HVSHFLDOO\ 'U (GZDUG +DUUHOO 'U /DUU\ +ROW DQG 'U 6DQGUD 0FOQWLUHf§DQG VWDII SDUWLFXODUO\ 0DULDQQH %DUWPDQ DQG /DXUD 6DOPHQ

PAGE 4

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fV WKLUWHHQWK SUHVLGHQW ZKR H[HPSOLILHV ZKDW SUHVLGHQWLDO FRPPLWPHQW WR SKLODQWKURS\ FDQ GR WR HQKDQFH D FROOHJH JUHDWO\ DSSUHFLDWH KHU SHUVRQDO HQFRXUDJHPHQW DQG LQVSLUDWLRQ $PDQGD &RVDW DQG 6KHUU\ 0HDGHUV GHVHUYH P\ VSHFLDO DFNQRZOHGJPHQW DQG WKDQNV $V VWXG\ SDUWQHUV LQ WKH GRFWRUDO SURJUDP ZH GHYHORSHG D FORVH DQG ODVWLQJ IULHQGVKLS 7RJHWKHU ZH VKDUHG LQWHOOHFWXDO GHYHORSPHQW ODXJKWHU SHUVRQDO WULDOV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO WULXPSKV DP LQGHEWHG WR WKHP IRU WKHLU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG VXSSRUW DQG IRU PDNLQJ WKH MRXUQH\ HQMR\DEOH 7R P\ GRFWRUDO FRKRUW SHHUV ZKR NQRZ WKH WUXH PHDQLQJ RI fFRPPLWPHQWf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

PAGE 5

, FRXOG QRW KDYH FRPSOHWHG WKLV GRFWRUDO SURJUDP ZLWKRXW 'U +HQU\ 1DVK &DUULHU P\ KXVEDQG ZKRVH ORYH DQG VXSSRUW GHYRWLRQ WR IDPLO\ DQG VHOIVDFULILFH PDGH LW SRVVLEOH IRU PH WR SXUVXH P\ GUHDPV 2XU FKLOGUHQ &KHOVHD .DWKHULQH DQG 1DWKDQ +HQU\f§DJHV DQG XSRQ FRPSOHWLRQ RI P\ GRFWRUDO SURJUDPf§GHVHUYH P\ KHDUWIHOW WKDQNV IRU WKHLU VXSSRUW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG ORYH Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

) (9$/8$7,21 )250 )25 6(&21' 5(9,(: 3$1(/ 6859(< &29(5 /(77(5 + &20081,7< &2//(*( (;7(51$/ )81',1* 6859(< 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YLLL

PAGE 9

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7DEOH SDJH 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ &5' 5HJLRQ 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ &ROOHJH 6WUXFWXUH 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ )RXQGDWLRQ 2IILFH (VWDEOLVKPHQW 'HFDGH 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV RI 2XWFRPH DQG ([SODQDWRU\ 9DULDEOHV 8QVWDQGDUGL]HG 5HJUHVVLRQ &RHIILFLHQWV 6WDQGDUGL]HG 5HJUHVVLRQ &RHIILFLHQWV WWHVW 6WDWLVWLFV DQG 6HPL3DUWLDO UVTXDUHV L[

PAGE 10

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f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

PAGE 11

JRDOV ZDV UDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ FROOHJH VL]H DQG FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW 7KH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV OLPLWHG WR WZR\HDU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW KHOG PHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &5'f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fV UROH DW YDULRXV V\VWHP OHYHOVf§H[WHUQDO DQG LQWHUQDO WR WKH FROOHJHf§DV UHODWHG WR UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW $ PRUH LQGHSWK DQDO\VLV RI KRZ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV DUH IXQGHG ZDV VXJJHVWHG VR WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWV WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXHV FDQ EH FRPSDUHG FRQVLVWHQWO\ DFURVV LQVWLWXWLRQV )ROORZXS VWXGLHV ZHUH UHFRPPHQGHG WR H[DPLQH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH UHODWLYH WR H[WHUQDO LQIOXHQFHV RQ WKH FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW LQYHVWPHQW SROLFLHV DQG VSHQGLQJ UDWHV IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG IXQFWLRQV DQG GRQRU PRWLYDWLRQ [L

PAGE 12

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 3KLODQWKURSLF JLYLQJ WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LV D UHODWLYHO\ UHFHQW DQG LQFUHDVLQJO\ HVVHQWLDO DFWLYLW\ %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f )LQDQFLDO VXSSRUW RI SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KLVWRULFDOO\ KDV FRPH IURP ORFDO DQG VWDWH WD[HV DQG WXLWLRQ IHHV :DWWHQEDUJHU f 'XH WR GHFOLQLQJ VWDWH DQG ORFDO WD[ VXSSRUW SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH KDG WR UHO\ PRUH RQ DGGLWLRQDO H[WHUQDO UHYHQXH VRXUFHV IRU EDVLF RSHUDWLRQV 0HULVRWLV t :RODQLQ 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG KRZHYHU WKDW DV VHUYLFH SURYLGHUV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV FRXOG VXIIHU SRWHQWLDOO\ GHWULPHQWDO HIIHFWV RYHU WLPH WKURXJK LQFUHDVHG GHSHQGHQFH RQ SULYDWH IXQGV WR EDODQFH WKHLU EXGJHWV %RFN t 6XOOLQV f
PAGE 13

/HVOLH t )UHWZHOO f &RPSRXQGLQJ WKH SUREOHP KDV EHHQ WKH UHMHFWLRQ RQ WKH SDUW RI YRWHUV RI DQ\ QHZ WD[ SURSRVDOV /RUHQ]R 3DUVRQV f ,Q UHVSRQVH WR XQVWHDG\ WD[GROODU VXSSRUW DQG FXWV LQ VWDWH DSSURSULDWLRQV SXEOLF FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV LQFUHDVLQJO\ KDYH VRXJKW DQG UHOLHG XSRQ VXSSRUW IURP WKH SULYDWH VHFWRU 0RRUH f 3ULYDWH VXSSRUW RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ RI FRXUVH LV QRW D QHZ SKHQRPHQRQ &ROOHJHV KDYH HQJDJHG LQ HIIRUWV WR VHFXUH IXQGV WR RSHUDWH VLQFH WKH ILUVW GRFXPHQWHG PLVVLRQ LQ WR VHQG WKUHH FOHUJ\PHQ WR (QJODQG RQ +DUYDUGfV EHKDOI &XWOLS f 7KH .DQVDV 8QLYHUVLW\ (QGRZPHQW $VVRFLDWLRQ HVWDEOLVKHG LQ ZDV WKH ILUVW LQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ DIILOLDWHG IRXQGDWLRQ WR EH HVWDEOLVKHG IRU VXSSRUW RI D XQLYHUVLW\ 5HQQHERKP f )RXQGDWLRQV PRVW RIWHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQVWLWXWLRQV FUHDWHG XQGHU VWDWH VWDWXWH KDYH DOORZHG VXFK LQVWLWXWLRQV D YHKLFOH IRU IXQG UDLVLQJ SURYLGHG IOH[LELOLW\ LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DQG LQYHVWPHQW GHFLVLRQV DQG HQFRXUDJHG YROXQWHHU LQYROYHPHQW DQG OHDGHUVKLS 5HQQHERKP f 7KH VWDWXWRU\ UHVWULFWLRQV WKDW DSSO\ WR FROOHJH VWDII DQG JRYHUQLQJ ERDUGV GR QRW DSSO\ WR IRXQGDWLRQV ZKLFK KDYH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DQG OHJDO LQGHSHQGHQFH IURP WKH FROOHJHV WKH\ VHUYH WR HQKDQFH &RKHQ t %UDZHU f 7KHVH IRXQGDWLRQV KDYH IRUJHG SURGXFWLYH SDUWQHUVKLSV SURYLGHG GLVFUHWLRQDU\ IXQGV DQG VHUYHG DV VDIHW\ QHWV DQG DV FDWDO\VWV IRU FKDQJH 0RRUH f 7KH SULPDU\ UHDVRQ WKDW PRVW RI WKH ROGHU IRXQGDWLRQV ZHUH HVWDEOLVKHG KRZHYHU ZDV IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI FKDQQHOLQJ JLIWV WR FUHDWH D fPDUJLQ RI H[FHOOHQFHf IRU WKHVH LQVWLWXWLRQV 5HQQHERKP S f 2YHU WKH SDVW GHFDGH KRZHYHU FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ IRXQGDWLRQV RULJLQDOO\ FUHDWHG WR HQKDQFH H[FHOOHQFH QRZ VXSSRUW HQGRZPHQWV DQG GD\WRGD\ RSHUDWLRQV 0RRUH f

PAGE 14

&RPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZHUH WKH ODVW GLYLVLRQ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ WR HQJDJH LQ IXQG UDLVLQJ $QGHUVRQ t 6Q\GHU %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f :KLOH WKH ROGHVW HVWDEOLVKHG FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ WUDFHG EDFN WR /RQJ %HDFK &LW\ &ROOHJH LQ 6DQWD 0RQLFD &LW\ &ROOHJH LQ DQG 9LQFHQQHV 8QLYHUVLW\ LQ ,OOLQRLVf +LJKODQGV &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ZKLFK HVWDEOLVKHG LWV IRXQGDWLRQ LQ LV RIWHQ FLWHG DV HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH ILUVW IRXQGDWLRQ PRVW OLNHO\ EHFDXVH LWV VWRU\ ZDV GRFXPHQWHG LQ 7KH -XQLRU &ROOHJH -RXUQDO 5RELVRQ f ,W ZDV QRW XQWLO ODWHU KRZHYHU WKDW WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV JDLQHG PRPHQWXP ZLWK RYHU b RI WKHVH IRXQGDWLRQV EHLQJ HVWDEOLVKHG DIWHU WKH ODWH V 5RELVRQ f 7KLV JURZWK SDUDOOHOHG WKDW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZKLFK LQ VHUYHG b RI WKH WRWDO HQUROOPHQW LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK b RI WKH WRWDO E\ %UHQHPDQ t 1HOVRQ f 3DVVDJH RI WKH +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ $FW WD[H[HPSWLRQ UXOLQJV E\ WKH ,QWHUQDO 5HYHQXH 6HUYLFH DQG WKH GHFOLQH LQ SXEOLF IXQGV SRVLWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFHG WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV UDUH EHIRUH WKH V EXW FRPPRQSODFH E\ $QJHO t *DUHV f ,Q WKH V SURIHVVLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV EHJDQ DGGUHVVLQJ WKH QHHG IRU SURIHVVLRQDO UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG VXSSRUW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SHUVRQQHO DQG WKHLU HIIRUWV 7KH QHZO\ FKDUWHUHG 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 1&5'f DQ DIILOLDWH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH WKHQQDPHG $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ DQG -XQLRU &ROOHJHV $$-&f SURYLGHG WUDLQLQJ DQG DVVLVWDQFH WR LWV FRQVWLWXHQWV DQG LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU $GYDQFHPHQW DQG 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ &$6(f DOORZHG FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PHPEHUVKLS *ODVV t -DFNVRQ D 6PLWK f %\ 1&5' UHFRUGHG RYHU RQH WKRXVDQG PHPEHUV DQG WKH fHPHUJHQFH RI D QHZ

PAGE 15

SURIHVVLRQ RQ WZR\HDU FDPSXVHV DFURVV WKH FRXQW\f 3DUQHOO S [YLLLf %\ LW ZDV SUHGLFWHG WKDW fUHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO EH DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI WKH GD\WRGD\ RSHUDWLRQV RI WKH FROOHJH DV ZHOO DV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI SODQQHG FKDQJH DQG UHQHZDO RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQf %HQGHU t 'DQLHO S f ,W LV IRUHFDVWHG WKDW WKH UROH RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZLOO EHFRPH LQFUHDVLQJO\ LPSRUWDQW 3DUVRQV f 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 8QWLO UHFHQW KLVWRU\ VFKRODUO\ DWWHQWLRQ KDV QRW IRFXVHG RQ IXQG UDLVLQJ DQG LWV WKHRUHWLFDO FRQWH[W VXFK VFKRODUVKLS DQG UHIOHFWLRQ DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR LQIRUP KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ IXQGUDLVLQJ SUDFWLFHV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR 3D\WRQ 5RVVR t 7HPSHO f &ROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV JRYHUQLQJ ERDUGV DQG IXQG UDLVHUV DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ NQRZLQJ ZKLFK RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SDWWHUQV SURJUDP FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WHFKQLTXHV DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PRUH HIIHFWLYHQHVV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f 7KH HVFDODWLQJ FRVWV LQYROYHG LQ IXQG UDLVLQJ DORQJ ZLWK WKH WUHPHQGRXV EHQHILWV WKDW DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ FDQ UHDOL]H WKURXJK IXQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV PDNH LW FULWLFDO WR GLVFHUQ ZKDW IDFWRUV LQIOXHQFH IXQGUDLVLQJ UHVXOWV 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ f 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH ODUJHU HQYLURQPHQW ZLWKLQ ZKLFK IXQG UDLVLQJ WDNHV SODFH LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU D EDODQFHG DQG HQOLJKWHQHG DSSURDFK WR IXQG UDLVLQJ 3D\WRQ HW DO f 7KH H[LVWLQJ OLWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ SKLODQWKURS\ DQG KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ PRVWO\ SHUWDLQV WR WKRVH IRXU\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK ORQJ KLVWRULHV RI JLYLQJ DQG ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG RIILFHV RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f 7KH VFDUFLW\ RI UHVHDUFK IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW HIIRUWV PD\ EH GXH LQ SDUW WR WKH UHODWLYH \RXWK RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKHLU ROGHU FRXQWHUSDUWV LQ IRXU\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV -HQNLQV t *ODVV f &RPSRXQGLQJ WKH SUREOHP

PAGE 16

LV WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV GRHV QRW DFFRXQW IRU WKH GLYHUVLW\ LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VL]H JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ DQG JRYHUQDQFH DPRQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV .DWVLQDV f /LNHZLVH WKH VXFFHVV RI IXQGUDLVLQJ SURJUDPV LV QRW RIWHQ DQDO\]HG ZLWK DWWHQWLRQ WR LQVWLWXWLRQDO VL]H ORFDWLRQ GHJUHH OHYHO PLVVLRQ DQG RWKHU LPSRUWDQW IDFWRUV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO W\SH KDYH EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH LPSRUWDQW LQ LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI HIIHFWLYH IXQGUDLVLQJ RSHUDWLRQV 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ Ef 7KH QXPEHU DQG ZHDOWK RI DOXPQL FDSDFLW\f WKH PDWXULW\ RI WKH IXQGUDLVLQJ SURJUDP KLVWRU\f DQG WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO SULRULW\f§LQFOXGLQJ UHVRXUFH FRPPLWPHQW HIIRUWff§KDYH EHHQ OLQNHG WR HIIHFWLYHQHVV ZKHQ FRPSDULQJ UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV RI YDULRXV LQVWLWXWLRQDO W\SHV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f :KLOH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH DGRSWHG HOHPHQWV IURP WKH VHQLRU LQVWLWXWLRQ PRGHOV RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW WKHVH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK WKHLU IXOO\ VWDIIHG GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHV VL]DEOH HQGRZPHQWV DQG VWURQJ DOXPQL VXSSRUW DUH QRW FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI PRVW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV *ODVV t -DFNVRQ D 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f $GGLWLRQDOO\ VRPH GHYHORSPHQW DFWLYLWLHV W\SLFDO WR IRXU\HDU FROOHJHV PD\ QRW EH DSSOLFDEOH WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV /XFN t 7ROOH f 2YHUDOO FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH QRW SODFHG DQ HPSKDVLV RQ WUDGLWLRQDO DOXPQL DFWLYLWLHV DQG WKHLU GHYHORSPHQW VWDIILQJ DVVLJQPHQWV KDYH FRQVLVWHG RI RQHSHUVRQ DQG SDUWWLPH VXSSRUW 6PLWK f ,QVWHDG RI UHO\LQJ RQ DOXPQL DOOHJLDQFH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH WXUQHG WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ LWVHOI IRU UHVRXUFHV DQG IRXQGDWLRQ YLDELOLW\ &RQUDG 'DYLV 'XII\ t :KLWHKHDG 'HJHUVWHGW f 6HHNLQJ H[WHUQDO IXQGLQJ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LGHDOO\ LQYROYHV D EDODQFHG DSSURDFK fWKDW OHYHUDJHV SXEOLF GROODUV ZLWK SULYDWH EXLOGV RQ HVWDEOLVKHG EXVLQHVV UHODWLRQVKLSV WR FUHDWH PDMRU JLIW

PAGE 17

RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU GRQRUV DQG IRFXVHV RQ PHHWLQJ WKH QHHGV RI D FROOHJH E\ PHHWLQJ WKH QHHGV RI LWV VWXGHQWV DQG VXUURXQGLQJ FRPPXQLW\f %UXPEDFK t %XPSKXV S f :KLOH WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ LV WKH fQXFOHXVf IRU WKH FROOHJHfV UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW HIIRUWV LQWHJUDWLRQ RI WKHVH HIIRUWV ZLWK WKH FROOHJHfV PDQDJHPHQW DQG DGYDQFHPHQW IXQFWLRQV LV QHFHVVDU\ f5HVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW FDQQRW EH YLVXDOL]HG DV D VHSDUDWH DUHD VWULYLQJ VROHO\ WR SURFXUH H[WHUQDO GROODUV IRU UDQGRP FROOHJH SXUSRVHVf .HHQHU S f 0RVW UHVHDUFK DYDLODEOH RQ SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV IRFXVHV RQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZLWKLQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ EXW LW LV WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH DQG WKH IRUFHV WKHUHLQ WKDW KHOS VKDSH WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ .RHONHEHFN f 3KLODQWKURSLF VXSSRUW RI SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQG WKH HOHPHQWV ZLWKLQ WKHVH FROOHJHV WKDW HQFRXUDJH VXFK VXSSRUW KDYH QRW EHHQ IXOO\ H[DPLQHG $ ODFN RI FRPSUHKHQVLYH GDWD RQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH KDV SUHFOXGHG DFFXUDWH DQDO\VLV RI WKH YDOXH DGGHG E\ WKHVH IRXQGDWLRQV &UDIW t *X\ f 7KH RQO\ FRQVLVWHQW QDWLRQDO GDWD IRU UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW DFWLYLW\ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DUH JDLQHG WKURXJK WKH 9ROXQWDU\ 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ DQQXDO VXUYH\ FRQGXFWHG E\ WKH &RXQFLO IRU $LG WR (GXFDWLRQ *ODVV t -DFNVRQ Df :KLOH WKH &RXQFLO KDV FRQGXFWHG WKH DQQXDO 9ROXQWDU\ 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ 96(f VXUYH\ VLQFH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ KDV QHYHU EHHQ PRUH WKDQ KDOI RI DOO KLJKHUHGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG KDV YDULHG JUHDWO\ E\ LQVWLWXWLRQDO W\SH &RXQFLO IRU $LG WR (GXFDWLRQ f ,Q DQG RQO\ SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH 96( VXUYH\ DQG LQ RQO\ UHSRUWHG &RXQFLO IRU $LG WR (GXFDWLRQ &RXQFLO IRU $LG WR (GXFDWLRQ f 7KH 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (GXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFV &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW DQG $PHULFDQ

PAGE 18

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f FULWLFDO UROH RI FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf FULWLFDO UROH RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUf LPSRUWDQFH RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOVf FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQf FROOHJH VL]Hf FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWf 5HODWHG OLWHUDWXUH DV GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU VXJJHVWV WKDW WKHUH VKRXOG EH D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DQG SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ YDULDEOHV WKH DPRXQW RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW WKH GHJUHH WR

PAGE 19

ZKLFK WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW LV UDWHG DV FULWLFDO WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU LV UDWHG DV FULWLFDO WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU LV UDWHG DV FULWLFDO WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV LV UDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IRXQGDWLRQ HYDOXDWLRQ IDFWRU WKH PRUH XUEDQ WKH FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ WKH JUHDWHU WKH FROOHJH VL]H DQG WKH ODUJHU WKH FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW 7KH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV JXLGLQJ WKH VWXG\ ZHUH DV IROORZV :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV LV UDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FROOHJH VL]H ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO"

PAGE 20

:KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV )RU SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH IROORZLQJ GHILQLWLRQV ZHUH XVHG &KLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf§,Q D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU JHQHUDOO\ KDV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU LGHQWLI\LQJ GHYHORSLQJ DQG FXOWLYDWLQJ SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH IXQGLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV WKDW VXSSRUW LQVWLWXWLRQDO PLVVLRQ DQG QHHGV LQLWLDWLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ DGYRFDF\ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK FRQVWLWXHQWV ERWK LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO WR WKH FROOHJH DQG VXSHUYLVLQJ DQG PDQDJLQJ VWDII IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV LQYHVWPHQWV EXGJHWV DQG RWKHU UHVRXUFHV HVVHQWLDO WR WKHVH IXQFWLRQV %UXPEDFK f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJHf§7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LV GHILQHG DV fDQ\ LQVWLWXWLRQ DFFUHGLWHG WR DZDUG WKH $VVRFLDWH LQ $UWV RU WKH $VVRFLDWH LQ 6FLHQFH DV LWV KLJKHVW GHJUHHf LQFOXGLQJ SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF FRPSUHKHQVLYH WZR\HDU FROOHJHV DQG WHFKQLFDO LQVWLWXWHV &RKHQ t %UDZHU S f f&RPPXQLW\ FROOHJHf LV WKH WHUP XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ WR GHVFULEH WKH UHVSRQGLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKLFK LQFOXGHG PXOWLFROOHJH GLVWULFWV PXOWLFDPSXV GLVWULFWV VLQJOH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV MXQLRU FROOHJHV DQG WHFKQLFDO LQVWLWXWHV 'HYHORSPHQWf§$ VRSKLVWLFDWHG DQG FRQWLQXRXV SURFHVV fGHYHORSPHQWf RU fIXQG GHYHORSPHQWf UHTXLUHV EURDG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ ORQJWHUP UHODWLRQVKLS EXLOGLQJ DQG FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV ILQDQFLDO DQG SK\VLFDO JURZWK 0RUH FRPPRQO\ FDOOHG fUHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQWf LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKH SURFHVV HPDQDWHV IURP WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV DFDGHPLF SODQ LQ ZKLFK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV SULRULWLHV DQG QHHGV DUH LGHQWLILHG ,W LQFOXGHV LGHQWLI\LQJ FXOWLYDWLQJ LQIRUPLQJ DQG LQYROYLQJ

PAGE 21

SURVSHFWLYH GRQRUV DQG RWKHU IXQGLQJ VRXUFHV SUHSDULQJ DQG PDNLQJ VROLFLWDWLRQV RU VXEPLWWLQJ JUDQW DSSOLFDWLRQV DQG SURYLGLQJ JLIW VWHZDUGVKLS DQG PRQLWRULQJ RI H[WHUQDOO\ IXQGHG SURMHFWV WKURXJK UHSRUWV DQG SHUVRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZLWK WKH GRQRU RU IXQGLQJ VRXUFH %RJXFK .HHQHU :RUWK D Ef (QGRZPHQWf§$Q LQVWLWXWLRQfV HQGRZPHQW UHIHUV WR IXQGV WKDW DUH LQYHVWHG ZLWK WKH H[SHFWDWLRQ WKDW WKH SULQFLSDO ZLOO UHPDLQ LQWDFW DQG WKDW WKH LQFRPH JHQHUDWHG ZLOO VXSSRUW LQVWLWXWLRQDO QHHGV SURJUDPV DQG DFWLYLWLHV :RUWK Ef ([WHUQDO IXQGLQJf§,Q FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV H[WHUQDO IXQGLQJ LV D fK\EULG DFWLYLW\ WKDW PHUJHV JUDQWV ZULWLQJ DQG GRQRU UHODWLRQV H[SHUWLVH ZLWK SODQQLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQDO PHWKRGV DQG SURJUDPV DQG DGYRFDF\f %UXPEDFK t %XPSKXV S f )RXQGDWLRQf§$ IRXQGDWLRQ WKDW LV LQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ UHODWHG fH[LVWV VROHO\ IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI UDLVLQJ PDQDJLQJ DQG GLVEXUVLQJ IXQGV WR VXSSRUW WKH SURJUDPV RI D VSHFLILF XVXDOO\ SXEOLFf FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\f :RUWK E S f )XQG UDLVLQJf§5HTXLULQJ FRPPXQLFDWLYH DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO VNLOOV IXQG UDLVLQJ LV fHSLVRGLFf LQ QDWXUH DQG FRQVWLWXWHV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV JLIW VROLFLWDWLRQ SURJUDPV DQG DFWLYLWLHV IRFXVHG RQ PHHWLQJ SDUWLFXODU REMHFWLYHV RU JRDOV :RUWK D S Ef ,QVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQWf§f,Q LWV EURDGHVW VHQVH LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW LV D VWDWH RI PLQG WKDW PXVW SHUYDGH DOO DVSHFWV RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV OLIH ,W LV DQ DWWLWXGH RI RSWLPLVP DQG DPELWLRQ WKDW GULYHV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV GHVLUH WR JURZ DQG LPSURYH LQ D FRPSHWLWLYH HQYLURQPHQWf :RUWK D S f ,W HQFRPSDVVHV fDOO WKRVH SURJUDPV DQG DFWLYLWLHV XQGHUWDNHQ E\ D FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ WR GHYHORS XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG VXSSRUW IURP DOO LWV SXEOLFV IRU LWV HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOVf 5RZODQG S [Lf f7KH WHUP XVXDOO\

PAGE 22

LQFOXGHV WKH SURIHVVLRQDO VSHFLDOWLHV RI HGXFDWLRQDO IXQG UDLVLQJ DOXPQL UHODWLRQV SXEOLF UHODWLRQV DQG SXEOLFDWLRQV VWXGHQW UHFUXLWPHQW DQG PDUNHWLQJ DQG JRYHUQPHQW UHODWLRQVf :RUWK E S f 3KLODQWKURS\f§7KH WHUP fSKLODQWKURS\f UHIHUV WR WKH fWUDGLWLRQ LQ ZKLFK LQGLYLGXDOV FRQWULEXWH IRU UHDVRQV RI DOWUXLVP WKHLU WLPH DQG ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV WR QRQSURILW LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK WKH JRDO RI LPSURYLQJ VRFLHW\f :RUWK E S f 8QOLNH FKDULW\ ZKLFK LV DQ LPPHGLDWH DFW RI JRRGQHVV GLUHFWHG WRZDUG FDVHV RI KXPDQ VXIIHULQJ DQG XQIRUWXQDWH FRQGLWLRQV SKLODQWKURS\ LV YROXQWDU\ JLYLQJ VHUYLFH DQG DVVRFLDWLRQ PHDQW WR HOHYDWH KXPDQNLQG RYHU DQ H[WHQGHG SHULRG RI WLPH )LVKHU Ef 3UHVLGHQWf§7KH FROOHJH fSUHVLGHQWf UHIHUV WR WKH FKLHI H[HFXWLYH RIILFHU RI DQ HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ )RU SXUSRVHV RI DQDO\VLV LQ WKLV VWXG\ GLVWLQFWLRQV DUH QRW PDGH DPRQJ WKH WLWOHV RI fSUHVLGHQWf fFDPSXV SUHVLGHQWf fGLVWULFW SUHVLGHQWf RU fFKDQFHOORUf 3XEOLF FROOHJHf§$ fSXEOLF FROOHJHf LV fDQ LQVWLWXWLRQ SDUWLDOO\ RU IXOO\ VXSSRUWHG E\ SXEOLF IXQGV PDGH DYDLODEOH E\ VWDWH FRXQW\ DQGRU ORFDO WD[HVf /XFN t 7ROOH f 9ROXQWDU\ VXSSRUWf§7KLV WHUP GHVFULEHV fDOO JLIWV DQG QRQFRQWUDFWXDO JUDQWV JLYHQ WR FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV GHILQHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK DFFRXQWLQJ VWDQGDUGV HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH &RXQFLO IRU $GYDQFHPHQW DQG 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ %XVLQHVV 2IILFHUVf :RUWK E S f 9ROXQWDU\ VXSSRUW DV GHILQHG H[FOXGHV LQFRPH IURP LQYHVWPHQWV DQG HQGRZHG IXQGV DV ZHOO DV VXSSRUW IURP ORFDO VWDWH DQG IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQWV DQG JRYHUQPHQW DJHQFLHV -DFREVRQ Ef

PAGE 23

'HOLPLWDWLRQV DQG /LPLWDWLRQV 'HOLPLWDWLRQV 7KLV UHVHDUFK ZDV FRQGXFWHG ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ GHOLPLWDWLRQV 7KH SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZDV OLPLWHG WR WZR\HDU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW KHOG PHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &5'f RQH RU PRUH \HDUV EHWZHHQ DQG &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f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f 7KH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH XVHG IRU TXDQWLWDWLYH DQDO\VLV WKURXJKRXW WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH JDLQHG IURP LQGLYLGXDOV FRPPXQLW\ RUJDQL]DWLRQV FRUSRUDWLRQV H[WHUQDO IRXQGDWLRQV VWDWH PDWFKLQJ SURJUDPV DQG HQGRZPHQW LQWHUHVW DQG LQYHVWPHQWV $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYHDOV WKDW ZKLOH WRWDO DQQXDO GROODUV UDLVHG PD\ EH RQH ZD\ WR PHDVXUH D IRXQGDWLRQfV VXFFHVV WKHUH DUH RWKHU PHWKRGV 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI HFRQRPLF IDFWRUV LQFOXGLQJ VRFLRHFRQRPLF FRQGLWLRQV WD[ ODZV RU WKH IOXFWXDWLRQ RI SXEOLF VXSSRUW WKDW PLJKW DIIHFW SKLODQWKURSLF JLYLQJ ZHUH IDFWRUV EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI WKLV VWXG\

PAGE 24

6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ &RQWHPSRUDU\ GLVFXVVLRQV RI OHDGHUVKLS DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV SRLQW WR WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI H[DPLQLQJ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV SHUIRUPDQFH DV SDUW RI DQ HQWLUH V\VWHP UDWKHU WKDQ D IXQFWLRQ RI LVRODWHG IDFWRUV 6HQJH :KHDWOH\ f 6XFK GLVFXVVLRQV KDYH WKHLU RULJLQ LQ V\VWHPV WKHRU\ ZKLFK ZDV DSSOLHG E\ VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV WR H[DPLQH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWUXFWXUHV UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG LQWHUGHSHQGHQFH .DW] t .DKQ f 6\VWHPV WKHRU\ KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG DV DQ DSSURSULDWH IUDPHZRUN IRU UHVHDUFK SHUWDLQLQJ WR IXQG UDLVLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW &OHPHQWV .HOO\ .RHONHEHFN 0XUUH\ f 5HVHDUFK LQ WKH ILHOG RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LV UHODWLYHO\ QHZ -HQNLQV t *ODVV f &RPSUHKHQVLYH QDWLRQDO GDWD RQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW KDYH EHHQ ODFNLQJ DQG WKH H[LVWLQJ GDWD GR QRW IXOO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH LQFUHDVHG OHYHOV RI VXSSRUW RYHU WKH ODVW GHFDGH -DFNVRQ t .HHQHU f $GGLWLRQDOO\ DQ DSSURSULDWH WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN IRU GLVFXVVLQJ IXQG UDLVLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW HVSHFLDOO\ DW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDV ODJJHG EHKLQG RWKHU HGXFDWLRQDO LVVXHV -DFNVRQ t *ODVV f 7KH MXVWLILFDWLRQ H[LVWV WKHUHIRUH WR H[DPLQH WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV IURP D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN EDVHG RQ V\VWHPV WKHRU\ )XQGDPHQWDO WR V\VWHPV WKHRU\ LV WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW WKHUH DUH YDULRXV OHYHOV RI V\VWHPV DQG LQWHUFRQQHFWLRQV DPRQJ WKHP DQG WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH KLJKHU PRUH FRPSOH[ V\VWHP OHYHO LV YDOXDEOH LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ ZKDW KDSSHQV LQ WKH V\VWHP EHORZ LW .DW] t .DKQ f $OVR LPSRUWDQW LV WKDW V\VWHP LQSXWV SURFHVVHV UROHV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH LQWHJUDO WR V\VWHP RXWFRPHV .DW] t .DKQ 9DQ *LJFK f

PAGE 25

*URXQGLQJ WKLV VWXG\ LQ V\VWHPV WKHRU\ WKLV UHVHDUFKHU DQDO\]HG WKH IRXQGDWLRQ VXEV\VWHPf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f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fV DQQXDO 9ROXQWDU\ 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ VXUYH\ ZDV XVHG DV D SRLQW RI GHSDUWXUH EXW PDMRU UHYLVLRQV ZHUH PDGH WR DGDSW WKH VXUYH\ WR WKH FRQGLWLRQV DQG UHDOLWLHV FRPPRQ DPRQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DV

PAGE 26

JOHDQHG IURP H[SHUWV LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW DQG OLWHUDWXUH RQ WKH VXEMHFW 7HQ FRQWHQW H[SHUWV SULPDULO\ PHPEHUV RI WKH &5' ([HFXWLYH %RDUG VHH $SSHQGL[ $f SURYLGHG H[WHUQDO YDOLGDWLRQ E\ UHYLHZLQJ WKH GUDIWHG VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQQDLUH DQG SURYLGLQJ H[WHQVLYH FRPPHQWV ZKLFK WKH UHVHDUFK WHDP LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW $ VHFRQG SDQHO RI QLQH UHYLHZHUV FRQVLVWLQJ PDLQO\ RI &5' %RDUG RI 'LUHFWRUV VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f UHYLHZHG WKH VHFRQG GUDIW RI WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW DQG SURYLGHG GHWDLOHG UHVSRQVHV IRU IXUWKHU UHILQHPHQW RI WKH VXUYH\ ,Q -XO\ RI &5' PDLOHG WKH ILQDO FRYHU OHWWHU DQG VXUYH\ WR WKH PHPEHUVKLS RI &5' DQG WKH $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV $$&&f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t (EOLQJHU f 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO W\SH KDYH EHHQ VKRZQ WR EH LPSRUWDQW LQ LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI HIIHFWLYH IXQGUDLVLQJ RSHUDWLRQV 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ Ef :KLOH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH DGRSWHG HOHPHQWV IURP WKH VHQLRU LQVWLWXWLRQ PRGHOV RI

PAGE 27

LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW WKHVH VHQLRU LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK WKHLU IXOO\ VWDIIHG GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHV VL]DEOH HQGRZPHQWV DQG VWURQJ DOXPQL VXSSRUW DUH QRW QHFHVVDULO\ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV *ODVV t -DFNVRQ D 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f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f RQH RU PRUH \HDUV EHWZHHQ DQG &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f 'DWD LQ UHJDUG WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV ZHUH REWDLQHG SULPDULO\ WKURXJK WKH XVH RI D VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ZKLFK ZDV FRPSOHWHG E\ D UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURIHVVLRQDO DW HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WKH UHVRXUFH

PAGE 28

GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ FRQQHFWHG RQO\ ZLWK IXQGV JDLQHG LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK SULYDWH JLYLQJ DQG IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV QRW WKH JUDQW GHYHORSPHQW SURSHUW\ KROGLQJV FRQWUDFW RSHUDWLRQV RU DX[LOLDU\ VHUYLFHV RI WKH FROOHJHV DQG ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH GDWD UHSRUWHG E\ WKH UHVSHFWLYH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV $GGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV REWDLQHG IURP &5' PHPEHUVKLS GLUHFWRULHV DQG WKH ,QWHJUDWHG 3RVWVHFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 'DWD 6\VWHP ,3('6f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

PAGE 29

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( 7KLV FKDSWHU UHYLHZV V\VWHPV WKHRU\ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW WKH UROH RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQG SULYDWH IXQG UDLVLQJ RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV GHILQLQJ VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH VRXUFHV DQG YDULDEOHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH 6\VWHPV 7KHRU\ )XQGUDLVLQJ TXHVWLRQV DQG PHWKRGRORJLHV FDQ EH H[SORUHG XVLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO WKHRU\ %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f &RQWHPSRUDU\ GLVFXVVLRQV RI RUJDQL]DWLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV SRLQW WR WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI H[DPLQLQJ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV SHUIRUPDQFH DV SDUW RI DQ HQWLUH V\VWHP UDWKHU WKDQ D IXQFWLRQ RI LVRODWHG IDFWRUV 6HQJH :KHDWOH\ f 7KH VWUXFWXUDO G\QDPLFV RI 0DU[LDQ WKHRU\ WKH VXEV\VWHPV IRFXV RI 7DOFRWW 3DUVRQV DQG WKH VWUXFWXUDO IXQFWLRQDOLVWV $OOSRUWLDQ HYHQWVWUXFWXUH WKHRU\ DQG %HUWDODQII\fV JHQHUDO V\VWHP WKHRU\ FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH LQWHUHVW LQ D VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ EDVHG RQ VRFLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG VWUXFWXUH .DW] t .DKQ f ,Q WXUQ V\VWHPV WKLQNLQJ LV D YLWDO OHDGHUVKLS IXQFWLRQ DQG D SRZHUIXO WRRO LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG DGGUHVVLQJ KRZ XQGHUO\LQJ VWUXFWXUHV JHQHUDWH FHUWDLQ EHKDYLRUDO SDWWHUQV WKDW DIIHFW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH 6HQJH f )LUVW DSSOLHG LQ WKH ILHOGV RI ELRORJ\ DQG WKH SK\VLFDO VFLHQFHV V\VWHPV WKHRU\ ZDV ODWHU DGDSWHG E\ VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV 1RW XQOLNH ELRORJLFDO RUJDQLVPV RUJDQL]DWLRQV LPSRUW HQHUJ\ IURP WKHLU H[WHUQDO HQYLURQPHQW WUDQVIRUP WKLV HQHUJ\ LQWR VRPH SURGXFW FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH V\VWHP H[SRUW WKH SURGXFW LQWR WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG UHHQHUJL]H WKH

PAGE 30

V\VWHP /LNHZLVH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH FDQ EH YLHZHG DV D G\QDPLF V\VWHP RI LQWHUUHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV RFFXUULQJ DV D FKDLQ RI HYHQWV WKDW F\FOLFDOO\ UHWXUQV WR LWV SRLQW RI RULJLQ SURYLGLQJ ERWK FORVXUH DQG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU WKH F\FOH WR EH UHSHDWHG 6RFLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV EHFDXVH WKH\ VKDUH SURSHUWLHV FRPPRQ ZLWK RWKHU RSHQ V\VWHPV FDQ EH H[DPLQHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRQVWUXFWV RI V\VWHP WKHRU\ DQG WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI RSHQ V\VWHPV .DW] t .DKQ f $ FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ W\SLILHV WKH W\SH RI RUJDQL]DWLRQ WR ZKLFK WKH FRQFHSWV RI V\VWHPV WKHRU\ DSSO\ 3HUU\ f 6\VWHPV WKHRU\ H[DPLQHV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWUXFWXUHV UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG LQWHUGHSHQGHQFH DQG WDNHV LQWR DFFRXQW KRZ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV LQSXWV IURP RWKHU VWUXFWXUHV LQ LWV HQYLURQPHQW FDQ GHWHUPLQH WKDW RUJDQL]DWLRQfV YLWDOLW\ DQG ZKDW NLQGV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ PXVW KDYH WR HQVXUH LWV RZQ VXUYLYDO 5DWKHU WKDQ YLHZLQJ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DV D VHOIFRQWDLQHG DQG FORVHG V\VWHP WKH RSHQV\VWHPV PRGHO DOORZV IRU WKH LQIOXHQFH RI UDSLG VRFLHWDO FKDQJH DQG WKH UHVXOWLQJ FKDQJHV ZLWKLQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 7KDW DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV HQYLURQPHQWDO SURSHUWLHV DQG WKHLU LQIOXHQFH DUH LQWHJUDO WR D VRFLDO V\VWHPfV IXQFWLRQLQJ LV D QHFHVVDU\ SUHFHSW IRU DSSO\LQJ WKH RSHQV\VWHPV IUDPHZRUN LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DQDO\VLV .DW] t .DKQ f $FNQRZOHGJLQJ WKDW WKHUH DUH YDULRXV OHYHOV RI V\VWHPV DQG LQWHUFRQQHFWLRQV DPRQJ WKHP LQ DQ RSHQ V\VWHP D SULPDU\ VWUDWHJ\ VXJJHVWHG LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DQDO\VLV LV WR ORRN XSZDUG LQ WKH V\VWHP 7KH QH[W KLJKHU PRUH FRPSOH[ V\VWHP OHYHO SURYLGHV YDOXDEOH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ GXH WR WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO GRPLQDQFH RI KLJKHU V\VWHP OHYHO DFWLRQV RYHU ORZHU RQHV .DW] t .DKQ f )XQG UDLVLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW FDQ EH DQDO\]HG WKURXJK D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN EDVHG RQ V\VWHPV WKHRU\ &OHPHQWV .HOO\ .RHONHEHFN 0XUUD\

PAGE 31

f ,Q DSSO\LQJ V\VWHPV WKHRU\ WR DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DQDO\VLV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV DQG WKHLU SHUIRUPDQFH RQH ZRXOG QHHG WR JR EH\RQG WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ DQG LWV IXQFWLRQV DORQH 7KH QH[W KLJKHU OHYHO RI WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQf§WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LWVHOIf§FDQ EH H[DPLQHG DV WKH GRPLQDQW V\VWHP DIIHFWLQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ VXEV\VWHP WKURXJK WKH LQSXWV LQWHUFRQQHFWLRQV DQG LQWHUGHSHQGHQFLHV WKDW H[LVW EHWZHHQ WKHP $ V\VWHPV DSSURDFK FDQ EH XVHG WR DVVHVV DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO HQYLURQPHQWV LQ RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH LWV SUHSDUHGQHVV IRU IXQG UDLVLQJ ZLWK WKH YDULDEOHV LQ WKH V\VWHP VHHQ LQ UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKHLU FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH HQWLUH V\VWHP 0XUUD\ f ,Q DQ RSHQV\VWHPV IUDPHZRUN RQH FDQ GLIIHUHQWLDWH DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV JHQHUDO DQG VSHFLILF HQYLURQPHQWV ZLWK WKH VSHFLILF HQYLURQPHQW EHLQJ fWKDW SDUW RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW WKDW LV GLUHFWO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ LQ DFKLHYLQJ LWV JRDOVf DQG FRQVLVWLQJ RI WKRVH FULWLFDO FRQVWLWXHQFLHV WKDW PRVW LQIOXHQFH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 5REELQV S f ,QVWLWXWLRQDO $GYDQFHPHQW 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW FROOHJH IXQG UDLVLQJ LV RQO\ RQH SDUW RI DQ LQWHUUHODWHG LQVWLWXWLRQDO HIIRUW LV IXQGDPHQWDO WR WKH FRQFHSW RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW D FRPPLWPHQW PDGH E\ DQG LQYROYLQJ WKH HQWLUH LQVWLWXWLRQ 5RZODQG f 7KH ILUVW DUWLFXODWLRQ RI WKH QHHG IRU DQ LQWHJUDWHG FRRUGLQDWLRQ RI HIIRUWV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW ZDV PDGH LQ D UHSRUW IROORZLQJ WKH MRLQW FRQIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH $PHULFDQ $OXPQL &RXQFLO $$&f DQG WKH $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3XEOLF 5HODWLRQV $VVRFLDWLRQ $&35$f 7KH UHSRUW ZDV HQWLWOHG f7KH $GYDQFHPHQW RI 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG 6XSSRUW RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQf DQG NQRZQ VLPSO\ DV WKH f*UHHQEULHU 5HSRUWf DQG WKH

PAGE 32

WZR JURXSV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU LW ODWHU PHUJHG WR IRUP WKH &RXQFLO IRU $GYDQFHPHQW DQG 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ &$6(f %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f ,W KDV EHHQ VWDWHG WKDW WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDP LV RQO\ DV HIIHFWLYH DV WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ LWVHOI 5RZODQG f )RU PD[LPXP HIIHFWLYHQHVV IXQG GHYHORSPHQW PXVW EH SDUW RI DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FXOWXUH WKDW LV QXUWXUHG DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG %RJXFK f $V DQ HVVHQWLDO FROOHJH IXQFWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW UHTXLUHV LQWHJUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH FROOHJHfV SKLORVRSKLFDO DGPLQLVWUDWLYH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DQG RSHUDWLRQDO PDLQVWUHDP -DFREVRQ Df 6XFFHVVIXO SKLODQWKURS\ GHSHQGV RQ VRXQG PDQDJHPHQW ZLWK DWWHQWLRQ WR V\VWHPV DQG SHRSOH DQG IRU FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLW\ OHDGHUV D NHHQ DZDUHQHVV RI KRZ IXQG UDLVLQJ UHODWHV WR DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV ILQDQFHV DQG WKH IXQGLQJ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQ JHQHUDO )UDQFLV f )XQG UDLVLQJ LWVHOI LV SDUW RI D fODUJHU V\VWHP RI SKLODQWKURS\f DQG LV fLQH[WULFDEO\ WLHG WR SKLODQWKURSLF YDOXHV SXUSRVHV DQG PHWKRGVf 3D\WRQ HW DO S f 7KH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ PXVW EH FRQVLGHUHG DQG WUHDWHG DV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI WKH WRWDO FROOHJH RSHUDWLRQ QRW DV DQ DSSHQGDJH DV KDV RIWHQ EHHQ WKH FDVH IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 'DQLHO f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHV PXVW EH LQWHJUDWHG ZLWK WKH RWKHU FROOHJH RIILFHV VLQFH LQWUDLQVWLWXWLRQDO FRRSHUDWLRQ LV LPSHUDWLYH IRU HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIRUWV .HHQHU 5\DQ t 6PLWK f %HVLGHV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW LQ WZR\HDU FROOHJHV RIWHQ LQFOXGHV JUDQWV DQG FRQWUDFWV UHVHDUFK DQG SODQQLQJ VWDII DQG SURJUDP GHYHORSPHQW JRYHUQPHQW UHODWLRQV DQG OHJLVODWLYH DIIDLUV SXEOLF DQG PHGLD UHODWLRQV DOXPQL RXWUHDFK VSHFLDO HYHQWV DQG SXEOLFDWLRQV 6PLWK f 7R EH VXFFHVVIXO WKH HQWLUH LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW HIIRUW RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PXVW EH YLHZHG fDV D V\VWHP RI PXWXDOO\

PAGE 33

LQWHUDFWLQJ SDUWV RSHUDWLQJ WR DGYDQFH WKH LQWHUHVW RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH ZLWKLQ DQ HYHQ ODUJHU VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF FRPPXQLW\ V\VWHPf .RHONHEHFN S f 5DLVLQJ IXQGV DQG FRPPXQLW\ DZDUHQHVV DUH QRW VLPSO\ IXQFWLRQV RI D IRXQGDWLRQ QRU DUH WKH\ LVRODWHG IXQFWLRQV VHSDUDWH IURP WKH ODUJHU V\VWHP .RHONHEHFN f 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FDQ EH H[DPLQHG DV SDUW RI WKH ODUJHU V\VWHP SURYLGLQJ FRQWH[W DQG VXSSRUW IRU WKH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ D VXEV\VWHP ZLWKLQ LW &OHPHQWV f f7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LV WKH EHGURFN RQ ZKLFK WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ZLOO UHVW 7KHUHIRUH LW LV WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH DQG WKH IRUFHV WKHUHLQ WKDW ZLOO KHOS VKDSH WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQf .RHONHEHFN S f 7KH 5ROH RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 'HPRFUDWL]DWLRQ LQGXVWULDOL]DWLRQ DQG WKH GHPDQGV RI D JURZLQJ SRSXODFH ZHUH PDMRU IDFWRUV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH :KHQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV ZRQ WKH FRQWURO WR IXQG VHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ 6WXDUW Y 6FKRRO 'LVWULFW 1R RI WKH 9LOODJH RI .DODPD]RR f LW OHG WR D b LQFUHDVH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI KLJK VFKRRO HQUROOPHQWV GXULQJ WKH QH[W \HDUV $PHULFDfV HOLWH FROOHJHV SURYHG WRR H[SHQVLYH RU H[FOXVLYH IRU WKHVH QHZ JUDGXDWHV DQG WKH FODVVLFDO HGXFDWLRQ RI WKHVH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZDV DOVR LQVXIILFLHQW SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU WKH QHZ LQGXVWULDO VRFLHW\ 7KH LQFUHDVLQJ QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV HQUROOLQJ LQ WKH XQLYHUVLWLHV LQ WR DW WKH WXUQ RI WKH FHQWXU\f QHFHVVLWDWHG WKH FUHDWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FROOHJHV IOH[LEOH HQRXJK WR PHHW WKH FKDQJLQJ WLPHV %\ WKH HQG RI WKH WK FHQWXU\ WKH QHZ MXQLRU FROOHJH LQFOXGLQJ ERWK WKH VL[\HDU KLJK VFKRRO DQG WKH WZR\HDU fGHFDSLWDWHGf SULYDWH FROOHJHf ZDV EHJLQQLQJ WR VHUYH VXFK D QHHG :LWW :DWWHQEDUJHU *ROODWWVFKHFN t 6XSSLJHU f

PAGE 34

+LVWRULFDOO\ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PRYHPHQW VWDUWHG ZLWK :LOOLDP 5DLQH\ +DUSHUfV QDWLRQDO SODQ IRU FUHDWLQJ MXQLRU FROOHJHV +DUSHU GLYLGHG WKH XSSHU DQG ORZHU GLYLVLRQV RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR FUHDWHG WKH DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH DQG DGYRFDWHG VL[ \HDU KLJK VFKRROV DQG IUHHVWDQGLQJ WZR\HDU FROOHJHV DIILOLDWHG ZLWK WKH XQLYHUVLW\ &DOLIRUQLDfV 8SZDUG ([WHQVLRQ /DZ RI DOORZHG KLJK VFKRROV WR H[WHQG WKHLU XSSHU WZR \HDUV 7KH %DOODUG $FW SDVVHG E\ WKH &DOLIRUQLD OHJLVODWXUH LQ IXQGHG MXQLRU FROOHJHV RQ D SHUVWXGHQW EDVLV $GGLWLRQDO IXQGLQJ LQ &DOLIRUQLD ZDV DSSURSULDWHG WKURXJK D VSHFLDO FRPPLWWHH KHDGHG E\ 6HQDWRU + & -RQHV 7KH 'LVWULFW -XQLRU &ROOHJH /DZ f EDVHG RQ -RQHVfV UHSRUW ERRVWHG WKH &DOLIRUQLD MXQLRU FROOHJH PRYHPHQW DQG EHFDPH WKH QDWLRQfV PRGHO IRU SXEOLF FROOHJH GLVWULFWV 7KH ODZ PDGH LW SRVVLEOH IRU GLVWULFWV WR IXQG DQG DGPLQLVWHU MXQLRU FROOHJHV /RFDO FRQWURO WKURXJK GLVWULFW ERDUGV RI HGXFDWLRQ DOVR FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH ULVH RI YRFDWLRQDO DQG DGXOW HGXFDWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ LQ WKH V ZLWK ERRPLQJ LQGXVWULDOL]DWLRQ DQG PDVV SURGXFWLRQ RI JRRGV IDUPHUV ZHUH OHDYLQJ UXUDO $PHULFD IRU WRZQV DQG FLWLHVf§FUHDWLQJ DQ HYHQ JUHDWHU GHPDQG IRU D ORZ FRVW HGXFDWLRQ 7KH ORFDO FROOHJH VHUYHG DV D IRFDO SRLQW IRU WKHVH WRZQV %\ WKH HQG RI WKH V WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDG MXQLRU FROOHJHV WKDW HQUROOHG DOPRVW WRWDO VWXGHQWV :LWW HW DO f 7KH $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ $&(f SURYLGHG QDWLRQDO JXLGDQFH RQ WKH VXEMHFW RI MXQLRU FROOHJHV E\ GHILQLQJ WKHP LQ DFFRUGLQJ WR QLQH VWDQGDUGV 7KH IROORZLQJ \HDU WKH QHZO\ HVWDEOLVKHG $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI -XQLRU &ROOHJHV $$-&f SURYLGHG WKH ILUVW QDWLRQZLGH GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH MXQLRU FROOHJH DQG ZLWK LW WKH LGHD WKDW LW ZRXOG RIIHU D GLIIHUHQW FXUULFXOXP EDVHG RQ WKH H[SDQGLQJ DQG FKDQJLQJ QHHGV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ :LWW HW DO f 6XFK D GHILQLWLRQ FRQWDLQHG WKH HVVHQWLDO LGHD WKDW WKH

PAGE 35

MXQLRU FROOHJH ZRXOG EH GLIIHUHQW IURP RWKHU IRUPV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ WKDW LW ZRXOG DGDSW WR LWV G\QDPLF HQYLURQPHQW DQG WKDW LW ZRXOG EH UHVSRQVLYH WR WKH LGHDOV DQG SUDFWLFDO UHDOLWLHV RI LWV FRPPXQLW\ 'XULQJ WKH 'HSUHVVLRQ DQ HYHQ JUHDWHU QHHG H[LVWHG IRU LQH[SHQVLYH HGXFDWLRQ YRFDWLRQDO DQG WHUPLQDO SURJUDPV 7KH &RPPLVVLRQ RI 6HYHQ 5HSRUW LQ HPSKDVL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WHFKQLFDO DQG YRFDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH YDOXH RI WKH WZR\HDU FROOHJH :LWW HW DO f 7KH 3UHVLGHQWfV &RPPLVVLRQ RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ NQRZQ DV WKH 7UXPDQ &RPPLVVLRQ LVVXHG DQ LQIOXHQWLDO UHSRUW LQ VXJJHVWLQJ D QDPH FKDQJH IURP fMXQLRU FROOHJHf WR fFRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHf WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH HQKDQFHG IXQFWLRQV WDNHQ RQ E\ WZR \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV &RKHQ t %UDZHU S f $IWHU WKH 7UXPDQ &RPPLVVLRQfV UHSRUW VWDWHZLGH SODQQLQJ EHFDPH LQFUHDVLQJO\ LPSRUWDQW DQG HQUROOPHQWV VRDUHG *UHDW H[SDQVLRQ ZDV GXH LQ ODUJH PHDVXUH WR LPSRUWDQW OHJLVODWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ WKH *, %LOO LQ WKH 9HWHUDQfV 5HDGMXVWPHQW $FW LQ DQG WKH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH $FW LQ 6LJQLILFDQW VXSSRUW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKURXJK WKH .HOORJJ )RXQGDWLRQ EHJDQ LQ ZLWK WKH $VVRFLDWH 'HJUHH LQ 1XUVLQJ SURMHFW LQ &DOLIRUQLD )ORULGD 1HZ
PAGE 36

SURYLGH PXFK RI WKH QDWLRQfV ZRUNIRUFH HGXFDWLRQ WUDLQLQJ DQG ZHOIDUHWRZRUN SURJUDPV 3KLOOLSSH t 3DWWRQ f %\ RIIHULQJ ORFDO DFFHVVLELOLW\ ORZ WXLWLRQ FRVWV RSHQ DGPLVVLRQV DQG UHPHGLDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH VHUYHG WKH HGXFDWLRQDO QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU HFRQRPLF VWDWXV HGXFDWLRQDO EDFNJURXQG DQG VNLOOV *LOOHWW.DUDP 5RXHFKH t 5RXHFKH f )RU H[DPSOH LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV SURYLGHG HGXFDWLRQDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU b RI DOO 86 XQGHUJUDGXDWH FUHGLW VWXGHQWV IDOO KHDGFRXQWf DW DQ DYHUDJH DQQXDO WXLWLRQ RI LQ FRQVWDQW GROODUVf DQG DZDUGHG PRUH WKDQ DVVRFLDWH GHJUHHV DQG RYHU RQH WR WZR\HDU FHUWLILFDWHV 3KLOOLSSH t 3DWWRQ f 7KH ILQDQFLDO EDUJDLQ LQ WHUPV RI JRYHUQPHQW VSHQGLQJ SHU IXOOWLPH HTXLYDOHQW )7(f VWXGHQW LV ZLWK WKH SXEOLF WZR\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV *HQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ UHYHQXH LQ FRQVWDQW GROODUV SHU )7( VWXGHQW LQ SXEOLF WZR\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ ZDV IURP JRYHUQPHQW DSSURSULDWLRQV DQG LQ WXLWLRQ DQG IHHVf ,Q FRPSDULVRQ UHYHQXH SHU )7( VWXGHQW LQ SXEOLF IRXU\HDU FROOHJHV ZDV LQ JRYHUQPHQW DSSURSULDWLRQV DQG LQ WXLWLRQ DQG IHHVf )RU SXEOLF XQLYHUVLWLHV )7( VWXGHQW UHYHQXH ZDV LQ JRYHUQPHQW DSSURSULDWLRQV DQG LQ WXLWLRQ DQG IHHVf 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ Df &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV DQG 3ULYDWH )XQG 5DLVLQJ %\ WKH V FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV UHVSRQGLQJ WR D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ LGHQWLILHG D ODFN RI UHVRXUFHV DV EHLQJ DPRQJ WKHLU WKUHH FULWLFDO SUREOHP DUHDV 'HHJDQ f 'XH WR WKH XQLTXH PLVVLRQ RI WZR\HDU FROOHJHV WR RIIHU fRSSRUWXQLW\ ZLWK H[FHOOHQFHf WKHLU UHVRXUFH QHHGV H[FHHG ZKDW LV DIIRUGHG WKURXJK SXEOLF ILQDQFLDO

PAGE 37

VXSSRUW WXLWLRQ DQG IHHV 3DUQHOO f ,PSURYLQJ WKH ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LV D SULRULW\ WKDW UHTXLUHV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FKDQJHV LQFOXGLQJ WKH UROHV RI WKH SUHVLGHQW DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DQG VWDII 0F&DEH f )LQGLQJ RWKHU VRXUFHV RI H[WHUQDO IXQGLQJ LV QHFHVVDU\ WR XSKROG WKH PLVVLRQ RI WKH QDWLRQfV fDFFHVV FROOHJHVf DQG WKH PRVW SURPLVLQJ VRXUFH IRU VXFK VXSSRUW LV WKH SULYDWH VHFWRU &RQUDG HW DO S f 7KLV FULWLFDO UHDOL]DWLRQ ZKLFK EHJDQ LQ WKH V OHG WR WKH HQFRXUDJHPHQW RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW HIIRUWV IURP WKH WKHQQDPHG $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ DQG -XQLRU &ROOHJHV $$&-&f DQG LWV DIILOLDWH WKH 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 1&5'f 6PLWK f $OUHDG\ WKH PRYHPHQW KDG EHJXQ WR HVWDEOLVK LQVWLWXWLRQDO IRXQGDWLRQV ZKLFK ZHUH VDQFWLRQHG E\ WZR\HDU FROOHJH GLVWULFWV RU WUXVWHHV DQG FUHDWHG WR KHOS WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV IXOILOO WKHLU PLVVLRQ DQG DFKLHYH WKHLU JRDOV 6KDUURQ f 2ULJLQDOO\ WKHVH IRXQGDWLRQV FROOHFWHG DQG GLVSHUVHG IXQGV DQQXDOO\ SURYLGLQJ IXQGV IRU IDFLOLWLHV DQG SURMHFWV ZLWKRXW GHYHORSLQJ HQGRZPHQWV :RRGEXU\ f 5HODWLRQV ZLWK WKH SULYDWH VHFWRU ZHUH IXUWKHU HQKDQFHG GXULQJ WKH V ZKHQ FRRSHUDWLYH SURJUDPV DQG FRQWUDFW OHDUQLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV ZLWK EXVLQHVV DQG LQGXVWU\ EHFDPH WKH IRFXV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH OHDGHUV QDWLRQZLGH 'HHJDQ t 7LOOHU\ f ,Q D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ FRQGXFWHG LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV FLWHG WKH FUHDWLRQ RI D FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ DV WKH HQWUHSUHQHXULDO FRQFHSW PRVW XVHG DQG VHFRQG RQO\ WR FRQWUDFW WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV LQ WHUPV RI KDYLQJ D YHU\ VXFFHVVIXO LPSDFW RQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ 'HHJDQ f ,Q WKH IDFH RI LQDGHTXDWH IXQGLQJ WKURXJK VWXGHQW WXLWLRQ DQG WD[ UHYHQXHV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ OHDGLQJ WKH ZD\ LQ REWDLQLQJ SULYDWH UHVRXUFHV IRU WKH JURZLQJ QHHGV DW WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV $GDPV .HHQHU t 0F*HH f $V

PAGE 38

VHSDUDWHO\ LQFRUSRUDWHG HQWLWLHV ZLWK Fff DSSURYDO IURP WKH ,QWHUQDO 5HYHQXH 6HUYLFH IRXQGDWLRQV KDYH HQFRXUDJHG WD[GHGXFWLEOH FRQWULEXWLRQV IURP LQGLYLGXDO GRQRUV FLYLF RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG FRPSDQLHV GHYHORSHG SRUWIROLRV RI VWRFNV ERQGV UHDO HVWDWH DQG RWKHU LQYHVWPHQWV KHOG PDQDJHG DQG OHDVHG SURSHUW\ DQG HVWDEOLVKHG DQG VHFXUHG LQFRPH IURP YDULRXV FROOHJH DX[LOLDULHV :RRGEXU\ f 5ROHV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV DOVR KDYH LQFOXGHG VHUYLFH WR WKH FROOHJH LQ SODQQLQJ DQG EXGJHWLQJ IDFXOW\ HQULFKPHQW VWXGHQW ILQDQFLDO DLG VWXGHQW DFWLYLWLHV DQG FRPPXQLW\ RXWUHDFK DQG LPSURYHPHQW .HHQHU f 7KH VWURQJHVW FDVH IRU UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDV EHHQ LQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH FORVH FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK DQG VHUYLFH WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ SURYLGLQJ D fIRUPDO PHDQV IRU FLWL]HQV WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI fWKHLUf FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHf 5REHUWVRQ S f 'XH WR WKH JHQHULF QDWXUH RI VWDWH IXQGLQJ IRUPXODV LW KDV EHHQ GLIILFXOW WR GLIIHUHQWLDWH DQG VXSSRUW WKH ORFDO QHHGV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKURXJK WUDGLWLRQDO IXQGLQJ PHWKRGV /RUHQ]R f 7KH FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ KDV DOORZHG IXQGUDLVLQJ SURJUDPV WR EH HVWDEOLVKHG VR WKDW LQVWLWXWLRQDO QHHGV DQG GRQRU LQWHUHVWV FDQ EH DGGUHVVHG ZLWK IOH[LELOLW\ &RQUDG HW DO f ,W LV D PHDQV RI HQJDJLQJ LQIOXHQWLDO LQGLYLGXDOV LQ ZD\V WKDW DUH PHDQLQJIXO WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ 6LPLF f +HQFH WKH IRXQGDWLRQ KDV VHUYHG WKH SXUSRVH RI IRVWHULQJ FRPPXQLW\ VXSSRUW DQG UHYHQXH QHFHVVDU\ IRU VXVWDLQLQJ VSHFLDO SURMHFWV %RFN t 6XOOLQV f 2XWFRPH 0HDVXUHV 'HILQLQJ 6XFFHVVIXO )RXQGDWLRQ 3HUIRUPDQFH $ GHEDWH H[LVWV LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH RYHU WKH XVH RI GROODUV UDLVHG DV WKH EHVW PHDVXUH RI VXFFHVV IRU IRXQGDWLRQV DIILOLDWHG ZLWK LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ .RHONHEHFN f %\ GHILQLWLRQ DQ LQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ UHODWHG IRXQGDWLRQ H[LVWV WR UDLVH IXQGV WR VXSSRUW

PAGE 39

WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV SURJUDPV :RUWK Ef )RXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV RU HIIHFWLYHQHVV WKHQ FDQ WDNH RQ PXOWLIDFHWHG GHILQLWLRQV WKDW DFFRXQW IRU WKH DPRXQW RI IXQGV UDLVHG WKH VXVWDLQDELOLW\ RI IRXQGDWLRQ HIIRUWV DQG WKH GHJUHH RI VXSSRUW WKH IRXQGDWLRQ LV DEOH WR JLYH WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ $OWKRXJK IXQGUDLVLQJ UHVXOWV RIWHQ DUH PHDVXUHG LQ WHUPV RI UHYHQXHV UDLVHG GHWHUPLQLQJ IXQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV PXVW WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKH SXUSRVH IRU ZKLFK IXQGV DUH UDLVHG f)XQGUDLVLQJ XQLWV GRLQJ JRRG ZLWKRXW UDLVLQJ PRQH\ RU UDLVLQJ PRQH\ ZLWKRXW GRLQJ JRRG DUH QHLWKHU VXFFHVVIXO QRU DFFHSWDEOHf 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ D S f 2QH UHVHDUFKHU FRQWHQGV WKDW IXQGUDLVLQJfV SULPDU\ SXUSRVH fLV QRW WR UDLVH PRQH\ EXWf§DV D SDUW RI SXEOLF UHODWLRQVf§WR HQKDQFH DQG SURWHFW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DXWRQRP\ E\ HIIHFWLYHO\ PDQDJLQJ FRPPXQLFDWLRQV EHWZHHQ D FKDULWDEOH RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKH GRQRU SXEOLFV LQ LWV HQYLURQPHQWf .HOO\ S f 6XFK D IRFXV PLJKW ZHOO LQYROYH DQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RU FKDQJLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG LWV FRQVWLWXHQWV RU D VWXG\ RI SHUFHSWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO LPDJH -DFREVRQ Ef $QRWKHU VFKRODU VWDWHV WKDW WKH fSXEOLF UHODWLRQV SURJUDP H[LVWV WR HQKDQFH WKH DELOLW\ WR JHQHUDWH UHVRXUFHVf IRU WKH DFDGHPLF SURJUDP )LVKHU D S f 7KLV YLHZ ZRXOG WHQG WR MXVWLI\ XVLQJ WKH DPRXQW RI IXQGV UDLVHG DV DQ HYDOXDWLRQ RI DOO LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW HIIRUWV $ FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH SUHYDLOLQJ YLHZV ZRXOG LQFOXGH HYDOXDWLQJ IXQG UDLVLQJ E\ WKH fQXPEHU DQG DPRXQW RI JLIWV UHFHLYHGf DQG D SURJUDPfV SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH fTXDOLW\ TXDQWLW\ IUHTXHQF\ FRQWLQXLW\ DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI LWV LQLWLDWLYHV ZLWK HDFK SURVSHFWLYH JLYHUf 'XQORS S f :KLOH WKH PDLQ SHUIRUPDQFH LQGLFDWRU LQ GHYHORSPHQW REYLRXVO\ UHPDLQV WKH WRWDO DPRXQW RI JLIWV REWDLQHG WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI DGYDQFHPHQW HIIHFWLYHQHVV VKRXOG LQYROYH

PAGE 40

FRVW DQG SURGXFWLYLW\ LQGLFDWRUV ZKLFK FDQ DQG VKRXOG JXLGH WKH HIIRUWV RI GHYHORSPHQW PDQDJHUV /HVOLH f 6WLOO WKRVH LQ GHYHORSPHQW ZRUN PRVW RIWHQ PHDVXUH WKHLU SURJUDPfV HIIHFWLYHQHVV RQ WKH EDVLV RI GROODUV UDLVHG 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ )LVKHU D +XQWHU ) f ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR UHPHPEHU KRZHYHU LQ DVVHVVLQJ GHYHORSPHQW UHVXOWV WKDW PDMRU JLIWV UHTXLUH WLPH WR QXUWXUH UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKDW FRQVLVWHQW VXSSRUW RYHU WLPH JHQHUDWHV WKH EHVW UHVXOWV OLNHZLVH GHIHUUHG RU SODQQHG JLIWV RIWHQ LQYROYH FRQVLGHUDEOH WLPH IURP GRQRU LQWHQW WR UHFHLSW RI WKH JLIW E\ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ PDNLQJ DQDO\VLV LQ WHUPV RI FRVW HIIHFWLYHQHVV H[WUHPHO\ GLIILFXOW (YDQV f 2YHUDOO WKHUH DUH WKUHH DSSURDFKHV WR WKH VWXG\ RI IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV WKDW KDYH EHHQ SUDFWLFHG Df VWXGLHV XVLQJ PHDVXUHV RI fSHUFHLYHG HIIHFWLYHQHVVf Ef VWXGLHV HPSOR\LQJ fREMHFWLYHO\ GHILQHG HIIHFWLYHQHVVf DQG Ff VWXGLHV LQ ZKLFK HIIHFWLYHQHVV LV fDGMXVWHG IRU SRWHQWLDOf %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR S f 7KH ILUVW DSSURDFK GHULYHV DQ RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ RI HIIHFWLYHQHVV EDVHG RQ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI UHVSRQVHV WR YDULRXV VXUYH\ LWHPV IURP SURIHVVLRQDOV ZKR UDWH RU UDQN D OLVW RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 6XFK MXGJPHQWV DUH EDVHG RQ SHUFHSWLRQV ZKLFK PD\ RU PD\ QRW UHODWH WR DFWXDO IXQGn UDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KH VHFRQG DQG PRUH GHVLUDEOH DSSURDFK HPSOR\V D PRUH REMHFWLYH PHDVXUH RI HIIHFWLYHQHVV VXFK DV WRWDO GROODUV UDLVHG DQG H[DPLQHV LQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKLV PHDVXUH 7KH WKLUG DQG EHVW DSSURDFK DFFRXQWV IRU DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV SRWHQWLDO WR UDLVH IXQGV E\ LQFOXGLQJ VRPH PHDVXUH RI WKLV SRWHQWLDO LQ WKH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI HIIHFWLYHQHVV 6XFK VWXGLHV DGMXVW HIIHFWLYHQHVV WR DFFRXQW IRU DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV SRWHQWLDO IRU UDLVLQJ IXQGV DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK DFWXDO IXQGUDLVLQJ UHVXOWV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f

PAGE 41

6WXGLHV SHUWDLQLQJ WR WKH VXFFHVV RI WZR\HDU FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV KDYH GHILQHG DQG PHDVXUHG VXFFHVV LQ WKHVH YDULRXV ZD\V ,Q RQH HDUO\ H[SORUDWRU\ VWXG\ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI FROOHJH DGPLQLVWUDWRUV UHJDUGLQJ WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI DQG FRQGLWLRQV IRU D VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQ ZHUH DQDO\]HG WR GHYHORS HYDOXDWLYH FULWHULD 'XII\ f 2WKHU PHWKRGV RI JDXJLQJ VXFFHVV KDYH LQFOXGHG PHDVXULQJ WKH DPRXQW RI IXQGV UDLVHG RYHUDOOf§RU SHU VWXGHQWf§LQ D JLYHQ SHULRG RI WLPH H[DPLQLQJ WRWDO DVVHWV RU QHW ZRUWK RU DQDO\]LQJ WKH HQKDQFHG FDSDFLW\ RI WKH FROOHJH &OHPHQWV *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU +DJHUPDQ .RHONHEHFN /XFN t 7ROOH f 0HDVXUHV RI UHYHQXH UHODWLYH WR SRWHQWLDO VDWLVIDFWLRQ UDWLQJV DQG FRVWHIIHFWLYHQHVV DOVR KDYH EHHQ XVHG DV GHWHUPLQDQWV RI VXFFHVV *DWHZRRG +DJHUPDQ .RHONHEHFN -HQQHU f )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH 6RXUFHV ,QGLYLGXDOV 'XH WR WKH TXDOLWLHV XQLTXH WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKH PRUH FRQYHQWLRQDO DSSURDFKHV WR FXOWLYDWLQJ IXQGUDLVLQJ VXSSRUW WKURXJK DOXPQL FODVV UHXQLRQV DQQXDO JLYLQJ SURJUDPV DQG SDUHQWV JURXSV KDYH QRW EHHQ DSSOLFDEOH WKXV SUHVHQWLQJ D QHHG WR ILQG GLIIHUHQW FRQVWLWXHQFLHV DQG PHDQV IRU UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW 5REHUWVRQ f 5DWKHU WKDQ WDNLQJ D UHVWULFWHG YLHZ RI DOXPQL FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR LQFOXGH DOO FRPPXQLW\ PHPEHUV DV DOXPQL .HHQHU HW DO f 3RWHQWLDO GRQRUV LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV JHRJUDSKLFDO DUHD LQFOXGH WKRVH ZKR DUH JLYHQ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH FROOHJHfV LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ /RHVVLQ 'XURQLR t %RUWRQ f :KHQ WKHLU H[SHULHQFH DV GRQRUV LV SRVLWLYH WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV DUH LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR

PAGE 42

VWUHQJWKHQ WKH FROOHJHfV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK RWKHU LQIOXHQWLDO PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ 6PLWK f &RPPXQLW\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQV DQG &RUSRUDWLRQV :LWK LWV REYLRXV FDVH IRU VXSSRUW EHLQJ DQ LQYHVWPHQW LQ RQHfV FRPPXQLW\ SRWHQWLDO VRXUFHV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW KDYH EHHQ FRUSRUDWH DQG EXVLQHVV SDUWQHUV DV ZHOO DV FLWL]HQ JURXSV &RQUDG HW DO 5REHUWVRQ f 3URYLVLRQV LQ IHGHUDO WD[ ODZV VLQFH KDYH HQFRXUDJHG FRUSRUDWLRQV WR JLYH LQ UHWXUQ IRU VXEVWDQWLDO WD[ GHGXFWLRQV &XWOLS f (IIHFWLYH WDUJHWLQJ RI FRUSRUDWH SURVSHFWV YHQGRUV WUDLQLQJ FRQWUDFWRUV DQG PDMRU HPSOR\HUV KROGV SDUWLFXODU IXQGn UDLVLQJ SURPLVH IRU WZR\HDU FROOHJHV 5\DQ f ,QYLWLQJ EXVLQHVV OHDGHUV WR OHDP DERXW WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ WR VHUYH DV IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV DQG PDWFKLQJ FRUSRUDWH LQWHUHVWV ZLWK FROOHJH QHHGV FDQ KDYH SRVLWLYH UHVXOWV IRU UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW *ODVV t -DFNVRQ Df ([WHUQDO )RXQGDWLRQV ([WHUQDO SKLODQWKURSLF IRXQGDWLRQV WRR KDYH EHHQ DQRWKHU VRXUFH RI UHYHQXH IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV $OWKRXJK WZR\HDU FROOHJHV KDYH EHHQ H[FOXGHG IURP FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ SDVW IRXQGDWLRQ JUDQW SROLFLHV 5\DQ f IRXQGDWLRQV KDYH EHJXQ WR DZDUG ODUJH JLIWV WR WZR\HDU FROOHJHV 9DQ GHU :HUI Ef %\ WKHUH ZHUH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ IRXQGDWLRQV PDNLQJ JUDQWV WR RUJDQL]DWLRQV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV &XWOLS f :KLOH FRPSHWLWLRQ IRU IRXQGDWLRQ VXSSRUW LV VWHHSf§DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH PLOOLRQ IRXQGDWLRQ SURSRVDOV DUH VXEPLWWHG DQQXDOO\ DQG RQO\ b DUH IXQGHGf§SHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV JHRJUDSKLFDO SUR[LPLW\ SKLORVRSKLFDO DOLJQPHQW DQG KLVWRULFDO DIILOLDWLRQ DUH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU VXFK VXSSRUW DUH LQFUHDVHG 0XUSK\ f

PAGE 43

6WDWH 0DWFKLQJ 3URJUDPV 6WDWHV WKDW KDYH SDVVHG OHJLVODWLRQ IRU PDWFKLQJ SURJUDPV W\SLFDOO\ DOORZ IRU GRQDWLRQV DERYH D FHUWDLQ OHYHO WR SXEOLFFROOHJH HQGRZPHQWV WR EH PDWFKHG b WR b ZLWK VWDWH IXQGV $V PDQ\ DV VWDWHV LQFOXGLQJ &RQQHFWLFXW )ORULGD 0DLQH 0DU\ODQG 1HEUDVND 2NODKRPD DQG 9LUJLQLD KDYH LQVWLWXWHG SXEOLFSULYDWH PDWFKLQJ IXQG SURJUDPV IRU VFKRODUVKLSV HQGRZHG SURIHVVRUVKLSV DQG RWKHU SXUSRVHV 0RRUH f 7KHVH VWDWH PDWFKLQJ SURJUDPV KDYH HQKDQFHG WKH IXQGUDLVLQJ FDSDFLW\ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV &UDIW t *X\ f 'HVSLWH VRPH VWDWHVf SUREOHPV LQ KRQRULQJ WKH SURPLVH RI PDWFKLQJ VWDWH IXQGV WKH SURJUDPV KDYH HQFRXUDJHG GRQRU VXSSRUW RI LQVWLWXWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 6FKPLGW f (QGRZPHQW ,QWHUHVW DQG ,QYHVWPHQWV $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH LV WKH ZLVH PDQDJHPHQW RI HQGRZPHQWV DQG RWKHU LQYHVWHG IXQGV 6LQFH VRPH VWDWHV UHVWULFW KRZ RUJDQL]DWLRQV WKDW UHFHLYH VWDWH VXSSRUW FDQ LQYHVW WKHLU IXQGV KDYLQJ D IRXQGDWLRQ LQFUHDVHV LQYHVWPHQW IOH[LELOLW\ IRU JUHDWHU JURZWK SRWHQWLDO 5HQQHERKP 6LPLF f 0RUH DJJUHVVLYH LQYHVWPHQW SROLFLHV IRU HQGRZPHQW IXQGV KDYH EHHQ DGYRFDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW QHZ UHYHQXH VRXUFH IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 5LJJV t +HOZHJ f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHYHQXHV IURP HQGRZPHQWV KDYH LQFUHDVHG b IURP WR LQ FRQVWDQW GROODUV ZKLFK HTXDWHV WR D b LQFUHDVH SHU VWXGHQW 0HULVRWLV t :RODQLQ f ,Q D VWURQJ VWRFN PDUNHW KDQGVRPHO\ UHZDUGHG FROOHJHV WKDW KDG DJJUHVVLYHO\ LQYHVWHG WKHLU HQGRZPHQWV DQG SURYLGHG WR FROOHJHV ZLWK PRUH PRGHUDWH LQYHVWPHQWV DQ LPSUHVVLYH b UDWH RI UHWXUQ RQ DYHUDJH 9DQ GHU :HUI Df ,Q HQGRZPHQWV HDUQHG b DV WKH PDUNHW IODWWHQHG 3XOOH\ f

PAGE 44

9DULDEOHV $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK 6XFFHVVIXO )RXQGDWLRQ 3HUIRUPDQFH $OORFDWLRQ RI 5HVRXUFHV WR WKH )RXQGDWLRQ 2SHUDWLRQ )XQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV KDV EHHQ OLQNHG ZLWK DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV UHVRXUFH DOORFDWLRQ WR WKH IXQGUDLVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ E *OHQQRQ +XQWHU ) ,URQILHOG -HQQHU -RKQVRQ /HVOLH /HYLV /XFN /XFN t 7ROOH 0DSOHV 0LOOHU 3LFNHWW f &HUWDLQO\ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VSHQGLQJ LV UHSRUWHG PRVW FRQVLVWHQWO\ DV WKH YDULDEOH EHVW FRUUHODWHG ZLWK IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f f5HYHQXH EXGJHWV PXVW EH DGHTXDWH WR WKH WDVN FRQVLVWHQW ORQJ WHUP DQG LQ NHHSLQJ ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH H[SHFWDWLRQVf FOHDUO\ IRXQGDWLRQ PDQDJHPHQW WLPH VSHQW LQ VHDUFKLQJ IRU RSHUDWLQJ IXQGV DQG QHJRWLDWLQJ SUHGLFWDEOH EXGJHW UHYHQXHV FRXOG EH EHWWHU VSHQW LQ DFTXLULQJ PDMRU JLIWV +HGJHSHWK S f 5HVRXUFH DOORFDWLRQ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ DIIHFWV VWDII VL]H *OHQQRQ f 3HUVRQQHO LV WKH ODUJHVW FRVW RI D GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP :LVGRP f 5HVRXUFHV LQ WHUPV RI EXGJHW DQG VWDIILQJ DOORZ IRU DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV LQFUHDVHG IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIRUW DQG DUH LQGLFDWLYH RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO SULRULW\ DQG FRPPLWPHQW %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR -DFREVRQ Ef 5HVHDUFK GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW IXQGUDLVLQJ SURGXFWLYLW\ SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHV WR WKH QXPEHU RI SURIHVVLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW VWDII LQ IRXU\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV +XQWHU ) 3LFNHWW f 7KH KLJK FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ GROODUV UDLVHG DQG WKH QXPEHU RI GHYHORSPHQW VWDII PD\ EH GXH WR WKH WLPH DQG SHUVRQDO DWWHQWLRQ WKDW JRRG GHYHORSPHQW ZRUN UHTXLUHV :LVGRP f 8QGHUVWDQGDEO\ VWDIILQJ RI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHV ZLOO YDU\ UHODWLYH WR WKH DJH RI WKH FROOHJH JLIWLQFRPH SRWHQWLDO QXPEHU RI FRQVWLWXHQWV WR EH VHUYHG DQG RWKHU IDFWRUV 'LWWPDQ f

PAGE 45

$V D IDLUO\ QHZ HQGHDYRU IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV GHYHORSPHQW ZDV DSSURDFKHG fRQ D ORZFRVW WHVW EDVLVf &RQUDG HW DO S f 8QGHUVWDIILQJ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHV ZDV FRPPRQ KLVWRULFDOO\ RQH SHUVRQ ZDV FKDUJHG ZLWK WKH HQWLUH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ &RQUDG HW DO f 0RUH UHFHQWO\ VWDIILQJ DVVLJQPHQWV KDYH FRQVLVWHG RI RQHSHUVRQ DQG SDUWWLPH VXSSRUW 6PLWK f 1RW VXUSULVLQJO\ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUV UHSRUWHG LQFUHDVHG VWDIILQJ DV D SULRULW\ IRU LQFUHDVLQJ IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV 5\DQ f 7KH SUHYDLOLQJ YLHZ LV WKDW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW SURYLGH DSSURSULDWH VWDIILQJ DQG UHVRXUFHV WR WKHLU GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ DQG WKDW WUHDW GHYHORSPHQW DV D FULWLFDO LQVWLWXWLRQDO IXQFWLRQf§HTXDO WR RWKHU RSHUDWLRQDO XQLWVf§DUH WKH PRVW VXFFHVVIXO %UXPEDFK t %XPSKXV 5\DQ f 5ROHV RI 3UHVLGHQW &KLHI 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU DQG )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU %XLOGLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EH\RQG WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ SULPDULO\ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV RIILFHUV DQG FDQ SUHGLFW DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQfV HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG VXUYLYDO .DW] t .DKQ f )RU VXFFHVV WKH FROOHJHfV GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP PXVW EH DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQfV WRS SULRULW\ DQG VKRXOG LQYROYH LWV NH\ SHRSOH LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW WHDP /XVNLQ t :DUUHQ f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV H[DPLQHG IURP D V\VWHPV SHUVSHFWLYH VKRXOG EH DQDO\]HG LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKHLU VSHFLILF V\VWHPV HQYLURQPHQWV LQFOXGLQJ WKH UROHV PRVW FULWLFDOO\ DIIHFWLQJ IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH )RU WZR\HDU FROOHJHV WKH WKUHH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW UROHV WR WKH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP DUH WKH SUHVLGHQW FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DQG NH\ YROXQWHHUV RU ERDUG PHPEHUV 0F1DPDUD f

PAGE 46

/HDGHUVKLS RI WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW UHSHDWHGO\ KDV DSSHDUHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DV D IDFWRU FRQWULEXWLQJ WR WKH VXFFHVV RI IXQG UDLVLQJ LQ YDULRXV W\SHV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ E )LVKHU D *OHQQRQ 0LOOHU 5RZODQG :HEE f $ QDWLRQDO VWXG\ RI VWDWH XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG FROOHJHV KRZHYHU IRXQG QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WRWDO YROXQWDU\ VXSSRUW DQG WKH SUHVLGHQWfV LQYROYHPHQW LQ IXQG UDLVLQJ +XQWHU ) f %HKDYLQJ OLNH WKHLU SULYDWH FROOHJH FRXQWHUSDUWV KDYH EHHQ H[SHFWHG WR IRU \HDUV SUHVLGHQWV RI SXEOLF FROOHJHV VSHQG PRUH WLPH RQ IXQG UDLVLQJ WKDQ WKH\ GLG LQ WKH SDVW &RKHQ t %UDZHU f 5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKDW D GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ IHDWXUH RI HIIHFWLYH QRQSURILW RUJDQL]DWLRQ FKLHI H[HFXWLYHV LV WKHLU SROLWLFDO VNLOO DQG HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK H[WHUQDO JURXSV LQFOXGLQJ JRYHUQPHQWV WR RIIVHW UHGXFHG UHVRXUFHV DQG WR PDQDJH RWKHU WKUHDWV WR RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWDELOLW\ DQG YLDELOLW\ +HLPRYLFV +HUPDQ t -XUNLHZLF] f /LNHZLVH SUHVLGHQWV RI SXEOLF FROOHJHV PXVW XVH SROLWLFDO VNLOO LQ VXVWDLQLQJ WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK VXSSRUW IURP VWDWH JRYHUQPHQW UHVRXUFHV 6ZHHW f 7KH SUHVLGHQW PXVW WDNH WKH SULPDU\ LQLWLDWLYH IRU LQWHUHVWLQJ RWKHUV LQ PDNLQJ DQ LQYHVWPHQW LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ )LVKHU Ef %HFDXVH SHRSOH JLYH PRQH\ WR UHDOL]H WKH IXOILOOPHQW RI D YLVLRQ WKH fSUHVLGHQWfV PDLQ MRE LV WR GHVFULEH KLV RU KHU YLVLRQ IRU WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG JHW RWKHUV WR PDNH LW WKHLUVf &RQNOLQ S f 7KH SHUVXDVLYH DQG SHUVLVWHQW DUWLFXODWLRQ RI WKLV YLVLRQ VR WKDW LW LV VKDUHG E\ DOO LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO FRQVWLWXHQFLHV LV WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ WR LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW WKDW D SUHVLGHQW FDQ PDNH +HVEXUJK f $V DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV fFKLHI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW RIILFHUf WKH SUHVLGHQW SOD\V D VLJQLILFDQW UROH LQ GHILQLQJ DQG UHIOHFWLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV JRDOV DQG REMHFWLYHV DQG

PAGE 47

VHUYLQJ DV WKH PDMRU OLQN WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV YDULRXV SXEOLFV 5RZODQG S f 7KH SUHVLGHQW SRVLWLRQHG EHWZHHQ WKH LQWHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO IRUFHV RI WKH FROOHJH LV WKH QH[XV LQ D FRPSOH[ DQG HYHU FKDQJLQJ HQYLURQPHQW %HHKOHU f 7KH SUHVLGHQWfV SULPDU\ UROH LQ UDLVLQJ PDMRU JLIWV LV WR PRGHO DQG JLYH YRLFH WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV YDOXHV 'XQORS f /LNHZLVH LQ D FDSLWDO FDPSDLJQ WKH SUHVLGHQW LV WKH fLQVWLWXWLRQfV FKLHI IXQGn UDLVHUf ZKR PXVW fFDUU\ WKH EDQQHU RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQf DQG DFW DV fFKLHI VSRNHVSHUVRQ DQG DGYRFDWHf %RPVWHLQ SS f f6R FHQWUDO LV WKH UROH RI WKH SUHVLGHQW WR WKH VXFFHVV RU IDLOXUH RI DQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDP WKDW KLV RU KHU ODFN RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG VXSSRUW FDQ QHJDWH DQ\ HIIRUWV PDGH LQ WKLV GLUHFWLRQf 5RZODQG S f ,Q JHQHUDO IXQG UDLVLQJ KDV QRW EHHQ D KLJK SULRULW\ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV 5\DQ f 7R EH VXUH WHQVLRQ H[LVWV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV ZKR PXVW GHFLGH KRZ PXFK WLPH WR GHYRWH WR IXQG UDLVLQJ ZKLOH PHHWLQJ WKH RWKHU GHPDQGV RI WKHLU SRVLWLRQ 9DXJKDQ 0HOODQGHU t %ORLV f
PAGE 48

XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW DQG FRQVHTXHQWO\ SURYLGH OHVV VXSSRUW WR LW WKDQ WR RWKHU GLYLVLRQV RI WKH FROOHJH )LVKHU f 7KH IRUHFDVW LV WKDW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV LQFUHDVLQJO\ ZLOO VHH WKH UDLVLQJ RI SULYDWH IXQGV WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI WKHLU MRE 9DXJKDQ HW DO f 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWfV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH DGYDQFHPHQW SURFHVV FRPELQHG ZLWK DGYRFDF\ DQG VXSSRUW IRU LW PD\ LQ IDFW EH PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ KLV RU KHU SHUVRQDO VROLFLWDWLRQ RI IXQGV 5\DQ f &ULWLFDO WR WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWfV KLJK YLVLELOLW\ DQG VHUYLFH RQ FRPPXQLW\ ERDUGV GHPRQVWUDWH OHDGHUVKLS DQG FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH EHWWHUPHQW RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ 6PLWK f 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH FROOHJHfV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK VLPLODU LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG LWV UROH LQ PHHWLQJ VRFLHW\fV QHHGV LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU D SUHVLGHQWfV HIIHFWLYH OHDGHUVKLS 9DXJKDQ f 3UHVLGHQWV ZKR FDQ LQVSLUH FKDQJH DQG FRPPLWPHQW DSSHDO WR KLJKHU LGHDOV DQG IRFXV RQ QHZ SRVVLELOLWLHV GHPRQVWUDWH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS ZKLFK KDV LWV RULJLQV LQ V\VWHPV WKLQNLQJ DQG LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SKLODQWKURS\ *ODVV t -DFNVRQ Ef ,Q D VWXG\ DFURVV GLIIHUHQW LQVWLWXWLRQDO W\SHV KLJKO\ HIIHFWLYH IXQGUDLVLQJ SURJUDPV ZHUH IRXQG WR KDYH VHYHUDO FRPPRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQFOXGLQJ WKH IXQGUDLVLQJ OHDGHUVKLS GHPRQVWUDWHG QRW RQO\ E\ WKH SUHVLGHQW EXW E\ WKH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DV ZHOO 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ Ef 7KH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU KDV EHHQ LGHQWLILHG DV FULWLFDO WR IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV )LVKHU Df $Q H[HFXWLYHOHYHO SRVLWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG LQYROYHPHQW LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV VWUDWHJLF SODQQLQJ KDYH EHHQ WLHG WR WKH VXFFHVVIXO OHDGHUVKLS RI WKH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU %RPVWHLQ 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ E )LVKHU Df %HLQJ

PAGE 49

D SDUW RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH H[HFXWLYH WHDP ZLWK D GLUHFW UHSRUWLQJ OLQH WR WKH SUHVLGHQW LV WKH PRVW GHVLUDEOH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU :HEE f $V VXFK WKH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU LV EHWWHU SRVLWLRQHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO SODQQLQJ WR DVVLVW LQ HVWDEOLVKLQJ IXQGLQJ SULRULWLHV DQG WR FRQWULEXWH YDOXDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW IXQGLQJ FRQGLWLRQV 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ E /HVOLH f $GGLWLRQDOO\ DV WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IXQGUDLVLQJ VSHFLDOLVW WKH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU LV LQ D FULWLFDO ERXQGDU\ UROH ZRUNLQJ FORVHO\ ZLWK WKH SUHVLGHQW FROOHJH RIILFHUV DQG JRYHUQLQJ ERDUG LQWHUSUHWLQJ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ WR LWV SXEOLFV DQG HVWDEOLVKLQJ OLQNDJHV ZLWK RWKHU V\VWHPV .HOO\ /HVOLH f &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU KDV EHHQ LGHQWLILHG DV RQH RI WKH fQHZ SRZHU EURNHUVf RQ FDPSXV DQG LQ fSUHVWLJH SRVLWLRQV DW ERWK SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH LQVWLWXWLRQVf *LOOH\ HW DO SS f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t /RHVVLQ Ef +DYLQJ D FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU LQGLYLGXDO UHVSRQVLEOH IRU H[WHUQDO UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW ZDV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV ZLWK YDOXHV RI PLOOLRQ RU PRUH LQ D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU f DQG RI VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQV LQ DQ HDUOLHU VWXG\ +XQWHU & % f )XUWKHUPRUH D QDWLRQDO

PAGE 50

VXUYH\ IRXQG WKDW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU IRXQGDWLRQ H[HFXWLYH GLUHFWRU SOD\HG WKH PRVW DFWLYH UROH LQ VROLFLWLQJ IXQGV 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f :KLOH GHYHORSPHQW VWDII SHUIRUP PRVW GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQV ERDUG PHPEHUV PXVW VXSSRUW WKH SURFHVV DQG FRPPLW WR LWV LPSRUWDQFH IRU WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ %RJXFK f 7UXVWHHV DQG UHJHQWV RI SXEOLF FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV LQFUHDVLQJO\ KDYH DQ LPSRUWDQW UROH LQ UDLVLQJ SULYDWH IXQGV IRU WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV 1DVRQ f KRZHYHU LW KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG WKDW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH WUXVWHHV KDYH QRW SDUWLFLSDWHG DFWLYHO\ LQ SURYLGLQJ IXQGUDLVLQJ VXSSRUW 5\DQ f :KLOH SXEOLF WUXVWHHV KDYH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV LQ RYHUVHHLQJ DGHTXDWH IXQGLQJ WKH\ RIWHQ DUH HOHFWHG RU DSSRLQWHG IRU UHDVRQV RWKHU WKDQ WKHLU IXQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO RU SHUVRQDO ZHDOWK LW LV LPSRUWDQW WKHUHIRUH IRU SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV WR FUHDWH LQGHSHQGHQW IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUGV WR DFW LQ D ILGXFLDU\ FDSDFLW\ WR GRQRUV DQG WR DYRLG SRVVLEOH FRQIOLFWV RI LQWHUHVW IRU WKH JRYHUQLQJ WUXVWHHV 6DGHU f )RU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZLWK VPDOO JRYHUQLQJ ERDUGV RQH SURSRVHG PRGHO LV WR KDYH HDFK WUXVWHH VHUYH RQ VHSDUDWH IRXQGDWLRQ FRPPLWWHHV .DWVLQDV +HUUPDQQ t 7UD\ORU f $QRWKHU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ LV IRU WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG WR LQFOXGH RQH RU PRUH RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV WUXVWHHV )LVKHU t .RFK 6LPLF f 7KH SUHYDOHQW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PRGHO LV WR FUHDWH VHSDUDWH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUGV 5\DQ f ,Q IDFW PRVW SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV GHOHJDWH IXQG UDLVLQJ WR D IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG /HJQ f 7KH OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH VWUHQJWK RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQfV ERDUG RI GLUHFWRUV FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQfV VXFFHVV 6KDUURQ +XQWHU & % f $ VWXG\ RI SXEOLF FROOHJHV RI YDULRXV W\SHV LQ 1HZ
PAGE 51

$Q LPSRUWDQW ILUVW VWHS LQ FUHDWLQJ DQ LQYROYHG DQG LQWHUHVWHG ERDUG LV VHULRXV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI ERDUG FRPSRVLWLRQ %U\DQW f ,Q D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SHUVRQQHO IURP SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV FDUHIXO VHOHFWLRQ RI ERDUG PHPEHUV ZDV WKH VXJJHVWLRQ PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ FLWHG WR DVVXUH IRXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV WKH SLWIDOO PRVW RIWHQ FLWHG ZDV QRW FKRRVLQJ WKH ULJKW IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV 'HJHUVWHGW f 7KH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW VKRXOG SD\ VSHFLDO DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG )LVKHU t .RFK f EXW QRW QHFHVVDULO\ EH LQYROYHG LQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV .DWVLQDV HW DO f :LWK WKH KHOS RI D QRPLQDWLQJ FRPPLWWHH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV PXVW EH FKRVHQ FDUHIXOO\ WR LQFOXGH fRQO\ WKRVH ZKR FDQ JLYH DQG JHW PRQH\ RU ZKR FDQ KHOS LQ SXEOLF UHODWLRQVf *DOH S f $ VWXG\ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LQ 1RUWK &DUROLQD IRXQG WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW FULWHULD LQ VHOHFWLQJ IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV WR EH WKH ZLOOLQJQHVV WR JLYH RU SURFXUH IXQGV IRU WKH FROOHJH DQG DQ LQWHUHVW LQ DQG VXSSRUW RI WKH FROOHJHfV PLVVLRQ DQG JRDOV %U\DQW f 7KURXJK WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ WKH SULYDWH VHFWRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ PHPEHUV FDQ FRQYH\ ZLWK FUHGLELOLW\ WKH FROOHJHfV DFWLRQ SODQV &RQUDG HW DO f 0HHWLQJ ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6WUDWHJLF *RDOV /LQNLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO SODQQLQJ WR UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW JRDOV DQG VWUDWHJLHV XQGHUVFRUHV LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW WR IXQG UDLVLQJ %UXPEDFK t %XPSKXV f ,QVWLWXWLRQDO SULRULWLHV VKRXOG SURYLGH WKH EDVLV IRU UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW HIIRUWV VLQFH HDFK IXQGLQJ UHTXHVW LV D VWDWHPHQW RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO LGHQWLW\ DQG GLUHFWLRQ %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f 3XW EOXQWO\ fPLVVLRQ MXVWLILHV IXQG UDLVLQJf 3D\WRQ HW DO f ,Q IDFW

PAGE 52

LI JLIWV GHWUDFW IURP DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV PLVVLRQ SULRULWLHV RU GHVLUHG GLUHFWLRQ WKH\ VKRXOG EH UHMHFWHG %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f %HVLGHV PLVVLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DXWRQRP\ DQG HWKLFV PD\ DOVR EH DW VWDNH LI WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI UHVRXUFHV DUH QRW DVVHVVHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK SULQFLSOHV HVWDEOLVKHG WKURXJK FRQVHQVXV 3DUVRQV f 0RUHRYHU DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ FRXOG ORVH FRQWURO RI LWV SRZHU WR GHWHUPLQH DQG SXUVXH LWV RZQ JRDOV LI WRR PXFK LQWHUQDO DXWRQRP\ LV JLYHQ XS WR H[WHUQDO GRQRUV .HOO\ f &RQQHFWLQJ FROOHJH SODQQLQJ DQG UHVHDUFK WR GHYHORSPHQW HIIRUWV DQG VHHNLQJ H[WHUQDO IXQGLQJ RQO\ LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH FROOHJHfV PLVVLRQ DQG JRDOV KDYH EHHQ FLWHG DV QHFHVVDU\ HOHPHQWV IRU WKH SXELF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP WR WKULYH HVSHFLDOO\ LQ DQ HUD RI GLPLQLVKLQJ VWDWH DSSURSULDWLRQV %ORQJ t %HQQHWW 'DQLHO f )ROORZLQJ JRRG PDQDJHULDO SUDFWLFHVf§LQFOXGLQJ fPDWFKLQJ HIIRUW WR VWUDWHJLF DGYDQWDJH DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO PLVVLRQf DQG FRQGXFWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO HYDOXDWLRQf§DUH DGYLVHG IRU WKH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RSHUDWLRQ %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR S f ,I WKH LPSDFW RQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH DQG LWV FRQVWLWXHQFLHV DUH GLVUHJDUGHG LQ WKH TXHVW IRU H[WHUQDO IXQGV LW FDQ UHVXOW LQ fVNHZHG SURJUDPPLQJ DQG D GLVDSSRLQWHG FOLHQWHOH ZKR FDQQRW EH VHUYHG ZKHQ H[WHUQDO GROODUV DUH QR ORQJHU DYDLODEOHf %UXPEDFK t %XPSKXV S f 6XFFHVVIXO IXQG UDLVLQJ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ODUJHO\ GHSHQGV RQ SODQQLQJ DQG WDNLQJ VWUDWHJLF DGYDQWDJH RI FRPPXQLW\ VXSSRUW JDLQHG WKURXJK H[FHOOHQW LQVWLWXWLRQDO UHSXWDWLRQ 5\DQ f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DUH UHDOL]LQJ WKH LPSRUWDQW UROH RI LQYROYLQJ UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO SODQQLQJ 'DQLHO f ,Q IDFW LW LV TXLWH SRVVLEOH IRU IXQGLQJ SURSRVDO GHYHORSPHQW WR RFFXU VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ ZLWK VWUDWHJLF SODQQLQJ DQG

PAGE 53

UHDFFUHGLWDWLRQ HIIRUWV *URII f 7KH DELOLW\ WR SODQ ZHOO GXH WR WKH FROOHJHfV FRPSUHKHQVLYH SODQQLQJ PDQDJHPHQW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ V\VWHP ZDV FLWHG DV D SULPDU\ UHDVRQ IRU RQH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHfV VXFFHVVIXO UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW +RRNV t .HOOH\ f 7KH IRXQGDWLRQ PXVW EH LQYROYHG LQ DQG VWD\ FXUUHQW ZLWK LQVWLWXWLRQDO SODQQLQJ DQG SULRULWLHV IRU WKH IRXQGDWLRQ WR IXOILOO LWV SXUSRVH DQG KDYH WKH JUHDWHVW LPSDFW .HHQHU f $PRQJ WKH WRS FRQGLWLRQV FLWHG E\ GHYHORSPHQW SHUVRQQHO DV EHLQJ FULWLFDO WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV ZHUH DQ RUJDQL]HG SODQQHG HIIRUW DQG D FOHDU VWDWHPHQW RI SXUSRVH IRU WKH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU f 5DWKHU WKDQ EHLQJ VXEMHFW WR KDSKD]DUG JURZWK WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ VKRXOG EH SDUW RI DQ LQWHQWLRQDO SODQ ZLWK UHDOLVWLF H[SHFWDWLRQV 'HHJDQ f ,I LQWHJUDWHG LQWR D WRWDO LQVWLWXWLRQDO SODQ WR DFKLHYH GHVLUHG HQGV WKH IRXQGDWLRQ VHUYHV DV D SURDFWLYH SDUW RI WKH SODQ LQVWHDG RI EHLQJ XVHG DV D UHDFWLYH GHYLFH :DWWHQEDUJHU f 8OWLPDWHO\ WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI DQ DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDP PXVW EH OLQNHG WR DFKLHYLQJ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO REMHFWLYHV RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ /HVOLH f 7KXV WKH VXFFHVVIXO SHUIRUPDQFH RI D FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ PXVW EH HYDOXDWHG UHODWLYH WR WKH FROOHJHfV JRDOV 5RELVRQ f &ROOHJH *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ 7KH VXFFHVV RI WKH FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ DOVR FDQ EH LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQnV SRWHQWLDO IRU IXQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV )XQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO PD\ WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ DQG DFFHVV WR UHVRXUFHV ,Q D VWXG\ RI SULYDWH XQGHUJUDGXDWH FROOHJHV DFFHVV WR WKH WRWDO SRRO RI UHVRXUFHV DYDLODEOH ZDV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ JHRJUDSKLF SUR[LPLW\ LQ KHOSLQJ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK FROOHJHV ZHUH

PAGE 54

RYHUSURGXFWLYH DQG XQGHUSURGXFWLYH LQ UHDOL]LQJ WKHLU IXQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO 3LFNHWW f $ QDWLRQDO VWXG\ RI VWDWH FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WRWDO YROXQWDU\ VXSSRUW DQG DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV ORFDWLRQ LQ DQ XUEDQ DUHD +XQWHU ) 'f f %HFDXVH WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PLVVLRQ JHQHUDOO\ LV WR VHUYH WKH ORFDO SRSXODWLRQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ DFWLYLWLHV DUH IRFXVHG SULPDULO\ RQ SDUWLFXODU JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQV DV FRPSDUHG WR IRXU\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV WKDW PD\ KDYH D PRUH UHJLRQDO RU QDWLRQDO UHDFK KRZHYHU WKLV SUR[LPLW\ WR WKH ORFDO FRPPXQLW\ SURYLGHV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZLWK XQLTXH GHYHORSPHQW RSSRUWXQLWLHV *ODVV t -DFNVRQ Df ,Q D VWXG\ RI SXEOLF WZR\HDU FROOHJHV LQ WKH 1RUWKHDVW VL]H RI WKH VHUYLFH DUHD ZDV IRXQG WR EH D VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH IRU IRXQGDWLRQV ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO IXQGUDLVLQJ SURJUDPV ,URQILHOG f /LNHZLVH SRSXODWLRQ RI WKH VHUYLFH DUHD DQG VL]H RI WKH FLYLOLDQ ODERU IRUFH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV LQ SUHGLFWLQJ WRWDO DQQXDO LQFRPH IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV LQ 1RUWK &DUROLQD *DWHZRRG f /DUJHU VHUYLFH DUHDV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI XUEDQ ORFDWLRQV DQG UHJLRQV ZLWK KHDOWK\ HFRQRPLHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO IXQGn UDLVLQJ SURJUDPV LQ D QDWLRQDO VWXG\ RI SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV +XQWHU & % f $ ODUJH XUEDQ DUHD ZLWK PXOWLSOH EXVLQHVVHV DQG LQGXVWULHV SURYLGHV DGYDQWDJHV IRU VHOHFWLQJ IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV DQG VROLFLWLQJ FRUSRUDWH FRQWULEXWLRQV %XOSLWW f &RPSDQLHV VXSSRUWLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV VHH WKHP DV LQWHJUDO WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ SURYLGLQJ WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV WKDW PHHW FRPSDQ\ QHHGV DQG VXSSO\LQJ QHZ HPSOR\HHV ZKRVH FKLOGUHQ DOVR EHQHILW IURP FROOHJH SURJUDPV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f 2QH PRGHO GHPRQVWUDWLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IXQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO FKDUDFWHUL]HG FROOHJHV ZLWK KLJK SRWHQWLDO DV EHLQJ ORFDWHG LQ DQ XUEDQ RU ODUJH VXEXUEDQ SRSXODWLRQ

PAGE 55

FROOHJHV ZLWK PHGLXP SRWHQWLDO DV EHLQJ LQ D PLGVL]H WR VPDOO VXEXUEDQ SRSXODWLRQ DQG FROOHJHV ZLWK ORZ SRWHQWLDO DV EHLQJ LQ D UXUDO SRSXODWLRQ 5\DQ f :KLOH DFFHVV WR ZHDOWK WKURXJK JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ PD\ KHOS H[SODLQ D FROOHJHfV LQFUHDVHG IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG IRXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ LV QRW OLNHO\ WR EH FKDQJHG IRU WKLV UHDVRQ %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f &ROOHJH 6L]H 5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH WRSLF RI DQDO\VLV UHJDUGLQJ FROOHJHV RU WKHLU RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH LQVWLWXWLRQDO VL]H DSSHDUV UHSHDWHGO\ LQ UHVHDUFK VWXGLHV DV DQ LPSRUWDQW LI QRW WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH LQ GLIIHUHQWLDWLQJ SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV &RKHQ t %UDZHU f )RU SXEOLF WZR\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV VSHFLILFDOO\ VL]H RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO HQUROOPHQW KDV EHHQ FLWHG DV WKH fPRVW GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFf DQG WKH fGULYLQJ YDULDEOH IRU GLIIHUHQWLDWLQJ SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV IURP RQH DQRWKHUf 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ S f /DUJHU FROOHJHV KDYH WKH DGYDQWDJH RI PDNLQJ PRUH RI DQ LPSDFW RQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ DQG UHDFKLQJ PRUH SRWHQWLDO VXSSRUWHUV 3LFNHWW f ,Q WHUPV RI VWXGHQW HQUROOPHQW FROOHJH VL]H KDV EHHQ UHODWHG WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHfV HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D IRXQGDWLRQ ZLWK VPDOOHU LQVWLWXWLRQV EHLQJ OHVV OLNHO\ WR KDYH HVWDEOLVKHG RQH $QJHO t *DUHV 'HJHUVWHGW f 7KH VDPH PRGHO WKDW VKRZHG KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ IXQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV E\ JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ DOVR DVVRFLDWHG VLJQLILFDQW HQUROOPHQW ZLWK KLJK IXQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO PRGHUDWH HQUROOPHQW ZLWK PHGLXP SRWHQWLDO DQG VPDOO HQUROOPHQW ZLWK ORZ SRWHQWLDO 5\DQ f +RZHYHU OLNH D FROOHJHfV JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ FROOHJH VL]H ZRXOG QRW OLNHO\ EH FKDQJHG WR HQKDQFH IXQGn UDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f

PAGE 56

$ QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV IRXQG D GLUHFW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IDOO HQUROOPHQW DQG IRXQGDWLRQ YDOXH 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f 2WKHU VWXGLHV KDYH FRQFOXGHG WKDW WZR\HDU FROOHJHV ZLWK JUHDWHU IXOOWLPH HTXLYDOHQW )7(f HQUROOPHQW UHFHLYH PRUH SULYDWH VXSSRUW 0DSOHV f DQG H[SHULHQFH JUHDWHU IRXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV ZKHWKHU WKH HQUROOPHQWV DUH LQ FUHGLW RU QRQFUHGLW SURJUDPV *ODQGRQ f ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW HQUROOPHQW FDOFXODWLRQV HVSHFLDOO\ )7( IRUPXODV YDU\ $PRQJ WKH WZR\HDU FROOHJHV UHSRUWLQJ GDWD WR WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ %XVLQHVV 2IILFHUVf WK DQQXDO &RPSDUDWLYH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWLVWLFV 6WXG\ D IXOOn WLPH FRXUVH ORDG IRU VWXGHQWV UDQJHG IURP WR FUHGLW KRXUV 0HHNHU f 2QH PHWKRG XVHG IRU HVWLPDWLQJ )7( HQUROOPHQW LV WR FRPELQH WKH DFWXDO IXOOWLPH HQUROOPHQW ZLWK RQHWKLUG RI WKH SDUWWLPH HQUROOPHQW :DWNLQV f ,Q D UHVHDUFK VWXG\ WR SURYLGH D QHZ FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP IRU WZR\HDU SRVWVHFRQGDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV WKH HQUROOPHQW PHDVXUH XVHG ZDV WKH DQQXDO PRQWKf XQGXSOLFDWHG KHDGFRXQW 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f &ROOHJH (QGRZPHQW $W LWV VL[WK DQQXDO PHHWLQJ LQ WKH $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI -XQLRU &ROOHJHV FRQVLGHUHG D TXHVWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH f$PRXQW RI (QGRZPHQW 1HFHVVDU\ IRU D 6WDQGDUG -XQLRU &ROOHJHf $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI -XQLRU &ROOHJHV S f 7KH TXHVWLRQ KDG EHHQ SRVHG D \HDU HDUOLHU E\ WKH DFFUHGLWLQJ ERG\ RI WKH 1RUWK &HQWUDO $VVRFLDWLRQ ZKRVH FRPPLVVLRQ RQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ZDQWHG $$-& WR SURYLGH D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RQ WKH TXHVWLRQ RI HQGRZPHQW DV D VRXUFH RI SHUPDQHQW LQFRPH IRU MXQLRU FROOHJHV 7KH $$-& FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV FKDUJHG WR UHVHDUFK WKH LVVXH UHSRUWHG WR WKH $$-& WKDW WKH HQGRZPHQW DPRXQW VHW IRU IRXU\HDU FROOHJHV ZDV DUELWUDULO\ GHWHUPLQHG DQG WKDW DQ

PAGE 57

LQFRPH UHTXLUHPHQW ZRXOG PRUH DSSURSULDWHO\ EH EDVHG RQ VWXGHQW LQVWUXFWLRQDO FRVWV 7KH\ IXUWKHU VWDWHG WKDW D FROOHJHf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fV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU SUHVHQWDWLRQ WR WKH 1RUWK &HQWUDO $VVRFLDWLRQ 7KHVH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV FDOOHG IRU IXUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ WR EH JDLQHG UHJDUGLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQDO FRVWV DQG PRUH FDUHIXO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI FROOHJHV WKDW SRWHQWLDOO\ ZHUH LQ MHRSDUG\ RI ORVLQJ DFFUHGLWDWLRQ EHFDXVH WKH\ GLG QRW PHHW WKH HQGRZPHQW UHTXLUHPHQW $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI -XQLRU &ROOHJHV f ,Q UHFHQW GHFDGHV DV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV KDYH VRXJKW LQFUHDVHG ILQDQFLDO VXVWDLQDELOLW\ IURP DOWHUQDWLYH UHYHQXH VRXUFHV HQGRZPHQW LQFRPH KDV EHHQ YLHZHG DV DQRWKHU VRXUFH RI SRWHQWLDO UHYHQXH $Q HQGRZPHQW VL]H RI ZDV FRQVLGHUHG VLJQLILFDQW LQ KRZHYHU LQ IRXQGDWLRQ HQGRZPHQWV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV H[FHHGHG PLOOLRQ $GDPV HW DO f (QGRZPHQW VL]H KDV EHHQ FLWHG DV D YDULDEOH WKDW FDQ KHOS WR SUHGLFW IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV IRU SRVWVHFRQGDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR 'HDQ 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ 3LFNHWW f ,W KDV EHHQ VWDWHG WKDW HQGRZPHQW VL]H FDQ LQGLFDWH WKH VXFFHVVIXO KLVWRU\ RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ LQ UDLVLQJ IXQGV RU RSHUDWLQJ LQ JHQHUDO DQG WKXV VHUYH WR IRUHFDVW LWV FRQWLQXHG VXFFHVV 3LFNHWW f )RU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KRZHYHU WKH UHVHDUFK UHJDUGLQJ HQGRZPHQWV KDV EHHQ VFDQW &OHPHQWV f 2QH

PAGE 58

QDWLRQDO VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW D JUHDWHU SHUFHQWDJH RI DGPLQLVWUDWRUV IURP WZR\HDU FROOHJHV ZLWK IRXQGDWLRQV KDYLQJ D QHW ZRUWK RI PLOOLRQ RU PRUH UDWHG WKH HQGRZPHQW DV FULWLFDO WR IRXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV DV FRPSDUHG WR WKH JURXS UHVSRQGLQJ IURP FROOHJHV ZLWK IRXQGDWLRQV ZLWK OHVV WKDQ PLOOLRQ *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU f $QRWKHU QDWLRQDO VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV XVHG HQGRZPHQW JURZWK DV D IXQGUDLVLQJ VWUDWHJ\ +XQWHU & % f $ VWXG\ OLPLWHG WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LQ ,OOLQRLV DQG ,RZD IRXQG QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH LQFRPH IURP SULYDWH JLIWV DQG FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW &OHPHQWV f /LNH VRPH RWKHU LQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV HQGRZPHQW VL]H LV QRW D YDULDEOH WKDW LV HDVLO\ PDQLSXODWHG DV D ZD\ WR LQFUHDVH IXQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ f fDGYLVLQJ D FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW WR LQFUHDVH WKH VL]H RI WKH HQGRZPHQW DV D ZD\ WR LPSURYH WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI IXQG UDLVLQJ LV QR DGYLFH DW DOOf %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f 0DQDJLQJ PRQH\ ZLVHO\ KRZHYHU LV D VLJQLILFDQW IXQFWLRQ RI WKH FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ DQG WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG .DWVLQDV HW DO f 2XWVLGH FRXQVHO DOVR KDV EHHQ HPSOR\HG E\ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WR SURYLGH DVVLVWDQFH LQ ZLVHO\ LQYHVWLQJ HQGRZPHQW IXQGV 5\DQ f 6XPPDU\ 6\VWHPV WKHRU\ KDV SURYLGHG D IUDPHZRUN DQG D EURDGHU FRQWH[W IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH %\ DFNQRZOHGJLQJ WKDW WKHUH DUH YDULRXV OHYHOV RI V\VWHPV DQG LQWHUFRQQHFWLRQV DPRQJ RSHQ V\VWHPV LW LV SRVVLEOH WR H[DPLQH WKH IRXQGDWLRQ DV D VXEV\VWHP ZKRVH VSHFLILF HQYLURQPHQW ZLOO JUHDWO\ DIIHFW LWV VXFFHVV DQG VXUYLYDO

PAGE 59

)URP WKHLU HDUOLHVW GHYHORSPHQW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQVZHUHG WKH GHPDQGV RI D JURZLQJ SRSXODFH LQGXVWULDOL]DWLRQ DQG GHPRFUDWL]DWLRQ 'XH WR WKH XQLTXH PLVVLRQ RI WZR\HDU FROOHJHV WR RIIHU fRSSRUWXQLW\ ZLWK H[FHOOHQFHf WKHLU UHVRXUFH QHHGV H[FHHG ZKDW LV DIIRUGHG WKURXJK SXEOLF ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW WXLWLRQ DQG IHHV 3DUQHOO f 6WXGLHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ SKLODQWKURS\ DQG UHVHDUFK RQ SULYDWH VXSSRUW IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV KDYH VKRZQ WKDW FHUWDLQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DQG SURJUDPPDWLF IDFWRUV VXSSRUW IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV 7KHVH IDFWRUV LQFOXGH WKH FROOHJHfV DOORFDWLRQ RI UHVRXUFHV WR WKH IXQGUDLVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ FULWLFDO UROHV SOD\HG E\ WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DQG IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU LPSRUWDQFH RI HYDOXDWLQJ WKH FROOHJHfV IRXQGDWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ FROOHJH VL]H DQG FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW &KDSWHU IROORZV ZLWK WKH GHVLJQ RI WKH VWXG\ ZKLFK LQFOXGHV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQ SURFHGXUH IRU GDWD FROOHFWLRQ VWDWHPHQW RI YDULDEOHV GHVFULSWLYH SURILOHV DQG UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV

PAGE 60

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f $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG SUHYLRXVO\ DGPLQLVWHUHG VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQWV LQ WKH ILHOG RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW JXLGHG WKH UHVHDUFK WHDPfV GHYHORSPHQW RI TXHVWLRQV WR LQFOXGH LQ WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW 7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ZDV WR SURYLGH EDVHOLQH GDWD IRU DQ DQDO\VLV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG SHUIRUPDQFH LQ ERWK JUDQWV DQG IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV 7KH VXUYH\ LWHPV JHUPDQH WR WKLV UHVHDUFKHUfV VWXG\ ZHUH WKRVH KDYLQJ WR GR ZLWK WKH DQQXDO UHYHQXH RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH

PAGE 61

IRXQGDWLRQV DQG VHOHFWHG YDULDEOHV DVVRFLDWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH )RU H[WHUQDO YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKH VXUYH\ D UHYLHZ SDQHO ZLWK H[SHUWLVH LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURYLGHG DVVLVWDQFH LQ UHYLHZLQJ VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQV DQG SRWHQWLDO SUREOHPV 7KHVH WHQ FRQWHQW H[SHUWV SULPDULO\ PHPEHUV RI WKH &5' ([HFXWLYH %RDUG VHH $SSHQGL[ $f UHFHLYHG D FRYHU OHWWHU VXUYH\ GUDIW DQG HYDOXDWLRQ IRUP E\ HPDLO RQ 0DUFK LQFOXGLQJ D UHTXHVW IRU WKHLU UHVSRQVH E\ 0DUFK VHH $SSHQGLFHV % DQG &f ,Q HDUO\ $SULO D V\QRSVLV RI FKDQJHV ZDV FRPSLOHG DQG UHYLHZHG E\ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD UHVHDUFK WHDP %DVHG RQ WKH LQSXW RI WKH FRQWHQW H[SHUWV WKH UHVHDUFK WHDP PDGH H[WHQVLYH FKDQJHV WR WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW WKURXJKRXW $SULO RI 2Q 0D\ D VHFRQG SDQHO RI UHYLHZHUV FRQVLVWLQJ RI WKH &5' %RDUG RI 'LUHFWRUV DQG RWKHU LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK H[SHUWLVH LQ UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW DQG FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f UHFHLYHG WKH VHFRQG GUDIW RI WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ,QVWUXFWLRQV LQ D FRYHU OHWWHU DVNHG IRU UHWXUQ RI WKH HYDOXDWLRQ IRUP DQG DQ\ DGGLWLRQDO FRPPHQWV E\ 0D\ VHH $SSHQGLFHV ( DQG )f 1XPHURXV UHYLVLRQV ZHUH PDGH EDVHG RQ WKH LQSXW IURP WKH QLQH UHYLHZHUV ZKR SURYLGHG GHWDLOHG UHVSRQVHV $ UHVHDUFK SURWRFRO IRU WKH VWXG\ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG ,5%f ZKLFK JUDQWHG LWV DSSURYDO LQ -XQH 7KH ,5% DSSURYHG WKH SURWRFRO DQG WKH VWDWHPHQW RI LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW ZKLFK DSSHDUHG RQ WKH IURQW SDJH RI WKH VXUYH\ 7KH VWDWHPHQW H[SODLQHG WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFK VWXG\ DQG DVVXUHG SDUWLFLSDQWV RI WKH FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ RI WKHLU LGHQWLW\

PAGE 62

5HVHDUFK 3RSXODWLRQ 5HVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURIHVVLRQDOV ZKRVH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH PHPEHUV RI WKH &5' DQGRU $$&& ZHUH LQYLWHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH UHVHDUFK WHDPfV VWXG\ 7KH &5' DQG $$&& PHPEHUVKLS OLVWV SURYLGHG D UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQ RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 2I WKH WRWDO XQLYHUVH RI WZR\HDU SRVWVHFRQGDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV LW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW DUH SXEOLF DUH SULYDWH QRWIRUSURILW DQG DUH SULYDWH IRUSURILW LQVWLWXWLRQV 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f )RU WKLV UHVHDUFKHUfV VWXG\ WKH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV OLPLWHG WR WKH WZR\HDU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW KHOG PHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &5'f RQH RU PRUH \HDUV EHWZHHQ DQG &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f ,W ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW EHWZHHQ DQG WKH DQQXDO DYHUDJH QXPEHU RI WZR\HDU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV EHORQJLQJ WR &5' ZDV 3URFHGXUH IRU 'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ ,Q -XO\ RI &5' PDLOHG WR WKH PHPEHUVKLS RI &5' DQG $$&& FRPELQHG D FRYHU OHWWHU DGGUHVVHG WR WKH f5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 3URIHVVLRQDOf VHH $SSHQGL[ *f DQG WKH ILQDO VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQQDLUH VHH $SSHQGL[ +f ,QVWUXFWLRQV VWDWHG WKDW FRPSOHWHG VXUYH\V VKRXOG EH PDLOHG RU ID[HG WR WKH VXUYH\ WHDP DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD E\ $XJXVW ,Q -DQXDU\ D VHFRQG VXUYH\ ZDV PDLOHG WR WKH &5' DQG $$&& PHPEHUV ZKR KDG QRW UHVSRQGHG &ROOHFWLRQ RI VXUYH\ UHVXOWV FRQWLQXHG WKURXJK )HEUXDU\ RI $ UHVHDUFK DVVLVWDQW ZDV KLUHG WR HQWHU WKH GDWD LQWR DQ ([FHO VSUHDGVKHHW WHPSODWH DFFRUGLQJ WR GHWDLOHG LQVWUXFWLRQV SUHSDUHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFK WHDP GDWD HQWU\ ZDV FRPSOHWHG E\ 0DUFK RI

PAGE 63

6WDWHPHQW RI 9DULDEOHV 6LQFH WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH DQQXDO UHYHQXH RI 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV LQ UHODWLRQ WR VHOHFWHG YDULDEOHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH WKH UHVHDUFKHU IRFXVHG RQ 6HFWLRQ &ROOHJH 3URILOHf DQG 6HFWLRQ ,,, )RXQGDWLRQ3ULYDWH *LIW 'HYHORSPHQWf RI WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW 7KH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH ZDV WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH JDLQHG IURP LQGLYLGXDOV FRPPXQLW\ RUJDQL]DWLRQV FRUSRUDWLRQV H[WHUQDO IRXQGDWLRQV VWDWH PDWFKLQJ SURJUDPV DQG HQGRZPHQW LQWHUHVW DQG LQYHVWPHQWV VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQV D E F G H I J DQG Df 6HOHFWHG H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV FRQVLVWHG RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW LQFOXGLQJ VDODULHV DQG EHQHILWV VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ f WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH SUHVLGHQW FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DQG IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU LQGLYLGXDOO\ ZHUH UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQV D G Ff WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV ZDV UDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ Ef WKH FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ D E DQG Ff WKH FROOHJH VL]H RU FUHGLW HQUROOPHQW LQ QRQGXSOLFDWHG VWXGHQW KHDGFRXQW VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ f DQG WKH FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW VHH $SSHQGL[ + VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ f ,Q FDVHV ZKHUH WKH UHVSRQGHQW GLG QRW FRPSOHWH VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ IRU WKH IDOO HQUROOPHQW WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV REWDLQHG WKURXJK WKH ,QWHJUDWHG 3RVWVHFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 'DWD 6\VWHP ,3('6f 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ Ef

PAGE 64

'HVFULSWLYH 3URILOHV $ WRWDO RI FROOHJHV UHWXUQHG WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW 2I WKH VXUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV VWDWHV DQG RQH 86 WHUULWRU\ ZHUH UHSUHVHQWHG 2I WKH WRWDO VXUYH\V UHWXUQHG bf ZHUH IURP WKH WDUJHW SRSXODWLRQ RI WZR\HDU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW ZHUH PHPEHUV LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &5'f RQH RU PRUH \HDUV EHWZHHQ DQG &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f $SSO\LQJ WKH &5' 5HJLRQDO 6WUXFWXUH &5' f WR WKH UHVSRQGHQWV IURP WKH WDUJHW SRSXODWLRQ 7DEOH SUHVHQWV D SURILOH RI WKH VDPSOH E\ WKH &5' UHJLRQV DQG GHPRQVWUDWHV WKH QDWLRQDO VFRSH RI WKH VDPSOH 7DEOH 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ &5' 5HJLRQ &5' 5HJLRQ Q 3HUFHQW 5HJLRQ 5HJLRQ ,, 5HJLRQ ,,, 5HJLRQ ,9 5HJLRQ 9 5HJLRQ 9, 5HJLRQ 9,, 5HJLRQ 9,,, 5HJLRQ ,; 5HJLRQ ; 1 7DEOHV DQG SURYLGH WKH VDPSOH SURILOH E\ FROOHJH VWUXFWXUH DQG JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ 1HDUO\ b RI WKH VDPSOH LQGLFDWHG EHLQJ IURP D VLQJOH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH

PAGE 65

FDPSXV RU D PXOWLFDPSXV GLVWULFW $OPRVW b GHVLJQDWHG HLWKHU XUEDQ RU VXEXUEDQ IRU WKH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ UXUDO ZDV WKH SUHGRPLQDQW JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ IRU MXVW RYHU b RI WKH VDPSOH 7DEOH 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ &ROOHJH 6WUXFWXUH &ROOHJH 6WUXFWXUH Q 3HUFHQW 0XOWL&ROOHJH 'LVWULFW 0XOWL&DPSXV 'LVWULFW 6LQJOH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH &DPSXV 2WKHU 1 7DEOH 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH EY *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ Q 3HUFHQW 5XUDO 8UEDQ 6XEXUEDQ 1 7KH .DWVLQDV FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW ZDV EDVHG RQ 8QLWHG 6WDWHV &HQVXV GDWD DQG ,QWHJUDWHG 3RVWVHFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 'DWD 6\VWHP ,3('6f LQIRUPDWLRQ EHDUV DQ LQWHUHVWLQJ FRPSDULVRQ WR WKH JHRJUDSKLF SURILOHV RI WKH VDPSOH 2I WKH SXEOLFO\ FRQWUROOHG LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ WKH .DWVLQDV W\SRORJ\ bf ZHUH UXUDO bf ZHUH XUEDQ DQG bf ZHUH VXEXUEDQ .DWVLQDV f

PAGE 66

2I WKH VDPSOH UHVSRQGHQWV ZKR UHSRUWHG RQ WKH \HDU WKH FROOHJH ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG bf ZHUH IRXQGHG EHWZHHQ DQG DQG bf ZHUH IRXQGHG EHWZHHQ DQG 7KH V UHSUHVHQWHG WKH GHFDGH RI JUHDWHVW JURZWK IRU b RI WKHVH UHVSRQGHQWV 2I WKH VDPSOH bf LQGLFDWHG WKDW D IRXQGDWLRQ RU SULYDWH JLIW GHYHORSPHQW RIILFH H[LVWHG DW WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV bf DQVZHUHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QRW VXFK DQ RIILFH DQG bf GLG QRW UHVSRQG 5HJDUGLQJ ZKHWKHU WKH JUDQWV RIILFH ZDV VHSDUDWH IURP WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RU SULYDWH JLIW GHYHORSPHQW RIILFH bf DQVZHUHG f\HVf bf DQVZHUHG fQRf bf DQVZHUHG fQRW DSSOLFDEOHf DQG bf GLG QRW UHVSRQG 7KH GDWH RI HVWDEOLVKPHQW IRU IRXQGDWLRQ RIILFHV UDQJHG IURP WR DV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH 7KH KLJKHVW QXPEHU RI IRXQGDWLRQ RIILFHV HVWDEOLVKHG RU bf RFFXUUHG GXULQJ WKH V 7DEOH 3URILOH RI 6DPSOH E\ )RXQGDWLRQ 2IILFH (VWDEOLVKPHQW 'HFDGH 'HFDGH Q 3HUFHQW
PAGE 67

5HJDUGLQJ WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IXQFWLRQ bf RI WKH VDPSOH DQVZHUHG f\HVf WR KDYLQJ D FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU SHUVRQ ZLWK VLPLODU UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV DW WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQ bf DQVZHUHG fQRf DQG bf GLG QRW UHVSRQG $ WRWDO RI bf LQGLFDWHG WKH UHSRUWLQJ OLQH IRU WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU SHUVRQ ZLWK VLPLODU UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV bf UHSRUWHG WR WKH FKDQFHOORU bf WR WKH GLVWULFW SUHVLGHQW bf WR WKH FDPSXV SUHVLGHQW bf WR D YLFHSUHVLGHQW DQG bf WR fRWKHUf 5HVHDUFK +\SRWKHVHV $ VLPXOWDQHRXV PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ WHVW ZDV SHUIRUPHG XVLQJ WKH 6366 Y VRIWZDUH SDFNDJH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO GHVFULEHG WKH VDPSOLQJ GDWD DQG WR H[DPLQH WKH GHJUHH RI DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH DQG WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV 7KH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZDV DV IROORZV )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH EIRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf FULWLFDO UROH RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUf LPSRUWDQFH RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOVf FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQf FROOHJH VL]Hf FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWf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fV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO

PAGE 68

+\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH VKRXOG EH D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DQG SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH VKRXOG EH D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DQG SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH VKRXOG EH D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DQG SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV LV UDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQf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

PAGE 69

SURIHVVLRQDOV ZKRVH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH PHPEHUV RI WKH &5' DQGRU $$&& ZHUH VHQW D FRYHU OHWWHU DQG VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQQDLUH E\ PDLO LQ -XO\ $ IROORZXS PDLOLQJ ZDV VHQW LQ -DQXDU\ RI :KLOH WKH &5' DQG $$&& PHPEHUVKLS OLVWV SURYLGHG D UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKH SRSXODWLRQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZDV IXUWKHU UHILQHG WR LQFOXGH RQO\ WKH WZR\HDU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW KHOG PHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &5'f RQH RU PRUH \HDUV EHWZHHQ DQG &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f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

PAGE 70

&+$37(5 $1$/<6,6 2) '$7$ 7KLV FKDSWHU LQFOXGHV DQ LQWURGXFWLRQ WKDW UHVWDWHV WKH VWXG\f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IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf FULWLFDO UROH RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUf LPSRUWDQFH

PAGE 71

RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOVf EFROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQf FROOHJH VL]Hf EFROOHJH HQGRZPHQWf 7KH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV JXLGLQJ WKH VWXG\ ZHUH DV IROORZV :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU LV UDWHG DV SOD\LQJ D FULWLFDO UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV LV UDWHG DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FROOHJH VL]H ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO" :KDW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FROOHJH HQGRZPHQW ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO"

PAGE 72

5HVHDUFK 3RSXODWLRQ $ WRWDO RI FROOHJHV UHWXUQHG WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW 2I WKH VXUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV VWDWHV DQG RQH 86 WHUULWRU\ ZHUH UHSUHVHQWHG 2I WKH WRWDO VXUYH\V UHWXUQHG bf ZHUH IURP WKH WDUJHW SRSXODWLRQ RI WZR\HDU 86 SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDW ZHUH PHPEHUV LQ WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &5'f RQH RU PRUH \HDUV EHWZHHQ DQG &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f 'HVFULSWLYH 5HVXOWV 7KH GHVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV RI WKH PHDVXUHV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV IRU WKH RYHUDOO VDPSOH DUH VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH ,Q 7DEOH WKH DYHUDJH UHVSRQVH LV VLPSO\ WKH WRWDO VFRUH UHSRUWHG LQ WHUPV RI WKH VFDOH RI WKH LWHP UHVSRQVH LH WKH WRWDO VFRUH GLYLGHG E\ WKH QXPEHU RI LWHPV RI WKH VFDOHf )RU H[DPSOH EHFDXVH WKH UHVSRQVHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH UROHV RI WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DQG IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU DUH RQ D SRLQW /LNHUW VFDOH DQ DYHUDJH UHVSRQVH RI IRU 3UHVLGHQW VXJJHVWV WKDW RQ DYHUDJH WKH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR FDWHJRULHV fYHU\ FULWLFDOf DQG fFULWLFDOf /LNHZLVH DQ DYHUDJH UHVSRQVH RI IRU &KLHI 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU DQG IRU )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU VXJJHVWV WKDW RQ DYHUDJH WKH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR FDWHJRULHV f YHU\ FULWLFDOf DQG fFULWLFDOf )RU ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6WUDWHJLF *RDOV RU WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV DV D IDFWRU LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ WKH DYHUDJH UHVSRQVH RI VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH VXJJHVWV WKDW RQ DYHUDJH WKH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR FDWHJRULHV fYHU\ LPSRUWDQWf DQG fLPSRUWDQWf )RU HDFK RI WKHVH YDULDEOHVf§3UHVLGHQW &KLHI 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU DQG

PAGE 73

,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6WUDWHJLF *RDOVf§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f§5XUDO *(2f§8UEDQ 6L]H (QGRZPHQW 1 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ 5HVXOWV $ VLPXOWDQHRXV PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ WHVW ZDV SHUIRUPHG XVLQJ WKH 6366 Y VRIWZDUH SDFNDJH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO GHVFULEHG WKH VDPSOLQJ GDWD DQG WR H[DPLQH WKH GHJUHH RI DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH DQG WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV 7KH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO IRU DOO VWDWLVWLFDO WHVWV ZDV IL[HG DW D 7KH fPLVVLQJ OLVWZLVHf RSWLRQ ZDV VHOHFWHG IRU WUHDWLQJ UHFRUGV ZLWK PLVVLQJ GDWD

PAGE 74

7KH 5 RI IRU WKH PRGHO ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )f e VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH MRLQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK b RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH YDULDQFH 7KH DGMXVWHG 5U ZDV 7KH KLJK PDJQLWXGH RI WKH )I LQGLFDWHG D VWURQJ MRLQW DVVRFLDWLRQ WKDW KROGV IRU WKH SRSXODWLRQ 7KH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ IRU WKH PRGHO ZDV DV IROORZV )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf FULWLFDO UROH RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUf LPSRUWDQFH RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOVf FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ;L UXUDOf FROHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ; XUEDQf FROOHJH VL]Hf FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWf 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH XQVWDQGDUGL]HG UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV Ef WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV _f WKH REVHUYHG WYDOXHV DQG WKH VTXDUHG VHPLSDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQV f 7KH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOH IRU JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ZDV FDWHJRULFDO DQG WKHUHIRUH GXPP\ FRGHG UHVXOWLQJ LQ WZR GXPP\ FRGHG YDULDEOHV ;L ZKHUH UXUDO ZDV FRGHG DQG ; ZKHUH XUEDQ ZDV FRGHG 7KH FDWHJRU\ RI VXEXUEDQ VHUYHG DV WKH UHIHUHQFH FDWHJRU\ 7KUHH RI WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU E Wf S f 6L]H E Wf S DQG (QGRZPHQW E Wf S f 7KH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH XQVWDQGDUGL]HG UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQW RI DQ\ H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOH LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH VFDOH RI PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKDW YDULDEOH )RU FRQWLQXRXV YDULDEOHV WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQW FDQ EH PDGH LQ WHUPV RI UDWH DQG GLUHFWLRQ RI FKDQJH 7KH UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQW LQGLFDWHV WKH H[SHFWHG XQLW FKDQJH LQ WKH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH IRU HDFK XQLW FKDQJH LQ DQ\ RQH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOH ZKLOH KROGLQJ WKH

PAGE 75

RWKHU RQHV FRQVWDQW )RU LQVWDQFH DV UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH WKH UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQW RI IRU 6L]H VXJJHVWV WKDW IRU HDFK DGGLWLRQDO FUHGLW VWXGHQW HQUROOHG WKHUH LV DQ DYHUDJH LQFUHDVH RI LQ )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH /LNHZLVH WKH UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQW RI IRU (QGRZPHQW VXJJHVWV WKDW HDFK GROODU LQFUHDVH LQ HQGRZPHQW IXQGV OHDGV WR DQ DYHUDJH FHQW LQFUHDVH LQ )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH )LQDOO\ WKH UHJUHVVLRQ FRHIILFLHQW RI IRU )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU VXJJHVWV WKDW IRU HDFK XQLW LQFUHDVH IURP fQRW DSSOLFDEOHf WR fQRW FULWLFDOf WR fFULWLFDOf WR fYHU\ FULWLFDOff LQ WKH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURIHVVLRQDOfV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUfV UROH WKHUH LV DQ DYHUDJH LQFUHDVH RI LQ )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH 2EYLRXVO\ VXFK SHUFHSWLRQV DUH VXEMHFWLYH DQG ZRXOG QRW LQ WKHPVHOYHV FUHDWH D GLIIHUHQFH LQ IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH H[FHSW DV LQGLFDWRUV RI JUHDWHU ERDUG FRPPLWPHQW DFWLYLW\ DQG VXSSRUW 7DEOH 8QVWDQGDUGL]HG 5HJUHVVLRQ &RHIILFLHQWV 6WDQGDUGL]HG 5HJUHVVLRQ &RHIILFLHQWV WWHVW 6WDWLVWLFV DQG 6HPL3DUWLDO UVTXDUHV 9DULDEOHV E 6WG (UURU e W % aUa ,QWHUFHSW ) 2SHU %XGJHW 3UHVLGHQW &KLHI 'HY 2II ) %RDUG r 0PEU ,QVW 6WU *RDOV *(2f§5XUDO *(2f§8UEDQ 6L]H r (QGRZPHQW r re

PAGE 76

6RPHZKDW XQDQWLFLSDWHG ZHUH WKH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV IRU WKH IROORZLQJ H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV )RXQGDWLRQ 2SHUDWLQJ %XGJHW E Wf 3 f 3UHVLGHQW E Wf S f DQG ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6WUDWHJLF *RDOV E Wf S f 7R GHWHUPLQH WKH UHODWLYH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI HDFK H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOH WKH VTXDUHG VHPLSDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU HDFK 7KH VTXDUHG VHPLSDUWLDO FRUUHODWLRQ Uf UHSUHVHQWV WKH SURSRUWLRQ RI WRWDO YDULDQFH LH RI WKH RXWFRPH YDULDQFHf WKDW LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQ\ RQH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOH RYHU DQG DERYH WKDW RI WKH RWKHUV 7KH PDJQLWXGH RI  FDQ EH H[DPLQHG LQ WHUPV RI HIIHFW VL]H ZKHUH  LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH ODUJH UB LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH PHGLXP DQG W\ LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH VPDOO &RKHQ f (IIHFW VL]HV RI RU ORZHU DUH FRQVLGHUHG QHJOLJLEOH DW EHVW $FFRUGLQJ WR WKHVH FULWHULD IRU WKH WKUHH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV WKH HIIHFW VL]H RI (QGRZPHQW  f ZDV ODUJH DQG WKH HIIHFW VL]HV RI )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU  f DQG 6L]H  f ZHUH VPDOO DV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH 7KH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV KDYLQJ QHJOLJLEOH HIIHFW VL]HV ZHUH 3UHVLGHQW  f &KLHI 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU  f ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6WUDWHJLF *RDOV  f )RXQGDWLRQ 2SHUDWLQJ %XGJHW  f *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ RI 8UEDQ  f DQG *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ RI 5XUDO  f 6XPPDU\ 7KH RI IRU WKH PRGHO ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )f S VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH MRLQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK b RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH YDULDQFH 7KH DGMXVWHG ZDV 7KH KLJK PDJQLWXGH RI WKH LQGLFDWHG D VWURQJ MRLQW DVVRFLDWLRQ WKDW KROGV IRU WKH SRSXODWLRQ 7KUHH RI WKH H[SODQDWRU\

PAGE 77

YDULDEOHV ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU E Wf J f 6L]H E Wf e f§ DQG (QGRZPHQW E Wf f )RU WKH WKUHH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV WKH HIIHFW VL]H RI (QGRZPHQW  f ZDV ODUJH DQG WKH HIIHFW VL]HV RI )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU f DQG 6L]H  f ZHUH VPDOO &KDSWHU IROORZV ZLWK FRQFOXVLRQV DQG LPSOLFDWLRQV DV ZHOO DV VXJJHVWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK

PAGE 78

&+$37(5 &21&/86,216 ,03/,&$7,216 $1' 68**(67,216 )25 )857+(5 5(6($5&+ 7KLV FKDSWHU VXPPDUL]HV WKH VWXG\f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IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf FULWLFDO UROH RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUf LPSRUWDQFH RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOVf FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQf FROOHJH VL]Hf FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWf

PAGE 79

$QDO\VLV $ VLPXOWDQHRXV PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ WHVW ZDV SHUIRUPHG XVLQJ WKH 6366 Y VRIWZDUH SDFNDJH WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH SURSRVHG UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO GHVFULEHG WKH VDPSOLQJ GDWD DQG WR H[DPLQH WKH GHJUHH RI DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH DQG WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV ,W ZDV IRXQG WKDW WKH 5RI IRU WKH PRGHO ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )f S VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH MRLQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK b RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH YDULDQFH 7KH DGMXVWHG 5B ZDV 7KH KLJK PDJQLWXGH RI WKH 5 LQGLFDWHG D VWURQJ MRLQW DVVRFLDWLRQ WKDW KROGV IRU WKH SRSXODWLRQ 7KH UHJUHVVLRQ HTXDWLRQ IRU WKH PRGHO ZDV DV IROORZV )RXQGDWLRQ 5HYHQXH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWf FULWLFDO UROH RI FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUf FULWLFDO UROH RI IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUf LPSRUWDQFH RI PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOVf FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ;L UXUDOf FROOHJH JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ ; XUEDQf FROOHJH VL]Hf FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWf 7KUHH RI WKH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU E Wf S f 6L]H E Wf S DQG (QGRZPHQW E Wf S f )RU WKH WKUHH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV WKH HIIHFW VL]H RI (QGRZPHQW  f ZDV ODUJH DQG WKH HIIHFW VL]HV RI )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU  f DQG 6L]H  f ZHUH VPDOO 7KH H[SODQDWRU\ YDULDEOHV KDYLQJ QHJOLJLEOH HIIHFW VL]HV ZHUH 3UHVLGHQW  f &KLHI 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU  f ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 6WUDWHJLF *RDOV  f )RXQGDWLRQ

PAGE 80

2SHUDWLQJ %XGJHW  f *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ RI 8UEDQ  f DQG *HRJUDSKLF /RFDWLRQ RI 5XUDO  f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t 3H]]XOOR 'HDQ 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ 3LFNHWW f DQG VSHFLILFDOO\ WZR QDWLRQDO VWXGLHV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU +XQWHU & %f f /LWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWV LV OLPLWHG GXH LQ SDUW WR WKHLU KLVWRULFDOO\ UHFHQW LQFHSWLRQ DQG JURZWK )RU H[DPSOH DQ HQGRZPHQW VL]H RI ZDV FRQVLGHUHG VXEVWDQWLDO LQ KRZHYHU LQ IRXQGDWLRQ HQGRZPHQWV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV H[FHHGHG PLOOLRQ $GDPV HW DO f 7KH HQGRZPHQWV IRU WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LQ WKLV VDPSOH DYHUDJHG RYHU PLOOLRQ 7KH KHDOWK\ HFRQRPLF HQYLURQPHQW DQG WKH b DQG b DYHUDJH VWRFN PDUNHW LQYHVWPHQW UHWXUQV IRU KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ HQGRZPHQWV LQ DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ 9DQ GHU :HUI D 3XOOH\ f FRXOG DOVR KHOS WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH VLJQLILFDQW DQG SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG HQGRZPHQW LQ WKLV VWXG\ 6LQFH

PAGE 81

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fV UROH DV fYHU\ FULWLFDOf RU fFULWLFDOf 7KHVH ILQGLQJV FRQFXUUHG ZLWK WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG IRU VXFFHVVIXO FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV 'HJHUVWHGW +XQWHU & % 6KDUURQ f ,Q D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SHUVRQQHO IURP SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV FDUHIXO VHOHFWLRQ RI ERDUG PHPEHUV ZDV WKH VXJJHVWLRQ PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ FLWHG WR DVVXUH IRXQGDWLRQ VXFFHVV WKH SLWIDOO PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ FLWHG ZDV QRW FKRRVLQJ WKH ULJKW IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV 'HJHUVWHGW f &ROOHJH VL]H SURYHG WR EH SRVLWLYHO\ DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH 7KLV UHVXOW IROORZHG SULRU UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV WKDW LQVWLWXWLRQDO VL]H LV DQ LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH LQ UHVHDUFKLQJ SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV &RKHQ t %UDZHU f 7KH ILQGLQJ VXSSRUWHG SUHYLRXV OLWHUDWXUH WKDW OLQNHG JUHDWHU FROOHJH VL]H WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHfV

PAGE 82

HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D IRXQGDWLRQ 'HJHUVWHGW $QJHO t *DUHV f DQG WR PRUH VXFFHVVIXO FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV DQG GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV *ODQGRQ 0DSOHV 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU 5\DQ f 7KH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJ IRU IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW UDQ FRXQWHU WR WKH OLWHUDWXUH VXSSRUWLQJ UHVRXUFH DOORFDWLRQ DV DQ LPSRUWDQW YDULDEOH IRU IXQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR 'XURQLR t /RHVVLQ E *OHQQRQ +XQWHU ) ,URQILHOG -HQQHU -RKQVRQ /HVOLH /HYLV /XFN /XFN t 7ROOH 0DSOHV 0LOOHU 3LFNHWW f ,Q JHQHUDO LQVWLWXWLRQDO VSHQGLQJ LV UHSRUWHG PRVW FRQVLVWHQWO\ DV WKH YDULDEOH EHVW FRUUHODWHG ZLWK IXQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV %ULWWLQJKDP t 3H]]XOOR f 7KDW QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW DQG IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH PD\ KDYH EHHQ WKH UHVXOW RI KRZ WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV UHTXHVWHG LQ WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW DQG RI SRVVLEOH PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ RQ WKH SDUW RI UHVSRQGHQWV 6XUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH WR LQGLFDWH WKH WRWDO DQQXDO IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW DQG WR LQFOXGH WKH VDODULHV DQG EHQHILWV RI IRXQGDWLRQ SHUVRQQHO 2I WKH UHVSRQGHQWV WR WKLV VXUYH\ LWHP bf UHSRUWHG D IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW RI OHVV WKDQ WKH UHPDLQLQJ bf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f 3HUKDSV VRPH

PAGE 83

UHVSRQGHQWV H[FOXGHG EXGJHWDU\ FRQWULEXWLRQV IURP WKH KRVW LQVWLWXWLRQ RU LQFOXGHG DOO IRXQGDWLRQ DVVHWV LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ 6XFK PLVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ PD\ KDYH FRQIRXQGHG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHW DQG IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH 7KLV VWXG\ DOVR IRXQG QR VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH FULWLFDO UROH RI WKH SUHVLGHQW DQG IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH :KLOH WKLV ILQGLQJ FRQFXUUHG ZLWK RQH QDWLRQDO VWXG\ RI VWDWH FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV +XQWHU ) f LW FRQWUDGLFWHG WKH OLWHUDWXUH VSHFLILFDOO\ UHJDUGLQJ WZR\HDU FROOHJHV %RFN t 6XOOLQV 'XII\ *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU *ODVV t -DFNVRQ E *OHQQRQ ,URQILHOG -DFNVRQ t *ODVV .HHQHU .HHQHU HW DO 0RVLHU 5RELQVRQ 5\DQ f :KLOH QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ WKH DPRXQW RI IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH UROH SOD\HG E\ WKH SUHVLGHQW VXUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV RQ DYHUDJH WKRXJKW WKH SUHVLGHQW SOD\HG D fYHU\ FULWLFDOf RU fFULWLFDOf UROH LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ 7KH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJ PD\ EH H[SODLQHG LQ SDUW E\ WKH OLPLWHG UDQJH RI UHVSRQVHV DW WKH KLJK HQG 0 f RI WKH SRLQW /LNHUW VFDOH ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW IXQG UDLVLQJ KDV QRW EHHQ D KLJK SULRULW\ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWV 5\DQ f DQG WKDW WKH SUHVLGHQWfV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DGYRFDF\ DQG VXSSRUW RI WKH DGYDQFHPHQW IXQFWLRQ PD\ EH PRUH FULWLFDO WKDQ KLV RU KHU SHUVRQDO VROLFLWDWLRQ RI IXQGV 5\DQ f $GGLWLRQDOO\ LW KDV EHHQ VWDWHG WKDW WKH SUHVLGHQWfV OHDGHUVKLS FDSDFLW\ LQ WKH DUHD RI DGYDQFHPHQW ODUJHO\ ZLOO GHWHUPLQH IXQGUDLVLQJ VXFFHVV IRU PRVW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV *ODVV t -DFNVRQ Ef :KLOH WKHVH LVVXHV GHVHUYH IXUWKHU H[SORUDWLRQ WKLV VWXG\fV ILQGLQJV DUH LQFRQFOXVLYH UHJDUGLQJ WKH

PAGE 84

UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH DPRXQW RI IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH JDLQHG DQG WKH UROH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW 5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKDW KDYLQJ D FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU LQGLYLGXDO UHVSRQVLEOH IRU H[WHUQDO UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW LV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI VXFFHVVIXO IRXQGDWLRQV *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU +XQWHU & % f +DYLQJ D FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU LQGLYLGXDO UHVSRQVLEOH IRU H[WHUQDO UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW ZDV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV ZLWK YDOXHV RI PLOOLRQ RU PRUH LQ D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU f $QRWKHU QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ LQ IRXQG WKDW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU IRXQGDWLRQ H[HFXWLYH GLUHFWRU SOD\HG WKH PRVW DFWLYH UROH LQ VROLFLWLQJ IXQGV 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU f :KLOH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG WKH FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUfV UROH ZDV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW LQ WKLV VWXG\ WKH ILQGLQJ UHPDLQV LQFRQFOXVLYH $W OHDVW b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV LQ WKH VDPSOH GLG QRW KDYH D FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU RU D SHUVRQ ZLWK VLPLODU UHVSRQVLELOLWLHVf DW WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ LQ ZKLFK FDVH fQRW DSSOLFDEOHf RU ff RQ WKH /LNHUW VFDOH ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ QRWHG RQ WKH VXUYH\ 6WLOO WKH KLJK DYHUDJH UHVSRQVH 0 f RQ WKH SRLQW /LNHUW VFDOH VXJJHVWHG WKDW PRVW VXUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV UDWHG WKH UROH RI WKH FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DV fYHU\ FULWLFDOf RU fFULWLFDOf WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ &RQQHFWLQJ FROOHJH DQG GHYHORSPHQW SODQQLQJ KDV EHHQ FLWHG DV QHFHVVDU\ IRU VXFFHVVIXO FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW %ORQJ t %HQQHWW 'DQLHO *ODQGRQ t .HHQHU +RRNV t .HOOH\ .HHQHU 5RELVRQ 5\DQ :DWWHQEDUJHU f 7KDW D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV QRW IRXQG EHWZHHQ PHHWLQJ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV DQG IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH LQ WKLV

PAGE 85

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fYHU\ LPSRUWDQWf DQG fLPSRUWDQWf DQ LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW PHHWLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VWUDWHJLF JRDOV ZDV PHDQLQJIXO WR PRVW IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQf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t 3H]]XOOR %XOSLWW *DWHZRRG +XQWHU & % +XQWHU ) ,URQILHOG 5\DQ f )XQGUDLVLQJ SRWHQWLDO VWLOO PD\ EH OLQNHG WR DQ LQVWLWXWLRQfV ORFDWLRQ DQG DFFHVV WR UHVRXUFHV \HW WKH FROOHJHfV JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ DORQH PD\ QRW SURYLGH WKH GHSWK RI LQIRUPDWLRQ QHHGHG WR GHWHUPLQH VXFK DFFHVV WR UHVRXUFHV 0HDVXUHV RI UHJLRQDO VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF FRQGLWLRQV ZRXOG HQKDQFH WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI HQYLURQPHQWDO IDFWRUV SRWHQWLDOO\ DIIHFWLQJ WKH FROOHJH V\VWHP DQG IRXQGDWLRQ VXEV\VWHP

PAGE 86

,PSOLFDWLRQV $ V\VWHPV IUDPHZRUN FDQ EH XVHG WR H[DPLQH VWUXFWXUHV UROHV DQG LQWHUUHODWLRQVKLSV DIIHFWLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH ,Q H[DPLQLQJ V\VWHP UHODWLRQVKLSV LW VKRXOG EH UHPHPEHUHG WKDW V\VWHPV WKDW DUH FULWLFDO WR WKH VXFFHVV RI KLJKHU V\VWHPV DUH WKRVH WKDW WKULYH /RUHQ]R t /H&UR\ f 7KLV G\QDPLF UHLQIRUFHV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI FRQVLGHULQJ WKH FROOHJH V\VWHP ZKHQ DQDO\]LQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH V\VWHP RU VXEV\VWHPfV H[LVWHQFH VKRXOG EH TXHVWLRQHG WKH IXQFWLRQ GLDJQRVHG DQG WKH GHVLUHG UHVXOWV SODQQHG UHODWLYH WR LQWHUUHODWHG V\VWHPV DQG WKHLU GHPDQGV 9DQ *LJFK f 3KLODQWKURS\ HQWUHSUHQHXUVKLS DQG JUDQWVPDQVKLS ZLOO EH QHFHVVDU\ IRU GHFUHDVLQJ RYHUDOO GHSHQGHQF\ RI GHFUHDVLQJ UHYHQXH IURP PRUH WUDGLWLRQDO VRXUFHV /RUHQ]R t /H&UR\ f 7R PHHW WKH FKDOOHQJHV RI ORQJWHUP YLDELOLW\ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZLOO QHHG OHDGHUV ZKR FDQ SUHVHQW FRPSHOOLQJ HYLGHQFH RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DQG VWXGHQW VXFFHVV LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ ZKLOH VKRZLQJ WKDW SXEOLF IXQGV DUH IDOOLQJ VKRUW RI LPSRUWDQW QHHGV -RKQVRQ $ f /HDGHUV ZLWK YLVLRQ DQG V\VWHPLF VROXWLRQV ZLOO EH QHHGHG IRU WKHVH IXWXUH FKDOOHQJHV &OHPHQWV f 7KHVH OHDGHUV PXVW UHFRJQL]H WKH QHFHVVLW\ DQG SRWHQWLDO RI D IRXQGDWLRQ DQG WKH HOHPHQWV WKDW FRQWULEXWH WR D IRXQGDWLRQfV VXFFHVV ,I GLVFUHSDQFLHV H[LVW EHWZHHQ YDULDEOHV RI VLJQLILFDQFH LQ WKHRU\ DQG WKRVH LQ SUDFWLFH HVSHFLDOO\ LI IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH LV OHVV WKDQ H[SHFWHG FROOHJH OHDGHUV DQG PDQDJHUV PLJKW IRUHJR PLQRU WZHDNLQJ RI WKH FXUUHQW V\VWHP DV WKH PRUH OLPLWHG DSSURDFK WR VROYLQJ V\VWHPV SUREOHPV DQG LQVWHDG UHGHVLJQ WKH V\VWHP DV WKH PRUH HIIHFWLYH ZD\ WR VROYH SUREOHPV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH V\VWHP 9DQ *LJFK f

PAGE 87

%DVHG RQ WKH VLJQLILFDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH FULWLFDO UROH RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHU DQG IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH LQ WKLV VWXG\ HQFRXUDJLQJ ERDUG OHDGHUVKLS ZLOO EH HVVHQWLDO VR WKDW IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV DUH HPSRZHUHG WR DFW LQ ZD\V WKDW ZLOO EHVW VXSSRUW WKH FROOHJH ,W ZLOO EH LPSRUWDQW IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH OHDGHUV QRW RQO\ WR UHFRQVLGHU IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG FRPSRVLWLRQ DQG VHOHFWLRQ DV KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG %U\DQW *DOH f EXW DOVR WR H[DPLQH ERDUG FRPPLWPHQW DQG WKH EDUULHUV WR LQFUHDVHG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG VHOIGLUHFWLRQ /HDGHUVKLS LQ VXFFHVVIXO RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FXOWXUHV LV VKDUHG V\VWHPZLGH DQG IURP DOO OHYHOV :DOOLQ t 5\DQ f &KDOOHQJLQJ XQGHUO\LQJ DVVXPSWLRQV DQG PHWKRGV RI GRLQJ WKLQJV ZLOO EH QHFHVVDU\ DV IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV PRYH IRUZDUG +HGJHSHWK f &UHDWLQJ D PRUH SURDFWLYH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PD\ LQYROYH DQ RYHUKDXO RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ E\ODZV DQG D UHYDPSLQJ RI IRXQGDWLRQ VWUXFWXUHV IRU PRUH GLUHFW RYHUVLJKW RI YLWDO IRXQGDWLRQ IXQFWLRQV VXFK DV UDLVLQJ LQYHVWLQJ DQG GLVEXUVLQJ IRXQGDWLRQ IXQGV .DWVLQDV HW DO f 'HYHORSPHQW SURIHVVLRQDOV VKRXOG GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU ERDUG PHPEHUV IXOO\ XQGHUVWDQG WKHLU UROHV SULRU WR MRLQLQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG $ MRE GHVFULSWLRQ WR FODULI\ UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV D FRPSUHKHQVLYH DQG FDUHIXOO\ GHVLJQHG RULHQWDWLRQ SURJUDP DQG D FRQWLQXLQJ HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDP WKDW LQFOXGHV VHOIDVVHVVPHQW DUH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK ERDUG PHPEHUV FDQ EH PDGH DZDUH RI WKHLU UROHV UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV DQG FRQWULEXWLRQV /HJQ f ,Q DQ\ FDVH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PHPEHUV VKRXOG VHH WKHLU UROH DV D VHULRXV ILGXFLDU\ RQH 5REHUWVRQ f DQG WKH\ VKRXOG WDNH DQ fDFWLYH LQWHQWLRQDO DQG FRQVFLRXV UROH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKHLU IXQFWLRQV DQG WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK WKH\ ZLOO EH LPSOHPHQWHGf +HGJHSHWK S f

PAGE 88

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f 2XWVLGH FRXQVHO PLJKW DOVR EH HPSOR\HG WR SURYLGH DVVLVWDQFH LQ ZLVHO\ LQYHVWLQJ HQGRZPHQW IXQGV 5\DQ f :KHWKHU VXFK IXQGV DUH H[WHUQDOO\ RU LQWHUQDOO\ PDQDJHG FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV VKRXOG GHYHORS DQ HIIHFWLYH LQYHVWPHQW SROLF\ WR JXLGH LQYHVWPHQW GHFLVLRQV DQG WR SURYLGH RSWLPDO LQYHVWPHQW UHWXUQV .DSUDXQ t +HDUG f 7KLV VWXG\fV ILQGLQJ WKDW JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ GLG QRW KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH FRQILUPV WKDW JHRJUDSKLF ORFDWLRQ DORQH VKRXOG QRW GHWHU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV SDUWLFXODUO\ WKRVH LQ UXUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ DUHDV IURP ORRNLQJ WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ DV D fUHVHUYRLU RI VXSSRUWf IRU D EHWWHU SHUIRUPLQJ IRXQGDWLRQ 'HJHUVWHGW S f 6LPLODUO\ FROOHJH VL]H ZKLOH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DQG SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH KDG RQO\ D VPDOO HIIHFW DQG VKRXOG QRW SUHFOXGH VPDOOHU LQVWLWXWLRQV IURP LPSOHPHQWLQJ D UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP RU HQKDQFLQJ RQH FXUUHQWO\ LQ SODFH

PAGE 89

6XJJHVWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK f3KLODQWKURS\ LV DERXW OHDGHUVKLSf 3D\WRQ HW DO S f )XUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH OLQN EHWZHHQ OHDGHUVKLS DQG IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH LQ SXEOLF KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LV UHFRPPHQGHG $ IROORZXS VXUYH\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH SUHVLGHQWfV UROH DW YDULRXV V\VWHP OHYHOVf§H[WHUQDO DQG LQWHUQDO WR WKH FROOHJHf§LV QHFHVVDU\ WR H[DPLQH PRUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWfV UROH WR VXFFHVVIXO UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW 0XOWLSOH SHUVSHFWLYHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQWfV UROH LQ GHYHORSPHQW FRXOG EH REWDLQHG IURP SUHVLGHQWV FKLHI GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUV IRXQGDWLRQ GLUHFWRUV DQG IRXQGDWLRQV ERDUG FKDLUV IRU FRPSDULVRQ UHODWLYH WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH )XUWKHU UHVHDUFK DOVR LV QHHGHG WR VWXG\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI UHVRXUFH DOORFDWLRQ WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXH DQG RSHUDWLRQV 7KH OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWV WKDW IXQGLQJ IRU IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV FDQ FRPH H[FOXVLYHO\ IURP WKH KRVW LQVWLWXWLRQ IURP IRXQGDWLRQJHQHUDWHG UHVRXUFHV DORQH RU VRPH FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH WZR +HGJHSHWK 6LPLF f $Q LQ GHSWK VWXG\ WKDW DFFXUDWHO\ LGHQWLILHV WKH IXQGLQJ VRXUFHV DQG EXGJHW DOORFDWLRQV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQV DV ZHOO DV WKH DPRXQWV GHGLFDWHG WR VDODULHV DQG EHQHILWV ZRXOG SURYLGH LPSRUWDQW GDWD IRU FRQVLVWHQW FRPSDULVRQ RI IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLQJ EXGJHWV WR IRXQGDWLRQ UHYHQXHV DFURVV LQVWLWXWLRQV ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI VXFK TXHVWLRQV E\ VXUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV FDQ YDU\ ZLGHO\ VR VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQV VKRXOG EH ZRUGHG FDUHIXOO\ ZLWK GHILQLWLRQV SURYLGHG DV QHFHVVDU\ VR WKDW UHVSRQGHQWV SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ DV DFFXUDWHO\ DQG FRQVLVWHQWO\ DV SRVVLEOH ([WHUQDO LQIOXHQFHV RQ WKH FROOHJH V\VWHP DQG IRXQGDWLRQ VXEV\VWHP VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ D IROORZXS VWXG\ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW UHPDLQLQJ YDULDQFH LQ WKH PRGHO FDQ

PAGE 90

EH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ YDULDEOHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VXFK H[WHUQDO LQIOXHQFHV ,QLWLDO VWXGLHV KDYH LQFOXGHG UHJLRQDO HFRQRPLF PHDVXUHV DORQJ ZLWK YDULDEOHV LQWHUQDO WR WZR\HDU FROOHJHV &OHPHQWV *DWHZRRG +XQWHU & % f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f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fV LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW FKLHI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHU DQG IRXQGDWLRQ GLUHFWRU DQG WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUGfV HQJDJHPHQW LQ WUDLQLQJ DQG VHOIDVVHVVPHQW DFWLYLWLHV 9DULRXV PRGHOV IRU VWUXFWXULQJ DQG HPSRZHULQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG PLJKW EH H[SORUHG WKURXJK FDVH VWXGLHV WKDW FRXOG OHDG WR JUHDWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI HQKDQFHG IRXQGDWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH $GGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK LV QHHGHG UHJDUGLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH HQGRZPHQWV 4XDQWLWDWLYH DQG TXDOLWDWLYH VWXGLHV RI FROOHJHV WKDW KDYH EXLOW LPSUHVVLYH HQGRZPHQWV

PAGE 91

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fV TXDOLW\ DQG VXFFHVV DV UHODWHG WR HQGRZPHQW VL]H FRXOG EH VWXGLHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQfV UHYHQXH DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI PDMRU JLIWV DQG IXWXUH EHTXHVWV ,Q DVVHVVLQJ GHYHORSPHQW UHVXOWV HVSHFLDOO\ PDMRU JLIWV WKDW UHTXLUH ORQJWHUP FRPPLWPHQW DQG FRQVLVWHQW QXUWXULQJ RI UHODWLRQVKLSV ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXGLHV ZRXOG EH KHOSIXO LQ WUDFNLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GRQRU UHODWLRQVKLSV FXOWLYDWHG RYHU VHYHUDO \HDUV

PAGE 92

$33(1',; $ 3(56216 ,1&/8'(' ,1 ),567 5(9,(: 3$1(/ )25 6859(< ,167580(17 9$/,'$7,21 0DULO\Q $SSHOVRQ 'LUHFWRU RI &ROOHJH 'HYHORSPHQW t )RXQGDWLRQ 2DNWRQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 'HV 3ODLQHV ,OOLQRLV :LOOLDP $WNLQV $VVRFLDWH 'HDQ IRU $FDGHPLF $IIDLUV 1DVVDX &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH *DUGHQ &LW\ 1HZ
PAGE 93

$33(1',; % &29(5 /(77(5 )25 ),567 5(9,(: 3$1(/

PAGE 94

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
PAGE 95

$33(1',; & (9$/8$7,21 )250 )25 ),567 5(9,(: 3$1(/

PAGE 96

&20081,7< &2//(*( (;7(51$/ )81',1* 6859(< (YDOXDWLRQ )RUP )URP WKH OLVW EHORZ SOHDVH FKHFN WKH 21( SHUVRQ ZKR VKRXOG UHFHLYH WKH VXUYH\ PDLOLQJ IRU GLVWULEXWLRQ DW WKH FROOHJH &KDQFHOORU *UDQWV&RQWUDFWV 2IILFHU 'LVWULFW 3UHVLGHQW )RXQGDWLRQ 2IILFHU &DPSXV 3UHVLGHQW &KLHI %XVLQHVV 2IILFHU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU +XPDQ 5HVRXUFH 2IILFHU &RPPHQWV $UH WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXFWLRQV FOHDU"
PAGE 97

,V WKH IRUPDW RI WKH VXUYH\ DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ EHLQJ UHTXHVWHG"
PAGE 98

$33(1',; 3(56216 ,1&/8'(' ,1 6(&21' 5(9,(: 3$1(/ )25 6859(< ,167580(17 9$/,'$7,21 0DULO\Q $SSHOVRQ 'LUHFWRU RI &ROOHJH 'HYHORSPHQW t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t 'HYHORSPHQW %LOO 3ULHVW ,QVWLWXWH IRU (FRQRPLF 'HYHORSPHQW 'DOODV 7H[DV $QQHH 7DUD 'LUHFWRU RI 3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW t 3XEOLF 5HODWLRQV &HQWUDO 0DLQH 7HFKQLFDO &ROOHJH $XEXUQ 0DLQH 'RXJ 9DQ 1RVWUDQ 'LUHFWRU RI *UDQWV :LOOLDP 5DLQH\ +DUSHU &ROOHJH 3DODWLQH ,OOLQRLV

PAGE 99

$33(1',; ( &29(5 /(77(5 )25 6(&21' 5(9,(: 3$1(/

PAGE 100

0D\ 'HDU &5' %RDUG 0HPEHU DQG *XHVW 5HYLHZHU 7KDQN \RX IRU VHUYLQJ RQ WKH SDQHO RI UHYLHZHUV IRU WKH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ([WHUQDO )XQGLQJ 6XUYH\ 2XU UHVHDUFK WHDP IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LV FRQGXFWLQJ WKLV QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ ZLWK VXSSRUW IURP WKH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW DQG WKH &OHPHQWV *URXS DQG ZLWK WKH HQGRUVHPHQW RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 7UXVWHHV $&&7f 7KH VWXG\ UHVXOWV ZLOO SURYLGH QHHGHG GDWD RQ WKH VWDWXV RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZLOO EH XVHIXO WR WUXVWHHV SUHVLGHQWV GHYHORSPHQW RIILFHUV KXPDQ UHVRXUFH SHUVRQQHO DQG RWKHU GHFLVLRQ PDNHUV ZKR FDQ SRVLWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH H[WHUQDO IXQGLQJ HIIRUWV DQG RXWFRPHV
PAGE 101

$33(1',; ) (9$/8$7,21 )250 )25 6(&21' 5(9,(: 3$1(/

PAGE 102

&20081,7< &2//(*( (;7(51$/ )81',1* 6859(< (YDOXDWLRQ )RUP $UH WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXFWLRQV FOHDU"
PAGE 103

$33(1',; 6859(< &29(5 /(77(5

PAGE 104

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f ,W PD\ EH KHOSIXO WR XVH DQ DQQXDO UHSRUW RU RWKHU ILQDQFLDO VXPPDU\ DV \RX UHVSRQG WR WKH VXUYH\ 3OHDVH UHWXUQ WKH FRPSOHWHG VXUYH\ E\ $XJXVW 7KH UHWXUQ DGGUHVV DQG ID[ QXPEHU DUH SURYLGHG EHORZ 7KH VXUYH\ ZLOO EH DQDO\]HG DQG D UHSRUW SUHSDUHG ,I \RX ZLVK WR UHFHLYH D FRS\ RI WKH UHSRUW SOHDVH LQGLFDWH WKLV LQWHUHVW RQ WKH VXUYH\ E\ FKHFNLQJ WKH ER[ DW WKH HQG RI 6HFWLRQ 7KDQN \RX IRU \RXU KHOS LQ SURYLGLQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ QHHGHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ 6LQFHUHO\ %DUEDUD .HHQHU (G' *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQDO /HDGHUVKLS 3ROLF\ DQG )RXQGDWLRQV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 3HUU\ +DPPRFN &)5( 5HVHDUFK 3URMHFW /LDLVRQ &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 6KDURQ 0 &DUULHU 'RFWRUDO *UDGXDWH 6WXGHQW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 6KHUU\ 0HDGHUV 'RFWRUDO *UDGXDWH 6WXGHQW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 3OHDVH UHWXUQ DOO VHFWLRQV RI WKH VXUYH\ E\ $8*867 0DLO WR 'U %DUEDUD .HHQHU 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ RU ID[ WR f

PAGE 105

$33(1',; + &20081,7< &2//(*( (;7(51$/ )81',1* 6859(<

PAGE 106

&20081,7< &2//(*( (;7(51$/ )81',1* 6859(< ,1752'8&7,21 7KH &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 7UXVWHHV DQG WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ ZLWK VXSSRUW IURP WKH &OHPHQWV *URXS DUH VXUYH\LQJ WKH QDWLRQfV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WR SURYLGH FXUUHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW
PAGE 107

&20081,7< &2//(*( (;7(51$/ )81',1* 6859(< 6(&7,21 &2//(*( 352),/( 6HFWLRQ TXHVWLRQV f LV WR EH FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH GHVLJQDWHG FROOHJH FRQWDFW SHUVRQ ZKR ZLOO RYHUVHH WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ FRPSOHWLRQ DQG UHWXUQ RI WKH VXUYH\ 3OHDVH EDVH DOO UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH ILVFDO \HDU RU WKH HTXLYDOHQWf ,QVWLWXWLRQ
PAGE 108

,V WKHUH D )281'$7,2135,9$7( *,)7 '(9(/230(17 RIILFH"
PAGE 109

6(&7,21 Q *5$17 '(9(/230(17 6HFWLRQ ,, TXHVWLRQV f LV WR EH FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH SHUVRQ SULPDULO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU H[WHUQDO JUDQW IXQGLQJ 3OHDVH EDVH DOO UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH ILVFDO \HDU RU WKH HTXLYDOHQWf 7KH JUDQW RIILFHUfV DVVRFLDWLRQ LV ZLWK WKH D 2 &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH &HQWUDO'LVWULFW 2IILFH E >+ &ROOHJH LQ D 0XOWL&ROOHJH 'LVWULFW F &DPSXV LQ D 0XOWL&DPSXV 'LVWULFW G Â’ 6LQJOH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH &DPSXV H Â’ 2WKHU ,I WKHUH LV D JUDQWV RIILFH ZKDW \HDU ZDV LW HVWDEOLVKHG" 1$ +RZ PDQ\ SHUVRQV DUH DVVLJQHG WR WKH JUDQWV RSHUDWLRQ" 3URIHVVLRQDO D )XOO 7LPH E 3DUW 7LPH 3DUDSURIHVVLRQDO D )XOO 7LPH E 3DUW 7LPH &OHULFDO D )XOO 7LPH E 3DUW 7LPH 2IILFH 9ROXQWHHU ,QGLFDWH WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH SHUVRQ SULPDULO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU JUDQWV 7LWOH )XOO RU 3DUW
PAGE 110

D E F G H I J K L M N O D E F G H I J K L M N O P /LVW WKH WRWDO GROODU UHYHQXH LQ JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH IROORZLQJ VRXUFHV D )HGHUDO *RYHUQPHQW E 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW F /RFDO *RYHUQPHQW G &RUSRUDWLRQV H )RXQGDWLRQV I 2WKHU )RU WKH ODUJHVW JUDQW UHFHLYHG LQ VSHFLI\ WKH VRXUFH DQG WKH WRWDO GROODU DPRXQW LI PXOWLSOH\HDU JUDQW LQGLFDWH DPRXQW ,QGLFDWH WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH IROORZLQJ IDFWRUV LQ (9$/8$7,1* WKH LQVWLWXWLRQf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fV JUDQWV RSHUDWLRQ" 3OHDVH UDWH HDFK 9HU\ 1RW 1RW &ULWLFDO &ULWLFDO &ULWLFDO $SSOLFDEOH 3UHVLGHQW &ROOHJH 7UXVWHH &KLHI 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU &KLHI $FDGHPLF 2IILFHU &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHU &KLHI %XVLQHVV 2IILFHU *UDQWV 2IILFHU *UDQWV 3DUDSURIHVVLRQDO )RXQGDWLRQ 'LUHFWRU )DFXOW\ &RQVXOWDQW 6WXGHQW &RQVRUWLD 1RW $SSOLFDEOH

PAGE 111

Q 9ROXQWHHU R /HJDO3DUDOHJDO S 2WKHU

PAGE 112

6(&7,21 ,,, )281'$7,2135,9$7( *,)7 '(9(/230(17 6HFWLRQ ,,, TXHVWLRQV f LV WR EH FRPSOHWHG E\ WKH SHUVRQ SULPDULO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ 3OHDVH EDVH DOO UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH ILVFDO \HDU RU WKH HTXLYDOHQWf 7KH IRXQGDWLRQ RIILFHUfV DVVRFLDWLRQ LV ZLWK WKH D (' &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH &HQWUDO'LVWULFW 2IILFH E (' &ROOHJH LQ D 0XOWL&ROOHJH 'LVWULFW F (+ &DPSXV LQ D 0XOWL&DPSXV 'LVWULFW G (' 6LQJOH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH &DPSXV H (' 2WKHU ,I WKHUH LV D IRXQGDWLRQ RIILFH ZKDW \HDU ZDV LW HVWDEOLVKHG" 1$ +RZ PDQ\ SHUVRQV DUH DVVLJQHG WR WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ" 3URIHVVLRQDO D )XOO 7LPH E 3DUW 7LPH &OHULFDO D )XOO 7LPH E 3DUW 7LPH 9ROXQWHHU RWKHU WKDQ ERDUG PHPEHUf ,QGLFDWH WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH SHUVRQ SULPDULO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ 7LWOH )XOO RU 3DUW
PAGE 113

2I WKH WRWDO $66(76 LQGLFDWHG LQ ZKDW LV WKH DPRXQW RI (1'2:(' IXQGV" D E G G H I J K L /LVW WKH WRWDO HDUQHG ,1&20( IURP WKH IROORZLQJ D (QGRZHG ,QWHUHVW,QYHVWPHQWV F 3URSHUW\ 6DOH E 3URSHUW\ 5HQWDO G 2WKHU /LVW WKH WRWDO FRQWULEXWLRQV UHDOL]HG IURP WKH IROORZLQJ 6285&(6 LQ D ,QGLYLGXDOV UHFHLYHG /LYLQJf H )RXQGDWLRQV E ,QGLYLGXDOV UHFHLYHG %HTXHVWVf I 6WDWH 0DWFK F &RPPXQLW\&LYLF 2UJDQL]DWLRQV 6 J 2WKHU G &RUSRUDWLRQV /LVW WKH FRQWULEXWLRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ IXQGUDLVLQJ 0(7+2'6 LQ D $QQXDO )XQG E &DSLWDO &DPSDLJQ F 3ODQQHG *LIWV G 6WDWH 0DWFK H 6SHFLDO (YHQWV I 2WKHU &XUUHQW YDOXH RI DOO GHIHUUHG JLIWV SOHGJHG WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ LQ 6SHFLI\ ERDUG PHPEHU FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WKH FROOHJH LQ 1XPEHU RI 3HUFHQW %RDUG %RDUG 0HPEHUV :KR 'RQDWHG 7RWDO D &ROOHJH %RDUG RI 7UXVWHHV b E )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG b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
PAGE 114

+RZ FULWLFDO DUH WKH IROORZLQJ UROHV LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQfV IRXQGDWLRQ RSHUDWLRQ" 3OHDVH UDWH HDFK 9HU\ 1RW 1RW &ULWLFDO &ULWLFDO &ULWLFDO $SSOLFDEOH D 3UHVLGHQW E &ROOHJH 7UXVWHH F )RXQGDWLRQ %RDUG 0HPEHU G &KLHI 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 2IILFHU H &KLHI $IIDLUV 2IILFHU I &KLHI %XVLQHVV 2IILFHU J &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHU K *UDQWV 2IILFHU L )DFXOW\ M 6WXGHQW N $OXPQXV O &RQVXOWDQW P &RQVRUWLD Q 9ROXQWHHU R /HJDO3DUDOHJDO S 2WKHU 7KDQN \RX IRU SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKLV LPSRUWDQW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VXUYH\

PAGE 115

5()(5(1&(6 $GDPV .HHQHU % t 0F*HH $ f *RLQJ SXEOLF ZLWK SULYDWH IXQG UDLVLQJ &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV JDPHU IDLUHU VKDUH RI VXSSRUW &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO f $OIUHG 5 / f &RPSHWLWLRQ IRU OLPLWHG UHVRXUFHV 5HDOLWLHV SURVSHFWV DQG VWUDWHJLHV ,Q 6 +RQH\PDQ / :DWWHQEDUJHU -U DQG & :HVWEURRN (GVf $ VWUXJJOH WR VXUYLYH )XQGLQJ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQ WKH QH[W FHQWXU\ SS f 7KRXVDQG 2DNV &$ &RUZLQ 3UHVV $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI -XQLRU &ROOHJHV f $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI -XQLRU &ROOHJHV 6L[WK DQQXDO PHHWLQJ :DVKLQJWRQ '& $XWKRU $QGHUVRQ 0 t 6Q\GHU 7 &RPSf f 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ PDQXDO t JXLGH 5DQFKR &XFDPRQJD &$ 1HWZRUN RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH )RXQGDWLRQV (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f $QJHO t *DUHV f 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ WRGD\ $ KLVWRU\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG DVVHWV ,Q $ 0 &RKHQ t ) % %UDZHU 6HULHV (GVf t / &DWDQ]DUR t $ $UQROG 9RO (GVf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 1R $OWHUQDWLYH IXQGLQJ VRXUFHV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV %HHKOHU 0 & f 7KH FKDQJLQJ UROH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW LQ :DVKLQJWRQ VWDWH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 5HYLHZ f %HQGHU / t 'DQLHO f 5HWKLQNLQJ IXQGLQJ VWUDWHJLHV ,QWHJUDWHG SODQQLQJ DQG UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW IRU WKH VPDOO WZR\HDU FROOHJH RI $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ DQG -XQLRU &ROOHJH -RXUQDO %ORQJ t %HQQHWW % f (PSW\ ZHOOV 5HVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW LQ WRXJK WLPHV &RPPXQLW\ 7HFKQLFDO DQG -XQLRU &ROOHJH -RXUQDO f %RFN ( t 6XOOLQV : 5 f 7KH VHDUFK IRU DOWHUQDWLYH VRXUFHV RI IXQGLQJ &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQG SULYDWH IXQGUDLVLQJ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 5HYLHZ f %RJXFK f 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO UHDGLQHVV IRU VXFFHVVIXO IXQG GHYHORSPHQW $ V\VWHPDWLF DQG KROLVWLF DSSURDFK ,Q 5 ( )RJDO t ) %XUOLQJDPH 6HULHV (GVf t 5 & +HGJHSHWK 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU SKLODQWKURSLF IXQGUDLVLQJ 1R 1RQSURILW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FXOWXUH :KDW IXQGUDLVHUV QHHG WR NQRZ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV

PAGE 116

%RPVWHLQ 5 f 7KH FDSLWDO FDPSDLJQ %HQHILWV DQG KD]DUGV ,Q / )LVKHU t + 4XHKO 7KH SUHVLGHQW DQG IXQG UDLVLQJ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 117

&RXQFLO IRU $LG WR (GXFDWLRQ f 9ROXQWDU\ VXSSRUW RI HGXFDWLRQ >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSZZZFDHRUJ96(YVHWKWP $FFHVVHG $XJXVW &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f 0HPEHUVKLS GLUHFWRU\ t UHVRXUFH JXLGH :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f 0HPEHUVKLS GLUHFWRU\ :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f 0HPEHUVKLS GLUHFWRU\ :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW f 0HPEHUVKLS GLUHFWRU\ :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW &UDIW : 0 t *X\ ( f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IXQGUDLVLQJ SURVSHFWV IRU WKH IXWXUH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO f &XWOLS 6 0 f )XQG UDLVLQJ LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ,WV UROH LQ $PHULFDfV SKLODQWKURS\ 1HZ %UXQVZLFN 17UDQVDFWLRQ 'DQLHO ( 1RYHPEHUf )XWXUH WUHQGV LQ UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW 5HVRXUFH 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 'DQLHO f 0DNLQJ WKH FRPPLWPHQW WR UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW &RPPXQLW\ 7HFKQLFDO DQG -XQLRU &ROOHJH -RXUQDO f 'HDQ 2 f (GXFDWLRQDO IXQGUDLVLQJ LQ FKXUFKDIILOLDWHG FROOHJHV $ SUHGLFWLYH DQG SUHVFULSWLYH PRGHO 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 77 $ 80, 1R $$*f 'HHJDQ : / f (QWUHSUHQHXULDO PDQDJHPHQW $ IRXUWK FRQFHSW RI FROOHJH PDQDJHPHQW IRU WKH GHFDGH DKHDG ,Q 7 2f%DQLRQ (Gf ,QQRYDWLRQ LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SS f 1HZ
PAGE 118

'LWWPDQ $ f &ULWHULD IRUMXGJLQJ VWDII VL]H DQG IXQFWLRQV ,Q ) & 3UD\ (Gf +DQGERRN IRU HGXFDWLRQDO IXQG UDLVLQJ $ JXLGH WR VXFFHVVIXO SULQFLSOHV DQG SUDFWLFHV IRU FROOHJHV XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG VFKRROV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 'XII\ ( ) f (YDOXDWLYH FULWHULD IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f 'XQORS 5 f 0DMRU JLIWV ,Q / )LVKHU t + 4XHKO 7KH SUHVLGHQW DQG IXQG UDLVLQJ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 119

*DWHZRRG $ & f $ FRPSDUDWLYH DQDO\VLV DQG HYDOXDWLRQ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH QRQSURILW IRXQGDWLRQV LQ 1RUWK &DUROLQD 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f *DOH 5 / f 7KH UROH RI WKH JRYHUQLQJ ERDUG ,Q / )LVKHU t + 4XHKO 7KH SUHVLGHQW DQG IXQG UDLVLQJ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 120

+HLPRYLFV 5 +HUPDQ 5 t -XUNLHZLF] & / f ([HFXWLYH OHDGHUVKLS DQG UHVRXUFH GHSHQGHQFH LQ QRQSURILW RUJDQL]DWLRQV $ )UDPH $QDO\VLV 3XEOLF $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 5HYLHZ f +HVEXUJK 7 f 3UHVLGHQWLDO OHDGHUVKLS 7KH NH\VWRQH IRU DGYDQFHPHQW ,Q $ : 5RZODQG 6HULHV (Gf t / )LVKHU 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 1R 3UHVLGHQWLDO OHDGHUVKLS LQ DGYDQFHPHQW DFWLYLWLHV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV +RRNV : t .HOOH\ 6 0D\f 7KH HIIHFWLYH OLQNDJH RI SODQQLQJ DQG UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW $ SURFHVV WKDW ZRUNV 5HVRXUFH 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW +XQWHU & % f )XQGUDLVLQJ IURP SULYDWH VRXUFHV LQ SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV XVLQJ QRWIRUSURILW IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUGV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f +XQWHU ) f 3ULYDWH IXQG UDLVLQJ E\ $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WDWH &ROOHJHV DQG 8QLYHUVLWLHV PHPEHU LQVWLWXWLRQV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f ,URQILHOG ( % f &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WZR\HDU SXEOLF FROOHJHV DQG IRXQGDWLRQV ZLWK VXFFHVVIXO IXQGUDLVLQJ SURJUDPV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f -DFNVRQ / t *ODVV & -U f (PHUJLQJ WUHQGV DQG FULWLFDO LVVXHV DIIHFWLQJ SULYDWH IXQGUDLVLQJ DPRQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH -DFNVRQ / t .HHQHU % f ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW &UHDWLQJ SUHIHUUHG IXWXUHV &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH 7 -DFREVRQ + Df 7KH HYDOXDWLRQ SURFHVV LWV LPSRUWDQFH WR WKH PDQDJHU ,Q $ : 5RZODQG 6HULHV (Gf t + -DFREVRQ 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 1R (YDOXDWLQJ DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDPV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV -DFREVRQ + Ef )UDPHZRUN IRU HYDOXDWLRQ LQGLFDWRUV RI HIIRUW SHUIRUPDQFH HIIHFWV ,Q $ : 5RZODQG 6HULHV (Gf t + -DFREVRQ 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 1R (YDOXDWLQJ DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDPV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV -HQNLQV / : t *ODVV & -U f ,QFHSWLRQ JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ /HVVRQV WR EH OHDUQHG &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH

PAGE 121

-HQQHU 3 f )DFWRUV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VXFFHVV RI UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV DW &DOLIRUQLD FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f -RKQVRQ $ f $GYDQFHPHQW VWUDWHJLHV IRU WZR\HDU FROOHJHV ,Q $ : 5RZODQG (Gf +DQGERRN RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW $ PRGHP JXLGH WR H[HFXWLYH PDQDJHPHQW LQVWLWXWLRQDO UHODWLRQV IXQGUDLVLQJ DOXPQL DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW UHODWLRQV SXEOLFDWLRQV SHULRGLFDOV DQG HQUROOPHQW PDQDJHPHQW QG HG SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV -RKQVRQ f $ SURILOH RI VHOHFWHG KLJK DQG ORZSHUIRUPLQJ QRQSURILW IRXQGDWLRQV LQ SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ WHFKQLFDO DQG MXQLRU FROOHJHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f .DSUDXQ ( t +HDUG $ f )LQDQFLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 7KUHDWV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV )D\HWWHYLOOH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI $UNDQVDV (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f .DWVLQDV 6 f 3UHSDULQJ OHDGHUV IRU GLYHUVH LQVWLWXWLRQDO ORFDWLRQV ,Q $ 0 &RKHQ DQG ) % %UDZHU 6HULHV (GVf t & 3DOPHU t 6WHSKHQ .DWVLQDV 9RO (GVf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 1R *UDGXDWH DQG FRQWLQXLQJ HGXFDWLRQ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH OHDGHUV :KDW LW PHDQV WRGD\ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV .DWVLQDV 6 +HUUPDQQ 6 ( t 7UD\ORU + f &KDOOHQJHV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV $*% 5HSRUWV .DW] t .DKQ 5 / f 7KH VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ RI RUJDQL]DWLRQV QG HGf 1HZ
PAGE 122

,OO /HJQ 5 f 7KH IXQGUDLVLQJ UROH 7KH $*% 3RFNHW 3XEOLFDWLRQV 6HULHV 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $VVRFLDWLRQ RI *RYHUQLQJ %RDUGV RI 8QLYHUVLWLHV DQG &ROOHJHV /HVOLH : f )RFXV RQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG VXSSRUW $ VWXG\ LQ FROOHJH PDQDJHPHQW :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 3XEOLF 5HODWLRQV $VVRFLDWLRQ /HVOLH : f 6HOHFWHG LQGLFDWRUV FKDUW WUHQGV ,Q $ : 5RZODQG 6HULHV (Gf t + -DFREVRQ 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 1R (YDOXDWLQJ DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDPV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV /HVOLH t )UHWZHOO ( -U f :LVH PRYHV LQ KDUG WLPHV &UHDWLQJ t PDQDJLQJ UHVLOLHQW FROOHJHV t XQLYHUVLWLHV 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV /HYLV : & f ,QYHVWLQJ PRUH PRQH\ LQ IXQG UDLVLQJf§ZLVHO\ ,Q ) %XUOLQJDPH t / +XOVH (GVf 7DNLQJ IXQG UDLVLQJ VHULRXVO\ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV /RHVVLQ % $ 'XURQLR 0 $ t %RUWRQ / f 0HDVXULQJ DQG H[SDQGLQJ VRXUFHV RI SULYDWH IXQGLQJ ,Q 3 7 7HUHQ]LQL t 0 : 3HWHUVRQ 6HULHV (GVf t $ 'XQQ 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO UHVHDUFK 1R (QKDQFLQJ WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI IXQG UDLVLQJ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV /RUHQ]R $ / f %XVLQHVV DQG ILQDQFLDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ,Q $ 0 &RKHQ ) % %UDZHU t $VVRFLDWHV (GVf 0DQDJLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV $ KDQGERRN IRU HIIHFWLYH SUDFWLFH SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV /RUHQ]R $ / t /H&UR\ 1 $ f $ IUDPHZRUN IRU IXQGDPHQWDO FKDQJH LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO /XFN 0 ) f 7KH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI IRXQGDWLRQV DQG IXQGUDLVLQJ LQ SXEOLF FRPSUHKHQVLYH WZR\HDU FROOHJHV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f /XFN 0 ) t 7ROOH f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GHYHORSPHQW $OWHUQDWLYH IXQGn UDLVLQJ VWUDWHJLHV ,QGLDQDSROLV 5t5 1HZNLUN /XVNLQ % t :DUUHQ f 6WUDWHJLHV IRU JHQHUDWLQJ QHZ ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV ,Q $ 0 &RKHQ ) % %UDZHU t $VVRFLDWHV 6HULHV (GVf t ) &DPSEHOO 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 1R 6WUHQJWKHQLQJ ILQDQFLDO PDQDJHPHQW SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 0DSOHV & & f $Q DQDO\VLV RI GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV DW VHOHFWHG WZR\HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f 0F&DEH 5 + f 6WUHQJWKHQLQJ ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV LV DQ HGXFDWLRQDO SULRULW\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO /

PAGE 123

0F1DPDUD / f &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI DQ HIIHFWLYH WZR\HDU FROOHJH SULYDWH IXQGn UDLVLQJ SURJUDP 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f 0HHNHU % f 6WDWH DQG ORFDO DSSURSULDWLRQV ULVH 5HVXOWV RI WKH FRPSDUDWLYH ILQDQFLDO VWDWLVWLFV VWXG\ 1$&8%2 %XVLQHVV 2IILFHU f 0HULVRWLV 3 t :RODQLQ 7 5 f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH ILQDQFLQJ 6WUDWHJLHV DQG FKDOOHQJHV 1HZ ([SHGLWLRQV ,VVXH 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV 0LOOHU 6 f 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI VHOHFWHG IDFWRUV ZLWK VXFFHVV LQ SULYDWH VHFWRU UHVRXUFH DFTXLVLWLRQ DW $SSDODFKLDQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f 0RRUH $ + -DQXDU\f 3XEOLFSROLF\ LQIOXHQFHV RQ SXEOLF FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ IRXQGDWLRQV 2FFDVLRQDO 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $VVRFLDWLRQ RI *RYHUQLQJ %RDUGV RI 8QLYHUVLWLHV DQG &ROOHJHV 0RVLHU 5 -XQHf 7KH UROH RI WKH FROOHJH SUHVLGHQW LQ UHVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW 5HVRXUFH 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 0XUSK\ 0 f 5DLVLQJ IXQGV IURP IRXQGDWLRQV ,Q $ : 5RZODQG (Gf +DQGERRN RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW $ PRGHP JXLGH WR H[HFXWLYH PDQDJHPHQW LQVWLWXWLRQDO UHODWLRQV IXQGUDLVLQJ DOXPQL DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW UHODWLRQV SXEOLFDWLRQV SHULRGLFDOV DQG HQUROOPHQW PDQDJHPHQW QG HG SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 0XUUD\ f 7KH JXDUDQWHHG IXQGUDLVLQJ V\VWHP $ V\VWHPV DSSURDFK WR SODQQLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ IXQG UDLVLQJ %RVWRQ $PHULFDQ ,QVWLWXWH RI 0DQDJHPHQW 1DVRQ f 7UXVWHH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV 7KH $*% 3RFNHW 3XEOLFDWLRQV 6HULHV 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $VVRFLDWLRQ RI *RYHUQLQJ %RDUGV RI 8QLYHUVLWLHV DQG &ROOHJHV 3DUQHOO f ,QWURGXFWLRQ ,Q 0LW]HO (Gf 5HVRXUFH GHYHORSPHQW LQ WKH WZR\HDU FROOHJH [YLL[[f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 3DUVRQV 0 + f %XGJHWLQJ DQG UHVRXUFH DOORFDWLRQ ,Q $ 0 &RKHQ ) % %UDZHU t $VVRFLDWHV (GVf 0DQDJLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV $ KDQGERRN IRU HIIHFWLYH SUDFWLFH SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 3D\WRQ 5 / 5RVVR + $ t 7HPSHO ( 5 f 7RZDUG D SKLORVRSK\ RI IXQG UDLVLQJ ,Q ) %XUOLQJDPH t / +XOVH (GVf 7DNLQJ IXQG UDLVLQJ VHULRXVO\ $GYDQFLQJ WKH SURIHVVLRQ DQG SUDFWLFH RI UDLVLQJ PRQH\ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV

PAGE 124

3HUU\ 5 5 f *RDORULHQWHG UHVHDUFK $Q LQVWLWXWLRQfV SDUDGLJP ,Q 3 -HGDPXV 6HULHV (Gf t 5 + )HQVNH 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO UHVHDUFK 9RO 1R 8VLQJ JRDOV LQ UHVHDUFK DQG SODQQLQJ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 3KLOOLSSH t (EOLQJHU 5 f &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV )XQGLQJ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IXWXUH $$&& 5HVHDUFK %ULHI f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV 3KLOOLSSH $ t 3DWWRQ 0 f 1DWLRQDO SURILOH RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 7UHQGV t VWDWLVWLFV UG HGf :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 3UHVV $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV 3LFNHWW : / f $Q DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI IXQG UDLVLQJ SROLFLHV RI SULYDWH XQGHUJUDGXDWH FROOHJHV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R $$*f 3LFNHWW : / f )XQGUDLVLQJ HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG GRQRU PRWLYDWLRQ ,Q $ : 5RZODQG (Gf +DQGERRN RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW $ PRGHP JXLGH WR H[HFXWLYH PDQDJHPHQW LQVWLWXWLRQDO UHODWLRQV IXQGUDLVLQJ DOXPQL DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ JRYHUQPHQW UHODWLRQV SXEOLFDWLRQV SHULRGLFDOV DQG HQUROOPHQW PDQDJHPHQW QG HG SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 3XOOH\ ) )HEUXDU\ f (QGRZPHQWV HDUQHG b LQ GRZQ IURP b WKH SULRU \HDU 7KH &KURQLFOH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSFKURQLFDOFRP $FFHVVHG -XQH 5HQQHERKP 5 % f 8VHV RI WKH LQKRXVH IRXQGDWLRQ ,Q ) & 3UD\ (Gf +DQGERRN IRU HGXFDWLRQDO IXQG UDLVLQJ $ JXLGH WR VXFFHVVIXO SULQFLSOHV DQG SUDFWLFHV IRU FROOHJHV XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG VFKRROV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 5LJJV 5 2 t +HOZHJ 2 f ,QYHVWPHQW SROLF\ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQV $UH FRPPRGLW\ IXWXUHV SUXGHQW" &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH , 5REELQV 6 ( f 2UJDQL]DWLRQ WKHRU\ 6WUXFWXUH GHVLJQ DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV UG HGf (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 13UHQWLFH +DOO 5RELQVRQ f 7KH SUHVLGHQW DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW ,Q 5\DQ t 1 6PLWK (GVf 0DUNHWLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& &RXQFLO IRU $GYDQFHPHQW DQG 6XSSRUW RI (GXFDWLRQ 5RELVRQ 6 f 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH WZR\HDU FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ DQG WHFKQLTXHV RI VXFFHVV ,Q : + 6KDUURQ -U (Gf 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW

PAGE 125

5REHUWVRQ $ f 6SHFLDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG SUREOHPV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ,Q ) & 3UD\ (Gf +DQGERRN IRU HGXFDWLRQDO IXQG UDLVLQJ $ JXLGH WR VXFFHVVIXO SULQFLSOHV DQG SUDFWLFHV IRU FROOHJHV XQLYHUVLWLHV DQG VFKRROV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 5REHUWVRQ $ f 7KH UROH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ ,Q : + 6KDUURQ -U (Gf 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 5RZODQG $ : f 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW ,Q $ : 5RZODQG (Gf +DQGERRN RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\ %DVV 5RZODQG $ : f ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR WKH VHULHV $Q RYHUYLHZ ,Q $ : 5RZODQG 6HULHV (Gf t + -DFREVRQ 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 1R (YDOXDWLQJ DGYDQFHPHQW SURJUDPV YLL[LLf 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 5\DQ f ([FHOOHQFH LQ HGXFDWLRQDO IXQGUDLVLQJ DW $PHULFDfV FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV &RPPXQLWY-XQLRU &ROOHJH 4XDUWHUO\ RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH 5\DQ f 5HDVRQV IRU VXFFHVV ,Q / &DWDQ]DUR t $ $UQROG 6HULHV (GVf t $ 0 &RKHQ t ) % %UDZHU 9RO (GVf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 1R $OWHUQDWLYH IXQGLQJ VRXUFHV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 5\DQ f 7KH IXQG UDLVLQJ DQG HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW OLQNDJH ,Q 5\DQ (Gf 3DUWQHUV LQ HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW &RPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWUDWHJLHV IRU FROODERUDWLRQ SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV 5\DQ f 7KH SUHVLGHQWfV UROH LQ IXQG UDLVLQJ ,Q 5 3DSSDV (Gf 6WUDWHJLF PDUNHWLQJ IRU SUHVLGHQWV SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV 6DGHU & + 0DUFKf 7KH UROH RI HOHFWHG WUXVWHHV RI SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ VXFFHVVIXO GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH 1RUWK &HQWUDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJHV DQG 6FKRROV &KLFDJR ,/ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f 6FKPLGW 3 'HFHPEHU f 0RUH VWDWHV XVH PDWFKLQJ JUDQWV WR HQFRXUDJH JLYLQJ WR SXEOLF FROOHJHV 7KH &KURQLFOH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSFKURQLFDOFRP $FFHVVHG -XQH 6HQJH 3 0 f 7KH ILIWK GLVFLSOLQH 7KH DUW DQG SUDFWLFH RI WKH OHDUQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 126

6KDUURQ : + -U f 7KH GHYHORSPHQW DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ 1&5' 5HVRXUFH 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f 6KDUURQ : + -U f 7KH FDVH IRU WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ ,Q : + 6KDUURQ -U (Gf 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 6LPLF & f )XQG UDLVLQJ DQG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI XQLYHUVLW\ IRXQGDWLRQV ,Q 5 7 ,QJUDP t $VVRFLDWHV *RYHUQLQJ SXEOLF FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV $ KDQGERRN IRU WUXVWHHV FKLHI H[HFXWLYHV DQG RWKHU FDPSXV OHDGHUV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 6LPLF & 5 f 7KH UROH RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ ERDUG )RXQGDWLRQ UHODWLRQV %RDUG EDVLFV (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f 6PLWK 1 6HSWHPEHUf ,QWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ DSSURDFKHV 2UJDQL]LQJ IRU HIIHFWLYH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH DGYDQFHPHQW 5HVRXUFH 3DSHU 1R f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW 6PLWK 1 f 5DLVLQJ IXQGV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ,Q 0 :RUWK (Gf (GXFDWLRQDO IXQG UDLVLQJ 3ULQFLSOHV DQG SUDFWLFH SS f 3KRHQL[ $= $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG 2U\[ 3UHVV 6WXDUW Y 6FKRRO 'LVWULFW 1R RI WKH 9LOODJH RI .DODPD]RR 0LFK f 6ZHHW ( f 0LQGLQJ RXU RZQ fEXVLQHVVf ,Q $ : 5RZODQG 6HULHV (Gf t / )LVKHU 9RO (Gf 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGYDQFHPHQW 1R 3UHVLGHQWLDO OHDGHUVKLS LQ DGYDQFHPHQW DFWLYLWLHV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ Df 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (GXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFV 1&(6f 7KH FRQGLWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQ 1&(6 >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSQFHVHGJRYSXEVHDUFKSXEVLQIRDVS"SXELG $FFHVVHG -XO\ 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ Ef 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (GXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFV 1&(6f ,QWHJUDWHG 3RVWVHFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ 'DWD 6\VWHP ,3('6f )DOO (QUROOPHQW )LQDO 5HOHDVH -DQXDU\ >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSQFHVHGJRY,SHGVHI $FFHVVHG $XJXVW 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ f 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (GXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFV 1&(6f $ FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP IRU YHDU SRVWVHFRQGDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV 1&(6 >2Qn OLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSZZZQFHVHGJRYSXEVHDUFKSXEVLQIRDVS"SXELG $FFHVVHG $XJXVW 9DQ *LJFK 3 f $SSOLHG JHQHUDO V\VWHPV WKHRU\ QG HGf 1HZ
PAGE 127

9DQ GHU :HUI 0 D )HEUXDU\ f $ EXOO PDUNHW JDYH FROOHJHV b UHWXUQ RQ HQGRZPHQWV LQ 7KH &KURQLFOH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSFKURQLFDOFRP $FFHVVHG -XQH 9DQ GHU :HUI 0 E $SULO f )RU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV IXQG UDLVLQJ KDV EHFRPH VHULRXV DQG VXFFHVVIXO 7KH &KURQLFOH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ >2QOLQH@ $YDLODEOH KWWSFKURQLFDOFRP $FFHVVHG -XQH 9DXJKDQ % f (IIHFWLYH SUHVLGHQWLDO OHDGHUVKLS 7ZHOYH DUHDV RI IRFXV ,Q $ 0 &RKHQ ) % %UDZHU t $VVRFLDWHV (GVf 0DQDJLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV $ KDQGERRN IRU HIIHFWLYH SUDFWLFH SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 9DXJKDQ % 0HOODQGHU $ t %ORLV % f 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH SUHVLGHQF\ &XUUHQW VWDWXV DQG IXWXUH RXWORRN :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV :DOOLQ / t 5\DQ 5 f 2UGHU RXW RI FKDRV /HDGHUVKLS IRU WKH VW FHQWXU\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH f :DWNLQV 7 f 3XEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHYHQXHV &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH :DWWHQEDUJHU / f 7KH FDVH IRU WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ ,Q : + 6KDUURQ -U (Gf 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IRXQGDWLRQ SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &RXQFLO IRU 5HVRXUFH 'HYHORSPHQW :HEE & + f $ SROLF\UHOHYDQW VWXG\ RI GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV DW UHSUHVHQWDWLYH LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HZ
PAGE 128

:RUWK 0 Ef *ORVVDU\ ,Q 0 :RUWK (Gf (GXFDWLRQDO IXQG UDLVLQJ 3ULQFLSOHV DQG SUDFWLFH SS f 3KRHQL[ $= $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ DQG 2U\[ 3UHVV

PAGE 129

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 6KDURQ 0F(QWHH &DUULHU LV DVVLVWDQW SURYRVW IRU SODQQLQJ DQG VSHFLDO SURMHFWV DW 5ROOLQV &ROOHJH LQ :LQWHU 3DUN )ORULGD 6KH EHJDQ KHU SURIHVVLRQDO FDUHHU LQ DV DQ DGMXQFW LQVWUXFWRU RI KXPDQLWLHV DW %UHYDUG &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH )ORULGD DQG LQ VWDUWHG WHDFKLQJ DW 5ROOLQV &ROOHJHf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

PAGE 130

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

PAGE 131

/' L +LOO