Citation
Advancing Relationship Management Theory

Material Information

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

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mass Communication
Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
Kelly, Kathleen S.
Committee Members:
Hon, Linda L.
Robinson, Jennifer
Bolton, Elizabeth B.
Graduation Date:
8/11/2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Community associations ( jstor )
Financial gifts ( jstor )
Fundraising ( jstor )
Hospitals ( jstor )
Nonprofit organizations ( jstor )
Nurturance ( jstor )
Organizational communication ( jstor )
Public relations ( jstor )
Statistical models ( jstor )
Trust ( jstor )
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
donors, fundraising, management, nonprofit, organization, public, relations, relationship
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Waters, Richard D. 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.
Classification:
LD1780 2007 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





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

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

By

Richard David Waters

August 2007

Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly
Major: Mass Communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

relations scholarship by refining previous relationship dimensions, adding new cultivation

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

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

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

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

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












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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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









one-way ANOVA or F-ratio test checks the null hypothesis, which states that the variables'

effects do not differ and the means of the 2 groups would be approximately the same.

As Table 4-4 shows, the null hypothesis was rejected and hypothesis 1 was supported.

Maj or gift donors did evaluate the relationship more positively than annual giving donors did for

all 4 relationship dimensions. The biggest differences were found for the trust and control

mutuality variables; however, all of the evaluations were different at the p < .001 level of

significance.

In discussing the idealized evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship, fundraising

literature says that nonprofit organizations will dedicate more resources and time to those donors

who have donated to the organization for a period of years. This dedication of resources to

relationship cultivation is due to the organization's desire to hopefully elevate the donor to

higher levels of giving, possibly turning an annual giving donor to a maj or gift donor. The

second hypothesis tests this idea.

Hypothesis 2

H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively

correlated to evaluation of the relationship dimensions.

The second hypothesis sought to determine if there was a correlation between the number

of donations made by the donors to the participating nonprofit organizations and their

evaluations of the nonprofit-donor relationship based on the 4 dimensions proposed by Hon and

J. Grunig (1999). Several tests were conducted to determine the relationship between a donor's

past giving history with the organizations and the relationship evaluation. The first test was a

simple Pearson's r correlation. Pearson's correlation reflects the degree of a linear relationship

between 2 variables. The correlation ranges from -1 to +1, the latter of which indicates a perfect

linear relationship.









community members in accordance with recommended processes, and a subsequent survey

questionnaire was constructed to include the 9 operationalized dimensional items that comprise

Bruning and Ledingham's OPR scale" (p. 290). The stated "recommended process" refers to

Greenbaum' s The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research. Therefore, this

study maintains that although the coorientation method has been mentioned as a useful process

for measuring the organization-public relationship, it has not been employed as outlined by

public relations scholars (Broom & Dozier, 1990). Ledingham (2006) does not even indicate

that the views of government representatives were measured, calling into question how the

coorientation method was implemented into the research design.

In their textbook, Using Research in Public Relations: Applications to Program

Management, Broom and Dozier (1990) suggest that the use of coorientation measurement

would be an important way for an organization to compare its' perspective on an issue with that

of its stakeholders. Using the coorientation methodology allows the organization to determine if

the 2 sides agree on the issue, if either side perceives agreement with the other side, and if the 2

sides are accurate in their perceptions.

The coorientation measurement model traces its beginnings to psychological studies about

the mutual orientation of 2 individuals to some object. Newcomb's (1953) symmetry model was

expanded to groups by mass communication scholars, including McLeod and Chaffee (1973),

who based their model on the basic assumption that people's behavior results from more than

their internal thinking: it also is affected by their orientation to other people and perceptions of

the views others hold.

Public relations scholars Broom and Dozier (1990) adapted the theory to corporations and

publics, resulting in a model that represents the 2 sides of an organization-public relationship.










endpoints of the continuum, other types of relationships exist, including contractual, exchange,

and covenantal ones. Although Hung reports that these relationship types were first proposed by

J. Grunig in personal conversations in 2001, public relations scholarship has rarely focused on

relationship type and has not created measurement scales for the different types. Although this

area of public relations is fertile ground for future organization-public studies, the current study

does not incorporate the relationship variable type into the research design due to the lack of

available scales.

Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships

In all the previous organization-public relationship studies, public relations scholars have

only measured the relationship using one organization and the key stakeholder group in question.

The relationships were measured using Hon and J. Grunig' s (1999) suggested dimensions, and

there have been many studies that have examined the 4 measurement indices for trust,

satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Over the course of the studies, the measures

have repeatedly produced satisfactory Cronbach alpha ratings (Bowers & Courtwright, 1984) for

social scientific research; thus indicating that the indicators are producing reliable answers.

Similarly, the indicators have held up over time to produce reliable answers.

Given the reliability of the measures, many scholars have conducted these studies to

examine an array of relationships, including the university-student relationship (Hon & Brunner,

2002; Ki & Hon, 2005), the municipal utility-community relationship (M. Hall, 2006), the

manufacturer-retailer relationship (Jo, 2006), the Air Force base-community relationship

(VellaDova, 2005), and the nonprofit-donor relationship (Waters, 2006; O'Neil, 2007). These

studies all found significant results when they looked at different segments of the publics.

However, the studies only looked at one organization and one of its publics. Despite the

numerous studies employing this methodology, one has to wonder if this methodology is a valid









However, in the past several years, the media have paid increasing attention to the nation's

healthcare crises. California, in particular, is facing a financial crisis in terms of supporting its

public facilities (e.g., government-sponsored clinics and hospitals) in providing care for the

uninsured. Additionally, the increasing numbers of AIDS cases, as well as obesity rates among

California's children, have received special attention from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the

California Endowment, 2 foundations created to address the state's growing health problems.

The universal provision of healthcare has also emerged as an early issue being debated by the

2008 presidential candidates. This increased attention may help explain why these donors

evaluated their commitment to the organizations higher than the other dimensions.

The distribution of power and control is 1 aspect of the fundraising process that is often

misunderstood. Many assume that the individual donor holds the power in the relationship

because the donor has the money to give to the organization. However, this assumption is

flawed. Donors have very different motivations for donating to nonprofits, and by understanding

donors' motivations the organization retains a significant amount of power. For example, Prince

and File (1994) found that 11 percent of donors do so for social reasons. They want to see their

name associated with specific proj ects or have hospital wings or lounges named after them.

These naming rights are quite valuable to certain donors, and organizations retain power by

requiring very large donations for the naming rights.

Likewise, organizations have the ability to say no to donations, and many do so regularly

when donors try to place too many restrictions on how the donation can be used. For example,

the SFGH Foundation turned down a donation of $25,000 in 2003 because the donor insisted that

the gift only be used to provide healthcare services to individuals from a specific San Francisco









estimations of donors' views not occurred, the fundraisers might not have known that they had

underestimated donors' positivity of the organization' s responsible use of charitable gifts.

By using the coorientation methodology, the research highlights the significant differences

between the perceptions of the participants from several different perspectives. Though the

differences between the 2 sides on many variables are small, the organization can include

proactive symmetrical programming to engage its donors in conversations so they can resolve

differences in understanding the dynamics of the relationship. This conversation will allow them

to move closer to being in exact agreement.

The Eindings suggest that the nonprofit hospitals need to improve their cultivation efforts.

The fundraising teams overestimated the donors' views on all of the variables. The differences

between the relationship dimensions were not as great as the differences between views of the

relationship cultivation strategies. This misperception could have been costly had the

fundraising teams implemented programming based on their estimates of what the donors

thought.

Perhaps in addition to more symmetrical methods of communicating with donors, these

Endings suggest that the organizations should implement more non-fundraising directed

communications, such as newsletters or e-mail updates of successful program and service

delivery, to educate donors why they engage in some strategies, such as networking.

Had this study simply measured the relationship from the donors' perspective, significant

insights into the overall relationship would not have been revealed. The members of the

fundraising teams had misread the perceptions of the donors even though they had worked

closely with the donors. While some of the differences were minimal, they reveal important

information about the coorientation methodology. Comparing the 2 sides of the nonprofit-donor












Cultivation Strategy Symmetry Orientation Proposed by
Access Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Positivity Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Oeness Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Assurances Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Networking Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Sharing. of Tasks Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)
Integrative Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)*
Distributive Asymmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)*
Dual Concern Hon and J. Grunig (1999)*
--Contending Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Avoiding Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Accomodating Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Compromi sing Asymmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Cooperating Symmetrical Plowman (1995) *
--Being Unconditionally Symmetrical Plowman (1995) *
Constructive
--Saying "Win-Win" or "No Symmetrical Plowman (1995)*
Deal"
Keeping promises Symmetrical Hung. (2002)
Reciprocity Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
Responsibility Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
Reporting Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
Relationship, Nurturing. Symmetrical Kelly (2000)
*These proposed strategies were not included in the current study because of their focus on
conflict resolution.


Table 2-1. Symmetry Orientation of Relationship Cultivation
osrepretnI nal and Public Relations Li e


Strategies Proposed in











APPENDIX B
SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING TEAM MEMBERS

For each of the statements below, please evaluate your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital in the left
column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the
statement in the right column. Please circle the number that best represents your response from the 9-point scale
provided, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree.
~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi te as a Iin fa
Fundraising Team
MemberFrancisco General
Hospital's Donors
SD SA SD SA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization respects its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors are attentive to each other's needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
with its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors are happy with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Both the organization and its donors benefit from the relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 4 6 78 9The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donorS 123456789
are important.
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
concerned about its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors are happy with their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I believe donors have influence on the decision-makers of the
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
organization.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
when making decisions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 4 6 78 9Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization 123456789
has established with me.

1 2 4 6 78 9Compared to other nonprofit organizations, I value my relationship with 123456789
this organization more.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel confident about the organization's ability to accomplish its mission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control
12 3 456 789 12 34 56 78 9
over the situation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization gives donors say in the decision-making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9










Table 4-1 1. Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship
Score.


Unstandardized
Coefficient (B)

2.26
.70


Standardized
Coefficient (P)


t-value p-value


17.61 .000
32.22 .000


Model 1
Constant
Control Mutuality

Model 2
Constant
Control Mutuality
Commitment

Model 3
Constant
Control Mutuality
Commitment
Trust

Model 4
Constant
Control Mutuality
Commitment


.797
.49
.42


.286
.34
.37
.28


6.00
23.81
21.35


2.15
15.27
18.68
12.83


-.741
12.37
11.53
13.78
8.94


.000
.000
.000


.032
.000
.000
.000


.46
.000
.000
.000
.000


-1.01
.28
.26
.30
.21
F (4, 1701) =
F (4, 1701) =
F (4, 1701) =
F (4, 1701) =


.26
.25
.28
.19
=.000, N
=.000, N
.0 =
.000, N=


Trust
S ati sfacti on
Model 1: R
Model 2: R
Model 3: R
Model 4: R


.65, R2
.74, R2
.76, R2
.78, R2


1240.20, p
1013.38, p
795.29, p
644.11, p


= 1705
= 1705
1705
1705


Table 4-12. Donor Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategy Indices.
Variable Mean ( n = 1706) Standard Deviation
Access 6.01 1.33
Positivity 6.02 1.29
Openness 6.62 1.32
Sharing of Tasks 6.17 1.37
Assurances 6.16 1.23
Networking 5.89 1.40
Reciprocity 6.95 1.07
Responsibility 6.78 1.07
Reporting 6.87 1.09


Relationship Nurturing


6.50


1.15









the lowest fundraising team evaluation was still significantly higher than the highest rated

dimension from the donors' perspectives. Similar to the relationship dimensions and each

hospital's donors, there were variations among the fundraising team at each institution.

Although the fundraising team evaluated the relationship higher than the donors, it is

important to keep in mind that the team members were asked to evaluate the organization's

relationship with its donors. The maj ority of the fundraising team interact with maj or gift donors

and prospects as dictated by Pareto's principle, which--when applied to the fundraising

process--explains that 20 percent of the donors will provide 80 percent of the gifts to charitable

nonprofit organizations. So even though they are the minority in terms of percentages of the

overall donor database, maj or gift donors receive a significant proportion of the fundraising

team's attention. This may inflate the overall evaluation of the fundraising team, especially as

there are fundraisers who primarily work in carrying out the annual giving and e-Philanthropy

programs, which produce significantly more donors in terms of sheer numbers but smaller

amounts of gifts.

All 3 of the hospitals included in this study have fundraisers working with annual giving

donors. Although the survey did not specify which donors the fundraising team members should

consider when evaluating the relationship, the range of answers seems to hint that the fundraisers

who worked with annual giving donors did view the relationship less favorably than their maj or

gift counterparts. On all 4 relationship dimensions, there was a wide range when looking at the

maximum and minimum values for the indices. For example, the views on the control mutuality

index ranged from a low of 4.67 to a high of 8.67. Clearly there are some fundraising team

members who do not feel the relationship is well-balanced between the 2 parties. These lower









Finally, for research questions 7-10, analysis follows the methodology recommended by

Broom and Dozier (1990) in their discussion of coorientation methodology. Participants were

asked to first evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship from their perspective; then, they were

asked to estimate how the other party would evaluate the same relationship. Based on those

results, D-scores were calculated by subtracting mean scores of the 2 groups on each item and

index for views and estimated views, which provided indicators of their agreement/di agreement,

perceived agreement/di agreement, and their accuracy in estimating the views of the other side.

Independent sample t-tests were used to determine statistically significant differences in

agreement/di agreement and accuracy, whereas paired sample t-tests were used for perceived

agreement/disagreement. Stacks and Hocking (1999) suggest that t-tests should only be used for

sample sizes smaller than 100 and that one-way ANOVAs should be conducted on samples

larger than 100. However, other scholars have suggested that t-tests can also predict significant

differences between groups for large sample sizes (Ott, 1993; Kirkpatrick, 2005).









Table 4-20. Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions.
Path Standardized Standardized Error
coefficient
Access & Trust .11 .02***

Access & Control Mutuality .17 .02***
Access & Satisfaction .09 .02***
Access & Commitment .09 .02***
Sharing of Tasks & Trust .05 .01*
Openness & Satisfaction .07 .02***
Networking & Trust .11 .03***
Networking & Control Mutuality .11 .02***
Networking & Satisfaction .10 .02***
Networking & Commitment .17 .03***
Positivity & Control Mutuality .04 .02*
Assurances & Trust -.08 .03***
Assurances & Control Mutuality -.07 .03***
Assurances & Satisfaction -.12 .02***
Assurances & Commitment -.10 .03***
Reporting & Control Mutuality .08 .03**
Reporting & Satisfaction .08 .03**
Reporting & Commitment .10 .03***
Responsibility & Trust .11 .03***
Responsibility & Control Mutuality .14 .03***
Responsibility & Satisfaction .14 .04***
Responsibility & Commitment .16 .04***
Relationship Nurturing & Trust .24 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Control Mutuality .15 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Satisfaction .15 .03***
Relationship Nurturing & Commitment .17 .03***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001



Table 4-21. Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions.
Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom < 5 2.36
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .998
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .997
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .996
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .028












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

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


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


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


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


CHAPTER


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


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

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


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










organizations to keep their word. Promises made when seeking support must be kept." (p. 285).

Therefore, this study measured a total of 10 relationship cultivation strategies for the nonprofit-

donor relationship. Table 3-4 presents the 4 stewardship strategies and 4 indicators for each that

were measured in this study. The indicators were created by the researcher and are original to

this study.

Although all the cultivation strategies had been discussed as being important to the

organization-public relationship, not all had been measured. This study developed scales to

investigate their role in influencing the nonprofit-donor relationship and to allow future studies

to examine the strategies in other typers of organization-public relationships. The newly created

indices, as well as the 6 adapted by Ki (2006), were measured using a nine-point Likert scale, in

which responses ranged from "Strongly Disagree" (1) to "Strongly Agree" (9).

Scale Development

Before the relationship cultivation strategies could be measured, original scales had to be

created to measure the 4 stewardship variables. DeVellis (1991) outlines 7 steps that must be

followed to properly develop scales for social science research. Figure 3-1 illustrates

these steps. The first step was to clearly determine what variables need to be measured. Hinkin

(1995) notes that scales can be developed to be very broad in their scope or they can be created

to focus on a very narrow situation. By clearly defining the goal of the scales, the researcher has

a greater likelihood to create valid scales.

The second step of the scale development process involved generating the items that will

be used to evaluate the variables being studied. At this stage of the scale development process,

researchers are encouraged to be over inclusive rather than attempt to restrict possibilities. Due

to the need for indicators that overlap in the measurement of variables, the creation of many

items is necessary. These items should include both statements and questions that measure both









of satisfaction and commitment to the organization and its cause. Given the higher evaluations

for commitment, it seems that fundraisers desiring to build trust should focus on other strategies.

The results for reporting were not the only unexpected Eindings that emerged from the

structural equation modeling. Sharing of tasks, which focuses on donors and the fundraising

team working together to resolve problems and trying to Eind what public relations defines as a

"win-win" zone had no statistically significant influence on the relationship dimensions other

than a negative influence on commitment to the organization. Looking at the 2 types of donors,

annual giving donors typically are not involved in organizational decision-making. While the

fundraising team certainly would keep such donors' views in mind, they generally would take a

more personal approach regarding decision making with maj or gift donors who have the ability

to make much larger donations.

Assurances had a negative consequence for all 4 of the relationship dimensions. This

strategy was operationally defined as the fundraising team providing personal responses to

concerns, taking these concerns seriously, and communicating the importance of its donors.

Although conceptualized as a positive aspect of the relationship, these actions had a negative

impact on trust (p = -. 11, p < .01), satisfaction (p = -. 14, p < .001), control mutuality (P = -. 11, p

< .01), and commitment (p = -.15, p < .001).

In recent years, the American Red Cross, Nature Conservancy, and United Way were all

found to be using donated funds for proj ects other than what the donors had intended. The

American Red Cross initially directed some donations to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

to an account to be used for future disasters before the media began focusing on the practice. A

Washington Post expose revealed that the Nature Conservancy used donors' gifts for loans to its

board members, and the national media focused on William Aramony's egregious use of










Ragsdale, J. D. (1995). Quality communication in achieving fundraising excellence. In D. A.
Brehmer (Ed.), Conanunicating effectively 0I ithr major donors (pp. 17-31). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Ritzenhein, D. N. (2000). One more time: How do you motivate donors? New Directions for


Rosso, H. (1991). Achieving excellence in fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state ofnonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.

Sallot, L. M., Steinfatt, T. M., & Salwen, M. B. (1998). Journalists' and public relations
practitioners' news values: Perceptions and cross-perceptions. Journalism and~a~ss
Conanunication Quarterly, 75(2), 366-377.

Sargeant, A. (2001). Using donor lifetime value to inform fundraising strategy. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 12(1), 25-38.

Sargeant, A. (2001b). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 12(2), 177-192.

Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser 's guide to increasing
hifetintevahue. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U. K. charity
sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Vohentary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185-
202.

Saxon-Harrold, S. K. E. (1999). Facts and findings, 3(1). Washington DC: Independent
Sector.

Schervish, P. G. (2005). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major
gifts. New Directions for Phrikllrl l b~ityi Fundraising, 47, 59-87.

Schoonraad, N. (2003). Ma'~nagnging inncial conanunication: Towards a conceptual model.
Unpublished master' s thesis. University of Pretoria, Hillcrest, Pretoria, South Africa.

Schwartz, J. J. (2001). Fund-raising overview. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit
handbook: Fund raising (pp. 2-14). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Seltzer, T. (2005). Measuring the impact ofpublic relations: Using a coorientational approach
to analyze the organization-public relationship. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public
Relations Research.

Smith, S. R. (2002). Social services. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state ofnonprofit America
(pp. 149-186). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.











~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi re as a
Fundraising Team ieofa
MemberFrancisco General
Hsta's Donors
SD SA SD SA
The organization shares enough information with donors about the
123456789 123456789
organization s governance.
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to
123456789 123456789
mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with other community groups are123456789
useful to its donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their 123456789
concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timelV
manner.

The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my
123456789 123456789
donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their 2468
contributions.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Because of my previous donations, the organization recognizes me 123456789
as a friend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization's annual report details how much money was
123456789 123456789
raised in that year.

The organization does not provide donors with information about
123456789 123456789
how their donations were used.

The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use
123456789 123456789
their donations.

12 34 56 7 89 The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will 12 34 56 78 9
of the donors.

123456789 Donors have confidence that the organization will use their 2468
donations wisely.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors what projects their donors will fund. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting
123456789 123456789
donations.

The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with
123456789 123456789
its relationships with donors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization invites donors to participate in special events that
123456789 123456789
it holds.

Now thinking overall about your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital, please circle the number that corresponds to holy you view
your relationship on the following scale:

Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative









Finally, because the study used survey research, it is difficult to establish true causality.

Survey research focuses on the study of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of people at a given

moment. So while statistical analysis shows that the donors' evaluation of the relationship

dimensions was able to predict past involvement with the nonprofit organizations' fundraising

campaigns, to demonstrate a causal relationship. An experiment would have been more

appropriate to draw such conclusions.

Suggestions for Future Research

This study has created several new research streams that can benefit both fundraising and

public relations in terms of professional applications and theory building. First, the current study

raises several questions that can be explored about the dynamics of the nonprofit-donor

relationship. As highlighted in the limitations section, this study focused exclusively on

healthcare nonprofits. Given the sophistication of the fundraising function in this subsector, it

would be interesting to compare these results to those obtained from other types of charitable

nonprofits, such as arts and culture or public/society benefit organizations. Perhaps comparing

these Eindings to religious organizations, which receive the most charitable gift dollars in the

United States from individual donors, or to educational nonprofits, which hire the most staff

fundraisers, would produce intriguing findings that would provide insights into relationship

development and management for fundraisers.

As noted in chapter 2, much of the knowledge on the importance of relationships in

fundraising is built on anecdotal evidence in practitioner literature. Though these findings help

provide a theoretical perspective on relationships, more work needs to be done to fully

understand the nonprofit-donor relationship. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) originally discussed 2

types of relationships in their original monograph, communal and exchange. Waters (2006)









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disaster policy" (Daley, 2002).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










Table 3-1. Comparison of Survey Data Collection Methods.
In-Person Telephone
Cost per response High Medium
Speed of initiation Low High
Speed of return Medium High
Number of interviews completed High High
Design Constraints Low High
Convenience for respondent Low Medium
Risk of interviewer bias Medium Medium
Interview intrusiveness High Medium
Administrative bother High Low
Survey control Medium High
Anonymity of response Low Medium


Mail
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High


Internet-Based
Low
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium


Table adapted from Stacks, D. W., & Hocking, J. E. (1999). Communication research. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. and Cho, C. (2006, personal communication).









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

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

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

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

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

frequently targets of public analysis.

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

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

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

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

during the past 15 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

donors were already damaged.










REFERENCE LIST


Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1999). Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations:
A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Vohmntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 416-431.

Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value and
meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal ofPersonality, 73(1), 79-
114.

AHP. (2007). AHP membership. Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, Falls Church, VA.
Retrieved online April 1, 2007, from http://www.ahp. org/membership/index.php .

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies
for conducting a survey. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Aperia, T., Brann, P. S., & Schultz, M. (2004). A reputation analysis of the most visible
companies in the Scandinavian countries. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3), 218-230.

Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69-97.

Babble, E. (1998). The practice ofsocialresearch. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Baker, H. (2005). Tsunami relief giving. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University,
Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved March 9, 2005, from:
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/tsunami eifgvn_-18-05.html.

Beatty, S. E., Mayer, M., Coleman, J. E., Reynolds, K. E., & Lee, J. (1996). Customer-sales
associate retail relationships. Journal ofRetailing, 72(3), 223-247.

Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on
public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 17(1), 5-28.

Blum, D. E. (2005, November 18). Charities unaware of donors' perceptions. Business Week
Online, Red Oak, IA. Retreived April 21, 2007, from:
http://www.businessweek. com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051 1 18-23 69-db-085.htm.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations nI ithr latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bowers, J.W., & Courtwright, J. (1984). Communication research methods. Glenview, Ill: Scott,
Foresman and Co.

Bracht, N., Finnegan, Jr., J. R., Rissel, C., Weisbrod, R., Gleason, J., Corbett, J., & Veblen-
Mortenson, S. (1994). Community ownership and program continuation following a
health demonstration project. Health Education Research, 9(2), 243-255.










more committed to the relationship (D-score = .12; t = -12. 12, df = 1705, p<.001) than they

actually are. Additionally, the donors thought that the fundraisers would perceive a greater

amount of trust (D-score = .14; t = -12. 15, df = 1705, p<.001) in the nonprofit-donor relationship

than truly existed.

Although there was statistical difference in how the donors evaluated the dimensions and

how they estimated the fundraisers would, the D-scores indicate that the differences were

reasonably small. The D-scores for the 4 relationship dimensions were closer than all but 3 of

the D-scores for the relationship cultivation strategies. When evaluating the perceived

agreement for the strategies, there was an overall consensus that donors felt fundraisers would

evaluate the strategies more favorably than they would. The greatest difference existed for the

networking variable. Donors felt that fundraisers thought networking would be far more

important for the relationship than it actually is (D-score = 1.06; t = -23.3 5, df = 1705, p < .001).

This was the only strategy where the calculated D-score was greater than one-fourth of 1 point.

Generally, there appears to be agreement on the importance of the strategies even though

statistically significant differences existed. Reflecting their own evaluations of the strategies,

donors felt that fundraisers would favor the stewardship strategies over the other symmetrical

strategies. Donors felt that fundraisers would indicate that reciprocity (D-score = .17; t = -16.82,

df = 1705, p<.001), reporting (D-score = .20; t = -19.59, df = 1705, p<.001), responsibility (D-

score = .17; t = -19.49, df = 1705, p < .001), and relationship nurturing (D-score = .19; t = -

17.24, df = 1705, p<.001) were more valuable to the relationship than the donors felt they were.

Interestingly, the donors had similar views on the remaining symmetrical strategies

proposed in the literature. The smallest difference between the donors views and the estimates of

the fundraising team's views was for sharing of tasks (D-score = .13; t = -1 1.95, df = 1705, p <










Table 4-34. Agreement between Donors and the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.
Variable Mean of Standard Mean of Standard D-Score
Donors' Deviation Fundraising Deviation
Views Team's Views
(n = 1706) (n = 124)
Dimensions
Trust 6.46 1.18 7.42 .83 .96***
S ati sfacti on 6.42 1.11 7. 11 .94 .86***
Commitment 6.66 1.20 7.12 .91 .46***
Control 6.30 1.17 7.16 .84 .69***
Mutuality
Strategies
Access 6.01 1.33 7.03 1.03 1.02***
Assurances 6.16 1.23 6.95 1.05 .79***
Networking 5.89 1.40 7.11 1.02 1.22***
Openness 6.62 1.32 7.33 1.03 .71***
Positivity 6.02 1.28 6.90 1.00 .88***
Sharing of 6.17 1.23 7.09 1.07 .92***
Tasks
Reciprocity 6.95 1.07 7.59 .98 .64***
Responsibility 6.78 1.07 7.10 1.05 .32**
Reporting 6.87 1.09 7.47 .93 .60***
Relationship 6.50 1.15 7.25 1.09 .75***
Nurturing
**p<.01, ***p<.001










Table 4-36. The Fundraising Team's Perceived Agreement with Donors on the Evaluation of the
Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.
Mean of
Mean of Fundraising
.udasn Standar-d Team's Estimate of Standard D-
Variable Team's.
~Deviation Donors' Views Deviation Score
Views
(n = 124)
(n = 124)
Dimensions
Trust 7.42 .83 7.34 .77 .08*
S ati sfacti on 7.11 .94 7.13 .88 .02
Commitment 7.12 .91 7.17 .83 .05
Control
7.16 .84 7.15 .77 .01
Mutuality

Strategies
Access 7.03 1.03 7.00 .93 .03
Assurances 6.95 1.05 6.93 1.02 .02
Networking 7.11 1.02 7.17 1.12 .06
Openness 7.33 1.03 7.33 .82 .00
Positivity 6.90 1.00 6.94 1.05 .04
Sharing of 7.09 1.07
7.12 1.06 .03
Tasks
Reciprocity 7.59 .98 7.60 .95 .01
Responsibility 7.10 1.05 7.12 1.08 .02
Reporting 7.47 .93 7.51 1.03 .04
Relationship
7.25 1.09 7.28 1.01 .03
Nurturing
*p<.05










Table 3-3.
Variable

Access


Indices of Relationship Cultivation Strategies as adapted by Ki.
Operationalization

The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information.
The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff.
When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer
their inquiries.
The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific
staff on specific issues.


Positivity Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors.
T he organization's communication with donors is courteous.
The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enj oyable.
The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them.

Openness The organization' s annual report is a valuable source of information for donors.
The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it
does with donations. (Reverse)
The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the
issues it faces.
The organization shares enough information with donors about the organization's
governance.


Sharing of
Tasks






Networking







Assurances


The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems.
(Reverse)
The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about.
The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors.
The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually
beneficial solutions to shared concerns.

The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address that address
issues that donors care about.
The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to donors.
(Reverse)
The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful for its donors.
The organization's alliances with other community groups are useful to its donors.

The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to donors'
concerns.
The organization communicates the importance of its donors.
When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously.
Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns.
(Reverse)
















.I5

.91


Reporting Item #1

Reporting Item #2

Reporting Item #3

Reporting Item #4


Responsibility Item #1

Responsibility Item #2

Responsibility Item #3


1.00

1.17

Reporting 1.06

1.13


1.00

.78
Responsibility
.72


1.00
Relationship 1.07
Nurturing
.81



Figure 4-6. Continued

















183


Relationship Nurturing Item #1

Relationship Nurturing Item #3

Relationship Nurturing Item #4










Please answer the following questions based on your personal demographic information to help us interpret your
answers to better serve you and your community.

What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age? Years old

What is your race? African-American/Black Asian Caucasian

Hispanic/Latino Middle Eastern Native American Other:

How long have you lived in your current community?
Less than 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years
5 to 10 years _10 to 20 years 20 years or longer

What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (check one)

High school _Four-year college degree _Advanced degree (MS, MBA, Ph.D.)
Other:

What is your current employment status?

Employed full-time _Employed part-time _Unemployed _Retired
Student Homemaker Other:

What was your approximate household income last year before taxes? $

What was your first contact with San Francisco General Hospital? (check one)
Patient Family member was a patient _Friend was a patient

Employed by hospital Family member employed by hospital Friend employed by hospital
Partnership with community organization _Partnership with government organization
Other:

Have you been a patient at San Francisco General Hospital? Yes No

For these final questions, please answer about your charitable giving.

How many years have you been donating to San Francisco General Hospital?

Approximately how much in total did you donate to the hospital last year? $

On average, how much have you donated to the hospital per year during the last five years? $


Including the hospital, how many organizations do you donate to each year, on average? $


Approximately how much in total did you donate to all charitable organizations last year? $



That completes the survey. Please return the survey to the University of Florida research team
by using the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your help.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

practice.

The State of Nonprofit America

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

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

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

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

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

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

what they do, these organizations share similar experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










Kelly (1998) revised that model to develop one that depicts a charitable nonprofit organization's

relationship with its donors.

Drawing from Kelly (1998), the coorientation model consists of 4 elements: (a) the

organization' s views on an issue, represented by the beliefs of individuals who participate in

decision making; (b) the public' s views on the issue; (c) the organization' s estimate of the

public' s views (i.e., perception); and (d) the public' s estimate of the organization' s views.

Figure 2-2 presents the coorientation model of the nonprofit organization-donor relationship

with the issue being the overall evaluation of the relationship between the 2 parties.

As shown in Figure 2-2, agreement is the extent to which the organization and the public

hold similar views on the issue, in this case, the extent to which the fundraising team at a

nonprofit organization and donors to that charitable organization agree on the evaluation of the

relationship. Perceived agreement is the extent to which one side perceives agreement or

disagreement with the other side on the issue, which earlier models termed congruency.

Accuracy is the extent to which one side' s estimate of the other side' s views concurs with the

actual views of the other side. In other words, measuring the views of both the fundraising

leaders and donors on the evaluation of the relationship allows this study to determine the extent

to which the 2 sides are in agreement or disagreement on the relationship, the extent to which

they perceive agreement and disagreement, and their degree of accuracy in predicting the other

side's views.

Broom and Dozier (1990) recommended that researchers calculate D-scores, or the

differences between the 2 sides' rating for each item measuring agreement and perceived

agreement. The lower the D-score, the higher the level of agreement or perceived agreement is

on the issue and vice versa. Based on results, the relationship can be categorized by 4









Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship

Public relations scholarship has examined the 4 dimensions proposed by Hon and J.

Grunig (1999) in many different settings. Trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality

have been found to be reliable and valid concepts to describe the relationship that exists in public

affairs, community relations, consumer relations, and now fundraising. But, can the

organization-public relationship be summed up by 4 concepts?

To answer this question, the study returns to the third research question, which asked how

well the 4 dimensions represent the overall relationship. This question used multiple regression

to determine the suitability of the 4 dimensions to describe the overall relationship rather than

using structural equation modeling as Ki (2006) did. Despite using a different statistical test,

similar results emerged. Ki found that commitment was the most important concept influencing

how Florida Farm Bureau members felt about their overall relationship with the organization.

Satisfaction and trust were also important, but control mutuality had little impact on the overall

evaluation.

In the current study, 2 separate regression tests were conducted to evaluate the impact of

the 4 dimensions on the overall relationship the donors experienced. When all 4 concepts were

entered, trust (p = .28, t = 13.78, p < .001) had the most impact though control mutuality (P =

.26, t = 12.37, p < .001) and commitment (P = .25, 11.53, p < .001) were not far behind. Unlike

Ki's results, all 4 dimensions were found to be statistically significant in predicting the overall

relationship evaluation as satisfaction (P = .19, t = 8.94, p < .001) was also helpful in the 4-

variable model in addition to a constant. With all 4 variables in the model, it should explain a

majority of variance in the overall relationship question, and it did. However, this model only

explained 60 percent of the variance.









Although the relationship cultivation strategies were evaluated positively by all of the

donors, these strategies may be enacted very differently depending on the donor's classification

as annual giving or maj or gift donor. Because of their gift-giving potential, maj or gift donors

may receive a higher degree of information and involvement though cultivation strategies. For

example, more information about the nonprofit organizations' governance and Einancial standing

may be given to maj or gift donors than to their annual giving counterparts. Maj or gift donors

may also have more interpersonal communication with the organization's leadership.

Fundraising literature indicates that all donors may not experience the nonprofit-donor

relationship similarly. Annual giving donors may begin to receive more personalized

communication from nonprofits as they establish a growing giving history and research on the

donor grows, the organization may not use certain advanced cultivation strategies until that

donor has given a significant gift.

Table 4-13 presents the means and standard deviations for the 2 groups' evaluation of the

10 relationship cultivation strategies. A simple comparison indicates that major gift donors did

evaluate the strategies more positively than annual giving donors. Major gift donors evaluated

positivity lower than the other 9 strategies (M = 6.55, SD = 1.10) and reciprocity as the highest

(M = 7.53, SD = 0.92). Although they rated the 10 strategies lower, annual gift donors also

evaluated the strategies favorably. As with the maj or gift donors, reciprocity received the

highest evaluation by annual giving donors (M = 6.80, SD = 1.05). Networking was evaluated

lowest by the annual giving donors (M = 5.69, SD = 1.43); however, it should be noted that even

this strategy received a positive evaluation.

To determine if statistically significant differences existed in how the 2 groups evaluated

the relationship cultivation strategies, a one-way ANOVA was conducted for each of the 10











For each of the statements below, please evaluate how San Francisco General Hospital develops relationships with
its donors in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital
would respond to the statement in the right column. Use the same 9-point scale, where 1 equals strongly' disagree
and 9 equals strongly' agree, to indicate your response.


~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi re as a
I iew ofSan
Fundraising Team rnic era
MemberFrnscGera
Hospital's Donors
SD SA SD SA
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact
123456789 123456789
information.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Receiving regular communications from the organization iS123456789
beneficial to donors.

The organization's annual report is a valuable source of information
123456789 123456789
for donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving 123456789
problems.
The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal
123456789 123456789
responses to donors' concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that123456789
address issues that donors care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization's communication with donors is courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not provide donors with enough information
123456789 123456789
about what it does with donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care 123456789
about.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are123456789
useless to donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization communicates the importance of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is
123456789 123456789
willing to answer their mnqumres.

The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors
123456789 123456789
enjoyable.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with enough information to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
understand the issues it faces.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful 123456789
for its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization works with donors to develop solutions that
123456789 123456789
benefit donors.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization provides donors with adequate contact123456789
information for specific staff on specific issues.

The information the organization provides donors with is of little
123456789 123456789
use to them.
Continued next pg










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

specifically have fundraising responsibilities. These members may have been employees

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

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

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









However, it is necessary to start testing the relationship management paradigm in settings

of more than 1 organization to truly understand how public relations practitioners cultivate and

manage relationships with key stakeholders. If studies remain within the confines of 1

organization, scholars will never be able to compare the impact of public relations programs on

relationships. To truly understand relationship management, good and bad relationships, or well-

developed and poorly-developed ones, must be examined. These comparisons are necessary if

the field truly is interested in theoretical development.

Given the numerous studies that have examined the relationship between an organization

and public using the Hon and J. Grunig (1999) scales, it is time to move beyond single-

organization applied research scenarios. Scholars now need to start trying to make sense of the

relationship paradigm and pull different components together into 1 overarching theoretical

perspective. For this reason, this study examined the nonprofit-donor relationship across 3

fundraising organizations in the nonprofit healthcare subsector. Although this only represents 1

aspect of the nonprofit sector, it is an encouraging first step in moving the relationship

management paradigm forward, especially given the similarities of the results across

organizations.

Relationship Quality and Dimensions

Paralleling public relations' scholarly inquiry into relationship management, this study first

explored relationship quality by evaluating the views of the donors and the fundraising teams

based on 4 key dimensions: trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Although it

was first discussed at the beginning of the results chapter, it is necessary to quickly recap the

similarities and differences across the 3 organizations before examining either side of the

nonprofit-donor relationship.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

The nonprofit organization-donor relationship is vital to the maintenance and longevity of

the nonprofit sector. For nonprofit organizations to continue the provision of programs and

services to society, it is vital that they dedicate resources into relationship cultivation with

donors. The results of this study show that these organizations need to spend more time and

effort developing relationships with their donors. Although they evaluate the relationship

positively, the donors fell short of the fundraisers' expectations of how the donors viewed the

relationship with the organization. Fortunately, public relations literature provides several

relationship maintenance strategies that deal with symmetrical communication. Engaging donors

in more conversations to let them know they are appreciated will help encourage more loyalty in

the relationship, but the nonprofit organization must also demonstrate that it is committed to

being both socially and financially accountable.

Reaching out to the greater public relations profession, it is vital to understand how

different perspectives of the sides of the organization-public relationship can impact

organizations. As Dozier and Ehling (1992) warn, there can be disastrous consequences when

programming decisions are made without measuring both sides of the relationship. Fortunately,

this study found that both sides view the nonprofit-donor relationship positively. The minor

differences that emerged in the study, though statistically significant, are easy to overcome by

engaging donors in more conversations to resolve differneces. Given the results of the structural

equation modeling, the study provides information on how nonprofit organizations can best

develop relationships with donors.










their publics. Relationships with these groups cannot be maintained if an organization does not

offer this information and only communicates when it needs support.

Relationship nurturing. As public relations scholarship continues to document the

impact of relationship cultivation with different stakeholder groups, practitioners' abilities to

nurture those relationships becomes more important for long-term success. To truly reach this

level, organizations must recognize the importance of supportive publics and keep them in mind

when any decisions are made.

Opportunities to nurture relationships with publics are numerous. For example, nonprofit

organizations should make sure donors are receiving copies of newsletters and annual reports.

Maj or gift donors and prospects should also be invited to special events and open houses. As the

nonprofit-donor relationship strengthens, fundraisers may also send handwritten cards for special

occasions, such as birthdays, anniversaries or upon learning of serious illnesses. The extra effort

required to cultivate relationships with any public will benefit organizations in the future because

this demonstrated concern will result in continued support and reduce the impact of potential

crises.

It is important to note that Hon and J. Grunig (1999) also proposed symmetrical and

asymmetrical strategies for how organizations can resolve conflicts with stakeholder groups.

These include integrative strategies where the organization and public seek out common interests

that can be used to solve problems, distributive strategies that incorporate a win-loss perspective

and often result in one side benefiting at the expense of the other, and dual concern strategies

where public relations practitioners seek to balance the organization' s concerns with those of the

stakeholder groups. These strategies are derived from Plowman's (1995; 1996; 1998) work on

conflict resolution, power struggles, and negotiations in public relations' practice.









As Table 4-8 shows, all 4 of the dimensions were statistically significant for the function.

However, trust was the most important independent variable that led to group prediction. Trust,

for example, has a Wilks h value of .66, which means that 66 percent of the variance in this

variable is not explained by group differences. Although this number is relatively high, the

variance in the 2 groups is explained more by trust than the remaining 3 variables.

When examining the interaction of the relationship dimensions, trust and satisfaction were

the variables that discriminated best between the 2 groups based on the value of the standardized

coefficients. The canonical correlation of the discriminant function, R = .64, means that there is

a moderate correlation between all of the independent variables together and the discriminant

function score. The function' s Wilks' h value (.59) means that 59 percent of the variance in the

discriminant function score is not explained by group differences. Based on the Chi-square test,

the Wilks' h 0f the function is statistically significant (X2 = 909. 12, df = 2, p < .001).

Given the statistical significance of the function and of the 4 relationship dimensions, it is

not surprising that all of the variables were used to create the model to predict the discriminant

function score. The model is as follows:

Discriminant Function Score = -8. 78 + 79(trust) + .54(satisfaction) -.01~(commitment)+

.06(control mutuality)

The discriminant function scores for each group are known as group centroids. The further

apart these mean scores are, the more discriminating the function is. The group centroids for

Groups 1 and 2 of this function are .77 and -.92, respectively.

Given the statistical significance of the function and the distance between the group

centroids, it is possible to test the model to see if it can properly predict whether donors made a

gift to the nonprofit organizations' last fundraising campaign or not. Table 4-9 presents how










Table 3-2. Indices of Relationship Dimension Measures.
Variable Operationalization


Control Mutuality


The organization and donors are attentive to each other's needs.
The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its
donors are important. (Reverse)
I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the
organization.
The organization really listens to what its donors have to say.
When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of
control over the situation.
The organization gives donors enough say in the decision-making
process.

Donors are happy with the organization.
Both the organization and its donors benefit from their
relationship.
Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization.
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the
organization has established with me.
The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse)
Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization.

The organization respects its donors
The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors.
When the organization makes an important decision, I know it
will be concerned about its donors.
I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into
account when making decisions.
I feel very confident about the organization's ability to
accomplish its mission.
The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and
objectives. (Reverse)

I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term
commitment with donors.
I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship
with its donors. (Reverse)
There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its
donors .
Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with
this organization more.
I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not.


S ati sfacti on


Trust


Commitment










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

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

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

billion in donations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

their respective fields.

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

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

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

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

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

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

money to underwrite future organizational success.

Fundraising in the United States

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

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

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









version using 21 items (6 for trust and 5 each for control mutuality, satisfaction, and

commitment). Additionally, the monograph provided measures for a dual typology of

relationship type (exchange or communal). The indicators were written so that the short version

represented the different conceptualizations of the dimensions; however, Hon and J. Grunig

(1999) provided the full set of measurements so researchers "can choose the number of items

that best fit the research needs" (p. 28). This study uses the shortened scales; however, one

additional item from the full scale was included for both control mutuality and satisfaction

because the researcher felt those items touched on issues important for the nonprofit-donor

relationship. A previous study of the nonprofit-donor relationship by the researcher utilized the

shortened set of measures and resulted in Cronbach's alpha values for the indices ranging from

.72 to .93 (Waters, 2006). Therefore, it was assumed that use of the same relationship dimension

scales in this study would yield reliable results. Table 3-2 presents the relationship dimension

measurement items that were used in this study.

The items were randomly placed on the printed survey so that participants did not evaluate

all of 1 index sequentially. Following the suggestion ofHon and J. Grunig (1999), these items

were measured using a nine-point Likert scale where response ranged from "Strongly Disagree"

(1) to "Strongly Agree" (9). The survey also included reverse-coded items to ensure that

participants were not consistently choosing the same perspective.

Relationship cultivation strategies

In her doctoral dissertation which was supervised by Hon, Ki (2006) measured 6

symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies that had been proposed by Hon and Grunig

(1999). She adapted the indicators from Stafford and Canary (1991) to measure access,

positivity, openness, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurances of legitimacy. Drawn from

interpersonal communication theory, these strategies were deemed applicable to the


















Reporting Item #1

Reporting Item #2

Reporting Item #3

Reporting Item #4


Responsibility Item #1

Responsibility Item #2

Responsibility Item #3

Responsibility Item #4


1.00

1.17

Reporting .97

.78


1.00

.84
Responsibility
.87

.90


1.00
Relationship .74
Nurturing
.84





Figure 4-9. Continued


















193









Table 4-24. Continued
Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Reciprocity, continued
Because of my previous donations, the organization recognizes me as a friend. .91 (.08)***
Reporting
The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1.00 a
The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1.17 (.08) ***
The organization's annual report details how much money was raised in that 1.06 (.09) ***
year.
The organization does not provide donors with information about how their 1.13 (. 10) ***
donations were used. (Reverse)
Responsibility
The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their 1.00 a
donations.
The organization uses donations for proj ects that are against the will of the .78 (.07) ***
donors. (Reverse)
The organization tells donors what proj ects their donations will fund. .72 (.06) ***
Relationship Nurturing
Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for donations. 1.00 a
(Reverse)
Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. 1.07 (. 15) ***
The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. .81 (. 16) ***
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001









evaluation of the relationship dimension measures meant that the participant was more likely to

have made multiple gifts to the organization. The regression line for this model is the same as

the line for the first regression test of the second hypothesis that included all 4 dimensions.

Based on the Pearson's correlation and regression tests, the second hypothesis is supported.

Research Question 2

RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be predicted based on the

donor' s evaluation of the relationship?

Although the early results have indicated that the relationship dimension measures have

shown that maj or gift and annual donors evaluate the relationship differently and that the number

of donations given to a nonprofit organization are moderately correlated with the relationship

evaluation, additional tests need to be conducted to demonstrate relationship management's

predictive abilities. To test the 4 relationship dimension measures' ability to predict a donors'

likelihood of giving, the study's second research question was created and data were analyzed

using discriminant analysis.

Discriminant analysis is a statistical procedure that determines the best linear combination

of continuously measured independent variables to classify cases into different known groups.

For this study, the independent variables were the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions

measured on a 9-point Likert scale, and the dependent variable was the classification of donors

into those who did and those who did not donate to the relevant nonprofit organization's most

recent fundraising campaign in Fall 2006. Table 4-8 presents the results of the multiple

discriminant analysis, showing the unstandardized and standardized coefficients, Wilks' h, F-

ratio, and the means and standard deviations for the 2 groups of donors--those who donated to

the campaign (Group 1) and those who did not donate (Group 2).









subsectors) may serve as an important step in understanding which strategies are more successful

than others; however, the researcher would need to be much more active in this research design

as to eliminate any influence of other variables and to ensure that strategies are being carried out

in a similar manner.

In addition to questions about the population being studied, another limitation of the study

is the type of donors being studied. This study compared the views of annual giving and maj or

gift donors, which was categorized based on yearly giving totals of less than $10,000 for annual

giving and $10,000 or more for major gift donors. As indicated in chapter 1, there are other

vehicles for charitable giving, most notably planned giving and e-Philanthropy. Planned giving,

unlike the other forms of fundraising, is most often initiated by the donor rather than a

fundraising team member. Donors seek out planned giving opportunities to create charitable gift

annuities, charitable remainder trusts, and estate planning options, whereas fundraising team

members actively solicit for annual giving and major gift donations. Given the inherent

differences in the nature of the gift, an individual establishing a planned gift with an organization

may experience the nonprofit-donor relationship differently than either annual or major gift

donors.

Similarly, the rapid growth ofe-Philanthropy is pushing nonprofit organizations to rethink

their annual giving programs. e-Philanthropy is an alternative to nonprofit organizations'

traditional direct mail, workplace, and telephone solicitations. Though public relations scholars

have discussed the impact of the Internet on developing relationships with key stakeholders

(Kent & Taylor, 1998; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Ki, 2003), there has been little discussion about

the differences that exist when a stakeholder group develops a cyber-relationship with an

organization versus a relationship built on human contact with that organization. Baker (2005)












Fundraising Team's
Views on Relationship
Evaluation


Donors' Views on
.Agreement Rltosi
aera.ent I ReatioshiEvaluation


Perceived
Agreement







Donors' Estimate of
Fundraising Team's
Views on Relationship
Evalua tion


Perceived
Agreement







Fundraising Team's
Estimate of Donors'
Views on Relationship
Evalua tion


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

Figure adapted from Kelly, K. S., Thompson, M., & Waters, R. D. (2006). Improving the way
we die: A coorientation study assessing agreement/disagreement in the organization-public
relationship of hospices and physicians. Journal of Health Communication, 11(6), 607-627.


















































Figure 2-1. Evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship.

This model illustrates the desired impact of relationship maintenance strategies on the nonprofit-
donor relationship. As the charitable donation (or the amount anticipated from a donor)
increases, the more time and resources a nonprofit organization invests into the cultivation
process.

Figure adapted from Nudd, S. P. (1991). Thinking strategically about information (pp.174-189).
In H. A. Rosso (Ed.), Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.









strategy would be costly for the organizations as the strategy ultimately had little impact on the

relationship dimensions as shown by the structural equation modeling.

Most organizations would not have access to structural equation modeling results on which

to base programming decisions, but the coorientation methodology does provide significant

insights into how the fundraising team can improve the relationship status with the

organization's donors. By examining the perceived agreement and the accuracy of the

viewpoints of donors, the organization can make appropriate decisions to have programming that

appeals to donors. In this study, the fundraising team felt that donors would have very similar

evaluations of the relationship cultivation strategies. Only 1 of the fundraising teams'

evaluations and the fundraising teams' estimates of the donors' views were statistically different,

that being the trust relationship dimension.

For several of the relationship cultivation strategies, the fundraising team thought that the

donors would value the strategies even more than the fundraising team. Although the differences

weren't statistically significant, the fundraising team reported that they believed donors would

evaluate all 4 stewardship strategies, positivity, sharing of tasks, and networking higher than the

team members did. The difference was greatest for the networking strategy (D-score = .06).

Based on the accuracy results, the fundraising team misread the donors. The fundraising team

overestimated the donors' views on all 10 relationship strategies. The fundraising teams'

estimate (M = 7.12, SD = 1.08) of the donors actual views (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07) on

responsibility was as close as the teams' estimates came for any of the 10 strategies. But, even

this was substantially greater than the donors' actual views. This overestimation on the part of

the fundraising team could create problems for the relationship.









evaluations may very well stem from those individuals who work exclusively with the annual

giving donors.

These differing results for the donors and fundraising team members are intriguing given

the current state of nonprofit America, which has been challenged in recent years due to scandals

involving respected, nationally known organizations. Increasingly, donors are holding nonprofit

organizations to higher standards of accountability and transparency. With the financial scandals

of the United Way in the 1990s and the American Red Cross in 2001, donors no longer have a

blind trust for organizations out to "do good" (Sargeant & Lee, 2002). Nonprofits now have to

prove that they worthy of support. Indeed, a Brookings Institution report found that the public's

confidence in the nation's charitable nonprofit sector fell to an all-time low in 2003: Only 13

percent expressed "a great deal" of confidence in nonprofit organization, while 37 percent

reported that they had "not too much" or no confidence in the sector (Light, 2003).

Among the chief concerns highlighted by the Brookings Institution report were concerns

that nonprofit organizations spent donations wisely, that nonprofit leaders made strategic

decisions that were unbiased and fair, that nonprofit organizations dedicated enough time to

developing quality programs that truly addressed the cause of social ills, and that nonprofit

leaders were paid too much (Light, 2003). Alarmingly, more than 60 percent of respondents felt

that nonprofit organizations wasted money.

However, the report found several high notes for nonprofit organizations. Overall, the

respondents evaluated nonprofit organizations highly in terms of delivering programs to those in

need. Even though 60 percent of respondents believed nonprofit organizations wasted money,

this was significantly lower than American businesses (81%) and the government (93%/). For

organizations dedicated to growing relationships with their donors and improving their









The distribution of power was influenced the most by the access that maj or gift donors

had. These donors are the ones who are more likely to receive personalized attention from the

organization. Because of major gift donors' potential for making large financial donations,

organizations often will give them much greater access to members of the nonprofit' s dominant

coalition and fundraising team leaders. Maj or gift donors may also have acquaintances on the

board of directors. Because of their connections to the organization, they are the ones who have

the ability to ask specific questions and receive prompt attention from the organization.

Therefore, the impact of providing access to these donors leads to more positive feelings of

control mutuality.

Maj or gift donors often place restrictions on what organizations can do with their gifts.

For example, a maj or gift donor could tell the fundraising team that the donation can only be

used to fund support groups or rehabilitation programs. When the organization reports back that

the donation was used for these programs and discusses the impact of the programs, the donor

also is able to feel that the power is balanced because the organization followed his or her

wishes.

For major gift donors, only 2 of the 10 strategies impacted the levels of satisfaction. Both

of those strategies were from Kelly's (2000, 2001) stewardship elements. However, the 2

strategies had opposite influence on the dimension. Satisfaction was positively influenced by

reciprocity (P = .11, p < .05) while reporting (P = -. 13, p < .01) had a negative influence. In

other words, major gift donors appreciated being recognized as a donor and thanked for their

gifts; however, providing them with newsletters and annual reports may not be the most

appropriate methods to make them feel satisfied with the relationship. Perhaps because of their






























Table 4-27. Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and
Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Maj or Gift Donors.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom I 5 .878
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .999
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .990
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .972
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .009


Table 4-26. Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public
Relationship Dimensions for Maj or Gift Donors.
Path Standardized Standardized Error
coefficient
Access & Control Mutuality .19 .03***
Sharing of Tasks & Trust .09 .05*
Reciprocity & Satisfaction .11 .05*
Reciprocity & Commitment .21 .05***
Reporting & Satisfaction -.13 .04**
Responsibility & Trust .18 .06**
Responsibility & Control Mutuality .14 .05**
Responsibility & Commitment .12 .05*
Relationship Nurturing & Trust .20 .05***
Relationship Nurturing & Control Mutuality .12 .04**
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001










reminder resulted in nearly a 33% increased response rate overall and closer to 40% for mailed

surveys.

A meta-analysis found that the overall response to Internet surveys is similar to that of

mailed surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). However, Cook et al. concluded that

younger demographics tend to respond more with Web-based surveys after finding significantly

higher responses for Web-based studies using college student populations. Zhang (1999) found

that when Internet surveys targeted specific groups, such as association members, student groups

or hard-to-reach populations, the survey response increased significantly.

Another concern of Internet surveys has been the respondents themselves. Researchers

have expressed concern about how well Web-based respondents represent the general

population; however, the population increasingly has adopted Internet technologies, and now

more than 80% of the American population regularly uses the Internet (Pew Internet and

American Life Proj ect, 2006) and more than 53% check email on a daily basis (Pew Internet and

American Life Project, 2006b). However, studies still indicate that those under 40 are still more

likely to respond to Web-based surveys.

For these reasons, this study used a combination of Web-based and traditional mailed

surveys. Because Zhang (1999) concluded that electronic communication was an effective way

to solicit survey responses from individuals with strong affiliations toward a certain group, Web-

based surveys were used for the scale development protests using donors of a healthcare

nonprofit. However, for the full survey implementation, the study used traditional mail surveys

because of the demographic profiles provided by the organizations. Even though the 3

organizations being studied are located in one of the metropolitan areas most connected to the

Internet, according to Forbes magazine (Frommer, 2006.), the desire to boost responses from









Because the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig

(1999), Hung (2002), and Kelly (2000, 2001) all represent a wide variety of behaviors and

communication approaches that nonprofit organizations can use to build relationships with their

donors, it is important to understand if any of them are more influential than others in

determining how the relationship is evaluated. For this reason, the fifth research question was

proposed:

RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by public relations

scholars, which are the most influential in terms of influencing donors' evaluation of the

relationship with the nonprofit organization?

Again, because fundraising literature makes a distinction between annual giving and maj or

gift donors, it is important to determine if these groups are impacted differently by the strategies.

To determine the impact of the strategies on how the donor groups evaluate the overall

relationship with the nonprofit organization, a sixth research question was created:

RQ6: Do annual gift and major gift donors experience the relationship cultivation

strategies differently in terms of influencing their evaluation of the relationship with the

nonprofit organization?

New Approach to Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship

Hung' s (2005) definition of the organization-public relationship-"Organization-public

relationships arise when organizations and their strategic publics are interdependent and this

interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations need to manage" (p.

395)--raises an interesting question that has yet to be addressed in related studies. Much of

public relations literature focuses on the need for the public relations department to be

represented in the organization's dominant coalition or group of decision makers. Without the

public relations perspective being included in management's meetings, decisions likely are made









determined without invading donor privacy. The organizations were told about the color-coding

and agreed that the distinction would be helpful in further analysis.

While the surveys were being produced in Gainesville, the cover letters were printed in

Northern California and signed by each of the heads of fundraising directors for the 3 hospitals.

A sample of the cover letter is located in Appendix C. The boxes of mailing packets were

shipped to the hospitals from Gainesville so that address labels of donors could be placed on the

carrier envelopes to ensure that the researcher did not have personal contact information of the

organizations' donors. In addition, boxes of postcards printed with a reminder message about

completing the survey for the hospital were sent to the organizations for labeling. The text of the

postcard reminder is located in Appendix D. An anonymous donor gave money to the nonprofit

organizations to pay for the photocopying and postage.

Although the primary reason for shipping the materials to the hospitals was to protect

donor contact information, it was also believed that inclusion of a cover letter from the

fundraising director would increase the overall participation of donors, especially as the letter

stressed that the results were being analyzed by an outside researcher who would use the

information to offer suggestions on how the hospital can improve its fundraising effectiveness

and efficiency. The letters were printed on each hospital's letterhead and personally signed by

the fundraising director.

Finally, the researcher thought that an envelope containing a United States Postal Service's

identification stamp that said Gainesville, Florida, might seem unusual for a research project that

dealt with Northern California organizations. By sending the packets to Northern California to

be mailed by each hospital, the identification stamp made clear that the survey was being sent

from within that region.









organization-public relationships by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). The scales used by Ki (2006) for

her study of members of the Florida Farm Bureau were developed to enhance theoretical

understanding of relationship cultivation but were also tailored somewhat to meet the needs of

the organization (Ki, 2007, personal correspondence).

The creation of relationship cultivation strategies scales for this study was difficult given

the scope of activities that fundraisers can incorporate into their programming. It was also

difficult to advance theory by creating standardized scales that can cover relationships with

consumers, investors, donors and other key publics. However, this study revisited Ki's strategies

and attempted to create scales that can be used across nonprofit organizations and, with minor

alterations, can be used in other public relations settings as well. Table 3-3 presents the

relationship cultivation strategies that were measured in this study

Although the 6 cultivation strategies were shown to have varying impacts on the

relationship between the Florida Farm Bureau and its members, Ki's (2006) study failed to

consider additional symmetrical strategies that have been proposed by public relations scholars,

including 1 from Hung (2002) and 4 from Kelly (2000).

Hung's (2002) dissertation, supervised by J. Grunig, proposed that keeping promises was

another strategy that could be used to develop relationships. Finally, Kelly (2000) suggested that

reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing were 4 strategies that fundraisers

specifically use to develop and build relationships with donors. She maintained that the

strategies also are also a vital component of the public relations process. Upon further

exploration of the keeping promises and responsibility concepts, it was decided that

responsibility actually encompasses Hung's (2002) conceptualization of keeping promises. In

discussing responsibility, Kelly (2001) argued, "At its most basic level, responsibility requires









Another way to expand the reach of the study--even if it remains within the healthcare

sector--is to look at organizations of different sizes. The smallest nonprofit hospital in this

study in terms of its assets was San Francisco General Hospital, which had assets of $7.4 million

at the end of 2004, according to its IRS 990 Tax Form. Although these assets pale in comparison

to larger nationally-known charitable nonprofits, it is quite large given that many nonprofits

operate on significantly smaller budgets. Salamon (2002) notes that one of the greatest

difficulties in describing the sector is that the size of nonprofits varies considerably. To truly

capture the essence of the nonprofit-donor relationship, it is necessary to also include the

experiences of those donors who give to smaller organizations, which are more likely not to have

staff fundraisers. Without a doubt, the relationship cultivation process would be different for

these donors.

Although there would be differences in looking at the nonprofit-donor relationship

between large and small charitable nonprofits, studying the subsector that hires the most

fundraisers might also have yielded different results. Paralleling the healthcare subsector,

education fundraisers are also highly regarded within the fundraising community for their

expertise. The education sector may be even more diverse in its scope than healthcare, and it

includes organizations ranging from universities and colleges to private elementary and

secondary schools. An analysis of this sector may have produced different findings due to

broader diversity than looking simply at nonprofit hospitals. Just as healthcare has the

Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP), education fundraisers have established their

own organization, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).

Although this study examined 3 organizations of varying size and financial stature,

comparing and contrasting 2 organizations (e.g., of different sizes or of different nonprofit









Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not
participating.

Right to withdraw: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without
consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
Richard D. Waters, Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Public Relations, College of Journalism and
Communications, University of Florida, (352) 359-6837, rwiaters@jou.ufl.edu

Dr. Kathleen, S. Kelly, Professor, Dept. of Public Relations, College of Journalism and
Communications, University of Florida, (352) 392-9359, kskelly@jou.ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:

University of Florida Institutional Review Board Office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, (352) 392-0433, irb2@ufl.edu

Agreement: By signing on the following line and completing the following survey, I
acknowledge that I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in
the procedure, and I have received a copy of this description.


Signature of Participant Date




Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2006-U-1151
For Use Through 01/07/2008









development officers working in maj or gift programs. For this reason, the strata of donors for

this study are divided based on the size of their gifts. Donors who had contributed gifts larger

than $10,000 were considered maj or gift donors, whereas those who had made gifts smaller than

$10,000 were annual giving donors. Charitable organizations typically have many more annual

giving donors than maj or gift donors, although maj or gift donors account for the greater

percentage of dollars raised. However, both groups are important to the hospitals' fundraising

efforts .

To choose the donors for the survey, the researcher worked with the hospital fundraisers

to carry out a selection process that provided random sampling of both maj or gift and annual

giving donors. The hospital fundraisers were instructed to divide the database into 2 groups

based on the donors' giving records and provide the researcher with the number of donors in

each of the groups. The researcher then used systematic sampling and calculated the appropriate

skip interval for each donor group at each of the 3 participating organizations. The researcher

provided the hospital fundraisers with a random number as a starting point and told to select

every Ilth donor on the list to include in the sample.

Instrument Design

This survey combines previous research on the dimensions (Huang, 1997; Hon & J.

Grunig, 1999) and cultivation strategies (Ki, 2006) of organization-public relationships with the

creation of new scales to measure stewardship strategies (Kelly, 2000). The research instrument

adopted indicators from previous studies with slight modifications to more closely represent the

nonprofit-donor relationship. The instrument also gathered demographic information, as well as

information concerning donors' giving history and involvement with the hospital.

Because this survey asks each participant to evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship from

both sides of the relationship, the questionnaire was designed to maximize response despite the










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









members of the fundraising team, just like the 4 relationship dimensions. Again, several patterns

emerged when looking at the evaluations across all 3 organizations. First, the fundraising team

evaluated the strategies more positively than the donors. Also the donors evaluated the

stewardship strategies more positively than the 6 interpersonally derived ones. Finally,

networking was evaluated the lowest by the donors overall.

Looking at the evaluation of the strategies in terms of the 2 groups of donors, differences

between the groups start to emerge. Annual giving donors typically are contacted twice a year

for solicitations and receive other quarterly communications from the hospitals. All of the

hospitals send out newsletters to these donors, and one mails an annual report while the other 2

make the annual report available on their Web site and reference it in the newsletters. For these

donors, reciprocity and reporting were the 2 most favorably rated relationship cultivation

strategies based on their mean scores. They appreciate the acknowledgement and the words of

gratitude, and the newsletters throughout the year allow the donors to understand how their

donations are being used as well as the situations the hospitals face.

The results of the structural equation modeling showed that fundraisers really need to

incorporate a variety of the 10 strategies into their programming if they want to cultivate

relationships with their annual giving donors. For example, providing access to contact

information and offering opportunities to meet the organization's staff and leadership had a

significant positive influence in how the donors evaluated their views of satisfaction in the

relationship as well as the levels of the control and power balance. Being open about the

organization's programs and services, its governance, and the issues it faces directly influenced

how donors evaluated trust and satisfaction.









Bruning and Galloway (2003) reported that commitment--the level of dedication to an

organization--is a key component of the organization-public relationship because it is

fundamental to the public' s attitude of the organization. Similarly, Dwyer and Oh (1987) insist

that commitment is the highest stage of the relationship. Unlike the 3 other measures proposed

by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), commitment is the only one that hints toward future behavior.

Trust, satisfaction, and control mutuality all are evaluative measures, but commitment takes into

account extending the relationship.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction was one of the original dimensions proposed by Ferguson (1984). She

suggested that entities may have different expectations that may produce different feelings of

satisfaction. The dimension of satisfaction serves to measure whether the parties involved have

positive feelings about one another. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) note that "a satisfying

relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs" (p. 3). Satisfaction has been one of

the variables that has been measured in numerous studies, including Bruning, Langenhop and

Green's (2004) examination of city-resident relations.

Previous research from relationship marketing suggests that when parties are satisfied with

the nature of the relationship, they are more likely to be committed to maintaining it (Dwyer &

Oh, 1987). Therefore, organizations that invest in developing satisfying relationships with

targeted stakeholders are likely to produce beneficial results for the organization in the long

term. Supporting this mutually beneficial approach to relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999)

defined satisfaction as "the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because

positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced" (p. 20).

Ledingham and Bruning (2000) argued that satisfaction was a dimension of the

organization-public relationship that could easily be increased if the organization invested the









strategies; however, access was also very important in the evaluation. But what does this mean

for fundraising practitioners?

Implications for the Practice

Though structural equation modeling was not used to evaluate the impact that the

relationship cultivation strategies had on the fundraising team members' views of the

relationship, their perspectives of the strategies have important consequences for how

relationship cultivation is executed. Fortunately, the results of the coorientation portion of the

study found that the fundraising team generally was in agreement with the donors on how they

viewed the importance of the 10 relationship cultivation strategies.

Even though they were in agreement, the 2 groups viewed the strategies very differently.

Because of the sample size, the evaluations for the strategies were all statistically significant--

even though some strategies had relatively small D-scores (e.g., responsibility). The greatest

differences existed for the networking strategy. The fundraising team (M = 7. 11, SD = 1.03) and

donors (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40) had viewpoints that were vastly different; however, the

coorientation methodology shows that they are in agreement because their views are both on the

positive side of the 9-point Likert scale.

These differences have an impact on how the relationship between a donor and nonprofit

organization unfolds. If the fundraising team views certain strategies as being more important

than others, then there can be consequences to the relationship if the donors do not share those

views. This scenario seems to be present for the sharing of tasks strategy. There was nearly a 1-

point differential in how the 2 groups evaluated this strategy. In other words, the fundraisers felt

that the hospitals worked with donors to reach mutually beneficial solutions to problems that the

donors cared about. Donors, however, did not perceive that the organization was as willing to

work with the donors as much as the fundraisers did. Investing resources in the sharing of tasks










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

his or her interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









Table 4-29. Fit Measures for the Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement
Model for Annual Giving Donors.
Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics
Chi-square/degrees of freedom I 5 1.874
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90 .997
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90 .990
Normed Fit Index (NFI) > .90 .994
Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) I .05 .025









at the interpersonal level as spending time with friends, family, and coworkers to gain their

support and make the relationship more enj oyable.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) refer to networking as the opportunity for organizations to build

coalitions with different stakeholders. Hung (2000a) showed that networking serves as a catalyst

in relationship building. Indeed, scholars suggest that networking should be proactive because it

nurtures symmetrical cultivation strategies and constructive relationship building.

In recent years, watchdog groups and private foundations have encouraged charitable

nonprofits to network and collaborate with one another and other relevant organizations to

increase the reach and work of the sector (Lenkowsky, 2002). Guo and Acar (2005) found that

nonprofit organizations are capable of working with one another; however, the alliances are not

easily formed. Nonprofit leaders often feel that collaborative networks are difficult to create due

to sacrifices of autonomy and often result in programming that fails to serve publics effectively

and efficiently because too many people have say in decision making.

However, Smith (2002) believed that networking was beneficial for charitable nonprofits

far beyond working with other like-minded organizations. By demonstrating that an

organization is open to new approaches to problems and willing to work with outside agencies,

nonprofit organizations are able to show that they are using their financial resources wisely--a

key component of demonstrating fiscal accountability to donors. Indeed, others have expressed

similar ideas over the years that networking and collaborations have direct financial benefits for

charitable nonprofits--not only in terms of saving resources, but in also gaining new resources

from their donors (Abzug & Webb, 1999; Austin, 2000).

Sharing of tasks

Many studies have examined the role of task sharing by focusing on families and couples.

Individuals who believed their spouse also contributed significantly to the sharing of household










Kaid L. L. (1989). Content analysis. In P. Emmert & LL Barker (Eds.), M~easurement of
conanunication behavior (pp. 197-217). New York: Longman.

Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations' use of the World Wide Web: Are
they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30(3), 279-284.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101.

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational
strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Consputer-M\~ediated Conanunication, 11(2),
article 1.

Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hill sdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelly, K. S. (1995). Utilizing public relations theory to conceptualize and test models of fund
raising. Journalism and Ma~ss Conanunication Quarterly, 72(1), 106-127.

Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund-rai~sing nzanagentent. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Kelly, K. S. (1998b, November). Four organizational roles of fund raisers: An exploratory
study. Paper presented to the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) 27th annual conference, Seattle, WA.

Kelly, K. S. (2000). Stewardship: The missing step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelly, K. S. (2001). ROPES: A model of the fund-raising process. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.),
The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 96-116). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kelly, K. S. (2002). The state of fund-raising theory and research. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New
strategies for educational fund raising. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

Kelly, K. S., Thompsom, M., & Waters, R. D. (2006). Improving the way we die: A
coorientation study assessing agreement/di agreement in the organization-public
relationship of hospices and physicians. Journal of Health Conanunication, 11(6), 607-
627.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide
Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321- 334.

Ki, E. J. (2003). Relationship maintenance strategies on Fortune 500 company Web sites.
Unpublished master' s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.









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

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

resources have been invested into the nonprofit-donor relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

demand appropriate management and reporting by staff fundraisers.

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

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

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

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

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

donations come from only 10 percent of its donor publics.

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

donor, nonprofit organizations need to develop relationships. Appropriate relationship

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









indices. For this test, the independent variable is the donor classification (maj or gift versus

annual giving) and the dependent variables are the mean scores for the 10 relationship cultivation

strategies. Table 4-14 shows the results of the ANOVAs. The 2 types of donors did differ in

their evaluations. Major gift donors evaluated all 10 of the cultivation strategies significantly

higher than annual giving donors. The smallest difference between the 2 groups' evaluations

was for reciprocity (.3 8), and the biggest difference was found for networking (.98); however, all

of the evaluations were different at the p < .001 level of significance. The results support the

third hypothesis.

Research Question 5

RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by public relations

scholars, which are the most influential in terms of their effect on donors' evaluation of the

relationship with the nonprofit organization?

Even though analyses determined that donors to the nonprofit organizations in the study

evaluated all 10 of the relationship cultivation strategies positively, there were notable

differences in the mean scores on the strategies. As Table 4-12 shows, reciprocity (M = 6.95, SD

= 1.07) was the strategy that received the most favorable evaluation, followed by reporting (M =

6.87, SD = 1.09), responsibility (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07), and openness (M = 6.62, SD = 1.32).

Networking (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40), access (M = 6.01, SD = 1.33), and positivity (M = 6.02, SD

= 1.29) were the 3 strategies that were evaluated the lowest. However, these mean scores reveal

little about the effect the cultivation strategies have on the nonprofit-donor relationship. Simply

receiving the highest evaluation of all 10 strategies does not make reciprocity the most important

strategy in terms of the nonprofit-donor relationship.

To determine which of the 10 strategies had the greatest impact on how donors evaluated

their relationship with the nonprofit organizations, it is necessary to perform more complex










The other main trend that emerged across the 3 organizations is the difference in evaluation

of the relationship between the 2 groups. The fundraising team evaluated the relationship more

strongly than donors in all 3 organizations. This difference is important to examine in relation to

the management implications of the nonprofit organizations' dominant coalition, and it will be

addressed in the coorientation methodology discussion in this chapter. However, for now, it is

interesting to note that this trend emerged across all 3 organizations.

Given these overarching trends, it is possible to discuss the results as they relate to an

overall nonprofit-donor relationship. This study examined the relationship dimensions in

relation to both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. For donors, commitment was the

dimension that was evaluated most favorably overall (M = 6.66, SD = 1.20), followed by trust

(M = 6.46, SD = 1.18), satisfaction (M = 6.42, SD = 1.11), and control mutuality (M = 6.30, SD

= 1.17). When separating the donors into annual giving and major gift donors, similar results

emerged. Commitment received the highest evaluations, and control mutuality was the lowest

for both groups.

With few exceptions, previous studies have simply measured the perspectives of the

external stakeholder group. While this may provide insight into the publics' views of the

relationship, it ignores the members of the organization who make the decisions that ultimately

impact those relationships. To bring a symmetrical approach to studying the nonprofit-donor

relationship, the members of the fundraising team were also asked to complete the survey so

comparisons could be made to determine similarities and differences in the fundraising team

members' and donors' views.

When it comes to the evaluations of the fundraising team, trust was viewed most

favorably. Satisfaction was the relationship dimension with the lowest mean score. However,











APPENDIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

This study sought to advance relationship management theory by refining previous

relationship dimensions, adding new cultivation strategies, measuring both sides of the

organization-public relationship, and measuring the organization-public relationship across

multiple organizations. Through surveys that were mailed to a random sample of maj or gift and

annual giving donors to 3 Northern California nonprofit hospitals and to members of the

hospitals' fundraising teams, this study found that the relationship dimensions and the hospitals'

cultivation strategies were evaluated positively by both the donors and the organizations'

fundraising teams. However, the dimensions and the strategies were evaluated differently by all

3 groups (2 donor types and fundraising team). These differences not only have significant

impact on the nonprofit-donor relationship but also public relations' understanding of the

specialization, its relationship to the academic discipline, and our understanding of relationship

management.

Before interpreting the results of this study, a brief summary of the findings related to the

study's hypotheses and research questions is necessary. The first research question's analysis

found that donors evaluate the 4 relationship dimensions positively, and the first hypothesis

found that maj or gift donors evaluated the relationship dimensions more favorably than annual

giving donors. However, the second hypothesis found that donors of both groups evaluated the

relationship dimensions more favorably as the number of gifts made to the organizations

increased. The second research question's analysis found that these dimensions provide the

ability to predict past involvement with the organization, and the results of the third research

question suggested that the 4 dimensions do an adequate job of describing the overall nonprofit-










consumers that their concerns are legitimate will also benefit the organization's fundraising

program.

In a discussion of maj or gift fundraising, Drucker (2006) provides an illustration of

assurances that frequently occurs during solicitations:

When a board member calls, say, a real estate developer, and says, "I am on the board of
the hospital, the first response he gets from his friend is, "How much are you giving
yourself, John?" If the answer is Hyve hundred bucks, well, that' s all you're likely to get.
(p. 57)

Though the scenario may not always occur in this casual manner, the point raised is an important

one for the fundraising profession. Many donors want to be assured that their money is going to

a worthwhile cause. By having its members donate to the organization and its programs before

soliciting others, the fundraising team is able to reassure potential donors that it is committed to

the cause.

Likewise, nonprofits can assure donors that their concerns are important by simply taking

time to discuss these matters. Sargeant (2001) encourages nonprofit organizations to listen to

their donors and reiterate the importance of the donors' concerns to enhance their commitment to

the nonprofit-donor relationship. Some donors question their decisions to give to charitable

organizations, but answering questions and assuring donors that their input is appreciated will

help nonprofit organizations overcome reluctant donors (Hibbert & Home, 1996).

Networking

In an examination of nonprofit organizations' role in influencing public policy, Nyland

(1995) defined networking as the positive interaction between the involved parties, whether they

were individual activists, single nonprofit organizations, or entire sectors, such as the

government. Networking can take on many different shapes, such as formal conversation,

authority, or friendship (Nohria & Eccles, 1992). Canary and Stafford (1994) viewed networking









without considering stakeholders' perspectives. Given Hung's (2005) new focus on the

decisions made by the dominant coalition to manage relationships with stakeholders, it would

seem imperative to measure the organizational perspective of the organization-public

relationship.

Yet, with rare exceptions (e.g., Jo, 2003), public relationship studies have yet to take the

organization's perspective into consideration despite Ferguson's (1984) original suggestion that

the "coorientational measurement model should prove quite useful in conceptualizing

relationship variables for this type of paradigm focus" (p. 17). Many public relations scholars

have advocated for the inclusion of the organization' s perspective in relationship studies

(Ledingham, 2001, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Seltzer, 2005), but although

coorientation has been suggested, it has been used only rarely in relationship management

research.

Interestingly, in his retrospective of organization-public relationship studies, Ledingham

(2006) claimed:

Ledingham (2001) again tested Broom and Dozier' s (1990) notion of agreement and
accuracy as indicators of relationship quality. His coorientational analysis of government-
citizenry relationships revealed that the perceptions of agreement between organizations
and publics is, in fact, linked to relationship quality, and, ultimately, to choice behavior.
(p. 14)

This declaration appears to have addressed what this study calls "a new approach" to measuring

the organization-public relationship. However, upon closer examination, Ledingham (2001)

only measured one side of the government-citizen relationship--the citizen' s view.

Ledingham (2006) does note that the advancement of relationship management theory

included Broom and Dozier' s (1990) adaptation of the coorientation measurement model. But,

his specific study on local government and its citizenry relied solely on the methodology

described as follows: "Six focus groups with five to eight participants each were conducted with










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

approach involving the organization and its stakeholder groups.

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

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

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

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

America' s largest cities (Kelly, 1998).

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

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

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

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

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

approach to fundraising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

way approach to communication.

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

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

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









Although these strategies offer valuable insight into how organizations may resolve

conflict with stakeholder groups, they were excluded from the current study because the

researcher perceived a lack of conflict between the participating nonprofit organizations and their

donors. If the organizations studied were embroiled in a scandal or crisis situation similar to

those described in chapter one, then the strategies likely would have been included in the

research design.

Given the multitude of strategies that nonprofit organizations can use to foster relationship

growth with their donors, the fourth research question was created to determine if all of the

strategies were viewed positively:

RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization favorable ratings on its

relationship cultivation strategies?

This question helps to evaluate overall views on the strategies, but as fundraising literature

points out, there is a considerable difference in the amount of resources that nonprofit

organizations dedicate to develop relationships with annual gift and major gift donors. As Figure

2-1 highlights and Rosso (1991) and Nudd (1991) explained, as donors start making larger, more

significant gifts to nonprofit organizations, these organizations start cultivating the relationship

more. Because of the different levels of resources dedicated to cultivating the relationships with

different types of donors, the third hypothesis predicts that the relationship cultivation strategies

will be viewed differently by the 2 primary types of donors, annual gift and maj or gift

contributors :

H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), maj or gift

donors will rate the relationship cultivation strategies more positively.










de Rivera, J., & Grinkis, C. (1986). Emotions as social relationships. Motivation andEmotion,
10(4), 351-369.

DellaVedova, J. P. (2005). Measuring relationships: A model for evaluating U.S. air force
public affairs programs. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

DiPerna, P. (2003). Media, charity, and philanthropy in the aftermath of September 11. In N.
Coe (Ed.), September 11: Perspectives from the field of philanthropy, volume 2 (pp. 149-
158). Washington, DC: The Foundation Center.

Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the
literature tells us about their effects. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations
and communication management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). Managing the nonprofit organization. New York: Collins.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 51(April), 11-27.

Dychi, J. (2001). The crm handbook: A business guide to customer relationship management.
Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an
organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, &
J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 616-
638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferguson (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Association for education in
Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, Gainesville, FL.

Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building a relationship that gets to yes.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fogal, R. E. (2005). Designing and managing the fundraising program. In R. D. Herman (Ed.),
The Jossey-Bass Handbook ofNonprofit Leadership and Management (pp. 419-43 5). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fowler, Jr., F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Frommer, D. (2006). America's most wired cities. Forbes, New York, NY. Retrieved October
3 1, 2006, from http ://www.forbes.com/2006/08/30O/wireless-wired-
broadband cx df 0831Iwiredcities.html.









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

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

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

responsibility, and sharing of tasks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

interpersonal communication theory impacted evaluation of the relationship dimensions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This study shows that nonprofit organizations can use relationship cultivation strategies

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

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

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










Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-16 can be deemed valid, it is

necessary to check the 5 fit tests for SEM to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits

the data. Table 4-17 shows that this model met the 5 criteria for the fit tests (Chi-square/df =

2.09, CFI = .99, GFI = .99, NFI = .99, and RMSEA = .025). Therefore, the measurement model

of the relationship dimensions had good construct reliability and validity. Figure 4-1 illustrates

the measurement model between the 4 relationship dimensions and the items used to measure

those variables.

Table 4-18 presents the results of the CFA for the relationship cultivation strategy

measurement model. Much like the measurement model for the relationship dimensions, 8 of the

10 strategies had items that were derived from the literature and existing theory removed from

the factor. Only the stewardship strategies of responsibility and reporting were found to be valid

and reliable without removing items. The CFA results indicated that the reciprocity construct

needed to have 2 items removed from the factor while the remaining 7 strategies each had 1 item

removed.

Each of the first 6 strategies listed in Table 4-18 had 1 item removed during the

measurement modeling. For example, the access construct originally was measured by 4 items.

Even though the Cronbach's alpha values were .83 and .90 for the "their views" and "my views"

access indices, respectively, the fourth item was not found to be valid given the overall model,

and so it had to be removed. For the 4 stewardship strategies, reciprocity had 2 items removed,

and relationship nurturing had 1 item removed. Of the 40 items that originally were created to

measure the relationship cultivation strategies, 31 were ultimately included in the measurement

model, which is illustrated in Figure 4-2.










Huang, Y. H. (2001). Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relations
mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 265-301.

Hung, C. J. F. (2000, November). Organization-public relationships, relationship maintenance
strategies, and relationship outcomes. Paper presented to the Educator's Academy, Public
Relations Society of America, Miami, FL.

Hung, C. J. F. (2000b). Global public relations: A study ofpublic relations in China f~on
economic systems perspectives. Paper presented to the Educator' s Academy, Public
Relations Society of America, World Congress, Chicago

Hung, C. J. F. (2002). The interplays of relationship tyipes, relationship cultivation, and
relationship outcomes: How multinational and Taiwanese companies practice public
relations and organization-public relationship nzanagentent in China. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Hung, C. J. F. (2004). Cultural influence on relationship cultivation strategies: Multinational
companies in China. Journal of Conanunication Management, 8(3), 264-28 1.

Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization-public relations and their implications
for relationship management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research,
17(4), 393-426.

Hung, C. J. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations: How
to cultivate quality relationships? In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The Future of Excellence in Public
Relations and Conanunications Ma'~naggement Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages, Human Conanunication
Research, 9, pp. 169-91.

Jo, S. (2003). Measurement of organization-public relationships: Validation of neasurentent
using a nzanufacturer-retailer relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2005). Organisation-public relationships: Measurement
validation in a university setting. Journal of Conanunication Management, 9(1), 14-.

Jordan, R. R., & Quynn, K. L. (2001). Marketing: printed materials and publications for donors
and prospects. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 824-
833). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Joireskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Ed s.), Testing Structural Equation M~odels (pp. 294-3 16). Newbury Park: Sage.

Inglis, S. (1997). Roles of the board in amateur sport organizations. Journal of Sport
Management, 11, 160-176.










Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in
their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of
personal relationships. ChildDevelopment, 63(1), 103-115.

Gilbert, M. C. (1999). Interview with Pete Mountanos of charitable way. Nonprofit Online
News, Seattle, WA. Retrieved online April 21, 2007, from
http:.//news.gilb ert. org/features/featureReader$3 594.

Giving USA Foundation (2006). 2005 contributions: $260.28 billion by source and
contribution. The Giving Institute, Glenview, IL. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from
http://www.givinginstitute.org/charts/inde f~gcat.cfm&ID=xgusal.

Glaser, J. S. (1993). The united way scandal: An insider 's account of what went wrong and
why. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Goodwin, R. (2004). Garnering major gifts. Custom Development Solutions, Inc., Mt.
Pleasant, SC. Retrieved online April 18, 2007, from
http://www.cdsfunds. com/garnering~maj or_gifts.html.

Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M. A. (1998). Relationship marketing effectiveness: The
role of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 443-459.

Grace, K.S., & Wendroff, A.L. (2001). High impact philanthropy: How donors, boards, and
nonprofit organizations can transfor~rmt~rt~rt~rt~rt~ communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Greenfield, J. M. (1996). Fund-raising cost effectiveness: A self-assessment workbook. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities,
commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of
Marketing, 64(3), 34-49.

Grunig, J. E. (1966). The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism
M~onoguraphs,No. 3.

Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital.
Journalism Quarterly, 55, 109-118.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship
outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23-
54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.









measure the quality of the relationship with the public in question (e.g., donors in this study). To

help understand the impact of different types of donors on relationship evaluation, the first

hypothesis examines the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship for 2 groups of donors:

(1) annual giving donors and (2) major gift donors. As will be explained in more depth in

chapter 3, maj or gift donors were considered as those who gave $10,000 or more per year.

Because fundraising literature maintains that organizations traditionally put more resources into

relationship cultivation with maj or gift donors, the first hypothesis tests the difference in

relationship evaluation between maj or gift and annual giving donors:

H1: Compared to annual gift donors (e.g., those who give less than $10,000), major gift

donors will rate the organization-public relationship more positively on the 4 relationship

dimensions.

Returning to the literature on the nonprofit-donor relationship, fundraising practitioners

often suggest that organizations should invest more time and resources into the donors who

continue to donate to their causes (Tempel, 2003). The ultimate goal of these organizations is to

elevate the donor to higher stages of giving, perhaps turning an annual gift into a maj or gift.

In a study of nonprofit organizational effectiveness, Herman and Renz (1998) found that

the nonprofits who were more focused on managed communication efforts were more likely to

have positive relationships with their stakeholders. Though this study did not exclusively

examine fundraising dynamics, the authors did suggest that nonprofit organizations could expect

positive financial returns when they invest resources into developing a relationship. Similarly,

Voss, Cable, and Voss (2000) found that organizations that were able to demonstrate their values

to their stakeholders were likely to benefit from the relationship over an extended period of time.









Table 4-18. Continued
Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Reporting, continued.
The organization does not provide donors with information about how their .84 (.041) ***
donations were used. (Reverse)
Responsibility
The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their .99 a
donations.
The organization uses donations for proj ects that are against the will of the .78 (.026) ***
donors. (Reverse)
Donors have confidence that the organization will use their donations wisely. .81 (.026) ***
The organization tells donors what proj ects their donations will fund. .73 (.024) ***
Relationship Nurturing
Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for donations. .85 a
(Reverse)
The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its .79 (.032) ***
relationships with donors. (Reverse)
Donors receive personalized attention from the organization. .73 (.045) ***
a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The
numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized estimates (P). The numbers in parentheses
indicate standard error. *** p < .001









boundaries. The study did not look at other types of healthcare organizations, such as nonprofit

substance abuse programs, community healthcare clinics, or research centers. Although these

organizations are still focused on healthcare issues, their missions are significantly different from

nonprofit hospitals. The difference in organizational purposes and missions may produce

different findings if this study were to be replicated.

It is important to note, however, that the incorporation of the coorientation methodology

into the research design does require some similarities between the participating organizations.

The coorientation methodology typically has been used to measure 2 sides of an issue within the

scope of 1 particular scenario, for example, measuring an organization's and 1 stakeholder

group's views on a topic for 1 organization. However, this study applied the methodology across

3 organizations to be able to learn more about the overall nonprofit-donor relationship. In order

to apply this design, the context had to be somewhat similar to warrant collapsing both sides of

the relationship at 3 institutions into the overall nonprofit-donor relationship.

Looking at the study from a different perspective, another limitation is that this study only

looked at nonprofits with missions in healthcare. Although many sources acknowledge that

healthcare, along with higher education, employs more fundraisers than the other nonprofit

subsectors outlined in chapter 2 (Kelly, 1998; Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2004),

these subsectors face the same challenges in cultivating relationships with donors. Healthcare is

one of the more often studied fundraising sectors because of its use of advanced strategies and

tactics; others in fundraising often look up to healthcare fundraisers, particularly those in

nonprofit hospitals, as they aspire to emulate their sophistication. However, other types of

nonprofit organizations, such as the United Way and the American Red Cross, are also leaders in

the nonprofit sector and excel at fundraising.










require time to advance through the various stages (e.g., from a single contribution to annual

giving to a maj or gift for the fundraising relationship). It would be nearly impossible to

construct an experimental design that would allow the researcher to control all the variables that

would influence the relationship dimensions. Even if it were plausible, the length of time

required to observe the variables as the relationship progresses would make the study unfeasible.

Study Design

This study uses survey research to capture both parties' evaluation of the nonprofit-donor

relationship. The survey approach is one of the most appropriate methods for collecting data that

describes a situation or phenomenon (Fowler, 1995). It is the only method that allows

researchers to describe characteristics of a large population accurately when sampled properly.

Surveys have additional advantages. Compared to qualitative methods and experimental

designs, surveys are relatively inexpensive and can be self-administered, which allows them to

be administered from remote locations using mail, e-mail, or telephone. Due to costs and the

various ways to administer surveys, large samples are feasible, which provides more strength to

claims that the collected data represents the population.

The typical survey format allows for some flexibility in the initial creation phase. Though

different survey administration methods will produce different results in terms of the number of

participants, the researcher has the ability to ask as many questions about a given topic as

deemed necessary. However, guidelines must be followed to ensure that the researcher can

properly analyze the data. Standardized, closed-ended questions make the measurement of key

variables more precise because they force participants to use a uniform definition of said

variables. The use of standardized questions also allows the data to be collected from a large

number of participants and analyzed without the researcher interpreting the participants'

meaning.










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

including donors, volunteers, foundations, and community leaders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shift in the nature of public relations.

Nonprofit-Donor Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

organizations have been pouring more resources into their fundraising and development

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

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

existing donors and finding new prospects.











For each of the statements below, please evaluate how San Francisco General Hospital develops relationships with
its donors in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital
would respond to the statement in the right column. Use the same 9-point scale, where 1 equals strongly' disagree
and 9 equals strongly' agree, to indicate your response.

~Your Estimate of the
Your Vi re as a
I iew ofSan
Donor ofSan rnic era
FFrancisco General
Francisco General
Hospital Hsia
Fundraisers
SD SA SD SA
The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact
123456789 123456789
information.

1 2 4 6 78 9 Receiving regular communications from the organization iS123456789
beneficial to donors.

The organization's annual report is a valuable source of information
123456789 123456789
for donors.

The organization and donors do not work well together at solving
123456789 123456789
problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
responses to donors' concerns.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that123456789
address issues that donors care about.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization's communication with donors is courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization does not provide donors with enough information
123456789 123456789
about what it does with donations.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care 123456789
about.

The organization's alliances with other like-minded groups are
123456789 123456789
useless to donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization communicates the importance of its donorS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is
123456789 123456789
willing to answer their mnqumres.

The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors
123456789 123456789
enjoyable.
The organization provides donors with enough information to
123456789 123456789
understand the issues it faces.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The organization's alliances with government agencies are useful 123456789
for its donors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The organization works with donors to develop solutions that
123456789 123456789
benefit donors.

The organization provides donors with adequate contact
123456789 123456789
information for specific staff on specific issues.

1 2 4 6 78 9 The information the organization provides donors with is of little
use to them.
Continued next page










survey were made based on the questions that did come up during the telephone pretest. These

42 pretest donors were chosen based on their connection to a nonprofit organization that was not

used in the study. It was necessary to choose an organization that was similar in services, but

located in a different geographic region to ensure that individuals chosen during the sampling

process were not also used in the pretest.

Once the pretest was been completed, the scales were analyzed in terms of their reliability

and validity. Cronbach's alpha measures the internal consistency of the measurement items.

Alpha is an overall measure of how well items in a scale are intercorrelated. Based on the

pretest, the 4 stewardship scales were sufficiently reliable as the alpha values ranged from .81 to

.89.

Validation checks can also be used to determine whether the items produced accurate

findings. Social science typically has been concerned with 3 types of validity. Face validity is

the most basic type of validity and refers to whether the instrument appears to accurately

measure what it is supposed to measure. Face validity is usually accepted based on the

credibility of the researcher (Babbie, 1998). A new scale is said to have content validity if it has

been examined by experts, and they agree that the scale is thorough and represents the domain of

the variable being measured. Before conducting the pretest, experts reviewed the 4 statements

chosen to represent each of the stewardship strategies, and they agreed that the items represented

the underlying dimensions of the variables.

One final form of validity-construct validity--refers to whether scores measure the

construct they claim to assess (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). This form of validation is frequently

measured using factor analysis because the aim of construct validity is to produce an observation

that is generated by 1 sole construct. This study used factor analysis to test the construct validity









refer potential clients or volunteers to the organization (Snavely & Tracy, 2000), and may even

raise money for the organization (Inglis, 1997).

Defining the Organization-Public Relationships

The importance of studying the organization-public relationship was first introduced to

public relations scholars in the mid-1980s (Ferguson, 1984). However, the suggestion that this

concept should be the Hield's guiding paradigm was not grasped immediately as scholars

continued to focus on strategic communications. As inquiry into relationship management grew,

scholars also began looking outside the traditional theoretical perspectives to develop a better

understanding of the impact relationships have for public relations practitioners. Indeed, "the

early dependence on mass communication theory has proven to be too limiting as relationships

become a dominant focus in public relations thinking and practice" (Coombs, 2001, p. 114).

Despite the use of the term relationship in many of the definitions of public relations and

fundraising, there were few attempts initially to define what constitutes a relationship between an

organization and its stakeholders. In reviewing the definitions proposed by public relations

scholars, there are very few consistencies (Ki & Shin, 2005). However, the definition has

evolved since the first proposed definition to represent a wide range of perspectives.

After Broom, Casey, and Ritchey's (1997) call for a definition of the organization-public

relationship, several scholars began to examine the concept more closely. Bruning and

Ledingham (1998) believed that the organization-public relationship is "the state which exists

between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the

economic, social, cultural or political well being of the other" (p. 62). Broom, Casey, and

Ritchey (2000) provided a different perspective on organization-public relationships by noting

that they are "represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage










Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-93

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organization-
public relationships: An update. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3-
22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to
program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale:
Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization-public
relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309-319.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics:
Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public
Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Public relations and consumer decisions: Examining
the influence of organization-public relationships on consumer behavior. In (Eds. Jerry
Biberman and Abbass Alkhafaji, Business Research Yearbook, International Academy of
Business Disciplines.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of
satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000b). Public relations as relationship management: A
relational approach to public relations. Mahwah, NJ:, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc..

Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. (2004). Examining city-resident relationships:
Linking community relations, relationship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations.
Public Relations Review, 30, 335-345.

Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2000). The role of relationships in public relations: Examining
the influence of relational attitudes on behavioral intent. Communication Research
Reports 17, 426-435.

Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2001). Using a relational approach to retaining students and
building mutually beneficial student-university relationships. Southern Communication
Journal, 66, 337-345.

Burlingname, D. F., & Hulse, L. J. (Eds.). (1991). Taking fund raising seriously: Ad'vancing
the profession and practice of raising money. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.
Communication M~onoguraphs, 59, 243-267.













































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









transparency and openness in fundraising, in order to build donor confidence" (Zachrison, 2005,

para 25). Ragsdale (1995) says that open communication is necessary if an organization seeks to

create a climate conducive to long-lasting relationships with donors.

Assurances

Providing verbal and behavioral assurances to another party can do a great deal to enhance

a relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1992). In a survey of married couples, verbal assurances were

found to be a strong predictor of the level of trust in the relationship and stronger feelings of

being committed to continuing the relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1993). Earning assurances

from publics means organizations need to first offer assurances to their stakeholders (L. Grunig,

1992).

Looking at the relationship between organizations and stakeholders, assurances occur

when "each party in the relationship attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are

legitimate and to demonstrate that is committed to maintaining the relationship" (L. Grunig, J.

Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). An organization can demonstrate how much it values its stakeholders

by incorporating this strategy into its communication plan. Benefits from providing assurances

to key publics are more satisfaction and commitment from both sides (Hung, 2000a).

Leadership and organizational management scholar Peter Drucker (2006) says that

nonprofit organizations have a distinct competitive advantage when it comes to providing

assurances to their stakeholder groups because the sector exists to address community problems.

Nonprofit leaders frequently seek input from those in their operating community to leamn about

concerns and find new ways to address problems through their programs and services (Bracht,

Finnegan, Jr., Rissel, Weisbrod, Gleason, Corbett, & Veblen-Mortenson, 1994; Ospina, Diaz, &

O' Sullivan, 2002). Drucker (2006) argues that having the mindset of assuring clients and










nonprofits. Pete Mountanos (Gilbert, 1999) of Charitable Way, an Internet watchdog group for

the nonprofit sector, believes that charitable nonprofits that create positive experiences for their

donors are more likely to see renewal gifts from previous donors.

Openness

Openness is about the willingness of both sides of the organization-public relationship to

engage actively and honestly in direct discussions about the nature of the relationship. Hung

(2000a) points out that openness may not guarantee a positive relationship because differences

may be revealed. However, the open discussion of points of disagreement can demonstrate that

neither party is trying to hide information from the other.

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) point out that for parties to be open, they should reveal both

their thoughts and their feelings. J. Grunig and Huang (2000) argued that the openness strategy

follows the requirements of excellent, symmetrical communication. They also contend that

organizations that frequently use openness as a cultivation strategy are more likely to have

positive relationships with their stakeholders than those that do not. Hung (2005) proposed that

rather than using the label of openness to describe this concept, the term disclosure might be

more suitable.

Due to its symmetrical approach, openness has been examined by numerous public

relations scholars. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) concluded that openness is one of the more

influential factors in a satisfying relationship between an organization and its publics. Similarly,

L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) proposed that quality relationships could best be

measured by examining the openness of the parties involved.

Openness is becoming increasingly important for charitable nonprofits that seek to

demonstrate their transparency. The top goal of the European Fundraising Association, Europe' s

equivalent to the America's Association for Fundraising Professionals, is "to increase










Survey research is not without its disadvantages. Creswell (1997) suggests that any

methodology that relies on the standardization of variables forces the researcher to develop

questions that can be answered by all of the respondents, which may prevent some key

distinctions between different segments of the sample from emerging in the analysis phase of the

research. Additionally, unlike qualitative methods, surveys are inflexible in their approach.

Changes cannot be made to a survey's questions after the research has started. Once the survey

is administered, either the entire research proj ect must be carried out as is or stopped completely.

As Alreck and Settle (1995) outline, there are different methods of administering surveys.

In their text, they detail the advantages and disadvantages of in-person and intercept surveys,

mail surveys, and telephone surveys. Since the book was first published, there has also been an

increasing amount of scholarly research that has utilized the Intemet as a method of data

collection. Table 3-1 highlights various advantages of each survey method; however, for this

study, one of the most important factors concerns the response rate. Typically, the more

personalized the survey approach (e.g., face-to-face/in-person surveys), the higher the response

rates.

In recent years, there has been considerable research to examine the response rates of Web-

based surveys. Overall, there have been mixed results about which survey method produces

higher response rates. Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004) found that student populations

had a slightly higher response rate for Intemet surveys that were sent out through an e-mail

invitation than for those using traditional mail surveys. This study also compared the response

rates for a one-time mailing of surveys with 1 group receiving a reminder--either an e-mail or a

postcard--and the other group only receiving the survey. Their study found that the use of a









statistical tests. Structural equation modeling (SEM) can tell which of the strategies was

influential on the 4 relationship dimensions. SEM is a combination of factor analysis

(measurement modeling) and regression analysis (path modeling) that can estimate a series of

interrelated relationships between variables to determine which are most influential on the

others. In recent years, communication scholars have advocated that more research needs to

incorporate SEM to test theoretical boundaries (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002).

Confirmatory factor analysis. Highlighting the power of SEM, Kaplan (2000) described

the technique as "a melding of factor analysis and path analysis into one comprehensive

statistical methodology" (p. 3). With most SEM tests, a two-step process is required to evaluate

the interrelationships between latent and observed variables. In the first step, the measurement

models are created through a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). When the

measurement model has been validated, path modeling can be done.

Several criteria can be used to determine whether the measurement and path models fit the

observed data. Table 4-15 lists the 5 tests used by this study to evaluate the models. The Chi-

square goodness of fit statistic is frequently used by researchers to determine if the data fit the

model. Often, nonsignificant Chi-square values are used to evaluate the model; however, Bollen

(1989) suggests that it may be more appropriate to calculate the ratio of the Chi-square value to

the degrees of freedom given the sensitivity of the Chi-square statistic to sample sizes. Using this

approach, if the ratio is less than 5, the model generally indicates a good fit.

Other methods of evaluation used by this study are the comparative fit index (CFI), the

goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the root mean squared error

approximation (RMSEA). For all of these methods, the values range from 0 to 1.00. For CFI,

GFI, and NFI, higher values indicate that the model is a good fit. Generally, measurements of










Major Gift Donors

To answer this question, the structural equation modeling process outlined in the earlier

section on the fifth research question was repeated. However, rather than using the entire dataset

of donors, 2 separate subsets were created and subjected to the same statistical procedures. The

major gift donors were examined first, followed by the annual giving donors. To determine

which cultivation strategies influenced maj or gift donors' evaluations of the relationship

dimensions the most, confirmatory factor analyses had to be conducted on both the dimensions

and the strategies to discard items that were deemed invalid through statistical tests. The same

criteria presented in Table 4-15 were used to evaluate the measurement and path models for the 2

donor groups.

Table 4-22 presents the measurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis results, for the

relationship dimensions as evaluated by the maj or gift donors. Of the 23 items that were

originally entered into the model, 20 were significantly and successfully loaded on their

designated factors. Trust and satisfaction were left intact, while commitment had 1 item

removed and control mutuality had 2 items removed from the factor due to lack of statistical

significance. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 20 indicators

in the relationship dimensions measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors.

All of the factor loadings in the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p < .001.

Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-22 can be deemed valid, it is

necessary to check the 5 tests to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits the data.

Table 4-23 shows that this model met the criteria for the 5 fit indices (Chi-square/df = 1.35, CFI

=.98, GFI = .95, NFI = .95, and RMSEA = .031). Therefore, the measurement model of the

relationship dimensions had good construct reliability and validity. Figure 4-5 illustrates the

measurement model between the 4 relationship dimensions and the items used to measure them.









Positivity has been examined in the context of interpersonal relationships, and it has been

shown to be an important predictor of control mutuality (Canary and Stafford, 1993). Similarly,

positivity has been shown to be the primary cultivation strategy used to predict trust as a measure

of the relationship dimension (Canary and Stafford, 1991). Ki (2003) compared the concept of

positivity to Fisher and Brown's (1988) concept of being unconditionally constructive.

Though they discuss the notion of being constructive in the setting of resolving conflict,

the notion can be extended throughout the domain of public relations. Hon and J. Grunig (1999)

provide an example of the positivity cultivation strategy that is centered on how a public

relations agency CEO sees the organization's relationships with its publics:

We want to be a resource to every one of our publics in some way, shape, or form. It' s in
the way we've set up our web site, the way we've set up everything we do as far as our
newsletter, as far as the service we provide, as far as the way we interact with all of these
publics--whether they're the media or a client or a not-for-profit organization or
whatever--we want them to look at [name of agency] as a resource, as something that has
value to their organization in some way, shape, or form. So, what we try to do is operate on
the principle of providing something that is of self-interest to every one of our clients...so
there is a reason why they should care about us. (p. 17)

Practitioner literature has identified positivity as an important--but often missing--

component of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Sargeant and Lee (2004) found that donors in

the United Kingdom valued positive interactions with nonprofit organizations and that these

exchanges had a positive impact on donor behavior. Public Agenda, a research organization in

New York, released a report entitled "The Charitable Impulse" in 2005. This report had similar

findings to Light' s (2003; 2005) research on the public' s confidence in the nonprofit sector.

However, the Public Agenda report found that the general public was "enthusiastic and positive

when it comes to small, local organizations" (Blum, 2005) in part because they were community-

based organizations that relied on personal touches, such as handwritten thank-you notes and

personalized phone calls, rather than impersonal direct mail pieces used by larger charitable









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

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

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

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









already have an established relationship with the organization because past donor behavior is the

strongest indicator of future giving.

Worth (2002) maintained that the incorporation of these strategies can enhance

relationships with donors. When an organization is open and actively communicates information

about its operations and fiscal health, donors develop a greater sense of loyalty and trust in the

organization. They also are more likely to feel that the organization' s staff is dedicated to

achieving the mission. Kelly's (2001) 4 elements of stewardship demonstrate the organization's

gratitude, and, in turn, donors feel respected because they know the gift was appreciated and

wisely managed.

Fundraising literature maintains that donors typically only give to organizations when they

are connected to the cause. After the initial donation, donors can develop a sense of commitment

not only to the cause but also to the organization when they feel their contributions are being

managed effectively and efficiently. These feelings of satisfaction and commitment can help

elevate the donors' gifts when it is combined with increased communication and targeted

solicitations.

Finally, practitioners have suggested that cultivation strategies in the nonprofit-donor

relationship can result in strengthened attitudes and behavior among donor publics. By

maintaining open communication with donors, nonprofit organizations can increase the response

they get from donors in terms of increased donations and increased volunteer hours. Literature

suggests that donors who are interested in the cause and have developed positive attitudes toward

an organization may become members of the board of directors (Herman & Renz, 2000), may

actively talk about the organization with their friends and family (Herman & Renz, 1997), may




Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ADVANCING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THEORY: COORIENTATION AND THE NONP ROFIT-DONOR RELATIONSHIP By RICHARD DAVID WATERS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Richard David Waters

PAGE 3

3 To Oscar and Joey for helping me get through it all

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank several people for helping me accomplish my goal. First, I thank Dr. Lynne Sallot. Although I have had a desire to get my doctoral de gree since my senior year in high school, I would not have found my niche in academia if she had not offered the Public Relations and Fundraising course. That class led me to a career in fundraising and also helped shape my research interests. For that, I am truly grateful. I also thank my supervisory committee: Dr. Kathleen Kelly, Chai r, Dr. Linda Hon, Dr. Jennifer Robinson, and Dr. Elizabeth Bolton. A ve ry special note of gratitude belongs to Dr. Kelly for her continuing counsel and enlightened guidance. When I first spoke with Dr. Kelly over the telephone in 1998 when I was writing my undergraduate honors thesis on fundraising ethics, I never would have guessed that almost 10 years later I would be finishing my doctorate under her guidance. I cons ider her to be the greatest mentor a graduate student could ask for, and I also consider her a close friend and confidant. I also thank Dr. Hon for helping shape my research and public relations interests. Havi ng studied under one of the leading scholars in public relations is something for which I will be forever grateful. Her encouragement and advice on my dissertation topic and addi tional research projects have been valuable beyond belief. I owe special appreciation to Dr. Robinson. I cannot imagine how differently the last 2 years would have been if I remained in one of th e graduate student offices in the basement. Dr. Robinson inspires me to succeed with my research and in the classroom. Her advice has helped me connect with students in ways I would never ha ve thought. It will feel odd next year at North Carolina State not having Dr. Robinson down the ha ll. She has served as a sounding board for various research projects and al so as a mentor to whom I can turn for advice on how to survive as an assistant professor.

PAGE 5

5 Dr. Elizabeth Bolton helped make my time at the University of Florida one of the most unique experiences that a graduate student could have. Not only did she provide me with great insights into nonprofit management, she also ope ned doors to allow me to pursue my greatest interests. From working on independent study res earch projects to teaching a fundraising course in the Family, Youth, and Community Sciences department, Dr. Bolton gave me the opportunity to reach out to others on campus and educate them about the nonpr ofit sector and fundraising. Even though it was additional work, it rea lly made my time at UF enjoyable. I also owe notes of thanks to the many professo rs from whom I have taken courses over the years. At Syracuse, Dr. Elizabeth Toth and Dr. Carol Liebler helped shape my theoretical understanding of public relations and mass communication, and th ey both encouraged me to pursue my academic interests. At Florida, Dr Lisa Duke-Cornell, Dr. Margarete Hall, and Dr. Spiro Kiousis also challenged me to produce or iginal research that helped advance our understanding of public relations. My parents, Edward and Martha Waters, ha ve always been suppor tive of my various endeavors, but they have been particularly help ful these past three years as they tolerated my phone calls from the bus stop and constantly work ing during my vacations. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their constant s upport. Jennifer Lemanski Dani Burrows, Alex Laskin, Seth Oyer, Hyung-Seok Lee, Dave Deele y, and Cristina Popescu helped make my years at Florida memorable and enjoyable. Amy Sanders and Courtney Barclay deserve a spec ial word of thanks. Our lunches will be missed next year. I consider them both great friends, and I am gl ad I had the opportunity to work with you.

PAGE 6

6 Finally, I thank all of the stude nts I have taught over the past 3 years. From teaching undergraduates how to write to teaching graduate students how to research, they all have helped me improve as a teacher. I hope I have taught them as much as they have taught me. I hope to stay in touch in the future and hear about their career successes.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......13 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................16 The State of Nonprofit America.............................................................................................16 Fundraising and the Relations hip Management Paradigm.....................................................23 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....24 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..27 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................32 Nonprofit Sector in the United States.....................................................................................32 Fundraising in the United States.............................................................................................34 Defining Fundraising.......................................................................................................38 Fundraising as a Specializa tion of Public Relations........................................................39 Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................................................................................................43 Defining the OrganizationPublic Relationships....................................................................50 Measuring the Organizati on-Public Relationship...................................................................52 Dimensions of the Organization-Public Relationship.....................................................55 Trust.........................................................................................................................56 Commitment.............................................................................................................56 Satisfaction...............................................................................................................57 Control mutuality.....................................................................................................58 Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships...............................60 Impact of Relationship Cultivation Strategies........................................................................64 Relationship Cultivation Strategies Defined...................................................................65 Access.......................................................................................................................66 Positivity...................................................................................................................67 Openness..................................................................................................................69 Assurances................................................................................................................70 Networking...............................................................................................................71 Sharing of tasks........................................................................................................72 Keeping promises.....................................................................................................74 Stewardship..............................................................................................................75 New Approach to Measuring the Or ganization-Public Relationship.....................................79

PAGE 8

8 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................90 Study Design................................................................................................................... ........91 Population and Sampling.................................................................................................94 Instrument Design...........................................................................................................99 Relationship dimensions........................................................................................100 Relationship cultivation strategies.........................................................................101 Scale Development.............................................................................................................. .103 Data Collection Procedures..................................................................................................106 Data Analysis Procedures.....................................................................................................110 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .....121 Participants................................................................................................................... ........121 Research Question 1............................................................................................................ .125 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................... ......126 Hypothesis 2................................................................................................................... ......127 Research Question 2............................................................................................................ .131 Research Question 3............................................................................................................ .133 Research Question 4............................................................................................................ .136 Hypothesis 3................................................................................................................... ......136 Research Question 5............................................................................................................ .138 Research Question 6............................................................................................................ .145 Major Gift Donors.........................................................................................................146 Annual Giving Donors..................................................................................................148 Research Question 7............................................................................................................ .152 Research Question 8............................................................................................................ .154 Research Question 9............................................................................................................ .156 Research Question 10...........................................................................................................159 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ..202 The Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.......................................................................................203 Relationship Quality and Dimensions...........................................................................205 Relationship Cultivation Strategies...............................................................................213 Implications for the Practice.................................................................................................220 Impact on Public Relations Theory......................................................................................223 Measuring the Organizati on-Public Relationship.........................................................224 Relationship Cultivation Strategies...............................................................................230 Symmetrical Measurement of the Or ganization-Public Relationship....................234 6 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................238 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................239 Suggestions for Future Research..........................................................................................244

PAGE 9

9 APPENDIX A SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL DONORS................................................................................251 B SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING TEAM MEMBERS....................................255 C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUT IONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL......................................................................................................259 D LETTER MAILED TO DONORS BY THE NONPROFIT HOSPITALS..........................261 E POSTCARD REMINDER MAILED TO DONORS BY NONPROFIT HOSPITALS.......263 REFERENCE LIST................................................................................................................. ....264 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................280

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Symmetry Orientation of Relationship Cultivation Strategies Proposed in Interpersonal and Public Relations Literature....................................................................86 2-2 Summary of the Current Studys Three Hypotheses and 10 Research Questions.............88 3-1 Comparison of Survey Data Collection Methods............................................................115 3-2 Indices of Relationshi p Dimension Measures..................................................................116 3-3 Indices of Relationship Cultiva tion Strategies as adapted by Ki.....................................117 3-4 Indices of Stewardship Strategies....................................................................................118 3-5 Cronbachs alpha values of the studys indices...............................................................120 4-1 Relationship Dimensions Mean s across Three Organizations.........................................160 4-2 Relationship Cultivation Strategies Means across Three Organizations........................161 4-3 Donors Evaluation of Relationship with Nonprofits based on Donor Type...................161 4-4 One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the Donors Relationship with the Nonprofit Organization................................................................................................................... ..162 4-5 Pearsons r Correlation of Giving Hist ory and Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................................................................................................................... ..162 4-6 Multiple Regression of Relationship Dime nsion Indices with the Number of Years Donating to the Organization...........................................................................................162 4-7 Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices for Number of Years of Donating to the Organization...........................................................................................163 4-8 Discriminant Function Analysis of Relati onship Dimensions with Participation in the Most Recent Fundraising Campaign................................................................................163 4-9 Classification Matrix of Di scriminant Analysis Function...............................................164 4-10 Multiple Regression of Relationship Dime nsion Indices with Overall Relationship Score.......................................................................................................................... ......164 4-11 Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship Score.......................................................................................................................... ......165 4-12 Donor Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategy Indices............................................165

PAGE 11

11 4-13 Major Gift and Annual Giving Donors Me an Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategies Indices........................................................................................................................ ......166 4-14 One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the 10 Relationship Cultivation Strategies by Donor Type..................................................................................................................... .166 4-15 Model Fit Criteria for St ructural Equation Modeling......................................................166 4-16 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Orga nization-Public Relationship Dimensions for All Donors..................................................................................................................... ...167 4-17 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model.......................................................................................................................... .....167 4-18 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies......................169 4-19 Fit Measures for the Relationship Cultivation Strategies Measurement Model..............173 4-20 Path Model of Relationship Cultivati on Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions.................................................................................................174 4-21 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions................................................................174 4-22 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Orga nization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Major Gift Donors............................................................................................................176 4-23 Fit Measures for Major Gift Donors Or ganization-Public Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model........................................................................................................176 4-24 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Major Gift Donors.................................................................................................................... ..179 4-25 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Major Gift Donors..........................................................................................181 4-26 Path Model of Relationship Cultivati on Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Major Gift Donors.............................................................184 4-27 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Di mensions for Major Gift Donors...........................184 4-28 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Orga nization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors.....................................................................................................186 4-29 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Annual Giving Donors....................................................................................187

PAGE 12

12 4-30 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Annual Giving Donors..................................................................................................................189 4-31 Fit Measures for the Organization-Pub lic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Annual Giving Donors....................................................................................191 4-32 Path Model of Relationship Cultivati on Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors......................................................194 4-33 Fit Measures for the Path Model of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Di mensions for Annual Giving Donors....................194 4-34 Agreement between Donors and the Fundr aising Team on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.........................................................................................196 4-35 Donors Perceived Agreement with the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.........................................................................................197 4-36 The Fundraising Teams Perceived Agreem ent with Donors on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship.........................................................................................198 4-37 Donors Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................................................................................................................... ..199 4-38 The Fundraising Teams Accuracy on Es timates of the Evaluation of the NonprofitDonor Relationship..........................................................................................................200 4-39 Coorientation States on Key Variable s of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship................201

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The organization-public re lationship as described by pub lic relations scholarship, 1984-2006...................................................................................................................... ....31 2-1 Evolution of the nonprofit-donor relationship...................................................................85 2-2 Visual depiction of the coorientati on methodology examining relationship evaluation between nonprofit organizations and their donors.............................................................87 3-1 Graphic representation of the scale development process...............................................119 4.1 Measurement model of the organiza tion-public relationship dimensions.......................168 4-2 Measurement model of the rela tionship cultivation strategies........................................171 4-3 Initial model of the relationship between relationship cultiva tion strategies and organization-public rela tionship dimensions...................................................................173 4-4 Final path model of the relationship be tween relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationshi p dimensions for all donors.............................................175 4-5 Measurement model of the organizationpublic relationship dimensions for major gift donors.................................................................................................................... ....178 4-6 Measurement model of the relationship cu ltivation strategies for major gift donors......182 4-7 Final path model of the relationship be tween relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationship di mensions for major gift donors.................................185 4-8 Measurement model of the organizationpublic relationship dimensions for annual giving donors.................................................................................................................. .188 4-9 Measurement model of the relationship cultivation strategies for annual giving donors......................................................................................................................... ......192 4-10 Final path model of the relationship be tween relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationship dime nsions for annual giving donors...........................195 5-1 Revised model of the orga nization-public relationship...................................................237 6-1 Conflict resolution diagram app lied to the fundraising profession..................................250

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ADVANCING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THEORY: COORIENTATION AND THE NONPROFIT-DONOR RELATIONSHIP By Richard David Waters August 2007 Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Major: Mass Communication By providing programs and services, nonprofit organizations address problems that the government and business sectors have ignored, making them a crucial part of the social, political, and economic landscape of America. Recently, s candals in the charitabl e nonprofit sector have resulted in decreased levels of public conf idence that nonprofits ca rry out their missions effectively and manage themselves efficiently. With individuals providing roughly 80% of the fundraising revenue to charitable nonprofits, it is vita l that these organiza tions cultivate strong relationships with their donors to survive nonprof it controversies. Public relations theory provides a theoretical framework to assess the n onprofit-donor relationship. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of cultivation strategies and th eir influence on how donors and fundraisers evaluate the nonprof it-donor relationship. The study breaks new ground in public relations scholarship by refining previous re lationship dimensions, adding new cultivation strategies, measuring both side s of the organization-public re lationship using coorientation methodology, and measuring the organization-public relationship across multiple organizations. Through a stratified random sample of donors (n = 1706) to three nonprofit hospitals and a census of the fundraising team members at the participating hospitals (n = 124), mailed surveys explored the relationship be tween the donors and the approp riate nonprofit hospital by

PAGE 15

15 examining the relationship dimensions of control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and trust, and the following cultivation stra tegies used to build and maintain relationships: access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, re ciprocity, relationship nurturing, reporting, responsibility, and sharing of tasks. The relationship dimensions were found to be va luable in predicting past involvement with the charitable nonprofits fundraising efforts; however, they only do an adequate job of representing the overall nonprofit-donor relations hip. The relationship cultivation strategies impacted annual giving donors, those who cont ribute less than $10,000, and major gift donors, those who donate $10,000 or more, differently. Whereas the annual giving donors for whom there was a statistically strong in fluence of all 10 strategies on the dimension evaluation, major gift donors evaluations we re only impacted by six of the 10 stra tegies. Of those six, all four of Kellys stewardship strategies had an influence, while only two of the six strategies derived from interpersonal communication theory impacted evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Turning to the coorientation methodology, m easuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship revealed that they each viewed th e relationship dimensions and the relationship cultivation strategies positively. However, there we re differences in their levels of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy. Overall, the fundraising team members evaluated the relationship dimensions and the cultivation st rategies more favorab ly than the donors did, indicating that increased communication between th e sides is necessary to resolve differences. This study shows that nonprofit organizations can use relation ship cultivation strategies effectively to produce strong relationships with their donors that withstand the trickle down effect of national scandals. Strong nonprofit-dono r relationships allow charitable nonprofits to raise the funds necessary to address the nations societal and cultural problems.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the purpose of the study a nd its significance in public relations scholarship and nonprofit management are discussed. However, before detailing what the study aims to accomplish, it is necessary to discuss the importa nce of relationship cu ltivation within the confines of the nonprofit sect or. Insight into the challe nges facing nonprofit organizations allows for greater understanding of this studys impact on theo ry building and the fundraising practice. The State of Nonprofit America Nonprofit organizations are a cr ucial part of the social, po litical, and economic landscape of contemporary America. Nonprofit organizations provide a way for individuals to connect to their community, effectively participate in the democratic process and ultimately to make a difference in our world. According to the Nation al Center for Charitable Statistics (2006), there are currently more than 1.42 million nonprofit organiza tions that are registered with the Internal Revenue Service. Though it is difficult to gene ralize about what nonprofit organizations are or what they do, these organizations share similar experiences. In describing why Americas nonprofit sector emerged, Lohmann (1992) stated there were several traits that helped di stinguish nonprofit organizations fr om government and the for-profit sector. Nonprofit organizations are voluntary associations among people who are neither forced to relate nor enticed by the prospe ct of personal profit or gain. Th ese associations are facilitated by an endowment of resources, which allows them to pursue shared missions or goals. Through such mission-oriented work, nonprofits produce soci al capitalthe attitu de and willingness of people to engage in collective activity addres sing common problems. This action is built upon shared values that reinforce trust, confiden ce, and commitment of the participants.

PAGE 17

17 These characteristics help explain why the nonpr ofit sector has become such an important part of the United States. Rather than relying on government agencies or the for-profit sector to address communal problems, individuals have the ability to rally together to address health crises, environmental concerns, and education, among other causes. Although these efforts may not benefit everyone, they are available to those who seek them. For example, a health clinic may offer free services to community residents, but people wanting medical treatment must seek out the assistance. Others in th e community who have health insu rance or a prefer red healthcare provider may choose not to use the cl inics service, but it is availa ble to them if they need it. Because nonprofit organizations serve such diverse interests, including healthcare, economic development, religion, and political and social issues, P. Hall (2005) claims, Nonprofits are the most rapi dly growing types of organizations in the world (p. 3). These organizations vary enormously in scope a nd scale, ranging from informal grassroots organizations with no assets and no employees to multibillion-dollar foundations, universities, and healthcare complexes. Despite the differe nces, legally recognized nonprofit organizations, which are described in more detail in chapter 2, all seek to address specific missions that speak to needs that have been iden tified by community members. To develop programs and services to addre ss these issues, nonprof it organizations must generate appropriate resources. Resource develo pment is the practice of identifying, cultivating, and securing financial and human support (Cour tney, 2002). Although the human support helps the organizations carry out their programs and se rvices, the financial support arguably is the most important form of resource development because it is needed not only for programs and services but also for the governance and manageme nt of the organization. Many scholars have

PAGE 18

18 claimed the most effective and efficient way of developing these re sources is through the establishment of relationships with li ke-minded stakeholders (Fogal, 2005). The management of these relationships is central to Kellys (1998) definition of fundraising: the management of relationships between a charitable organization and its donor publics (p. 8). When these relationships are cultivated and managed properly, nonprofit organizations are more likely to experience fundraising success with their donors. Even though no 2 donors have the same charitable giving needs or goals, donors fall into 3 distinct groups: annual giving, major gift, or planned giving donors. Generally speaking, annual giving donors provi de donations that keep the charitable nonprofit operating day-to-day by paying for the organizations administration, fundraising, and programs and service delivery. Annual giving f undraising programs typically consist of several solicitation vehicles, such as di rect mail, phone-a-thons, and tele thons. Gifts made to annual giving campaigns vary in their size, ranging from spare change given to the Salvation Armys Red Kettle campaign during the holiday season to gifts of several thousand dollars given to universities and healthcare institutions. By cu ltivating relationships with annual gift donors, organizations can secure future gifts from their donor database. Kelly (1998) claims that it is easier for charitable nonprofits to obtain gifts from past donors th an new ones. In a practitioner workbook, Greenfield (1996) estimate s that charitable nonprofits will spend $1.50 for every $1 raised from new donors, while only spendi ng $0.25 for every $1 raised in renewals. Once the organizations staff fundraisers ha ve conducted research and identified donors who have the potential to make a large gift, the organization can pursue majo r gifts. Major gifts vary in their size, but Kelly ( 1998) says that major gifts typi cally are $10,000 or more. These gifts are important for organiza tions to pursue because every $1 raised from major gift

PAGE 19

19 campaigns only costs the organization $0.10 $0.20 (Greenfield, 1996). The importance of relationships to the fundraising proc ess is particularly highlighted by major gift solicitations. In a guide for nonprofit organizati ons board members, Howe (2001) details that major gift fundraising involves personalized communication, such as handwr itten letters and cards, and face-to-face meetings, which may either serve as updates on the organi zations efforts or a solicitation. Major gift so licitations are more eff ective if the charitable nonprofit has dedicated resources to developing the rela tionship so that staff fundraise rs personally know the donor and his or her interests. While relationship management helps lead to donations during annual giving and major gift fundraising efforts, cultivation strategies al so can help nonprofits w ith their planned giving programs. Planned gifts are made in the presen t but whose value to the organization is usually realized at a later time, generally at the death of the donor or a survivi ng beneficiary (Seiler, 2003, pp. 62-63). These gifts are donated through w ills and bequests, charitable gift annuities, charitable trusts, estates, and insurance. Most charitable nonprofits provide information about their planned giving programs to interested dono rs; however, these gifts are usually initiated by the donorunlike annual and major gifts, which ar e pursued by the organizat ion. Regardless of the donors classification, charitab le nonprofits should invest in re lationship cultivation with all of their donors to ensure that their missions will be addressed in perpetuity. However, cultivation cannot prevent the inevitable ups and downs of the nonprofit-donor relationship. As the number of Congressional hearings (e.g., 2005 s Charities and Charitable Giving: Proposals for Reform) and public scru tiny intensifies, nonprofit organizations have to work harder to demonstrate their social and fi scal accountability. In 1999, Independent Sector, a coalition of corporations, f oundations, and nonprofit organizations that work together to

PAGE 20

20 strengthen Americas nonprofit sector, conducted research and found that public confidence ranged from 28 percent to 72 percent for diffe rent types of nonprofit organizations (SaxonHarrold, 1999). A Gallup Poll from May 2005 f ound that only 15 percent of the American public has a great deal of confid ence in charitable organizations (Light, 2005). This confidence rating is only slightly higher than television ne ws, Congress, and big businessentities that are frequently targets of public analysis. The falling levels of confidence were due to the increasing number of scandals in the sector. In reviewing his resear ch on public support of the nonprof it sector, Light (2005) said: Americans displayed consistent support for what nonprofit organizati ons did to help the needy and strengthen their communities, but they had growing doubts about how organizations spent their money and delivered services. Donors and volunteers were not saying show us the mission but show us the impact. (para 2) These doubts were brought on by scandals that r eceived a significant amount of media attention during the past 15 years. One of the first high profile scandals invol ving the nonprofit sector surrounded the United Way and William Aramony, who headed the agency for 22 years before allegations of financial impropriety forced him to resign in 1992 (Glaser, 1993). During a three-week federal trial, U.S. Attorney Randy Bellows portrayed the nonprofit director as a corrupt womanizer who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the charitys money to fina nce flings with young women and trips (Moss, 1995, para 12) around the world. Aramony was found guilty of federal fraud and conspiracy charges, and Bellows estimated the amount Aramony defrauded the nations United Way chapters was $1.2 million, including trips and gi fts. In response to the conviction, United Ways across the country worked to change th eir image from fundrai sing organizations to community-impact agencies. However, the relati onships that the United Ways had with their donors were already damaged.

PAGE 21

21 In 2001, the American Red Cross caused the publi cs confidence in th e nonprofit sector to continue to fall. In January, the San Diego, California, chapter of the American Red Cross began raising funds for disaster res ponse to a wildfire that destr oyed the homes of more than 250 families. Disgruntled residents of San Diego C ounty complained that funds raised for disaster response were not spent on the lo cal community but were directed to national reserve funds for future disasters. Local and national medi a, including CBS Minutes, charged the organization with deceiving donors by failing to disclose the organizations this and other disaster policy (Daley, 2002). Despite the controversy over events in Sout hern California, the American Red Cross experienced a similar outcry from the public after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In re sponse to the disasters, a record number of donors turned to the Internet to make donations to aid in the emergency response. Combined with more traditional forms of giving and a celebrity-sponsored tele thon, the American Red Cross received more than $1.2 b illion from the American public Facing criticism from news outlets over how donations were being allocated, Dr. Bernadine Healy, then chief executive officer of the American Red Cross, announced that the Liberty Fund had been created so that all donations made to the September 11 relief efforts would be used exclusively for those affected by the attacks rather than being placed in a reserve fund for emergency response to future disasters. During the announcement press conference, Healy also said that donors who felt misled could request a refund of their donation (DiPerna, 2003). Light (2003) documented the falling levels of public confidence in the nations nonprofit sector following the American Red Cross scandals The percentage of the general public who expressed a lot of confidence in the sector fe ll from 25 percent in July 2001 to only 18 percent

PAGE 22

22 in September 2002; meanwhile, there was a 6 point increasefrom 9 to 15i n the percentage of the public who expressed no confidence in the sector. Public suspicions of the nonprof it sector only grew after the Washington Post published an expos on a series of controversial actions by the Nature Conservancy in 2003. A weeklong series argued strongly that th e governing board of the United States largest environmental organization had permitted illegal land transactions using donors charitable gifts as loans to individual chapter board members, the agency had lost sight of its environmental mission for corporate contributions and cause-related market ing partnerships, and the agency wasted many thousands of dollars on community-based project s that ultimately exploited the environment (Stephenson, Jr., & Chaves, 2006). These national scandals resulted in dama ged relationships between the United Way, the American Red Cross, the Nature Conservancy, a nd their stakeholders. However, there was a trickle effect that was felt by many nonprofits as the public grew leery about the management of the sector. Light (2005) found that only 19 pe rcent of the public thought that charitable nonprofits do a very good job of conducting thei r programs and services and only 11 percent thought that the organizations wi sely used their money. Additi onally, roughly half of those sampled said that the leaders of charitable nonprofits were paid too much, and 2 out of every 3 people said the nonprofits waste a gr eat deal of money (Light, 2005). Facing growing concerns over their day-to -day operations ev en today, nonprofit organizations voluntarily started adopting the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was passed by Congress to eliminate fraud within the for-profit se ctor. These actions alone, however, are not enough. Charitable non profits have to inco rporate relationship cultivation strategies into their interactions with all stakeholder gr oups, including consumers,

PAGE 23

23 government regulators, volunteers, and donors. Th ese cultivation strategies, which are detailed in chapter 2, reveal different organizational beha viors that nonprofits can use to recover from the sectors scandals and help in crease the levels of confidence in the nonprofit-donor relationship. Fundraising and the Relationship Management Paradigm Considerable anecdotal evidence has been wr itten regarding the role of relationship management in fundraising literature. Though most of the work is oriented towards practitioners, research has been conducted that looks at re lationship management from a scholarly perspective. Both Waters (2006) and ONeil (2007) found that the longer a donor was involved with a nonprofit organization, the greate r the likelihood that they evaluated the relationship more positively. Advancements in public relations scholarship are making it possible to evaluate the relationship in terms of its dimensions and effective relationship cultivation and maintenance strategies. Though Ferguson (1984) suggested that rela tionship management might provide a theoretical grounding for public relations, the profe ssion and its studies have mostly concentrated on strategic communication. Nearly 15 years after the idea was firs t presented at an Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communica tion conference, scholars began exploring the relationship management approach to public rela tions. Currently, there are 2 very active groups of relationship management scholars: those ex tending the work created by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) and those following the works of Br uning and Ledingham (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Ledi ngham, 2001; Bruning & Galloway, 2003). These groups of scholars are both working to address a problem that has plagued public relations for many years: How do you measur e the contributions of the public relations function? In recent years, scholars have sought to provide answers to that question by focusing on the measurement of relationships between or ganizations and key stakeholders on whom the

PAGE 24

24 organization depends for success and survival. At times, the 2 groups of relationship scholars have measured similar concepts. However, more often than not, they have used very different approaches to measure the relationships between organizations and their stakeholders and the principal dimensions of those re lationships. The main differen ce rests in what variables are measured to capture the relationship. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) first proposed a se t of indices that measured dimensions of relationships an individual may experience w ith an organization. Grounded in interpersonal communication literature, these indices measured how well individuals trusted an organization, how committed they were to the relationship, how satisfied they were with the relationship, and how well power was distributed in the relationship. This current study seeks to continue th ese efforts by focusing on the nonprofit-donor relationship. Though Waters (2006) and ONeil (2007) have provided some initial results to show that there indeed are differences between types of donors, more research needs to be done to test theoretical constructs and provide sound a dvice to fundraising practitioners for ways they can improve their fundraising prog rams. This study, however, seek s to provide more than just scholarly insight into th e fundraising process and the impact of the process on staff fundraisers. The study also examines new aspects of the or ganization-public relationship and their impact on the overall public relations function. Thus, this study seeks to build theory as well as test it. Purpose of the Study Overall, the purpose of this study is to explor e the role of cultivati on strategies and their influence on how donors and fundraisers evalua te the nonprofit-donor rela tionship. However, this study aims to accomplish more than simply examining the relationship. As just discussed, there have been 2 groups seeking to devel op relationship measurement guidelines. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. However, one stands up to the rigor of

PAGE 25

25 social scientific research met hods better than the other. Fo r that reason, this study uses the indices developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). That being said, the current approach used by scholars testing Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) indices is not free of design flaws. First, w ith the exception of Ki (2006), the studies have primarily focused on the measurement of relatio nship dimensions. Drawing on the works of Plowman (1996), J. Grunig (2001), and others, Huang (2005) proposed a classification system of various cultivation strategies. However, Ki ( 2006) was the first scho lar to investigate how different types of strategies resulted in the varying levels of relationship dimensions and behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. This study s eeks to provide further testing of the cultivation strategies in the c ontext of fundraising. Secondly, all of the previous relationship management studies have examined the relationship by looking at 1 orga nization and its relationship w ith 1 stakeholder group. For example, Ki and Hon (2005) looke d at the relationship between students at the University of Florida and the universitys administration while Waters (2006) examined the relationship between Operation Access and its donors. Though these studies pr ovided significant results, one has to question whether they truly captured th e nature of the univers ity-student or nonprofitdonor relationship. Did either of these organizations have excel lent public relations programs in place that influenced the dimensions, or did they accurately reflect the nature of the relationships tested? To ensure that the relationship is measured and not simply the impact of 1 organizations programming, this study uses a research design that will test the relationship in multiple organizations at one time. For this study, th e relationships between 3 nonprofit hospitals in Northern California and their unique donors were measured. An organization will have many

PAGE 26

26 more annual giving donors who provi de gifts at lower donation levels than the minority of major gift donors. As dictated by the principles of fundraising, fundraise rs will need to cultivate these relationships with donors differe ntly depending on their commitment to the organization and their potential for a major or pl anned gift (Rosso, 1991). Theref ore, the study of relationships among the individuals that make up the nonprofit-dono r relationship is esp ecially important for practitioners in addition to the increased theoretical understanding of the relationship management paradigm. There are no universal guidelines that establish what gifts are considered to be a major gift because they vary considerably depending on the organizations. For this reason, this study will consider any gift equal to or greater than $10,000 to be a major gift. This amount was chosen because it is a significant amount that is not likely to be donated during phone-a-thons, direct mailings, or other annual gi ft techniques (Kelly, 1998). The final flaw of previous re search that will be addresse d in this study concerns the practical implications of measuring the relationship. One of the most widely accepted definitions of public relations centers on th e profession being a management function (Cutlip, Center, and Broom, 1994, p. 2). Previous public relations studies have only me asured the stakeholder side of the relationship. However, it seems to reason that the relationship dimensions are greatly influenced by the opinions and decisions ma de by the organizations management. These evaluations must be taken into account. Fortunately, public relations scholars Broom and Dozier ( 1990) identified a research framework that is ideal for measuring the 2 sides of the nonprofitdonor relationship. The coorientation research design cons ists of 4 separate measures: (a) the organizations views on an issue, represented by the beliefs of individuals who participat e in decision making; (b) the

PAGE 27

27 publics views on the issue; (c ) the organizations estimate of the publics views (i.e., perception); and (d) the p ublics estimate of the organizations views. With data collected on all 4 measures, one is able to determine if both si des agree on an issue, if one side perceives agreement when it does not exist, or if both sides ar e accurate in their estimations of the other. Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) note that th e coorientation model is a powerful but underutilized approach to public re lations research and that few pr actitioners apply it to problems in the field. Yet organizations action and communication may be completely inappropriate and ineffective if inaccurate per ceptions exit on either side. As nonprofit organizations face growing pressu re to keep fundraising costs down while remaining fiscally and socially accountable to their various stakeholders, fundraisers and the nonprofit dominant coalitions that do not take their donors inte rests and attitudes into account when making organizational decisions can inv ite financial disaster when making future solicitations. Indeed, Dozier and Ehling ( 1992) warned, Mispercep tions can lead to catastrophic actions whenever th e dominant coalition sees agreement or disagreement when none actually exists (p. 181). Although public relations scholars embrace symmetry as a core concept in theory building, research on organization-public rela tionships is usually one-sided. Most often, these studies fail to account for the views and perceptions of orga nizational decision makers. In other words, scholars supporting symmetry conduct asymmetrical research. This study aims to provide evidence that collecting data from both sides of the relationship is desirable and discusses the implications of the results in chapter 5. Significance of the Study This study expands the body of knowledge for pub lic relations scholars and practitioners in several ways. First, this study brings a much ne eded symmetrical research design to the study of

PAGE 28

28 relationships. By using the coorientation model as the guide to the res earch, it is possible to evaluate the relationship in te rms of both parties involved, in this case the donors and the fundraising decision makers in 3 nonprofit hospitals. Additionally, the coorientati on methodologywhen usedhas typically only been used to look at 1 organization at a time. By selecting 3 hospitals that have similar characteristics to one another, it is possible to allow th e coorientation design to be used in more than a case study of a particular organization. Second, this study provides further opportunity to test Kis (2006) indices for relationship cultivation strategies. Not only does it test their reliability and validity in a different organization-public setting, but th e results also help to determ ine which strategies are most important in the nonprofit-donor rela tionship. The study also proposes new scales to test Kellys (2000) stewardship strategies. Hopefully these scales will be used in the future to test relationship cultivati on in other settings. Finally, and most importantly, this study pr oposes to add another dimension into the fields understanding of the organization-public relationship model by having members of the organization evaluate the relationship with th e publics. The mode l shown in Figure 1-1 highlights the scholarship that has advanced th e understanding of stak eholders relationships with organizations. Quite simply, this model sh ows that the organization-public relationship is first created by antecedents that bring an indivi dual or stakeholder group into contact with the organization. For fundraising, this may be receiv ing printed materials about the organization or participating in the organizations services or programs. During the interaction with the organization, various cultivation strategies are used in their co mmunication and actions with key stakeholders to foster relationship development. These cultivation st rategies produce varying

PAGE 29

29 levels of evaluation of the 4 main relationship dimensions (trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality), which have recently been show n to connect to relationship outcomes, such as attitudes or behavior th at promote a healthy relationship for both sides of the organization-public relationship (Ki & Hon, 2007). Scholarship has shown that different public s evaluate the rela tionship differently depending on the focus of the public relations programming and the st rategies that the programming incorporated. Although these differe nt strategies have b een discussed in public relations literature, Ki (2006) is the first to make attempts to m easure these strategies and their impact. Though it is helpful for future scholarship to develop indices measuring the public relations strategies, a disconnect remains between academia and th e profession. Public relations scholars are attempting to develop measures that help practitioners demonstrate their contributions to the organization, yet practitioners often fail to read the latest scholarship. Even though significant work has been done to demo nstrate how practitione rs behavior and the strategies they incorporate can produce desired attitude and behavior among an organizations publics, this work has gone unread by the people that could most benefit from the work. Unlike public relations, the connection betw een marketing and marketers is stronger (Cornelissen & Lock, 2005). Marketing scholarship also demonstrates the power of relationship. For example, Gordon, McKeage, and Fox (1998) f ound that individuals who perceived that they were more involved in a companys marketing effort s were more likely to have positive attitudes toward the company and more likely to purchase the product being marketed to them. Marketing scholars have begun advocating for practitioners to take a more enlightened approach to the practice by putting the customer first and shiftin g the role from manipulating to communicating

PAGE 30

30 and educating (McKenna, 1991; Parvatiyar & Sheth, 1999), and marketing firms began incorporating that focus into their efforts. Th e profession became even more symmetrical after Gruen, Summers, and Acito ( 2000) suggested that an a ssociations marketing and communication efforts can be tailored to be more symmetrical to enhan ce the relationship with association members. Ki (2006) helped demonstrate how the public re lations profession can benefit from reading and understanding public relations scholarship. By examini ng the influence different relationship cultivation strategi es have on how the organizationpublic relationship is evaluated, practitioners can design programming that has the most impact on an organizations constituencies. Ki (2006) tested the impact these strategies had in the nonprofit associationmember relationship; however, it was just a sing le organization that was examined. This study explores the relationship cultivation strategies across multiple nonprofit or ganizations and their donors. Therefore, this study not only advances theoretical understand ing of relationship management and cultivation, it also makes pract ical suggestions on how nonprofit organizations can improve their relationships with donors. Based on these statistically grounded suggestions, this study hopes to bring public relations scholarship and its pr actitioners closer together. Perhaps through working together on this goal, the profession can tran sform its image from being viewed as a spin machine or an occupati on of hucksters to a profession of relationshiporiented practitioners working to bring orga nizations and their stakeholders together.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 1-1. The organization-publ ic relationship as described by public relations scholarship, 1984-2006. Antecedent Organization Relationship Cultivation Strategy Publics Attitude and Behavior Relationship Dimensions

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the central concepts of fundraising and relationship management are explained. Before exploring the relationship management paradigm in public relations, a general overview of the nonprofit sector and the importa nce of fundraising for charitable nonprofits will be discussed, as well as the evolution of the study within the public relations context from relationship dimensions to specifi c strategies on how to develop a nd maintain relationships with an organizations key stakeholders. Finally, this chapter will explore how these concepts have been measured in previous studies and deta ils how this studys research questions and hypotheses will further test relationship mana gement within the bounds of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Nonprofit Sector in the United States In 2005, more than $260 billion was give n to the nations charitable nonprofit organizations (Giving USA Foundation, 2006). Givi ng to charitable nonprofit organizations has increased steadily over the years just as the num ber of legally registered nonprofit organizations has rapidly increased (Nonprofit Congress, 2006). Currently, there are an estimated 1.42 million nonprofit organizations that are re gistered with the United Stat es Internal Revenue Service according to the National Center for Charitable Stat istics (2006). These organizations represent an array of missions and serve an equally di verse segment of the American population. Although the federal government has given these 1.42 million organizations tax-exempt status, only 60 percent of these organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible gifts from the donating public. The federal government recognizes more than 27 distinct types of nonprofit organizations according to the Internal Revenue Services tax code; however, those organizations with the 501I3 status are the ones with the abil ity to offer individuals a tax deduction for their

PAGE 33

33 gifts. Organizations bearing th e 501I3 classification are public charities that support the arts, education, healthcare, human services, and community service organizations among other causes, and private foundations, wh ich typically are grant-making en tities that provide funds to other 501I3 organizations. The remaining 26 type s of nonprofit organizati ons serve other needs of the American public that are not philanthr opic by nature, such as chambers of commerce (501I6s), social/recreation clubs (501I7s), and funeral homes ( 501I13s). The federal government has recognized the value these remaining 26 types of nonprofit organi zations bring to the community, but they are not entitled to the bei ng able to raise funds by offering tax deductions for those donations. As described above, charitable nonprofits, or 501I3 organizations, re present a variety of missions. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entitie s created and housed at the Urban Institute arranges the diversity of the char itable nonprofit sector into clear di visions: (1) Arts, culture, and Humanities; (2) Education; (3) Environment and animals; (4) Health; (5) Human Services; (6) International and foreign affairs; (7) Public/s ociety benefit; (8) Religion; (9) Miscellaneous membership benefit organizations; and (10) Non-classifiable orga nizations (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2007). This breakdown is slightly more complex than the classification schema that the Association for Fundraising Prof essionals created: (1 ) Arts, culture, and humanities; (2) Education; (3) Health; (4) Human services; (5) Public/society benefit; and (6) Religion. Regardless of how the charitable nonprofit sect or is dissected, the distribution of donations does not fall evenly across the different subsecto rs. Of all the types of charitable nonprofit organizations, Americans are more likely to donate to religious organizations. Of the $260 billion donated in 2005, more than $93 billion or 36 percent was given to organizations with

PAGE 34

34 religious organizations (Givi ng USA Foundation, 2006). The remainder was divided among the other types of charitable nonprofits ; however, 2 subsectors earned mo re than the rest. Education received almost $39 billion, while the health care organizations received approximately $23 billion in donations. The success of these 2 types of charitable nonpr ofit organizations is not surprising given the sophistication of their fundraising efforts. Education and health care employ the most fulltime fundraisers, and the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that individuals who hold the Certified Fund-Raising Executive credential are more likely to wo rk in these 2 sub-sectors as well (Whelan, 2002). Because of the large number of fundraisers employed in these sectors, professional associations were created to fo cus on their professiona l needs. Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CAS E) and the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) both work to advance the prof ession and offer workshops to fundraisers in their respective fields. After evaluating the current level of resear ch on fundraising, Kelly (2002) concluded that most research takes place within the arena of educational fundraising. To advance the overall understanding of nonprofit orga nizations and their fundraising effo rts, more studies need to focus on nonprofits with missions other than education. For this reason, this study examines the nonprofit-donor relationship within the healthcare sector. The participating organizations, which are described more fully in chapter 3, are all nonprofit hospitals with foundations that raise money to underwrite future organizational success. Fundraising in the United States In the United States, the concept of giving to help a neighbor can be tr aced back to colonial times when people worked together to provide f ood and shelter for everyone in their community during harsh New England winters (P. Hall, 2005). As the populat ion grew, so did their needs

PAGE 35

35 and problems. What started as concerned in dividuals working to solve community problems soon evolved into organizational efforts to resolv e community concerns. As people struggled to access education, receive adequate healthcare, and provide for their basic necessities, the nonprofit sector emerged to provide thes e goods and services (P. Hall, 2005). Just as individuals came toge ther to support one another during colonial times, they continued to do so throughout th e history of nonprofit organizations in the United States. In 1640, Henry Dunster became the first President of Harvard College. Desiring to model Harvard after English universities (e.g., Eton University or Cambridge), Dunster launched the nations first fundraising campaign to raise resources for Harvards College Hall w ith the assistance of 3 clergymen sent by Massachusetts Bay Colony to England (Cutlip, 1990). This first campaign was a success as Harvard was able to complete th e construction of buildings and raise funds to support educating its first gradua ting class in 1642 (Harvard Un iversity Library, 2006). The culture of giving that enable d the first fundraising campaign to succeed has permeated throughout our society and has become an e ssential component of our nation. Indeed, philanthropy observers have even declared th at fundraising is an essential component to American democracy (Payton, Rosso, & Tempel, 1991). Despite the importance of giving in our soci ety, there was no formal fundraising function until the early 1900s. Kelly (1998) described early fundraising e fforts, during the Era of Nonspecialists, as solicitations by members of an organization even though they did not specifically have fundraising re sponsibilities. These members may have been employees working in other aspects of the organizations, or they may have been volunteers and like-minded individuals who valued the work of the orga nization (Cutlip, 1990). These early fundraising solicitations evolved as the fundr aising function matured in a manne r that reflects the evolution

PAGE 36

36 of public relations, advancing fr om publicity and propaga nda to a more enlightened symmetrical approach involving the organizatio n and its stakeholder groups. Between 1913 and 1919, fundraising during the Era of Nonspecialis ts was largely a function designed to publicize a cause us ing emotional manipulation and one-way communication. This approach to fundraising was used by Charles Sumner Ward and Lyman Pierce to raise significant amounts of money for th e YMCA and other organi zations in several of Americas largest citie s (Kelly, 1998). One of Wards associates who worked on several campaigns quickly mastered this approach to fundraising and st arted his own fundraising firm. However, one of his own employees retrospectively called him a man of gr eat inherent ability, but with absolutely no self-control and very few prin ciples (Cutlip, 1990, p. 87). Th e use of spectacle to draw attention to the fundraising need s left many feeling uneasy and wanting to use a more honest approach to fundraising. Cutlip (1990) noted that the fundraising process turned to a more truthful approach when Bishop William Lawrence, under the advice of I vy Ledbetter Lee, began raising funds for the Episcopal Church Pension Fund and Princeton Un iversity, respectively. Basing their campaigns on factual information, these prac titioners felt that people, if they are given complete and accurate information, would make the right decisions (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p.34). Though these practitioners sought to enlighten their fundraising prosp ects, they continued to use a oneway approach to communication. While the fundraising process was becoming mo re direct and honest in solicitations, the professions history entered a ne w period, the Era of Fundraising Consultants from 1919-1949. Just as Ward and Lawrence often traveled ar ound the nation helping orga nizations raise funds,

PAGE 37

37 firms began appearing throughout the country an d sought to offer fundraising assistance to charitable nonprofits. These firms used a vari ety of methods, includi ng publicity and public information, to raise awareness and dona tions for various causes (Kelly, 1998). However, a few years later John Price Jones recognized that the campaigns produced by fundraising firms were not reachi ng their potential for success. Jones began using conversations with donors and prospects to conduct some basic res earch that could be used to organize future fundraising campaigns that would appeal to segments of their donors based on persuasion. This two-way asymmetrical approach to fundraising allowed Jones to create a fundraising firm that was based on using scientific research to persuade individuals to give by using the concerns and words of donors as a catalyst to create the campa igns. These conversations resulted in very successful campaigns for Harvard and other academic institutions. As Jones and other fundraising firms trav eled around the country helping nonprofit organizations, individuals at the charitable nonprofits began understa nding more about the fundraising function and how to develop and im plement campaign plans. From 1949-1964, the Era of Transition saw organizations slowly turn ing away from using fundraising firms. The widespread use of fundrai sing firms in the early 20th century helped charit able nonprof its realize that they were capable of producing their ow n campaigns. The nonprofits just needed the exposure to different methods of campaign planning and implementation (Kelly, 1998). As organizations began deve loping expertise about fundrai sing and creating their own programs, many sought to distance themselves even further from fundraising firms. The Era of Staff Fundraisers, from 1964 to the present, br ought about the maturatio n of the profession. Organizations recognized the valu e of researching donors and keep ing records to document the history donors have with the nonprofit. Commu nication became increasingly symmetrical as

PAGE 38

38 fundraising evolved into a process that is built on ope n communication that is designed to reach a mutual understanding between a nonprofit organization and its donors. Practitioner-oriented fundraising literature is full of anecdotes of the value of cu ltivating relationships with donors. Defining Fundraising Many scholars and practitioners have discussed fundraising in relation to the context of philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in general. Tempel (2003) called f undraising a servant to philanthropy (p. 19). In his award-winning book, Achieving Excellence in Fund Raising the late practitioner Henry Rosso failed to define th e fundraising process; instead he focused on the role it plays in philanthropy in general. In his description of the process, Rosso uestion that fundraising is not easy but that much of fund raisings form is made of common sense (1991, p. 9). Rosso and his colleagues discussed fundraisi ng in terms of how to best approach various types of donors. Similarly, former president of the American Association of Fund Raising Counsel John Schwartz (2001) defined fundrai sing by listing several key ingred ients, including a charitable cause, potential donors (indi viduals, foundations, and corporati ons), a communications program, and the voluntary spirit. Schwartz s perspective on fundraising is r ooted in the tactical approach to the profession. His focus on face-to-face solicitation direct mail, phone mail, telemarketing, planned giving, a nd the burgeoning Internet (p. 3) portrays fundraising as methods to support a charitable orga nizations programs and services. Other fundraising literature takes a more ma nagerial approach to fundraising. Though he does not provide a formal definition of fundraisi ng, Stanley Weinstein (2002), former member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals bo ard of directors, placed fundraising in the context of strategic partnerships between an organization and its indi vidual donors and corporate and foundation supporters. Weinstein discussed th e importance of collaborative efforts between

PAGE 39

39 an individual and a nonprofit organization; however, he fails to provide a full definition that truly captures the function. Even though each of the previously referenced books discusses the relationship between a nonprofit organization and its donors, they fail to define fundraising in that context. However, Kelly (1998) provided a definiti on of fundraising that brings the strategic management and relationship cultivation perspec tive together. She defined fundr aising as the management of relationships between a charitable organi zation and its donor publics (p. 8). This definition parallels that of public relations. Cutlip, Ce nter, and Broom (1994) defined public relations as the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the pub lic on whom its success or failure depends (p. 4). Though J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) original ly conceptualized public relations as the management of communications between an organization and its publics, most academic and practitioner literature has come to include relationship management in the definition. Fundraising as a Specialization of Public Relations Kelly (1991) argues that a lack of understanding about fund raising and narrow definitions of public relations have misled scholars and practitioners into believing that fund raising is a separate or superi or function as compared to public relations (p. 337). Her first book critically examined the fundraising process by tracing the history of the function and noting its similarities to the public relations process. Drawing on her own career experiences as well as those of other fundraising practitioners, Kelly (1991) noted the similarities between the 2 professions. Indeed, fundraising literature frequently highlights public relations concep ts, including dialogic co mmunication, relationship cultivation, and programmatic and donor research. The Public Relations Society of Americas

PAGE 40

40 Body of Knowledge added donor relations, or f undraising, to its list of public relations specializations in 1988. Several of the leading fundraising firms in th e United States incor porate public relations strategies and tactics into their efforts to help charitable organizations. With offices in Pittsburg and Dallas, Ketchum is Americas oldest and most successful fundr aising firm [that] has been helping not-for-profit organiza tions meet their philanthropic goals since 1919 (Viscern.com, 2006). Ketchum was founded by Carlton Ketchum, who also founded Ketchum Communications, one of the nation s top public relations firms. The Ketchum fundraising firm was recently purchased by Viscern, a fundraising firm that describes itself as setting the standard for successful capital campaigns, fundraising, and stewardship. Viscern has 2 divisions, Ketchum, which focuses on philanthropic, nonprof it, and humanities organizations, and RSI, which works with faith-based organizations and ministries. In describing its services on its Web site, th e Ketchum fundraising firm offers many of the services that its public relations counterpart offers, incl uding research, strategic planning, communication assistance, campaign evaluation a nd counsel, and donor relations/stewardship. This process closely parallels the R-O-P-E-S pr ocess that many academics encourage students to follow when planning public relations campaigns As Kelly (2001) suggested, the R-O-P-E-S process is suitable for both public relations and fundraising because of the parallels between the 2 fields. This campaign process involves conducting rese arch (R) on the organizations, present and future opportunities and problems the organizati on face, and involved stakeholders. Based on the initial research, practitioners create measurable objectives (O) when creating the campaign. When it comes to implementing the progra mming (P), public relations and fundraising

PAGE 41

41 practitioners cultivate relations hips while carrying out the planned campaigns, which includes solicitations by fundraising pers onnel. Throughout the campai gn and at its conclusion, evaluative research (E) is carri ed out to determine the succes s or failure of the campaign. Finally, practitioners use stewards hip (S) as a method to further develop relationships with key stakeholders. Kelly (2000, 2001) maintains that stewardship is the second most important step in both the public relations and fundraising process. Focusing on fundraising, she advocates that practitioners incorporate 4 elemen ts of stewardship into the or ganizations official fundraising plan: reciprocity, which requires the organization to demonstrat e its gratitude for the gift; responsibility, which means the organization must us e the gift responsibly and act in a sociallyresponsible manner; reporting, whic h includes the basic principles of demonstrati ng transparency and accountability; and relationship nurturing, which includes regular communication and cultivation activities. Th ese principles help the organization and its fundraisers maintain ethical standards as well as ensure continued fundraising success (Worley & Little, 2002). Given the similarities between fundraising and public relations, it is not surprising that there has been considerable academic research done to demonstrate how fundraising and public relations are intertwined. Practitioner literatu re discusses how the inclusion of strategic communication can produce positive results in fundraising campaigns (Rosso, 1991; Matheny, 1999; Kelly, 2001; Jordan & Quynn, 2001). Rossos (1991) Linkage-Ability-Interest formula discusses a strategic approach to communicati ng with potential donors th at nonpofits can use to maximize their impact; this approach is very sim ilar to the situational theory of publics, which consists of the 3 predictor variables of pr oblem recognition, involvement, and constraint recognition (J. Grunig, 1966; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984).

PAGE 42

42 In addition to the linkages between public rela tions and fundraising in the applied setting, there has been considerable work done to adva nce fundraising as a public relations specialty on the scholarly front. Because of the evolution in to an organizational and management function, it makes sense that fundraising is intertwined with public relations Fundraising was first proposed as a specialization of public relations in the early 1990s. Kelly (1991, 1995, 1998) provided the framework for future academic studies examini ng the field. However, in the 15 years since Fund Raising and Public Relations: A Critical Analysis (Kelly, 1991) was published, scholars have been slowly warming up to the idea that fundraisi ng is a specialization of public relations. Even after offering multiple suggestions for future studies in Effective Fund-Raising Management (Kelly, 1998), few public relations scholars have heeded the ca ll for additional inquiry. Nevertheless, a handful of individuals have be en using existing public relations theory to explore the fundraising process. Worley and Littl e (2002) examined the role of stewardship in the fundraising process, and a handful of ot her studies have looked at the nature of communication in fundraising (Wat ers, 2000; M. Hall, 2002; Tinda ll, 2004; Waters & Hendren, 2005). One area of inquiry that has resulted in several conference papers involves role theory and the details of fundraising pr actitioners daily task s (Walker, 1999; Waters, Kelly, & Walker, 2005; Tindall, 2006). A new stream of research has expanded the traditional domain of fundraising by looking at how new media are shaping the futu re of fundraising practices. In a content analysis of the Web sites of the nonprofit organizations on the Chronicle of Philanthropy s Philanthropy 400 list, Waters (2005) explored how nonprofit organi zations use the Inte rnet to communicate specifically with donors and fundraising prospect s. Additionally, Waters (2007) outlined how

PAGE 43

43 nonprofit organizations can use the Internet to develop relationships with key stakeholders, including donors, volunteers, founda tions, and community leaders. Of all the different public relations perspec tives that have been explored, the proposed topic for this study may bring more scholarly interest for fundrai sing. Two early works (Waters, 2006; ONeil, 2007) have provided benchmark numbers to show that relationships can be measured in the donor-nonprofit relationship. ONeil (2007) found significant differences in how donors and non-donors evaluate their relation ships with a Houston-based social welfare organization in terms of trust, commitment, satis faction and the balance of power and control. Using the same scales, Waters (2006) found si milar differences between one-time donors and repeat donors and between major gift donors and annual giving donors for a San Francisco-based healthcare organization. These 2 studies have helped connect f undraising to a recent paradigm shift in the nature of public relations. Nonprofit-Donor Relationship The number of nonprofit organizations has grown exponentially in the United States in the last decade (Salamon, 2002). Relatedly, the comp etition for donors has multiplied. In the next 20 years, fundraising practitioners estimate that an estimated $340 trillion will transfer from the Baby Boom generation to their heirs. A significant portion of this wealth will be transferred to nonprofit organizations as Baby Boomers use estate pl anning, charitable trusts, and gift annuities to reduce their tax burdens. Given this intergenerational transfer of wealth, nonprofit organizations have been pouring more resour ces into their fundraising and development programs in preparation for this transference (Grace & Wendroff, 2001). Basing their plans on their own experience with donors, organizations are putting more resources into cultivating existing donors and finding new prospects.

PAGE 44

44 Fundraisers traditionally have recognized the value that relationships play in securing major gifts and donor participation in planne d giving programs. However, organizations increasingly are realiz ing the importance of stewardship a nd donor cultivation for annual giving donors, especially those who may have the pot ential to make signifi cant donations to the organization. Increasingly, fundraising practit ioner literature is fo cusing on the growing importance of relationship cultivation with all do nors rather than devoting resources to marketing the organization to donor publics. Countless practitioner books and workshops tout the value of relations hips in fundraising (Burlingame & Hulse, 1991; Matheny, 1999; Prince & File, 1994; Rosso, 1991; Worth, 2002). Rather than simply focusing on the cultivation of major gift donors, practitioners have recognized that the same principl es can be applied to all donors. By dedicating more time to donor relations and stewardship, Wo rth (2002) says that these prin ciples can result in increased donor loyalty to the organization. But, it is important to note that the majority of interpersonal cultivation strategies, such as face-to-face meetings and personalized reporting, is restricted to major gift donors. Following Paretos principle, 80 percent of the total am ount donated typically come s from only 20 percent of the donors. Weinstein (2002) notes that in many capital campaigns and mature fundraising programs, the top 10 percent now donate 90 per cent of the amount raised (p. 6). With the success of fundraising campaigns resting heavily on the shoulders of major gift donors, it is not surprising that more personalized cu ltivation strategies are directed to those with the resources to make significant gifts. Rosso (1991) and Nudd (1991) make it clear that if an organization wants to ensure its longevity then it should be prepar ed to dedicate time to developi ng relationships with its donors.

PAGE 45

45 As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the relationship management approach to fundraising can help result in significant gifts from donors. In the typica l nonprofit-donor relations hip, an individual first makes a small gift to an organization, typica lly as a result of a direct mail or telephone solicitation. Over time, fundraising practitione rs work to demonstrate the organizations effectiveness and responsible management of do nations in order to gr ow the relationship. During subsequent solicitations practitioners aim to increa se the individuals level of giving. Nonprofit organizations should not attemp t to elevate the donors gifts too quickly or they risk damaging the trust and accountability th at they had worked to demonstrate (Ritzenhein, 2000). Conducting research on a donor will help the organization determine how quickly they should pursue elevating the gift. Nudd (1991) insisted that orga nizations that conduct research on donors are in the best situati on to cultivate relationships b ecause of their understanding of their donors. Indeed most nonprofit organizatio ns with staff dedicated to the fundraising function keep detailed research files on thei r donors that accurately reflect donors giving histories, their personal lives and interest s, and estimates on potential gift amounts. The fundraising staff pursues larger donations from donors with and without the potential to make major gifts as the relationship between the nonprofit organization and the donor grows. For donors that cannot make major gift contributions, fundraisers may use suggestions in written direct mail pieces or verbal cues with tele phone solicitations to suggest specific donation amounts to help the organization; these donati ons are increased not only to advance the relationship to the next level, but also to maintain the same am ount of giving when inflation is considered. Face-to-face meetings and solicitations may be conducted. A donor, when solicited, may propose to make a major gift contribution to a specific program or service. However, an organization s fundraising representatives may take an active

PAGE 46

46 role in seeking out sign ificant gifts from donors that they be lieve have specific interests in different programs. These major gift solicitati ons typically occur only after significant time and resources have been invested in to the nonprofit-donor relationship. Figure 2-1 illustrates that the relationship lik ely will continue to grow to the point where planned giving is pursued by the donor if nonprofit organizations continue to dedicate resources to relationship cultivation ove r time. Planned giving involve s significant consideration and planning in light of the donors overall estate pl an. Because of the size and potential impact of these gifts, professional advisors often help prepare the legal documents for the gift arrangements. Signing the documents for pla nned giving does not indi cate the end of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Many forms of planned gifts, such as will bequests, are revocable, and nonprofit organizations should c ontinue to pursue stewardshi p strategies to keep these donors informed about the operations and programs at the organization. Even irrevocable gifts demand appropriate management a nd reporting by staff fundraisers. Figure 2-1 is an idealized e volution of the nonprofit organiza tion-donor relationship. Most annual giving donors will not develop into major gift donors. Paretos principle, or the 80-20 rule, is applicable to fundraising and states that 20% of the donors will provide 80% of the overall donation income a nonprofit organization receives (Goodwin, 2004). Weinstein (2002) believes that the ratio is becoming even more l opsided and that 90 percent of an organizations donations come from only 10 pe rcent of its donor publics. However, despite the low likelihood of turni ng an annual giving donor into a major gift donor, nonprofit organizations need to develop relationships. Appr opriate relationship cultivation for annual giving donors can result in future donations at th e same level or with slight

PAGE 47

47 increases. Proper research conducted by staff fundraisers can help determine which annual giving donors have resources that would sugge st potential for future major gifts. Just as the public relations literature is beginning to discuss th e different relationship maintenance strategies, fundraising literature is rich with varying strategies on how the nonprofit-donor relationship can be enhanced through cultivation. Though practitioner literature gives advice on securing face-to-face business m eetings with major gift donors over lunch and in private settings (Sargeant & Jay, 2004), others are beginning to rea lize that relationship maintenance strategies can benefit donors at all levels, no t just those with poten tial to make large gifts. Kellys (2000) formula for stewardship i nvolves thanking the donor and then continued communication through which the or ganization shows that it has used the donation wisely and responsibly. Nonprofit organizations are encouraged to add donors to their mailing lists for newsletters and annual reports (Neal, 2001), additional fundraisi ng solicitations for future campaigns (Rosso, 1991), or both (Lindahl, 1992). For full disclosure, newsletters and/or annua l reports should provi de detailed financial information concerning the amounts of money raised each year, the amount spent on programs and administration, and the amount spent on fundr aising programs. Additionally, newsletters and annual reports should highlight success st ories from the organizations services and programs, list the board of di rectors, and acknowledge major funders. Kinzey (1999) also recommends that newsletters regularly menti on methods by which individuals can get involved in the organization, such as volunteer opportunities, employment opportunities, and information regarding where fundraising donations can be sent.

PAGE 48

48 Increasingly, as e-Philanthropy has become more mainstream with donors donating record amounts over the Internet (Baker, 2005), relationship strategies have even begun to appear for web-based relationships (Olse n, Keevers, Paul, & Covington, 2001; Waters, 2005). Nonprofit organizations have been encourag ed to develop transparent progr ams that provide the elements of accountability and responsibility for donors. By making information, such as IRS 990 forms and annual reports, available as downloads on the Internet, the Web can be used as a medium that allows for a one-way provision of information. E-newsletters and mass e-mails are one wa y that nonprofit organi zations can use the Internet as a one-way method of communication. However, the Web is also being used to engage stakeholders in a mediated dialogue (Kang & Norton, 2004). By providing feedback forms and email addresses of key staff member s, nonprofit organizations can have personalized communications with their stakehol ders. Blogs are also being used to communicate directly with interested publics. However, Waters (2007) warn s that any nonprofit that chooses to use Internet strategies needs to be prepared to respond in a timely manner. Nonprofit publics often expect responses with 24 hours, though conventional wisdom holds that organizations have up to 48 hours to respond without damaging their reputation (Holtz, 1999). Wagner (2002) questioned whether organizatio ns should search for new donors or work with their current donor database s to evolve their donors. N udd (1991) suggested that nonprofit organizationsif they are to ensure their longe vitymust be ready and prepared to do both. She acknowledged that organizations must consta ntly be on the lookout for new individuals who are interested in the cause or the organizati on and try to bring them on board as a donor. However, she maintains that nonprofit orga nizations should put more focus on donors who

PAGE 49

49 already have an established relationship with th e organization because past donor behavior is the strongest indicator of future giving. Worth (2002) maintained that the incorpor ation of these strategies can enhance relationships with donors. When an organizati on is open and actively co mmunicates information about its operations and fiscal h ealth, donors develop a greater sens e of loyalty and trust in the organization. They also are more likely to feel that the organizations staff is dedicated to achieving the mission. Kellys (2001) 4 elements of stewardship demonstrate the organizations gratitude, and, in turn, donors f eel respected because they know the gift was appreciated and wisely managed. Fundraising literature maintains th at donors typically only give to organizations when they are connected to the cause. After the initial donation, donors ca n develop a sense of commitment not only to the cause but also to the organization when they feel their contributions are being managed effectively and efficiently. These fee lings of satisfaction a nd commitment can help elevate the donors gifts when it is combined with increased communication and targeted solicitations. Finally, practitioners have s uggested that cultivation stra tegies in the nonprofit-donor relationship can result in strengthened att itudes and behavior am ong donor publics. By maintaining open communication with donors, nonpr ofit organizations can increase the response they get from donors in terms of increased donati ons and increased volunt eer hours. Literature suggests that donors who are interested in the ca use and have developed positive attitudes toward an organization may become members of the boa rd of directors (Herman & Renz, 2000), may actively talk about the organiza tion with their friends and fa mily (Herman & Renz, 1997), may

PAGE 50

50 refer potential clients or volunt eers to the organization (Snave ly & Tracy, 2000), and may even raise money for the organization (Inglis, 1997). Defining the Organization-Public Relationships The importance of studying the organization-pub lic relationship was first introduced to public relations scholars in the mid-1980s (Fergu son, 1984). However, the suggestion that this concept should be the fields guiding paradi gm was not grasped immediately as scholars continued to focus on strategic communications. As inquiry into relationship management grew, scholars also began looking outside the traditiona l theoretical perspectives to develop a better understanding of the impact relationships have fo r public relations practitioners. Indeed, the early dependence on mass communication theory has proven to be too limiting as relationships become a dominant focus in public relations thinking and practice (Coombs, 2001, p. 114). Despite the use of the term re lationship in many of the defini tions of public relations and fundraising, there were few attempts initially to define what constitutes a relationship between an organization and its stakeholders In reviewing the definition s proposed by public relations scholars, there are very few consistencies (K i & Shin, 2005). However, the definition has evolved since the first proposed definition to represent a wide range of perspectives. After Broom, Casey, and Ritcheys (1997) call fo r a definition of the organization-public relationship, several scholars began to ex amine the concept more closely. Bruning and Ledingham (1998) believed that th e organization-public relationship is the state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural or po litical well being of the othe r (p. 62). Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000) provided a different perspectiv e on organization-public relationships by noting that they are represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage

PAGE 51

51 between an organization and its publics [and th at they] can be describe d at a single point in time and tracked over time (p. 18). In a monograph for the Institute for Public Re lations, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) argued that an individuals relationship with an organization begins when action by the organization has consequences for the individual or public of which he or she is a member. Similarly, an organization may recognize the impact of the re lationship with its publics when their behavior has consequences for the organization. The H on and J. Grunig (1999) definition describes a series linkages that detail how an organization co-exists in the same environment in a manner that promotes relationship building with other en tities. This definiti on, though not explicitly stated, seems rooted in systems theory, which argu es that an organization has 4 distinct types of connections to stakeholder groups and the organizations environment. For nonprofit organizations, these linkages include enabling linka ges, such as donors, board of directors, or government agencies, which provide the nece ssary funding and governance to keep the organization operating; functional linkages, such as employees, volunteers, or members, which represent the workforce and client base of the organization; diffu sed linkages, such as media and community residents, which are used to connect th e organization to individua ls that are not part of the organization; and normative linkages, such as other nonprof it organizations and sectorwide associations, which share similar valu es and face similar problems as the organization (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Schoonraad, 2003). Hung (2005) built on the existing definition of the organization-public relationship: Organization-public relationshi ps arise when organizations and their strategic publics are interdependent and this interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations need to manage (p. 396).

PAGE 52

52 This final definition raises one very intriguing point that was neglected in other definitions. Previous definitions focused on the interactions between the organization and its stakeholders. Hungs (2005) definition also introduces an element of manage ment into the understanding of organization-public relationships. Hung includes the stipulation th at organizations must make decisions to manage the relati onship based on previous interac tions and the consequences of those interactions. With this definition, Hung in troduces the concept of relationship maintenance or cultivation strategies to the management process. Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship In her original call for inqui ry into the nature of relationship management in public relations, Ferguson (1984) propos ed looking at several dimensi ons, including dynamic versus static, open versus closed, mu tual satisfaction and understand ing, distribution of power, and levels of agreement. Nearly 25 years after Fe rgusons call, many of the original dimensions continue to be explored, but ove r the years there have been seve ral attempts to define how the organization-public relationship should be measur ed. Ehling (1992) claimed that the shift from strategic communication, which in volved the manipulation of public opinion, to the building, nurturing and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders is the essence of public relations. He called this shift an important change in the primary mission of public relations (p. 622). In the years since public rela tions focal shift, 2 distinct research teams have been exploring measurement of the organization-public re lationship: (1) research ers at the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, st udying under Dr. Linda C. Hon and Dr. James E. Grunig, respectively; and (2) researchers at Ca pitol University in Columbus, Ohio, studying under Dr. Stephen D. Bruning and Dr. John A. Ledingham. The first research team began exploring th e concept of organiza tion-public relationship measurement when L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Eh ling (1992) proposed that there were 7 basic

PAGE 53

53 elements to understanding re lationship dynamics. Echoing Fe rgusons dimensions, they included mutual satisfaction, mutual understa nding, and openness; they also added the dimensions of trust, reciprocity, cr edibility, and mutual legitimacy. Reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of relationship management studies, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) used interpersonal communication literature to devise a list of dimensions that are present in the organization-public relationship. They proposed th at by measuring the dimensions of the relationship, public relations scholars and practitioners have the ability to examine the contributions of the public relations program to the organization. The dimensions they created were trust, satisfaction, commitment, and cont rol mutuality, which measures the balance of power in the relationship. These 4 dimensions were tested using a convenience sample of the general public for various organizations, includi ng the American Red Cross, the National Rifle Association, and Microsoft. J. Grunig (2002) la ter explained how these items could be studied with qualitative methodologies to provide more depth and understanding to the organizationpublic relationship. The second research group that has created a niche for its studie s on organization-public relationship measurement centers on the work of Bruning and Ledingham. Their initial work into the topic began in 1997 when Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997) pulled variables from a variety of academic disciplines and suggested the organization-public relationship could be explored by looking at 17 different di mensions. Much like Ferguson (1984), Ledingham and his colleagues proposed studying satisfaction and open communication, However, many of the remaining variables were unique to their own research focus. They recommended studying investment, commitment, c ooperation, mutual goals, interdependence, power balance, comparison of alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable investment, shared

PAGE 54

54 technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, social bonds, intimacy, and passion. The result of their initial study formed the basis for an argument that a favorable predisposition toward an organization can be linked to the organizations performance (Ledingham, 2006, p. 4). Finding evidence to support posi tive attitudes and behavior, th eir work turned to focus on how public relations practitioners could improve their practice by looking at the stages of the agency-client relationship and the relationshi p between journalists and media relations practitioners (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). In 1999, Ledingham and Bruning narrowed the 17 dimensions listed earlier down to 5 when they us ed multiple discriminant analysis to predict different levels of relationships between a lo cal telephone company and its customers. The 5 variables they identified as being most in fluential in evaluating the organization-public relationship were trust, openness, involvemen t, commitment, and investment. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) created a scale consisting of 3 subscales focusing on respondents personal, professional, and community attitudes. Finding growing support for the relationshi p management perspective, Bruning and Ledingham (2000b) edited a book focusing on the subject, Public Relations as Relationship Management The book had the goal of stimulat[ing] co lleagues from divers e disciplineswith the richness their backgrounds and training affordsto join in the process of building theory and practice around the notion of relationship manageme nt (p. viii) More than 20 different scholars wrote chapters for the book and introduced ne w topics for the fiel ds understanding of relationships. J. Grunig and Hua ng (2000) furthered the concepts of relationship antecedents and cultivation strategies. Bruning and Ledingham (2000c) also contri buted their own chapter that highlighted the business-to-business relationshi p, which found that this relationship reflected

PAGE 55

55 much of the work between organizations and othe r types of stakeholders In a retrospective essay on the organization-public relations work, Ledingham (2006) concluded with the suggestion that though the nature of interpersonal and organizati on-public relationships are very different, the attitudes, behavior s and consequences of both appear to operate similarly (p. 11). Similar to the work of Ki and Hon (2005), Bruning and Ralston (2000) examined the relationship between the influen ce of relationship dimensions on an individuals attitudes and behavioral intent, and they e xplored the dynamics of the unive rsity-student relationship, although they used different scales to capture the relationship. More recently, Ledingham (2003) has advocated for a closer examination of the role of involvement in relationships, and Bruning, Langenhop and Green (2004) have added new dime nsions of organization-public relationship measurement, including anthropomorphism and compar ison of alternatives to the organization. Though both research teams have created multiple measures to explore organization-public relationships, perhaps the ones that have been repe atedly tested more often than the others are those created by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). This s cale has been used to explore the universitystudent relationship (Brunner & Hon, 2002; Ki & Hon, 2007), the manufacturer-retailer relationship (Jo, 2003), the munici pal utility-community relati onship (M. Hall, 2006); the Air Force base-community relationship (DellaVe dova, 2005); and the nonprofit-donor relationship (Waters, 2006; ONeil, 2007). Because Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) dime nsions have been shown to be both reliable and valid, this study uses those dimensions and the indices that measure trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Dimensions of the Organization-Public Relationship Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) measures focused on 4 dimensions of relationship quality: trust, commitment, satisfaction, and contro l mutuality. Drawing from interpersonal communication literature, Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) dimensions reflect dimensions that

PAGE 56

56 Bruning and Ledingham (1999) have proposed, although they have used literature from marketing, sociology, anthropology, and other busine ss disciplines to develop their measures. Rooted in various disciplines, it is helpful to look at each of the 4 dimensions in depth. Trust Based on the dimensions proposed by public rela tions scholars, trust has been viewed as fundamental in understanding the or ganization-public rela tionship. Vercic and J. Grunig (1995) said that without trust an organi zation could not exist. Trust, qu ite simply, refers to one partys confidence that it can be open and honest with another party. Ledi ngham and Bruning (1998) operationalized trust as doing what an organization says it will do (p. 98). Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) trust scale measur es 3 subdimensions: (1) integrity, which centers on the belief that both parties involved in the relatio nship are fair and just; (2) dependability, which is primarily concerned with wh ether the parties involv ed in the relationship follow through with what they say they will do; and (3) competence, which focuses on whether the parties have the abilities to do what they say they will do. Drawing on relationship marketi ng literature, studies have fo und that when an organization demonstrates trust with its stake holders, the publics involved with the organization perceive less risk about their involvement. Ofte n, high levels of trust can be used to predict future behavior with the organization (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Commitment Another of Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) dime nsion that is grounded in interpersonal relationships is commitment. This concept has be en defined as the extent to which one party believes and feels that the relationship is wort h spending energy to maintain and promote (Hon and J. Grunig, 1999, p. 20). Hon and J. Grunigs scale contains measures of both attitude and behavioral intention.

PAGE 57

57 Bruning and Galloway (2003) reported that comm itmentthe level of dedication to an organizationis a key component of the or ganization-public relationship because it is fundamental to the publics attit ude of the organization. Simila rly, Dwyer and Oh (1987) insist that commitment is the highest stage of the re lationship. Unlike the 3 other measures proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), commitment is the onl y one that hints toward future behavior. Trust, satisfaction, and control mu tuality all are evaluative measur es, but commitment takes into account extending the relationship. Satisfaction Satisfaction was one of the original di mensions proposed by Ferguson (1984). She suggested that entities may have different expectations that ma y produce different feelings of satisfaction. The dimension of satisfaction serves to measure whether the parties involved have positive feelings about one another. Hon a nd J. Grunig (1999) not e that a satisfying relationship is one in which the be nefits outweigh the costs (p. 3) Satisfaction has been one of the variables that has been measured in numerous studies, incl uding Bruning, Langenhop and Greens (2004) examination of city-resident relations. Previous research from relationship marketing suggests that when part ies are satisfied with the nature of the relationship, they are more likely to be committed to maintaining it (Dwyer & Oh, 1987). Therefore, organizatio ns that invest in developing satisfying relationships with targeted stakeholders are likely to produce beneficial results for the organization in the long term. Supporting this mutually beneficial appr oach to relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) defined satisfaction as the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced (p. 20). Ledingham and Bruning (2000) argued that satisfaction was a dimension of the organization-public relationship th at could easily be increased if the organization invested the

PAGE 58

58 time and resources. Foreshadowing future explor ation into relationship management strategies, they suggested that organizations that were more open and spent time getting stakeholders to participate in organizational deci sions were more likely to have satisfied stakeholders than others. Control mutuality The final dimension of relationship quality involves the distribution of power. Termed control mutuality by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), this compone nt seeks to evaluate which party has more power over the other in different situat ions. In her original call for relationship management studies, Ferguson (1984) suggested that other variables rela ted to the relationship might be how much control both parties to the relationship believe they have [and] how power is distributed in the relationship (p. 20). Power exists in any relationshi p, and public relations scholars ha ve taken a keen interest in exploring the role of power in re cent years, particularly in light of the shift from seeing public relations as a strategic communi cation function to one of relationship management. Plowman (1998) demonstrated that public relations practi tioners who understand power are more likely to be included in the dominant coalition, and this skill enables the dominant coalition to balance the organizations interests with those of stakeholders. Exploring the role of power in mediating conflicts between or ganizations and stakeholders, Huang (2001) concluded that the presence of powe r and its distribution ha s a tremendous impact on the perceptions and actualities of the organi zation-public relationship. Indeed, Berger (2005) used a critical approach to examine the role of power in his study of activist publics. Because of the power struggle, public relations practitioners often expe rience tension with their role of being a boundary spanner that keeps one foot inside the orga nization and one outside the organization to stay in contact with an orga nizations stakeholders. The parties involved are

PAGE 59

59 usually sensitive to which side exhibits and uses power to gain control in the relationship. This power can influence the attitude and behavi or of both the organi zation and its publics. After nearly one decade of studying relati onships using these 4 dimensions, public relations scholars have constructed a fr amework for studying other organization-public relationships using valid and reli able scales. Based on fundraising and public relations literature, this study poses its first research question, wh ich evaluates the nonprof it-donor relationship for all donors: RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonpr ofit organization a favorable rating on the four relationship dimensions? It is important to note that in Hon an d J. Grunigs (1999) monograph, 2 additional relationship dimensions were proposed; however, th ey were not adopted by the current study. In an attempt to define the types of relationships Hon and J. Grunig (1999) described organizationpublic relationships as either communal, which ha s both parties providing be nefits to one another because they are concerned for each others welf are, or exchange, which has one side of the relationship giving a benefit to the other side with the expectation th at benefits will be returned in the future if they have not already been given. Waters (2006) included the original communal/exchange dimensions when measur ing the nonprofit-donor relationship and found that donors evaluate the re lationship as a communal ra ther than exchange. These measurements were not implemented into the current research design because public relations scholarship has advanced beyond the dichotomy of organiza tion-public relationship types. Hung (2006) detailed a continuum of organization-public rela tionships, which ranged from relationships where the sides are conc erned primarily for themselves (exploitive relationships) to relations hips that demonstrate concern for others (communal). Between the 2

PAGE 60

60 endpoints of the continuum, other types of relati onships exist, including contractual, exchange, and covenantal ones. Although Hung reports that these relationship types were first proposed by J. Grunig in personal conversati ons in 2001, public relations schol arship has rarely focused on relationship type and has not created measurement scales for the different types. Although this area of public relations is fertile ground for futu re organization-public studies, the current study does not incorporate the relationshi p variable type into the resear ch design due to the lack of available scales. Traditional Approach to Measuring Organization-Public Relationships In all the previous organization-public relatio nship studies, public relations scholars have only measured the relationship using one organiza tion and the key stakehol der group in question. The relationships were measured using Hon a nd J. Grunigs (1999) suggested dimensions, and there have been many studies that have exam ined the 4 measurement indices for trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Over the course of the studies, the measures have repeatedly produced satisfactory Cronbach alpha ratings (Bowers & Courtwright, 1984) for social scientific research; thus indicating that the i ndicators are producing reliable answers. Similarly, the indicators have held up over time to produce reliable answers. Given the reliability of the measures, many scholars have conducted these studies to examine an array of relationshi ps, including the univers ity-student relationship (Hon & Brunner, 2002; Ki & Hon, 2005), the municipal utility-co mmunity relationship (M. Hall, 2006), the manufacturer-retaile r relationship (Jo, 2006), the Air Force base-community relationship (VellaDova, 2005), and the nonprofit-donor relati onship (Waters, 2006; ONeil, 2007). These studies all found significant results when they looked at different segments of the publics. However, the studies only looked at one organi zation and one of its publics. Despite the numerous studies employing this methodology, one has to wonder if this methodology is a valid

PAGE 61

61 approach for measuring a relationship. Can the evaluations of one organizations communication and behavioral efforts with one targ et public truly claim to represent the entire scope of the relationship? Dr awing on other examples in co mmunication studies, Kaid (1989) insists that generalizations about the media cannot be made from the examination of one news story; similarly, Jackson and J acobs (1983) caution scholars to be careful when generalizing about the impact of messages when only one sm all segment of the greater population has been studied. Thinking to the nature of soci al scientific research, one ha s to question whether previous organization-public relationship st udies truly measured the nature of the overall relationship between a type of organization and a key stakeholder or were they simply applied studies measuring the publics views. In that case, the resu lts cannot be generali zed beyond the context of that organization, and they ce rtainly cannot claim to capture the essence of that type of relationship. Public relations st udies are missing a key component in social scientific research: the ability to compare and contrast the variants of the organization-public relationship within the confines of one study. This approach would pr ovide significant insight s into the nature of relationships for the profession. This study takes a different approach to m easuring the traditional organization-public relationship. With its goal of seeking to measure the nonprofitdonor relationship rather than to understand the dynamics of one nonprofit organizatio ns relationship with its donors, this study uses multiple organizations to capture the fundamental essence of the nonprofit-donor relationship. With the exception of Ki (2006), most of the organization-public relationship studies used these 4 relationship dimensionstrust, commit ment, satisfaction, and control mutualityto

PAGE 62

62 measure the quality of the relationship with the p ublic in question (e.g., donors in this study). To help understand the impact of different type s of donors on relationship evaluation, the first hypothesis examines the evaluation of the nonprof it-donor relationship for 2 groups of donors: (1) annual giving donors and (2) major gift donors. As will be explained in more depth in chapter 3, major gift donors were considered as those who gave $10,000 or more per year. Because fundraising literature maintains that orga nizations traditionally put more resources into relationship cultivation with ma jor gift donors, the first hypothesis tests the difference in relationship evaluation between ma jor gift and annual giving donors: H1: Compared to annual gift donors (e.g., thos e who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the organizati on-public relationship more positively on the 4 relationship dimensions. Returning to the lite rature on the nonprofitdonor relationship, fundr aising practitioners often suggest that organizations should invest more time and resources into the donors who continue to donate to their causes (Tempel, 2003). The ultimate goa l of these organizations is to elevate the donor to higher stages of giving, perhaps turn ing an annual gift into a major gift. In a study of nonprofit organizational effectiv eness, Herman and Renz (1998) found that the nonprofits who were more focused on manage d communication efforts were more likely to have positive relationships with their stakeh olders. Though this study did not exclusively examine fundraising dynamics, the authors did s uggest that nonprofit orga nizations could expect positive financial returns when they invest resources into developing a relationship. Similarly, Voss, Cable, and Voss (2000) found that organizations that were able to de monstrate their values to their stakeholders were likely to benefit from the relationshi p over an extended period of time.

PAGE 63

63 According to Rosso (1991), as a donor increases the number of gifts that he or she makes to a charitable nonprofit, the mo re likely an organization will be to dedicate resources to cultivating the relationship. Therefor e, the second hypothesis is as follows: H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively correlated to the evaluation of the relationship dimensions. As previously mentioned, both Waters ( 2006) and ONeil (2007) have used the 4 dimension indices developed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) to evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship using the single or ganization approach. Waters ( 2006) evaluated the dynamics in the healthcare nonprofit subsector whereas ONeil (2007) studied the relationship at a social service organization. Due to the cooperation of the participating ag ency, Waters (2006) was able to obtain information about which survey partic ipants donated to the organization in the annual campaign subsequent to the survey. Using this data, the study conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test and found that the most significant differences in how the relationship dimensions were evaluated by donors and nondonors in the organizations Fall 2005 campaign came from the dimensions of trust and commitment. Though this was a crude use of the ANOVA statistical test it raises an interesting question that is proposed as this studys second research question: RQ2: Can participation in the most recent f undraising campaign be predicted based on the donors evaluation of the relationship? This study does not seek to dismiss the wo rks of Ledingham and Bruning (e.g., 1999). On the contrary, the scholarship they have produced has been valuable to the fields understanding of the organization-public relationship. The resear chers have identified several areas that have not been explicitly explored under the Hon and J. Grunig (1999) measures, such as loyalty,

PAGE 64

64 perceptions of the organization, a nd involvement. Given these differe nt concepts that have yet to be explored with the dimensions of trust, sa tisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality, the third research question is as follows: RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately represent the organization-public relationship? In their monograph on the measurement of relationships, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) focused on outlining the dimensions of the or ganization-public relationship in detail by operationalizing trust, commitment satisfaction, and control mutuality. However, they also proposed that there were 9 relationship cultivati on strategies that orga nizations could use to produce positive relationships with their stakeh olders. In analyzing the work of Bruning, Ledingham, and their colleagues, many of the variab les they have examined were strategies that organizations could use to deve lop relationships. Additionally, other public relations scholars, such as Kelly (2001) and Plowman (1996), ha ve discussed relationship maintenance and cultivation strategies in their works. Impact of Relationship Cultivation Strategies Throughout the literature on re lationships, public relations scholars (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; J. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hung, 2000; Ki, 2004; M. Hall, 2006) have used the term maintenance to describe the strategies they re commend using in the management of organization-public relationships. Howeve r, Hung (2005) proposed changing how public relations scholars describe the relationship strategies. In her book chapter, she notes that J. Grunig (personal communication, February 26, 2002) considered using the te rm, cultivation in replacing maintenance (p. 23).

PAGE 65

65 Hung then proceeded to rationalize this decision by exploring Dindia and Canarys description of relationship maintenance. Dindi a and Canary (as cited in Hung, 2005) provide the 4 most commonly used reasons par ties employ maintenance strategies: to keep a relationship in existence to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition to keep a relationship in satisfactory condition to keep a relationship in repair. Of those 4 reasons, Hung (2004) argued that only the final 2 truly represent the organization-public relationship. She contends that the first r easonto keep a relationship in existencedoes not provide any strategic behavior designed to maintain the relationship and that the second reasonto keep a relationship in a sp ecified state or conditio ndoes not consider the fluid nature of relations hips with stakeholders. Hungs (2002) research on types of relati onships demonstrates that organizational behavior, whether intentional or acc idental, can often damage the relationship with stakeholders. Therefore, organizations cannot simply maintain re lationships with their pu blics, but they should work to restore relationships that have been damaged. With this perspective, she contends behaviors in relationships are an on-going cultivating process. Therefore, the term cultivation strategies fits more in the context of relationship management (Hung, 2005, p. 23). Given the appropriateness of relationship de velopment in the fundraising pr ocess, this study endorses and utilizes the term cultivation rather than maintenance which implies that a relationship is remaining steady rather than growing. Relationship Cultivation Strategies Defined Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) monograph set the gui delines for defining 2 separate types of relationship strategies: symmetri cal and asymmetrical. They st ress not all strategies for maintaining relationships are equa lly effective we must rec ognize that not all public relations

PAGE 66

66 strategies, techniques, and program s are equally likely to produce relationship outcomes (p. 13). The 9 relationship strategies were originally pr oposed after reviewing pub lic relations literature on interpersonal relationships a nd conflict resolution. The strate gies they identified from interpersonal relationships were symmetrical, mean ing that both parties benefited from being in the relationship, while those comi ng from conflict resolution repr esented both symmetrical and asymmetrical strategies. These various strategies are defined In the following section. Table 2-1 lists which strategies have been classified as symmetrical. Access Ultimately, this strategy involves making indi viduals available to both sides of the relationship. For example, opinion leaders or influential members of stakeholder groups are open to meeting with organizati onal representatives, and public relations representatives or senior managers grant similar access to publics. By providing the opportunity for the 2 parties to meet with one another, each sides voices and c oncerns can be considered when organizations need to make decisions about current and future issues. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) cont end that organization-public re lationships that use access as a strategy involve the willi ngness of both entities to go to the other party di rectly when they have complaints or questions about i ssues instead of discussing compla ints with a third party. By making individuals available to me mbers of the other party, the or ganization and its stakeholders are able to engage one another. In their monograph, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) di scuss the importance of access in terms of key opinion leaders of stakehol der groups. Because of the in creasing use of new media and Web-based communication, Ki (2003) points out that access is now available to virtually anyone with Internet access. She notes:

PAGE 67

67 With the World Wide Web, not only member s or opinion leaders can influence the organization decision-making processes. A nyone with Internet acc ess can affect an organizations decision-making process because diverse contact information such as telephone numbers, staff electro nic mail addresses, bulletin boa rds, and so on, is provided on Web sites. (p. 19) Access has been identified by fundraising consul tants as being an important strategy to connect with donors. Bill Moss, a contributing writer for Blackbauds Nonprofit Fiscal Fitness newsletter, encourages nonprofits to make thei r financial history and IRS 990 Tax Forms widely available to donor publics and to mention their availability in organi zational publications. Although he advises organizations to get your marketing departments input to spin the words [about the availability] for the greatest marketing impact (Moss, 2003, p. 2), informing donors about the information and subsequently being av ailable to answer their questions helps build donor confidence that the organization is de dicated to the nonpr ofit-donor relationship. The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (2004) offers a list of suggested responsibilities for members of a nonprofit organizations board of dire ctors. This list includes many items, but specifically it details the importance of being ava ilable to meet with major gift donors to discuss their concerns and the programs and services of the organization. Although the Council specifically mentions major gift donors, providi ng access to all donors can result in increased awareness of the concerns and viewpoints of both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Positivity Positivity refers to the actions by either side of the organization-publ ic relationship that make the other side feel more cont ent in the relations hip. In their book Communication and Relational Maintenance Canary and Stafford (1994) describe positivity as any attempt to make interactions pleasant (p. 15). In a litany of examples, the authors discuss acting cheerful and nice, being courteous and po lite in conversation, and a voiding partner criticism.

PAGE 68

68 Positivity has been examined in the context of interpersonal relationships, and it has been shown to be an important predictor of control mutuality (Canary and St afford, 1993). Similarly, positivity has been shown to be the primary cultivation strategy used to predict trust as a measure of the relationship dimension (Canary and Staffo rd, 1991). Ki (2003) compared the concept of positivity to Fisher and Browns (1988) con cept of being unconditionally constructive. Though they discuss the notion of being constructive in the se tting of resolving conflict, the notion can be extended throughout the domain of public relations. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) provide an example of the posit ivity cultivation strategy that is centered on how a public relations agency CEO sees the organizations relationships with its publics: We want to be a resource to every one of our publics in some way, shape, or form. Its in the way weve set up our web site, the way weve set up everything we do as far as our newsletter, as far as the service we provide, as far as the way we interact with all of these publicswhether theyre the media or a clie nt or a not-for-pro fit organization or whateverwe want them to look at [name of ag ency] as a resource, as something that has value to their organization in so me way, shape, or form. So, what we try to do is operate on the principle of providing something that is of self-interest to every one of our clientsso there is a reason why they should care about us. (p. 17) Practitioner literature has identified pos itivity as an importantbut often missing component of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Sargeant and Lee (2004 ) found that donors in the United Kingdom valued positiv e interactions with nonprofit or ganizations and that these exchanges had a positive impact on donor behavior. Public Agenda, a research organization in New York, released a report entit led The Charitable Impulse in 2005. This report had similar findings to Lights (200 3; 2005) research on the publics co nfidence in the nonprofit sector. However, the Public Agenda report found that the general public was enthusiastic and positive when it comes to small, local organizations (Blu m, 2005) in part because they were communitybased organizations that relied on personal touches, such as handwritten thank-you notes and personalized phone calls, rather than impersonal di rect mail pieces used by larger charitable

PAGE 69

69 nonprofits. Pete Mountanos (Gilb ert, 1999) of Charitable Way, an Internet watchdog group for the nonprofit sector, believes that charitable non profits that create positiv e experiences for their donors are more likely to see renewa l gifts from previous donors. Openness Openness is about the willingness of both side s of the organization-public relationship to engage actively and honestly in direct discussi ons about the nature of the relationship. Hung (2000a) points out that openness ma y not guarantee a positive rela tionship because differences may be revealed. However, the open discussion of points of disagreement can demonstrate that neither party is trying to hide information from the other. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) point out that for parties to be open, they should reveal both their thoughts and their feelings. J. Grunig a nd Huang (2000) argued that the openness strategy follows the requirements of excellent, symmetric al communication. They also contend that organizations that frequently use openness as a cultivation strategy are more likely to have positive relationships with their stakeholders than those that do not. Hung (2005) proposed that rather than using the label of openness to describe this concept, the term disclosure might be more suitable. Due to its symmetrical approach, openne ss has been examined by numerous public relations scholars. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) concluded that openness is one of the more influential factors in a satisfyi ng relationship between an organiza tion and its publics. Similarly, L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) proposed that quality relations hips could best be measured by examining the openness of the parties involved. Openness is becoming increasingly important for charitable nonprofits that seek to demonstrate their transparency. The top goal of the European Fundraising Association, Europes equivalent to the Americas Association fo r Fundraising Professiona ls, is to increase

PAGE 70

70 transparency and openness in fundraising, in or der to build donor confidence (Zachrison, 2005, para 25). Ragsdale (1995) says that open communication is necessa ry if an organization seeks to create a climate conduciv e to long-lasting relatio nships with donors. Assurances Providing verbal and beha vioral assurances to another part y can do a great deal to enhance a relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1992). In a surv ey of married couples, verbal assurances were found to be a strong predictor of the level of tr ust in the relationship a nd stronger feelings of being committed to continuing the relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1993). Earning assurances from publics means organizations ne ed to first offer assurances to their stakeholders (L. Grunig, 1992). Looking at the relationship between organiza tions and stakeholders, assurances occur when each party in the relationship attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are legitimate and to demonstrate that is commited to maintaining the relationship (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). An organization can dem onstrate how much it values its stakeholders by incorporating this strategy in to its communication plan. Bene fits from providing assurances to key publics are more satisfaction and commitment from both sides (Hung, 2000a). Leadership and organizational management scholar Peter Drucker (2006) says that nonprofit organizations have a distinct compe titive advantage when it comes to providing assurances to their stakeholder groups because th e sector exists to address community problems. Nonprofit leaders frequently seek input from thos e in their operating community to learn about concerns and find new ways to address problems through their programs and services (Bracht, Finnegan, Jr., Rissel, Weisbrod, Gleason, Corbet t, & Veblen-Mortenson, 1994; Ospina, Diaz, & OSullivan, 2002). Drucker (2006) argues that having the minds et of assuring clients and

PAGE 71

71 consumers that their concerns are legitimate wi ll also benefit the or ganizations fundraising program. In a discussion of major gift fundraising, Drucker (2006) provides an illustration of assurances that frequently occurs during solicitations: When a board member calls, say, a real estate developer, and says, I am on the board of the hospital, the first response he gets fr om his friend is, How much are you giving yourself, John? If the an swer is five hundred bucks, well, thats all youre likely to get. (p. 57) Though the scenario may not always occur in this casual manner, the point ra ised is an important one for the fundraising profession. Many donors want to be assured that their money is going to a worthwhile cause. By having its members donate to the organization an d its programs before soliciting others, the fundraising team is able to reassure potential donors that it is committed to the cause. Likewise, nonprofits can assure donors that their concerns are impor tant by simply taking time to discuss these matters. Sargeant (2001) encourages nonprofit orga nizations to listen to their donors and reiterate the importance of the d onors concerns to enhance their commitment to the nonprofit-donor relationship. Some donors ques tion their decisions to give to charitable organizations, but answering questions and assuri ng donors that their input is appreciated will help nonprofit organizations overcome re luctant donors (Hibbert & Home, 1996). Networking In an examination of nonprof it organizations role in in fluencing public policy, Nyland (1995) defined networking as the positive interacti on between the involved parties, whether they were individual activists, single nonprofit orga nizations, or entire sectors, such as the government. Networking can take on many diffe rent shapes, such as formal conversation, authority, or friendship (Nohria & Eccles, 1992). Canary and Stafford ( 1994) viewed networking

PAGE 72

72 at the interpersonal level as spending time with friends, family, and coworkers to gain their support and make the relationship more enjoyable. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) refer to networking as the opportunity for organizations to build coalitions with different stakeh olders. Hung (2000a) showed that networking serves as a catalyst in relationship building. Indeed, scholars sugges t that networking should be proactive because it nurtures symmetrical cultivation strategies and constructive relationship building. In recent years, watchdog groups and privat e foundations have encouraged charitable nonprofits to network and collabora te with one another and othe r relevant organizations to increase the reach and work of the sector (Lenkowsky, 2002). Guo and Acar (2005) found that nonprofit organizations are capable of working with one another; however, the alliances are not easily formed. Nonprofit leaders of ten feel that collaborative netw orks are difficult to create due to sacrifices of autonomy and of ten result in programming that fa ils to serve publics effectively and efficiently because too many pe ople have say in decision making. However, Smith (2002) believed that networki ng was beneficial for charitable nonprofits far beyond working with other like-minded orga nizations. By demonstrating that an organization is open to new approaches to proble ms and willing to work with outside agencies, nonprofit organizations are ab le to show that they are using their financial resources wiselya key component of demonstrating fiscal accountabili ty to donors. Indeed, others have expressed similar ideas over the years that networking and co llaborations have direct financial benefits for charitable nonprofitsnot only in terms of saving resources, but in also gaining new resources from their donors (Abzug & Webb, 1999; Austin, 2000). Sharing of tasks Many studies have examined the role of task sharing by focusing on families and couples. Individuals who believed their spous e also contributed significantly to the sharing of household

PAGE 73

73 tasks were more committed to maintaining the re lationship and more satisf ied with the state of their relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Sta fford & Canary, 1991). These studies found that sharing of tasks consistently predicted an individuals commitment and satisfaction. Though most of the works studying this phenomenon co me from interpersonal communication studies, there is ample evidence to support that or ganizations and publics also share tasks. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) concep tualized sharing of tasks as organizations and publics sharing in solving joint or separate problems (p. 15) and provided se veral examples of the strategy, such as resolving community issues, providing employment fo r community residents and staying in business. These examples involve the interests of the orga nization, the public, or both. Ki (2006), however, defined sharing of tasks as those focusing exclusively on mutual interests between the orga nization and its publics. Sharing of tasks is a relati onship cultivation strategy that fundraisers frequently employ with major gift and planned giving donors. Kelly (1998) highlights several ways that fundraisers and donors work together to crea te giving vehicles that benef it both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. In describing its planned giving program, the National Academies of Science and Engineering (2007) discusses the mutual value of these gifts: Charitable gift annuities, like charitable re mainder trusts, are life income gifts: you transfer assets now, receivi ng a charitable deduction for a portion of the transfer, and you or a beneficiary receives income for the rest of your life or a fixed period of time. Both the National Academies and you can benefit from life income gifts such as these. (para 1) Nonprofit organizations also ar e increasingly seeing that some major gift donors are not satisfied with simply offering a charitable gift to the organization. Instead, they want to be involved with the delivery of programs and services to address the concerns that matter the most to them. These donors, sometimes called ven ture philanthropists, often approach nonprofit organizations to determine the best way that the 2 parties can work together; however, Cobb

PAGE 74

74 (2002) argues that often this discussion is little more than a one-sided sales pitch designed to appeal to the nonprofit organizations desire for the charitable gift. Venture Philanthropy Partners, a philanthropic investment organization founded by more than 30 business and technology leaders, argues that having donors bein g more involved in program delivery results in streamlined nonprofit s that are more efficient and effective in accomplishing their goals (Venture Philanthropy Partners, 2004). Regardless of nonprofits views of venture philanthropy, it is clear that the organizations must be able to work together with donors whether the focus is on fundraising programs, such as planned or major gifts, or on creating program and service delivery plans. Keeping promises All of the strategies that have been mentione d up to this point were briefly discussed in Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) monograph. Howeve r, there has been subsequent work on relationship cultivation strate gies. Hungs (2002) research on multinational and Taiwanese companies relationship development in China id entified another strategy, keeping promises. According to Hung (2002), multinational companies in China utilized keeping promises to achieve dependability, one element of trust, be tween themselves and their Chinese publics; Taiwanese companies used this strategy to e nhance dependability and competence, another component of trust. The majority of these strategies have been classified as symmetrical, not surprising given the views that symmetry is necessary for en lightened and excellent communication. Though J. Grunig (2001) said that organizations have made considerable efforts in improving the nature of their communication, they have not yet truly become excellent or symmetrical. These strategies can lead to improved conversations between the organization and its publics, but which of the strategies are most important to the relationship building pro cess? Fundraising literature

PAGE 75

75 supports the tenets of symmetri cal communication, but it too offers no majority opinion as to which strategies would be most influen tial to the relationship building process. Stewardship In Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) monograph, Kellys (2000, 2001) stewardship strategies were presented as symmetrical re lationship cultivation strategies. However, they have not been tested or presented in any of the other organization-public re lationship studies, even though Kelly argued that stewardship is the second most im portant step in the public relations process. The 4 strategies are recipr ocity, responsibility, reporti ng, and relationship nurturing. Kelly advocated that organizationsnonpr ofit, for-profit, and governmentshould actively work to incorporate these strategies into their communicati ons and public relations planning because stakeholders are concerned with how they are treated after the interaction with the organization. Organizations th at include these strategies are also more likely to follow high ethical standards. Reciprocity On an applied level, reciprocity simply means that organizations must demonstrate gratitude toward their supportive stakeholders. Two underlying dimensions of reciprocity are acknowledgement of the publics and a sincere expression of appreciation on behalf of the organization. For nonprofit organi zations, fundraisers need to acknowledge and thank donors in a timely manner for their gift s by offering a receipt declaring the tax deductibility of the gift a nd a note of appreciation. J. Grunig and White (1992) viewed reciprocity as being the basis for social responsibility. When publics adopt positive attitudes and beha vior that support organizational activity, organizations have an obligation to reciprocate that support. By repaying these obligations, organizations are able to maintain so cial balance with their publics.

PAGE 76

76 Responsibility If an organization incorporates stewardship into its public relations programming, then it has an obliga tion to its stakeholders to act in a socially responsible manner. On a basic level, this component of stewardship is very similar to thr relationship maintenance strategy proposed by Hung (2002), keeping promises. Hung (2002) concluded that multinational and Taiwanese companies kept their promises w ith Chinese stakeholders to demonstrate their dependability. This element of responsibility ce nters on an organization s commitment to its publics for what it has said it would do. For fundraising, an organization an d its fundraisers have an ob ligation to make sure that funds donated to specific causes or programs are only used for those programs. Betraying that trust is a costly mistake that fundraisers cannot allow because it is much simpler to have a donor renew their gifts to an organization than for th e same fundraiser to go out into the community and find new donors. Reporting Organizations need to keep their publics informed about developments on issues for which support was sought. For exampl e, a nonprofit organization that solicited donations to improve community parks has an obligation to let donors who supported that program how and when the park was improve d. Organizations can demonstrate their accountability by providing open, accurate information to their publics. In light of recent scandals in the nonprofit sector, fundraisers need to ensure that their organizations use their Web sites to demonstr ate financial accountability by providing their 990 IRS Forms and their audited financial documents and to demonstrate their social accountability by informing current and potential clients about their programs and services. Nonprofits and every other type of organization must be held a ccountable for their actions on issues that impact

PAGE 77

77 their publics. Relationships with these groups can not be maintained if an organization does not offer this information and only communicates when it needs support. Relationship nurturing As public relations scholars hip continues to document the impact of relationship cultivation with different stakeholder groups, practitioners abilities to nurture those relationships becomes more important for long-term success. To truly reach this level, organizations must recognize the importa nce of supportive publics and keep them in mind when any decisions are made. Opportunities to nurture rela tionships with publics are numer ous. For example, nonprofit organizations should make sure donors are receiv ing copies of newsletters and annual reports. Major gift donors and prospects should also be in vited to special events and open houses. As the nonprofit-donor relationship strengthe ns, fundraisers may also send handwritten cards for special occasions, such as birthdays, anniversaries or upon learning of serious illne sses. The extra effort required to cultivate relationships with any public will benefit organizations in the future because this demonstrated concern will result in c ontinued support and reduce the impact of potential crises. It is important to note that Hon and J. Gr unig (1999) also pro posed symmetrical and asymmetrical strategies for how organizations can resolve conflicts wi th stakeholder groups. These include integrative strategies where the organization and public seek out common interests that can be used to solve problem s, distributive strategies that incorporate a win-loss perspective and often result in one side benefiting at the e xpense of the other, and dual concern strategies where public relations practitioners seek to balan ce the organizations concer ns with those of the stakeholder groups. These stra tegies are derived from Plow mans (1995; 1996; 1998) work on conflict resolution, power str uggles, and negotiations in public relations practice.

PAGE 78

78 Although these strategies offer valuable in sight into how organizations may resolve conflict with stakeholder groups, they were ex cluded from the current study because the researcher perceived a lack of conflict between the participating nonprofit organizations and their donors. If the organizations stud ied were embroiled in a scandal or crisis situation similar to those described in chapter one, then the strategies likely woul d have been included in the research design. Given the multitude of strategi es that nonprofit organizations can use to foster relationship growth with their donors, the fourth research question was cr eated to determine if all of the strategies were viewed positively: RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonpr ofit organization favorable ratings on its relationship cultivation strategies? This question helps to evaluate overall views on the strategies, but as fundraising literature points out, there is a considerable differen ce in the amount of re sources that nonprofit organizations dedicate to devel op relationships with annual gift and major gift donors. As Figure 2-1 highlights and Rosso (1991) and Nudd (1991) explained, as donor s start making larger, more significant gifts to nonprofit organizations, these organizations start cultivating the relationship more. Because of the different levels of resource s dedicated to cultivatin g the relationships with different types of donors, the third hypothesis predic ts that the relationship cultivation strategies will be viewed differently by the 2 primary types of donors, annual gift and major gift contributors: H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., t hose who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the relationship cult ivation strategies more positively.

PAGE 79

79 Because the symmetrical relati onship cultivation strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), Hung (2002), and Kelly ( 2000, 2001) all represent a wide variety of behaviors and communication approaches that nonprofit organizatio ns can use to build re lationships with their donors, it is important to understa nd if any of them are more influential than others in determining how the relationship is evaluated. Fo r this reason, the fifth research question was proposed: RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultiva tion strategies proposed by public relations scholars, which are the most in fluential in terms of influencing donors evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization? Again, because fundraising literature makes a distinction between annual giving and major gift donors, it is important to determine if these groups are impacted differe ntly by the strategies. To determine the impact of the strategies on how the donor groups evaluate the overall relationship with the nonprof it organization, a sixth resear ch question was created: RQ6: Do annual gift and major gift donors experience the relationship cultivation strategies differently in terms of influenci ng their evaluation of th e relationship with the nonprofit organization? New Approach to Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship Hungs (2005) definition of the organizat ion-public relationshipOrganization-public relationships arise when organi zations and their strategic public s are interdependent and this interdependence results in conse quences to each other that orga nizations need to manage (p. 395)raises an interesting question that has yet to be addressed in related studies. Much of public relations literature focuses on the need for the public relations department to be represented in the organizations dominant coali tion or group of decision makers. Without the public relations perspective being included in managements meeti ngs, decisions likely are made

PAGE 80

80 without considering stakehol ders perspectives. Given Hungs (2005) new focus on the decisions made by the dominant coalition to mana ge relationships with stakeholders, it would seem imperative to measure the organizati onal perspective of the organization-public relationship. Yet, with rare exceptions (e.g., Jo, 2003), public relationship studies ha ve yet to take the organizations perspective into co nsideration despite Fe rgusons (1984) original suggestion that the coorientational measurement model shoul d prove quite useful in conceptualizing relationship variables for this type of paradigm focus (p. 17). Many public relations scholars have advocated for the inclusion of the orga nizations perspective in relationship studies (Ledingham, 2001, 2003; Ledingham & Bruni ng, 1998; Seltzer, 2005), but although coorientation has been suggeste d, it has been used only rarely in relationship management research. Interestingly, in his retrospective of orga nization-public relations hip studies, Ledingham (2006) claimed: Ledingham (2001) again tested Broom and Doziers (1990) notion of agreement and accuracy as indicators of rela tionship quality. His coorientational analysis of governmentcitizenry relationships revealed that the pe rceptions of agreement between organizations and publics is, in fact, linked to relationship quality, and, ultimately, to choice behavior. (p. 14) This declaration appears to have addressed what this study calls a new approach to measuring the organization-public relati onship. However, upon closer examination, Ledingham (2001) only measured one side of the government-ci tizen relationshipthe citizens view. Ledingham (2006) does note that the advancem ent of relationship management theory included Broom and Doziers (1990 ) adaptation of the coorientati on measurement model. But, his specific study on local government and it s citizenry relied solely on the methodology described as follows: Six focus groups with five to eight participants ea ch were conducted with

PAGE 81

81 community members in accordance with recomme nded processes, and a subsequent survey questionnaire was constructed to include the 9 op erationalized dimensional items that comprise Bruning and Ledinghams OPR scale (p. 290). The stated recomm ended process refers to Greenbaums The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research Therefore, this study maintains that although the co orientation method has been me ntioned as a useful process for measuring the organization-public relations hip, it has not been em ployed as outlined by public relations scholars (Broom & Dozier, 1990) Ledingham (2006) does not even indicate that the views of government representatives were measured, calling into question how the coorientation method was implemen ted into the research design. In their textbook, Using Research in Public Relati ons: Applications to Program Management Broom and Dozier (1990) suggest that the use of coorientation measurement would be an important way for an organization to compare its perspective on an issue with that of its stakeholders. Using the coorientation methodology allows th e organization to determine if the 2 sides agree on the issue, if either side perc eives agreement with the other side, and if the 2 sides are accurate in their perceptions. The coorientation measurement model traces its beginnings to psychological studies about the mutual orientation of 2 individuals to so me object. Newcombs (1953) symmetry model was expanded to groups by mass comm unication scholars, including McLeod and Chaffee (1973), who based their model on the basic assumption that peoples behavior results from more than their internal thinking: it also is affected by th eir orientation to other people and perceptions of the views others hold. Public relations scholars Broom and Dozier (1990) adapted the theory to corporations and publics, resulting in a model that represents the 2 sides of an organiza tionpublic relationship.

PAGE 82

82 Kelly (1998) revised that model to develop one th at depicts a charitable nonprofit organizations relationship with its donors. Drawing from Kelly (1998), the coorientati on model consists of 4 elements: (a) the organizations views on an issue, represented by the beliefs of individuals who participate in decision making; (b) the publics views on the is sue; (c) the organizations estimate of the publics views (i.e., perception); and (d) the publics estimate of the organizations views. Figure 2-2 presents the coorie ntation model of the nonprofit organizationdonor relationship with the issue being the overall evaluation of the relationship between the 2 parties. As shown in Figure 2-2, agreement is the exte nt to which the organization and the public hold similar views on the issue, in this case, the extent to which the fundraising team at a nonprofit organization and donors to th at charitable organization ag ree on the evaluation of the relationship. Perceived agreement is the exte nt to which one side perceives agreement or disagreement with the other side on the issu e, which earlier models termed congruency. Accuracy is the extent to which one sides esti mate of the other sides views concurs with the actual views of the other side. In other word s, measuring the views of both the fundraising leaders and donors on the evaluation of the relationship allows this study to determine the extent to which the 2 sides are in agreement or disagr eement on the relationship, the extent to which they perceive agreement and disagreement, and their degree of accuracy in predicting the other sides views. Broom and Dozier (1990) recommended that researchers calculate D-scores, or the differences between the 2 sides rating for each item measuring agreement and perceived agreement. The lower the D-score, the higher th e level of agreement or perceived agreement is on the issue and vice versa. Based on result s, the relationship can be categorized by 4

PAGE 83

83 coorientation states, defined by Broom and Dozier (1990): (a) consensus, (b ) dissensus, (c) false consensus, and (d) false conflict. Consensus ex ists when the organization and the public agree; both sides essentially share the sa me view and each knows that ag reement exists. Dissensus is the opposite state: the 2 sides di sagree and recognize the disagreemen t. The last 2 states result from inaccurate perceptions. False consensus exists when the organization thinks the public agrees with it on an issue but the public does no t, and false conflict exists when either party mistakenly thinks there is disagreement. The coorientation model is a powerful but underutilized approach to public relations research (Cutlip et al., 1994). Few practiti oners apply it to problems in the field. Yet organizations communication and action may be co mpletely inappropriate and ineffective if inaccurate perceptions exit on either side As Dozier and Ehling (1992) warned, Misperceptions can lead to catastrophic ac tions whenever the dominant coalition sees agreement or disagreement when none actually exists (p. 181). Although public relations scholars embrace coorie ntation as a core concept in theory building, their research usually ignores the vi ews and perceptions of organizational decision makers. Use of coorientation methodology, other than a few exceptions, has been limited to studying simultaneous orientations of public relati ons practitioners and a ffiliated professionals most notably, journalists (Kopenhaver, Martinso n, & Ryan, 1984; Sallot, Steinfatt, & Salwen, 1998). These studies employ early m odels that deal with groups of people, as opposed to later models refined for organizat ions and their publics. Previous organization-public relationship is asymmetrical with studies focusing on only one side of the relationship. With only one ex ception (Jo, 2003), studies have not included the measurement of organizational re presentatives into their resear ch designs, despite managers

PAGE 84

84 assumed impact on the relationship. For this reason, this study breaks new ground by using the coorientation methodology to measure the rela tionship between nonprofit organizations and donors. Use of the methodology prompts 4 research questions regarding the organization-public relationship: RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors agree/disagree on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? RQ8 : To what extent does the fundrai sing team and donors perceive agreement/ disagreement between themselves and the ot her side on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? RQ9 : To what extent are the fundraising team and donors accurat e/inaccurate in predicting the other sides views on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? RQ10: What coorientation state exists between the fundraising team and donors on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? By understanding the two-sided dynamics of the nonprofit-donor relationship, it is possible to make suggestions for future research into the role of relationship build ing in this particular setting. The potential theoretical insights could lead to other coor ientational approaches in other settings. Additionally, there could be practical implications that could help improve the strategies of fundraising pract itioners and the nonprofit organizations management team. Table 2-2 summarizes the hypotheses and resear ch questions. It also provides the statistical procedures that will be used to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions.

PAGE 85

85 Figure 2-1. Evolution of th e nonprofit-donor re lationship. This model illustrates the desired impact of re lationship maintenance strategies on the nonprofitdonor relationship. As the charitable donation (or the amount anticipated from a donor) increases, the more time and resources a nonprof it organization invests into the cultivation process. Figure adapted from Nudd, S. P. (1991). Thinki ng strategically about information (pp.174-189). In H. A. Rosso (Ed.), Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Annual Giving Major Gifts Planned Giving Highly Developed Relationships Gift Often Initiated by Donor Increasing Cultivation by Nonprofit Organization Growing Relationship Face-to-Face Solicitation Beginning of the Relationship Direct Mail or Telephone Solicitation Initial Introduction to the Nonprofit Organization

PAGE 86

86 Table 2-1. Symmetry Orient ation of Relationship Cultivat ion Strategies Proposed in Interpersonal and Public Relations Literature. Cultivation Strategy Symmetry Orientation Proposed by Access Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999) Positivity Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999) Openness Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999) Assurances Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999) Networking Symmetrical H on and J. Grunig (1999) Sharing of Tasks Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999) Integrative Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)* Distributive Asymmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)* Dual Concern Contending Avoiding Accomodating Compromising Cooperating Being Unconditionally Constructive Saying Win-Win or No Deal Asymmetrical Asymmetrical Asymmetrical Asymmetrical Symmetrical Symmetrical Symmetrical Hon and J. Grunig (1999)* Plowman (1995) Plowman (1995) Plowman (1995) Plowman (1995) Plowman (1995) Plowman (1995) Plowman (1995)* Keeping promises Symmetrical Hung (2002) Reciprocity Symmet rical Kelly (2000) Responsibility Symmetrical Kelly (2000) Reporting Symmetrical Kelly (2000) Relationship Nurturing Sy mmetrical Kelly (2000) *These proposed strategies were not included in the current study because of their focus on conflict resolution.

PAGE 87

87 Figure 2-2. Visual depiction of the coorientation methodology ex amining relationship evaluation between nonprofit organiza tions and their donors. Figure adapted from Kelly, K. S., Thompson, M., & Waters, R. D. (2006). Improving the way we die: A coorientation st udy assessing agreement/disagreement in the organization-public relationship of hospices and physicians Journal of Health Communication, 11 (6), 607-627. Fundraising Teams Views on Relationship Evaluation Donors Views on Relationship Evaluation Fundraising Teams Estimate of Donors Views on Relationship Evaluation Donors Estimate of Fundraising Teams Views on Relationship Evaluation Accuracy Agreement Perceived Agreement Perceived Agreement

PAGE 88

88 Table 2-2. Summary of the Current Studys 3 Hypotheses and 10 Research Questions. Hypothesis or Research Qu estion Statistical Test RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a favorable rating on the four relationship dimensions? Mean and Standard Deviation H1: Compared to annual gift donor s (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the organization-public relationship more positively on th e four relationship dimensions. One-Way ANOVA H2: The number of donations c ontributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively correl ated to evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Pearsons r and Multiple Regression RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be predicted based on the donors ev aluation of the relationship? Multiple Discriminant Analysis RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately represent the organizati on-public relationship? Multiple Regression RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a favorable rating on the relationship cultivation strategies? Mean and Standard Deviation H3: Compared to annual gift donor s (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the relationship cultivation strategies more positively. One-Way ANOVA RQ5: Of the symmetrical relations hip cultivation st rategies proposed by public relations scholars, which are the most influential in terms of their effect on donors evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization? Structural Equation Modeling RQ6: Do annual gift and ma jor gift donors experience the relationship cultivation strategies di fferently in terms of influencing their evaluation of the relationshi p with the nonprofit organization? Structural Equation Modeling RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors agree/disagree on the evaluation of their nonprofit-donor relationship? D-scores and Independent t-tests RQ8: To what extent does f undraising team and donors perceive agreement/ disagreement between th emselves and the other side on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? D-scores and Paired sample t-tests RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising team and donors accurate/inaccurate in predicting th e other sides views on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? D-scores and Independent t-tests

PAGE 89

89 Table 2-2. Continued Hypothesis or Research Qu estion Statistical Test RQ10: What coorientation state ex ists between the fundraising team and donors on evaluation of th e nonprofit-donor relationship? N/A

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship dimensions proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) as they apply to fundraisi ng by healthcare nonprofits and the influence of symmetrical strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), Hung (2006) and Kelly (2000) on those relationship dimensions. Though previous studies have examined the dimensions of the nonprofit-donor relationship within the context of 1 organization, lit tle can be generalized to the relationship overall. This study seeks to pr ovide a deeper underst anding of fundraising by examining multiple nonprofit organizations, specifically those with healthcare missions, to enlighten understanding of fundraising as it pertains to relationship management. The second goal of this study is to examin e the perceptions of both parties in the relationship (fundraising management team a nd donors) using the coorientation methodology as outlined by Broom and Dozier (1990) and Kelly (1998). Despite the suggestions by other public relations scholars (e.g., Ferguson, 1984; Ledi ngham, 2001), there has been only 1 study on relationship management theory ( Jo, 2003) that measured both sides of the organization-public relationship. There has been litt le effort to measure the organi zation-public relationship in terms of the parties levels of agr eement, their perceptions, and the accuracy of those perceptions regarding the relationship quality. Though Jo (2 003) did measure the perceptions of both sides of the manufacturer-retailer relationship, he di d not compare the accuracy of those perceptions, which could impact the formation and continua tion of the organizati on-public relationship. Because this study desires to generalize as mu ch as possible about the overall relationship between healthcare nonprofits a nd their donors, it is necessary to use a quantitative approach. Although experimental designs are preferable fo r demonstrating causation the nature of the relationship cultivation process discourages th e methodology. Organizatio n-public relationships

PAGE 91

91 require time to advance through the various st ages (e.g., from a single contribution to annual giving to a major gift for the fundraising relationship). It would be nearly impossible to construct an experimental design th at would allow the researcher to control all the variables that would influence the relationship dimensions. Ev en if it were plausible, the length of time required to observe the variables as the relatio nship progresses would make the study unfeasible. Study Design This study uses survey research to capture both parties evaluati on of the nonprofit-donor relationship. The survey approach is one of the most appropriate methods for collecting data that describes a situation or phenomenon (Fowler, 1995). It is the onl y method that allows researchers to describe characteristics of a large population accurately when sampled properly. Surveys have additional advant ages. Compared to qualitati ve methods and experimental designs, surveys are relatively inexpensive and ca n be self-administered, which allows them to be administered from remote locations using ma il, e-mail, or telephone. Due to costs and the various ways to administer surveys, large sample s are feasible, which provides more strength to claims that the collected data represents the population. The typical survey format allows for some fl exibility in the initial creation phase. Though different survey administration methods will produ ce different results in te rms of the number of participants, the researcher has the ability to ask as many questions about a given topic as deemed necessary. However, guidelines must be followed to ensure that the researcher can properly analyze the data. Sta ndardized, closed-ended questions make the measurement of key variables more precise because they force part icipants to use a uniform definition of said variables. The use of standardiz ed questions also allows the data to be collected from a large number of participants and an alyzed without the researcher interpreting the participants meaning.

PAGE 92

92 Survey research is not without its disadva ntages. Creswell (1997) suggests that any methodology that relies on the standardization of variables forces the re searcher to develop questions that can be answer ed by all of the respondents, which may prevent some key distinctions between different segments of the sa mple from emerging in the analysis phase of the research. Additionally, unlike qualitative methods, surveys are inflexible in their approach. Changes cannot be made to a surveys questions after the research has started. Once the survey is administered, either the entire research project must be carried out as is or stoppe d completely. As Alreck and Settle (1995) out line, there are different methods of administering surveys. In their text, they detail the advantages and di sadvantages of in-person and intercept surveys, mail surveys, and telephone surveys. Since the book was first published, there has also been an increasing amount of scholarly research that ha s utilized the Internet as a method of data collection. Table 3-1 highlights various advantag es of each survey method; however, for this study, one of the most important factors concer ns the response rate. Typically, the more personalized the survey approach (e.g., face-to-face/in-person su rveys), the higher the response rates. In recent years, there has been considerable research to examine th e response rates of Webbased surveys. Overall, there have been mi xed results about which survey method produces higher response rates. Kaplowitz, Hadlock, a nd Levine (2004) found that student populations had a slightly higher response rate for Internet surveys that were sent out through an e-mail invitation than for those using tr aditional mail surveys. This study also compared the response rates for a one-time mailing of surveys with 1 group receiving a remindereither an e-mail or a postcardand the other group only receiving the survey. Their st udy found that the use of a

PAGE 93

93 reminder resulted in nearly a 33% increased resp onse rate overall and closer to 40% for mailed surveys. A meta-analysis found that the ov erall response to Internet surv eys is similar to that of mailed surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). However, Cook et al. concluded that younger demographics tend to resp ond more with Web-based surveys after finding significantly higher responses for Web-based studies using college student populati ons. Zhang (1999) found that when Internet surveys targeted specific grou ps, such as association members, student groups or hard-to-reach populations, the surv ey response increased significantly. Another concern of Internet surveys has been the respondent s themselves. Researchers have expressed concern about how well Webbased respondents represent the general population; however, the population increasingly has adopted In ternet technologies, and now more than 80% of the American population regu larly uses the Internet (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2006) and more than 53% check email on a daily basis (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2006b). However, studies still indicate that thos e under 40 are still more likely to respond to Web-based surveys. For these reasons, this study used a combin ation of Web-based and traditional mailed surveys. Because Zhang (1999) concluded that electronic communication was an effective way to solicit survey responses from individuals wi th strong affiliations toward a certain group, Webbased surveys were used for the scale devel opment pretests using donors of a healthcare nonprofit. However, for the full survey implem entation, the study used traditional mail surveys because of the demographic profiles provide d by the organizations. Even though the 3 organizations being studied are located in one of the metropolitan areas most connected to the Internet, according to Forbes magazine (Frommer, 2006.), the desire to boost responses from

PAGE 94

94 major gift donors, who tend to be older, led to the use of mail surveys to collect data more representative of the donor population. Population and Sampling For survey research, one of the first questions that must be addre ssed is what population should be studied to answer the projects gu iding hypotheses and resear ch questions. This decision must be made based on the populations ability to provide information sought by the survey, the qualities that populations need to have to make their responses meaningful, and the researchers ability to access the population. The population of interest in this study is the charitable nonprofit sector and its donors; however, due to the Internal Revenue Servic es reporting laws, it is impossible to find a comprehensive listing of nonprofit orga nizations. Gven the complex ity of the sector as outlined in the first chapter, the study focuses on 1 part icular division of the sector, healthcare. More specifically, the study concentrates on hospitals represented in the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP). AHP is the only association dedicated exclusively to advancing and promoting the health care develo pment profession (AHP, 2007). To keep the study manageable yet meet the rigors of pushing the research on relationship management beyond a single organization, 4 hospita ls in Northern California were asked to participate in the study. Due to previous fundraising experience an d AHP membership, the researcher had access to these hospitals. Three of the 4 hospitals agreed to participat e in the study: San Francisco General Hospital, Marin General Hospital, and Childrens Hospital and Research Center. To understand the dynamics of these hospitals, a brief description about each one follows. San Francisco General Hospitals fundraising arm is the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation. The foundations mission is to improve the care and comfort of the patients served by San Francisco General Hospital. The foundati on was established in 1994 by a dedicated core

PAGE 95

95 group of 8 individuals, who became the foundations fi rst board of directors. The money that the foundation raises underwrites continued support for an array of services and programs at the Hospital. These programs and services include emergency and trauma care support, HIV/AIDS services and treatment, womens health initia tives, substance abuse treatment and prevention programs, and volunteer programs. The San Francisco General Hospital Founda tion currently has a 30-member board of directors largely composed of business lead ers and surgeons from the Hospital and the University of California-San Franciscos medi cal school. Of those 30 directors, 18 play a significant role in assisting the 4 staff member s with the foundations fundraising efforts. Additionally, 11 other key admini strators and volunteers are active in fundraising for the organization. Therefore, the fundraising team at the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation consists of 33 individuals. According to their most recent IRS 990 Form which was obtained through GuideStar.org, the foundation had assets of $7.4 million at th e end of 2004. The foundation reported spending roughly $173,000 on fundraising, and those efforts resulted in $5.92 million in gifts that same year; in other words, the organization rais ed $34.22 for every dollar spent on fundraising programming. During 2004, the organization spent $3.24 million on hospital improvements. The second hospital in the study is Marin Ge neral Hospital. This nonprofit hospital is located in Greenbrae, California, and provides serv ices to the residents of Marin County. The mission of its affiliated foundation is to coordina te the fundraising effort s designed to improve the programs, facilities, and equipment for the hospital. Add itionally, funds are raised for related healthcare services and programs that th e hospital sponsors for the community.

PAGE 96

96 The Marin General Hospitals affiliated f oundation currently has an 18-person board of directors. Given the social ne tworking opportunities in Marin County, two-thir ds of the directors also serve on the boards fundraising committee. Together with the nine people who work in the hospitals communications and development office, they routinely work with 20 other key volunteers and hospital administrators on fundrai sing efforts. Therefore, the Marin General Hospital fundraising team consists of 47 individuals. According to their most recent IRS 990 Ta x Form, the foundation had assets of $80.4 million at the end of 2004. Although the foundation raised $4.2 million from private individuals and received an additional $240 million in re venue from government agencies, the foundation reported that it incurred no f undraising expenses during the y ear, a troubling trend in the nonprofit sector that is more fully discussed in chapter 5. The foundation also spent $204.7 million on healthcare programs and services and an additional $24 million on hospital administration. The final hospital participati ng in the study is the Children s Hospital & Research Center of Oakland. The hospitals fundraising arm is the Childrens Hospital & Research Center Foundation, which was established in 1967. Since then the organization has worked hard to support the efforts and mission of the hospital by conducting extensive fundraising programs for individuals, businesses, and foundations. Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oa kland currently has a 35-member board of directors. Of these directors, 18 are actively involved in the fundraising subcommittee. This organization has the most sophisticated fundrai sing structure of the 3 nonprofits in the study. The fundraising staff consists of 21 people who wo rk on various aspects of fundraising. Despite the large number of staff fundraisers, 11 voluntee rs and hospital administrators also work on

PAGE 97

97 various fundraising programs. Th erefore, the Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland fundraising team consis ts of 50 individuals. According to their most recent IRS Form 990, the hospital had assets of $132.7 million at the end of 2004. Just like Marin General, th is foundation raised $10.4 million from private individuals and received an additional $267.6 milli on in revenue from government and fees, yet it also reported that it incurre d no fundraising expenses during the year. The hospital spent $10.8 million on healthcare programs and services and an additional $1.19 million on hospital administration. These 3 nonprofit organizations all have similar fundraising programs. Though the methods of implementing the different progr ams vary, all 3 have active annual giving campaigns, which solicit donors and prospects twi ce each year; major gift programs, which are involved in donor cultivation and solicitation year round; and pla nned giving efforts, which are promoted throughout the year by the organiza tion to appropriate donor s. Tailoring their fundraising programs to the demographics of thei r communities, San Francisco General Hospital and Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland both have actively incorporated ePhilanthropy into their fundraising structure wh ile Marin General Hospital has refrained from Internet giving. Before discussing the participants in the study, it is important to note the difference between private foundations and affiliated, or institutionally-rel ated, foundations. Affiliated foundations are the fundraising ar m of organizations that r eceive substantial government funding; these foundations raise gifts to carry out the programs and services of the organization. Affiliated foundations were started to keep priv ate gifts from donors separate from government funding (Kelly, 1998). Private foundations, on the ot her hand, are created to distribute money

PAGE 98

98 primarily in the form of grants to other char itable nonprofits to carry out their programs and services. Although fundraising is carried out primarily by the affiliated foundations of the participating hospitals, the study refers to the or ganizations in the rema inder of the study as the hospitals With the population identified, it is necessary to identify the traits necessary for being included in the sample. Due to the focus on th e fundraising relationship, individuals in the sample must be involved in the fundraising pr ocess either as a memb er of the fundraising management team or as a donor to the organi zation being studied. The fundraising team was defined as the individuals who are involved in the management of the donor relationship, including cultivation and solicitation. In the he althcare setting, this would include senior fundraisers, such as the Director of Donor Relations, Development, Institutional Advancement or any of the titles described by Kelly (1998); de velopment officers, who manage the fundraising process (Worth, 2002); and member s of the hospital administrati on, such as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer members of the Board of Dir ectors, and key volunteers, who are involved in fundraising at di fferent stages of the process. Due to the smaller number of individuals involved in fundraisi ng management as compared to the number of donors, this study surveys the entire population of the fundraising teams for the participating hospitals. Regarding the donor side of the nonprofit-donor re lationship, for inclus ion in this study, donors had to have donated any size gift in the past 4 years. Becaus e fundraising literature distinguishes 2 distinct levels annual giving and major gifts, a stratified random sampling was used to ensure that members of both groups participated. As Kelly (1998) suggested, annual giving ge nerates in donations ranging from $10 to $10,000 for healthcare nonprofits. Gifts grea ter than $10,000 are typically handled by

PAGE 99

99 development officers working in major gift progr ams. For this reason, the strata of donors for this study are divided based on the size of their gi fts. Donors who had contributed gifts larger than $10,000 were considered major gift donors, wh ereas those who had made gifts smaller than $10,000 were annual giving donors. Charitable organizations typi cally have many more annual giving donors than major gift donors, although major gift donors account for the greater percentage of dollars raised. However, both gr oups are important to the hospitals fundraising efforts. To choose the donors for the survey, the resear cher worked with th e hospital fundraisers to carry out a selection proce ss that provided random sampling of both major gift and annual giving donors. The hospital fundrai sers were instructed to divi de the database into 2 groups based on the donors giving records and provide the researcher w ith the number of donors in each of the groups. The researcher then used sy stematic sampling and calculated the appropriate skip interval for each donor group at each of the 3 participating organizations. The researcher provided the hospital fundraisers with a random nu mber as a starting poin t and told to select every nth donor on the list to incl ude in the sample. Instrument Design This survey combines previous research on the dimensions (Huang, 1997; Hon & J. Grunig, 1999) and cultivation strategies (Ki, 2006) of organization-public relationships with the creation of new scales to measur e stewardship strategies (Kelly, 2000). The research instrument adopted indicators from previous studies with sli ght modifications to more closely represent the nonprofit-donor relationship. The instrument also gathered demographic information, as well as information concerning donors giving histor y and involvement with the hospital. Because this survey asks each participant to evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship from both sides of the relationship, the uestionnaire was designed to maximize response despite the

PAGE 100

100 large number of questions. The final survey, whic h is scaled down in Appendix A to meet the margins required for dissertation binding, used a tabular design to give a clear, simplified appearance. Indicators were centered on page s and flanked on each side by either the donors views or the fundraising teams views depending on which version of the survey the participants received. This design was chosen because havi ng one section on the donors views followed by another section on the fundraising teams views woul d have resulted in a nine-page survey. It was believed that many potential pa rticipants would have avoided the questionnaire even if they were interested in the topic. The questionnaire was produced on four 8.5 x 11 pages, which were then photocopied onto both sides of one 11 x 17 sheet of paper. The questionnaire was then folded and placed in a carrier envelope along with a self-addressed stamped, return e nvelope, which was addressed to a PO Box rented by the researcher. A cover letter was written by the researcher and the development directors at the 3 institutions that explained the purpos e of the survey and encouraged participation so that the organizati on could use the data to increase its fundraising effectiveness and efficiency. The cover letter, which was signed by the relevant development director at each participating organization, accompanied the survey and the University of Florida-approved Internal Review Board consent form in the packet that was mailed to the donors. The approved Internal Review Board consent form is presented in Appendix B. Relationship dimensions This study measures the 4 dimensions of organization-public relationship that were initially proposed by Huang (1997) and further exp licated by Hon and J. Grunig (1999): trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. In the 1999 monograph, the 4 dimensions were operationalized with 2 separate sets of measures: the fu ll set of measurements with 35 indicators (11 for trust and 8 each for control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment) and a shortened

PAGE 101

101 version using 21 items (6 for trust and 5 each for control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment). Additionally, the monograph provided measures for a dual typology of relationship type (exchange or co mmunal). The indicators were wr itten so that the short version represented the different conceptualizations of the dimensions; however, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) provided the full set of measurements so researchers can choos e the number of items that best fit the resear ch needs (p. 28). This study us es the shortened scales; however, one additional item from the full scale was include d for both control mutuality and satisfaction because the researcher felt those items touc hed on issues important for the nonprofit-donor relationship. A previous study of the nonprofit-donor relationship by the researcher utilized the shortened set of measures and re sulted in Cronbachs alpha values for the indices ranging from .72 to .93 (Waters, 2006). Therefore, it was assume d that use of the same relationship dimension scales in this study would yield reliable results. Table 3-2 pr esents the relationship dimension measurement items that were used in this study. The items were randomly placed on the printed surv ey so that participants did not evaluate all of 1 index sequentially. Following the sugge stion of Hon and J. Grunig (1999), these items were measured using a nine-point Likert scal e where response ranged fr om Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (9). The survey also included reverse-coded items to ensure that participants were not consistently choosing the same perspective. Relationship cultivation strategies In her doctoral dissertation which was s upervised by Hon, Ki (2006) measured 6 symmetrical relationship cultiv ation strategies that had b een proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999). She adapted the indica tors from Stafford and Canary (1991) to measure access, positivity, openness, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurances of legitimacy. Drawn from interpersonal communication theory, these stra tegies were deemed applicable to the

PAGE 102

102 organization-public relationships by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). Th e scales used by Ki (2006) for her study of members of the Fl orida Farm Bureau were deve loped to enhance theoretical understanding of relationship cul tivation but were also tailored so mewhat to meet the needs of the organization (Ki, 2007, personal correspondence). The creation of relationship cul tivation strategies scales fo r this study was difficult given the scope of activities that f undraisers can incorporate into their programming. It was also difficult to advance theory by cr eating standardized scales that can cover relationships with consumers, investors, donors and other key publics. However, this study revi sited Kis strategies and attempted to create scales that can be us ed across nonprofit organizations and, with minor alterations, can be used in other public relations settings as well. Table 3-3 presents the relationship cultivation strategies that were measured in this study Although the 6 cultivation stra tegies were shown to have varying impacts on the relationship between the Florida Farm Bureau and its members, Kis (2006) study failed to consider additional symmetrical strategies that have been proposed by public relations scholars, including 1 from Hung (2002) and 4 from Kelly (2000). Hungs (2002) dissertation, supervised by J. Grunig, proposed that keeping promises was another strategy that could be us ed to develop relations hips. Finally, Kelly (2000) suggested that reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing were 4 strategies that fundraisers specifically use to develop and build relationships with donors. She maintained that the strategies also are also a vital component of the public relations process. Upon further exploration of the keeping promises and re sponsibility concepts, it was decided that responsibility actually en compasses Hungs (2002) conceptualiz ation of keeping promises. In discussing responsibility, Kelly (2001) argued, At its most basi c level, responsibility requires

PAGE 103

103 organizations to keep their word. Promises made when seeking support must be kept. (p. 285). Therefore, this study measured a total of 10 re lationship cultivation st rategies for the nonprofitdonor relationship. Table 3-4 presents the 4 stewards hip strategies and 4 indi cators for each that were measured in this study. The indicators were created by the researcher and are original to this study. Although all the cultivation strategies had b een discussed as being important to the organization-public relationship, no t all had been measured. Th is study developed scales to investigate their role in influencing the nonprofit -donor relationship and to allow future studies to examine the strategies in other typers of or ganization-public relationships. The newly created indices, as well as the 6 adapted by Ki (2006), were measured using a nine-point Likert scale, in which responses ranged from Strongly Disa gree (1) to Strongly Agree (9). Scale Development Before the relationship cultivation strategies c ould be measured, original scales had to be created to measure the 4 stewardship variables. DeVellis (1991) outlines 7 steps that must be followed to properly develop scales for social science research. Figure 3-1 illustrates these steps. The first step was to clearly determ ine what variables need to be measured. Hinkin (1995) notes that scales can be developed to be ve ry broad in their scope or they can be created to focus on a very narrow situati on. By clearly defining the goal of the scales, the researcher has a greater likelihood to cr eate valid scales. The second step of the scale development pr ocess involved generating the items that will be used to evaluate the variables being studied. At this stage of the scale development process, researchers are encouraged to be over inclusive ra ther than attempt to restrict possibilities. Due to the need for indicators that overlap in the measurement of variables, the creation of many items is necessary. These items should include both statements and questions that measure both

PAGE 104

104 positive and negative aspects of the dimension, and they should also be worded to reflect both sides. Fortunately, the strate gies discussed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) and Kelly (2000) are described in detail that provide d the researcher with examples for measurement techniques. Some items were initially created as a part of the doctoral qualifying ex am, and the researcher developed a list of several other statements th at could be used to evaluate stewardship. Next, the researcher needs to pick the most appropriate method for measuring the proposed scales once the final items have been chosen. Fo r this study, the scales used the same nine-point Likert scale originally used by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) so th at these new scales can be analyzed most effectively against the existing measures. As displayed in Figure 3-1, the fourth step is to have the items reviewed by experts. To create the stewardship measurem ent items, different experts we re consulted for guidance in developing and clarifying the statements meas uring reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing. Professional, full-time fundraisers in the healthcare and education sectors and Kelly (personal communication, 2007) offere d valuable insight into the practice of stewardship and its impact on the nonprof it donor-relationship. By having experts and practitioners examine the scales they also were given the opp ortunity to suggest ways to improve the clarity and concisenes s of the items, as well as suggest items that may have been overlooked. The fifth step is to conduct a pretest of the scales using a sample similar to the one for which the scales are being designed. These stew ardship scales were created to measure the nonprofit-donor relationship. Therefore, the stud y pretested the scales with 35 donors using a Web-based survey. The scales also were pretested with 7 do nors using a telephone survey so that the researcher could identify any questions or problems that ar ose. Adjustments to the final

PAGE 105

105 survey were made based on the questions that di d come up during the tele phone pretest. These 42 pretest donors were chosen ba sed on their connection to a nonpr ofit organization that was not used in the study. It was necessary to choose an organization that was similar in services, but located in a different geographic region to ensu re that individuals c hosen during the sampling process were not also used in the pretest. Once the pretest was been completed, the scales were analyzed in terms of their reliability and validity. Cronbachs alpha measures the inte rnal consistency of the measurement items. Alpha is an overall measure of how well items in a scale are intercorrelated. Based on the pretest, the 4 stewardship scales were sufficiently reliable as th e alpha values ranged from .81 to .89. Validation checks can also be used to de termine whether the items produced accurate findings. Social science typically has been concerned with 3 types of validity. Face validity is the most basic type of validity and refers to whether the instrument appears to accurately measure what it is supposed to measure. Face validity is usually accepted based on the credibility of the researcher (Babbie, 1998). A new scale is said to have content validity if it has been examined by experts, and they agree that th e scale is thorough and represents the domain of the variable being measured. Be fore conducting the pretest, expe rts reviewed the 4 statements chosen to represent each of the st ewardship strategies, and they ag reed that the items represented the underlying dimensions of the variables. One final form of validityconstruct valid ityrefers to whether scores measure the construct they claim to assess (C armines & Zeller, 1979). This form of validation is frequently measured using factor analysis because the aim of construct validity is to produce an observation that is generated by 1 sole construc t. This study used factor analysis to test the construct validity

PAGE 106

106 of the new proposed scales. Each of the 4 va riablesreciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturingwere found to be indepe ndent of one another, and the individual statements in each of the 4 indices were found to be sufficiently correlated with one another. The final step of the scale development pr ocess involves determining the appropriate number of items to measure the construct. Becau se the factor analysis revealed that the index items had strong correlations with one another, no ne of the items were dropped from the scales. Additionally, the Cronbachs alpha values were all above th e minimum level that Bowers and Cartwright (1984) encourage researchers to use in theoretical research. Therefore, dropping items from reliable indices may slightly increase the alpha value, but the indices would lose some of the underlying dimensions of the stewardshi p variables. Therefore, it was decided that all 4 statements would be kept for each scale. This length also was appr opriate given that Ki (2006) measured cultivation strategies in her study with 4 items. To ensure that donor participants were an a ppropriate representation of the organizations donor database, several items asking for personal in formation were included in the survey. In addition to standard demographic questions, such as gender, race, age, education level, and income, other questions were asked to gauge how the individual first became involved with the organization and about his or he r personal giving to that orga nization and to other nonprofit organizations. Data Collection Procedures After receiving approval from the organizations, the surveys were assembled in January 2007. The surveys and informed consent documents were photocopied in Gainesville, Florida, and placed into carrier envelopes along with se lf-addressed, stamped return envelopes. The surveys were color-coded so that the classificat ion of annual gift and major gift donors could be

PAGE 107

107 determined without invading donor privacy. The organizations were told about the color-coding and agreed that the distinction woul d be helpful in further analysis. While the surveys were being produced in Gain esville, the cover lette rs were printed in Northern California and signed by ea ch of the heads of fundraising directors for the 3 hospitals. A sample of the cover letter is located in Appendix C. Th e boxes of mailing packets were shipped to the hospitals from Gainesville so that address labels of donors could be placed on the carrier envelopes to ensure that the researcher did not have personal contact information of the organizations donors. In additi on, boxes of postcards printed with a reminder message about completing the survey for the hospital were sent to the organizations for labeling. The text of the postcard reminder is located in Appendix D. An anonymous donor gave money to the nonprofit organizations to pay for the photocopying and postage. Although the primary reason for shipping the ma terials to the hospitals was to protect donor contact information, it was also believed that inclusion of a cover letter from the fundraising director would increas e the overall participa tion of donors, especi ally as the letter stressed that the results were being analyzed by an outside researcher who would use the information to offer suggestions on how the hos pital can improve its fundraising effectiveness and efficiency. The letters were printed on each hospitals letterhead and personally signed by the fundraising director. Finally, the researcher thought th at an envelope cont aining a United States Postal Services identification stamp that said Gain esville, Florida, might seem unus ual for a research project that dealt with Northern California organizations. By sending the packets to No rthern California to be mailed by each hospital, the identification stam p made clear that the survey was being sent from within that region.

PAGE 108

108 The organizations received the boxes of ma terials on February 2, 2007, and the surveys were mailed to donors on February 5, 2007. Following the advice set forth by Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004), postcard reminders were mailed to the sample 3 days later on February 8, 2007. The fundraising di rectors also distributed the surveys to members of their fundraising teams via inter-office mail on February 5, 2007. Both the cover letter and postcard reminder encouraged participants to comple te their surveys by March 1, 2007, so their information could be included in the analysis. Given that the purpose of this study was to advance theory development in the organization-public relationship paradigm and to make some generalizat ions about the overall nonprofit-donor relationship, it was determined that surveys would be sent to a larger sample size than might be necessarily for statistical tests. In other word s, the researcher wanted to be confident in making statements about the overall relationship a donor has with a nonprofit organization. The statistical tests used by this dissertation, specifically structural equation modeling, necessitated participati on by at least 500 donors from each hospital. Since the typical mailed survey response varies between 30 and 35%, it was calculated that the survey needed to be mailed to 1,430 donors for each of the organizations. As mentioned previously, th e donors being sampled included both annual giving and major gift donors. Additionally, the donors had to have made a donation to the organization within the past 4 years. With those boundaries, each organi zation had a donor database that was able to provide an appropriate sampling frame. A strati fied, systematic sample was produced. Of the 4,290 surveys that were mailed, 117 were returned to the organizations as undeliverable due to wrong addresses. Of the 4,173 remaining surveys, 1,706 were returned completed, resulting in a

PAGE 109

109 donor response rate of 41%. This response rate is similar to those that Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004) found in their study on improving response rates to surveys. Across the 3 hospitals, there were 130 individu als identified as members of the fundraising team. Again, this team consisted of full-time staff fundraisers as well as members of the hospitals boards of directors and key admini strators and volunteers who are active in the solicitation and relationship cultiv ation process. Of the 130 who were asked to participate, 124 fundraising team members did complete the surv ey. Therefore, the fundraising team response rate was 95%. As previously stated, the surveys were maile d back to a Post Office box in Gainesville, Florida. The surveys were picked up daily by the researcher, and each survey was coded to allow the researcher to go back and analyze each one if questions arose when the data file was being cleaned for analysis. Once the codes we re assigned, 3 undergraduat e students, who were hired to assist in the project, en tered the data into the SPSS statis tical software program. Before beginning to enter data, the underg raduate students were required to attend a two-hour training workshop during which they were familiarized with SPSS files and the purpose of the research. The students were also given prac tice data to enter so they coul d see how long it would take to enter each survey before they agreed to participate. The students separately entered the data into SPSS files, and the researcher then merged the data into 1 file after cleaning the separate files by confirming that missing and outlier values actually existed in specific coded surveys. When th e data were merged into 1 file, indices for the relationship dimensions and cultivation strate gies were calculated from the participants evaluations of the individual statem ents. For each variable, 2 sets of indices were created: 1 for the participants views and 1 for their estimate of the other sides views. As Table 3-4 shows,

PAGE 110

110 the Cronbachs alpha values varied between the different indices. The 4 relationship dimensionstrust, control mutuality, commit ment, and satisfactionw ere all found to be reliable based on several author ities (Bowers & Cartwright, 1984; Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Reliability of the cultivation strategies varied. Access, openne ss, responsibility, and reporting are reliable for indices of participants views and their estimates of the other sides views. Positivity, sharing of ta sks, and reciprocity were found to be reliable for the my views indices; however, they failed to meet the = .80 or greater level that is desirable in social scientific research for the oth ers views indices. Three variablesnetworking, assurances, and relationship nurturingdid not have Cronbachs al pha values greater than .80 on either side. Instead, the 6 indices all varied between .70 and .77. However, these re liability values are acceptable for original scales (Bowers & Cartwright, 1984). Data Analysis Procedures To test the hypotheses and an swer the research questions, several different statistical procedures were employed to analyze the data collected from the 3 hospitals donors and fundraising teams. Before describi ng the results of the study, it is necessary to explain what data were examined for each of the research questio ns and hypotheses, as well as to give a brief description of the statistical procedures used. The first research question simply gauged how donors of the 3 hospitals would evaluate their relationships with the organizations. To an swer this research ques tion, mean scores were calculated for each index of the 4 relationship di mensions (satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality). The mean was chosen as the ideal measure over the median (the middle number in the dataset) or the mode (the value that occurs most frequently) because it was the average of all the participants. The standard de viation was also sought to determine how closely the entire data set clustered around the mean valu e. Indices were developed by summing scores

PAGE 111

111 on the 4 indicators measuring each of the 4 di mensions and the 10 relationship cultivation strategies. The first hypothesis sought to determine if annual giving and major gift donors evaluated the nonprofit-donor relationship di fferently. To determine if the groups differed in their evaluations, a one-way analysis of vari ance (ANOVA) was conducted using the donors classification (annual giving or major gift) as the independent variable and the index scores for the 4 relationship dimensions as the dependent variables. One-way ANOVAs are most often used to test the equalities of 3 or more means at one time; however, as used in this study, they are often used to compare the variances of 2 groups at one time when the sample sizes are over 100 rather than using independent t-tests to help pr event type I errors in the data analysis and interpretation phases (Stacks & Hocking, 1999). Attempting to explore an indi viduals level of involvemen t with the organization, the second hypothesis seeks to demonstr ate that the number of donati ons an individual has made to an organization will be positively related to how they evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. In other words, donors who have given several gifts to the organization should evaluate the relationship more positively than those who have made only 1 or 2 gifts to the organization. To test this relationship, Pearsons correlation coefficients were co mputed between the number of gifts made to the organization as reported by th e donors (independent vari able) and mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions (dependent variables). The second research question sough t to determine if it were po ssible to predict whether an individual participated in th e organizations most recent f undraising campaign based on his or her evaluation of the relationship. This research question was answered by using multiple discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis determines the best linear combination of

PAGE 112

112 continuously measured independent variables to classify cases into different known groups. For this study the independent variab les are the indices of the 4 re lationship dimensions and the groups are donors who reported making a donation during the last campaign and donors who did not. Although previous studi es have found that using donor -reported information on giving histories is often inflated (Murphy, 2000; Sche rvish, 2005), it was necessary to use self-reported data on giving during the previous campaign to ensure participation by the organizations. The next research question as ked how well the 4 relationshi p dimensions represent the overall relationship between a donor and nonprofit organization. To answer this question, a regression analysis was used. Regression is used to account fo r the variance of a dependent variable by examining the linear combinations of numerous independent variables. In this analysis, the independent variables were mean scores on the indices of the 4 relationship dimensions and the dependent variable was th e donors score on a single-item question asking the participants to evaluate thei r overall relationship to the organization. This reverse-coded item was measured on a 9-point Likert scale with 1 representing Very Positive and 9 representing Very Negative. If the 4 dimensions adequate ly represent the relationship, then a significant amount of the variance in the overall evaluation of the relationship will be explained by the dimensions. The fourth research question a nd the third hypothesis are very similar to the first research question and first hypothesis. Instead of an alyzing how annual giving and major gift donors evaluate the relationship dimensions, this la ter research question a nd hypothesis explore how these donor groups evaluate the 10 cultivation stra tegies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) and Kelly (2000, 2001). As alrea dy stated, indices were devel oped by summing scores on the 4 indicators measuring each of the 10 strategies. Means and standard deviations were calculated to

PAGE 113

113 determine if the sample believed the strategies we re positive or negative to answer the fourth research question, and one-way ANOVAs were performed to determine if the 2 types of donors differed in their evaluations of the 10 cultivation strategies. Structural equation modeling (S EM) was used to answer the fifth and sixth research questions. SEM is a statistical technique that is used to build and test models by incorporating multiple statistical tests, most notably confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, and regression. SEM essentially involves 2 fundamental concepts : measurement and structural modeling. The measurement aspect establishes relationships betw een latent and multiple observable variables. Latent variables are the underlying constructs that are no t directly measured by any of the scales but are thought to have an in fluence on the model. Although Jreskog (1993) promotes the testing of latent and measurable variables, most communication scholars have used SEM to analyze the relationship between measurable variables (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002). The associations between these variables constitute the structural model. This study, which follows the traditional comm unication approach to SEM, focuses on the observed variables that came fr om the survey data. Observed variable models may employ single-item measures or composite indices, and th e resulting model resembles the path analysis technique. For the fifth research question, the indices of the 10 relationship cu ltivation strategies were used to see which had the strongest impact on the 4 relationship dimensions. Responses of all of the donors were used for the fifth resear ch question to be able to discuss the overall nonprofit-donor relationship. For the sixth research question, SEM was used separately for the 2 donor groups to determine if certa in strategies had more of an impact on the relationship dimension evaluations of either annual giving or major gift donors.

PAGE 114

114 Finally, for research questions 7-10, anal ysis follows the methodology recommended by Broom and Dozier (1990) in their discussion of coorientation methodolo gy. Participants were asked to first evaluate the nonpr ofit-donor relationship from their perspective; then, they were asked to estimate how the other party would ev aluate the same relationship. Based on those results, D-scores were calculated by subtracti ng mean scores of the 2 groups on each item and index for views and estimated views, which provid ed indicators of their agreement/disagreement, perceived agreement/disagreement, and their accur acy in estimating the views of the other side. Independent sample t-tests were used to dete rmine statistically significant differences in agreement/disagreement and accuracy, whereas pair ed sample t-tests were used for perceived agreement/disagreement. Stacks a nd Hocking (1999) suggest that t-tests should only be used for sample sizes smaller than 100 and that one -way ANOVAs should be conducted on samples larger than 100. However, other scholars have suggested that t-tests ca n also predict significant differences between groups for large sa mple sizes (Ott, 1993; Kirkpatrick, 2005).

PAGE 115

115 Table 3-1. Comparison of Surv ey Data Collection Methods. In-Person Telephone Mail Internet-Based Cost per response High Medium Medium Low Speed of initiation Low High Medium High Speed of return Medium High Low High Number of interviews completed High High Low Medium Design Constraints Low High Medium Medium Convenience for respondent Low Medium High High Risk of interviewer bias Medium Medium Low Low Interview intrusiveness High Medium Low Low Administrative bother High Low Low Low Survey control Medium High High High Anonymity of response Low Medium High Medium Table adapted from Stacks, D. W., & Hocking, J. E. (1999). Communi cation research. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. and Cho, C. (2006, personal communication).

PAGE 116

116 Table 3-2. Indices of Rela tionship Dimension Measures. Variable Operationalization Control Mutuality The organization and donor s are attentive to each others needs. The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. (Reverse) I believe donors have influen ce on the decision makers of the organization. The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. When donors interact with this or ganization, they have a sense of control over the situation. The organization gives donors e nough say in the decision-making process. Satisfaction Donors are happy with the organization. Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. Most donors are happy in their inte ractions with the organization. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. Trust The organization respects its donors The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. I feel very confident about the organizations ability to accomplish its mission. The organization does not have th e ability to meet its goals and objectives. (Reverse) Commitment I feel that the organizati on is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with donors. I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. (Reverse) There is a long-lasting bond be tween the organization and its donors. Compared to other organizations I value my relationship with this organization more. I would rather have a relationshi p with this organization than not.

PAGE 117

117 Table 3-3. Indices of Relationship Cultivation Strategies as adapted by Ki. Variable Operationalization Access The organization does not provide d onors with adequate contact information. The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. When donors have questions or concerns the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. The organization provides donors with ade quate contact information for specific staff on specific issues. Positivity Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors. T he organizations communica tion with donors is courteous. The organization attempts to make it s interactions with donors enjoyable. The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. Openness The organizations annual report is a valuable source of information for donors. The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it does with donations. (Reverse) The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. The organization shares enough informa tion with donors about the organizations governance. Sharing of Tasks The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. (Reverse) The organization is involved in mana ging issues that dono rs care about. The organization works with donors to de velop solutions that benefit donors. The organization is flexible when work ing with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. Networking The organization effectively builds coal itions with groups that address that address issues that donors care about. The organizations alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to donors. (Reverse) The organizations alliances with governme nt agencies are useful for its donors. The organizations alliances with other community groups are useful to its donors. Assurances The organization makes a genuine ef fort to provide persona l responses to donors concerns. The organization communicates the importance of its donors. When donors raise concerns, the organi zation takes these co ncerns seriously. Donors do not believe that the organiza tion really cares a bout their concerns. (Reverse)

PAGE 118

118 Table 3-4. Indices of Stewardship Strategies. Variable Operationalization Reciprocity The organization acknowle dges fundraising donations in a timely manner. The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations. The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. (Reverse) Because of my previous donations, th e organization recognizes me as a friend. Reporting The organization informs donor s about its fundraising successes. The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. The organizations annual report details how much money was raised in that year. The organization does not provide donors with information about how their donations were used. (Reverse) Responsibility The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their donations. The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will of the donors. (Reverse) Donors have confidence that the or ganization will use their donations wisely. The organization tells donors what projects their donations will fund. Relationship Nurturing Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting for donations. (Reverse) The organization is more concerned w ith its fiscal health than with its relationships with donors. (Reverse) Donors receive personalized a ttention from the organization. The organization invites donors to part icipate in special events that it holds.

PAGE 119

119 Figure 3-1. Graphic representation of the scale development process. Step 1: Determine What It Is You Want to Measure Step 2: Generate an Item Pool Step 3: Determine the Format for Measurement Step 4: Have Initial Items Reviewed by Experts Step 5: Administer the Scale with a Pretest Sample Steps 6 and 7: Evaluate the Items and Optimize Scale Length

PAGE 120

120 Table 3-5. Cronbachs alpha va lues of the studys indices. Variable My Views Their Views Trust .93 .88 Control Mutuality .83 .80 Commitment .91 .85 Satisfaction .89 .87 Access .90 .83 Positivity .84 .79 Openness .92 .81 Sharing of Tasks .81 .74 Networking .72 .77 Assurances .77 .71 Reciprocity .86 .75 Responsibility .84 .82 Reporting .90 .82 Relationship Nurturing .73 .70

PAGE 121

121 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In this chapter, results of hypothesis testing ar e presented as well as answers to the studys 10 research questions. The findings impr ove the understanding of the nonprofit-donor relationship and how organizations can maximize th eir relationship cultivation efforts. However, before discussing the impact of the study on the fundraising profession and public relations theory, it is necessary to examin e the results by looking at the rela tionship evaluations of all of the studys participants. To discuss an overall nonprofit-donor relationshi p, it is first necessary to establish that the data from the 3 organi zations can be collapsed into 1 dataset. Participants Before the results of the research questions and hypotheses are presen ted, it is important to look at the 3 organizations indivi dually and the demographics of the participants. One of the overarching goals of this study was to push meas urement of organization-public relationships from its current applied focus of studying 1 organi zation to one that captu res the essence of the overall organization-public rela tionship. To make generalizat ions about the overall nonprofitdonor relationship, it is first necessary to determine if the 2 sides of the relationship have similar views across all 3 organizations. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the mean scores for the relationship dimensions and relationship cultivation st rategies, respectively, for all 3 hospitals. The first noticeable pattern when examining th e relationship dimension scores in Table 4-1 is the positive evalua tion of the relationship by both donor s and members of the fundraising team. The mean scores across all 3 hospitals we re well above the neutra l point on the 9point scale, 5. For donors own views, the lowest sc ore was on control mutuality (M = 6.14) for San Francisco General Hospital, a nd the highest score was on commi tment (M = 6.87) for Oaklands Childrens Hospital & Research Center. For do nors estimates of the fundraising teams, the

PAGE 122

122 lowest score was on satisfaction (M = 6.28) for San Francisco Gene ral and the highest score was on commitment (M = 6.96) for Childrens Hosp ital & Research Center of Oakland. Similar results are found when looking at the views of the fundraisi ng teams. Reflecting their own views, fundraisers from Marin Ge neral Hospital had the lowest mean score on commitment (M = 6.95), and fundraisers from Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland evaluated trust most positively (M = 7.61). Looking at the fundraising teams estimation of donors views, Marin General Hospit als estimates of control mutuality was the lowest index score (M = 6.95), and Childrens Hosp ital & Research Center of Oakland again had the highest evaluation for trust (M = 7.63). Regardless of the measure, all 48 indices we re evaluated positively. However, a second noticeable pattern shown in Table 4-1 is that th e fundraising teams evaluate the relationship more positively than donors. Naturally, there were vari ations among the 3 organizations. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) found that relationships were evalua ted differently when they looked at different types of organizations. Public relations literature discusses how the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders is impacted by the relationship cu ltivation strategies that the organizations enact (e.g., Hua ng, 1997; Kelly, 2001; Ki, 2006). Even though the 3 fundraising teams in this study have a similar goal of ra ising money to support th eir hospitals medical services and outreach programs, they practice fundr aising differently. As discussed in chapter 3, the 3 organizations all share similar fundraising programs, but personnel and resources dedicated to fundraising differ. Table 4-2 highlights the differences in how the 3 hospitals donors and fundraising teams evaluated 10 relationship strate gies. Again, much like the rela tionship dimension variables, 9 cultivation strategies were evaluated positively by the participantsthough scores on some

PAGE 123

123 strategies leaned toward the neut ral point of 5. The only item th at was evaluated negatively (i.e., less than the neutral point of 5) was Marin Ge neral Hospitals donors views of openness (M = 4.45). The remaining 29 measures of the donors own views of the strategies were positive, with San Francisco General Hospitals donors evalua ting networking lowest (M = 5.68) and Marin General Hospitals donors evaluating openness st rongest (M = 7.00). When considering the donors estimates of the fundraisi ng teams views, access was evaluated lowest by San Francisco General Hospitals donors (M = 5.96) and reci procity was evaluated highest by Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oaklands donors (M = 7.19). Strengthening the argument for looking at the re sults of the studys research questions and hypotheses as 1 dataset, the fundrai sing team had similar evaluations of the cultivation strategies across all 3 organizations. Positivity was the lowest evaluated strategy by the Marin General Hospital fundraising team (M = 6.76), while both openness and reciprocity were evaluated most strongly by their counterparts at Childrens Hosp ital & Research Center of Oakland (M = 7.72). When examining how the fundraising team estimat ed their donors views, the lowest evaluated item still earned a positive mean score. The Sa n Francisco General Hospital fundraising team thought donors would evaluate access lowest am ong the remaining strategies (M = 6.71), and reciprocity was thought to be the highest rated strategy (M = 7.74) by the donors of Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland. In order to generalize about the overall relationship betw een a nonprofit organizations fundraising team and its donors, it is important to examine the general dataset from a broader perspective than focusing specifically on the in dividual organizations. As already touched on, several patterns are found in th e results reported in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. First, the fundraising team appears to evaluate the nonprofit-donor rela tionship more positively than the donors do.

PAGE 124

124 Although there was less than a one-p oint difference between the 2 si des evaluation of most of the relationship dimensions and cultivation strategi es, the fundraisers tended to be more positive than the donors. The smallest difference (D -score = .26) between the sides is for the responsibility cultivation stra tegy of stewardship among the pa rticipants from San Francisco General Hospital, and the greatest difference (D -score = 2.65) exists for how the Marin General Hospital participants evaluated openness. Another pattern that seems to emerge from th e mean scores reported in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 concerns how the participants evaluate the views of the other side. There is mixed-support for a third-person effect argument. Although donors estimated that me mbers of the fundraising team would evaluate the relationship hi gher than the donors on most of the dimensions and cultivation strategies, the fundraising team s predicted that donors would ev aluate the relationship higher on less than half of the variables. Across these 3 different orga nizations with variations in fundraising operations, there appe ars to be a greater psycholo gical impact on how the sides evaluate the relationship. That being said, enough similariti es exist across the organizati ons to warrant analyzing the data in response to the research questi ons and hypotheses from the overall nonprofit organization-donor relationship rath er than taking an organizati on-by-organization approach and then generalizing to the broader perspective. However, before the study proceeds to the first research question, it is importa nt to understand who participated in the study beyond labeling the participants as donor or fundraising team member. Analysis of demographics ensures that the data are not skewed toward any 1 particular group. Demographics. Of all 1,830 participants in the study, the majority was female (52.5%). Women represented a slight majority of th e fundraising team (51%) and donors (53%).

PAGE 125

125 Reflecting the diversity of the San Francisco Bay Area, Caucasians were the largest group in the sample (45%); however, there were a signifi cant number of partic ipants who identified themselves as being Asian/Pacific Islander ( 17%), Hispanic/Latino (12%), Middle Eastern (12%), and African-American/Black (9%). Most of this diversity, however, is attributed to the diversity of the donors. The fundraising teams were largely Caucasian (60%), although there were several fundraisers from different cultur al backgrounds, including Asian/Pacific Islanders (19%), Hispanic/Latino (9%), a nd African-American/Black (8%). Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the re spondents were annual gift donors to the 3 hospitals. Of the 1,706 donors, 1,348 or 79 percent of the sample were annual giving donors and 358 (21%) major gift donors. The mean age of the donors was 44.8 years of age (SD = 13.91). Major gift donors were older (M = 52.15, SD = 12.61) than the annual giving donors (M = 42.95, SD = 13.6). Research Question 1 RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonprof it organizations a favorable rating on the four relationship dimensions? The first research question asked how donor s perceived the nonprof it organization-donor relationship along the 4 relationshi p dimensions. As shown in Ta ble 4-1, the data indicate that donors tend to perceive the relations hip positively on all of the rela tionship dimensions. Of the 4 dimensions, commitment was the one that wa s evaluated most str ongly by the donors (M = 6.66, SD = 1.20) although all of the dimensions were evaluated favorably. Trust (M = 6.46, SD = 1.18) and satisfaction (M = 6.42, SD = 1.11) were ve ry similar in how they were viewed by the entire group of donors, and cont rol mutuality had the lowest evaluation of the relationship dimensions (M = 6.30, SD = 1.17) although it wa s still above the scales neutral point.

PAGE 126

126 Fundraising literature indicates that all donors may not experi ence the nonprofit-donor relationship similarly. Major gift donors typi cally receive more pers onalized communication from the organization because of their abilities to make significant financial donations. Participating in face-to-face meetings and having direct contact with the organization should have more of an impact on eval uating the relationship positively than the direct mail and mass newsletters that the annual gi ving donors receive. For this reason, the first hypothesis was created. Hypothesis 1 H1: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the organization-public relationship more positively on the four relationship dimensions. Hypothesis 1 stated that majo r gift donors would rate the relationship higher on the 4 dimensions when compared to a nnual gift donors. Table 4-3 pr esents the means and standard deviations of the 2 donor groups on the 4 indices. A simple comparison indicates that major gift donors did evaluate the relationshi p higher than annual giving donor s in terms of trust (M = 7.02, SD = 1.01 vs. M = 6.31, SD = 1.18), commitme nt (M = 7.14, SD = 0.95 vs. M = 6.54, SD = 1.23), satisfaction (M = 6.82, SD = 1.19 vs. M = 6.32, SD = 1.14) and control mutuality (M = 6.80, SD = 1.25 vs. M = 6.17, SD = 1.20). Although there appears to be differences in how the 2 groups evaluated the relationship dimensions, it was necessary to further test the data by conducting a one-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA). The one-way ANOVA is a statistical method that analyzes the effects of 1 or more categorical indepe ndent variables on a continuous de pendent variable. For the first hypothesis, the independent variable is the donor classification (major gift versus annual giving) and the dependent variables are the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimension indices. The

PAGE 127

127 one-way ANOVA or F-ratio test checks the null hypothesis, which states that the variables effects do not differ and the means of the 2 groups would be approximately the same. As Table 4-4 shows, the null hypothesis was rejected and hypothesis 1 was supported. Major gift donors did evaluate the relationship more positively than annual giving donors did for all 4 relationship dimensions. The biggest di fferences were found for the trust and control mutuality variables; however, all of the evalua tions were different at the p < .001 level of significance. In discussing the idealized evolution of the nonprofit-donor re lationship, fundraising literature says that nonprofit organizations will dedicate more resources and time to those donors who have donated to the organization for a period of years. This dedication of resources to relationship cultivation is due to the organizations desire to hopefully elevate the donor to higher levels of giving, possibly turning an annual giving donor to a major gift donor. The second hypothesis tests this idea. Hypothesis 2 H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the nonprofit will be positively correlated to evaluation of the relationship dimensions. The second hypothesis sought to de termine if there was a corr elation between the number of donations made by the donors to the partic ipating nonprofit organizations and their evaluations of the nonprofit-donor relationship based on the 4 dime nsions proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). Several tests were conducted to determine the relationship between a donors past giving history with the orga nizations and the relationship ev aluation. The first test was a simple Pearsons r correlation. Pe arsons correlation reflects the degree of a linear relationship between 2 variables. The correla tion ranges from -1 to +1, the latt er of which indicates a perfect linear relationship.

PAGE 128

128 For this first test, the relationship was analyzed using the participants answer to the question, How many years have you been giving to (name of nonpr ofit organization), and their evaluation of the relationship with the organization based on the 4 relationship dimensions. As Table 4-5 shows, a donors giving history is sign ificantly and quite str ongly correlated to how the donor evaluates his or her rela tionship with a nonprofit organization. There is a moderate-to-strong correlation be tween the donors giving histories and the 4 relationship dimensions. As individuals donate to the nonprofit organization over multiple years, the more likely they are to evaluate the re lationship positively for trust (r = .69), control mutuality (r = .65), and commitment (r = .64). Although the correlation between giving history and satisfaction (r = .54) is not as strong as the correlations for the other 3 dimensions, it is of the same statistical strength. Ther efore, there is a relationship be tween donors involvement in terms of continued giving and how they evaluate the re lationship with the recipient of the donations. Hypothesis 2 was further tested with more sophisticated analysis, multiple regression. Multiple regression is a statistical technique us ed to account for the variance of a dependent variable by examining the linear co mbinations of numerous independe nt variables. For this test, the independent variables are the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions, and the dependent variable is the number of years that particip ants reported having made donations to the nonprofit organization. Table 4-6 presents the un standardized and standa rdized coefficients, tvalues, and p-values resulting from the multiple regression test. Based on the statistical test, all of the 4 rela tionship dimensions are important in predicting the number of years an indivi dual has donated to a nonprofit orga nization. Trust (t = 15.83, p < .001), satisfaction (t = 4.77, p < .001), commitment (t = 15.25, p < .001), and control mutuality (t = 12.01, p < .001) were all influential in the model, as was the models constant (t = -29.66, p <

PAGE 129

129 .000). But when looking at the standardized coefficients of the relationship dimensions, commitment ( = .32) is the most importa nt independent variable in predicting the number of years of giving. Trust ( = .31) and control mutuality ( = .25) were also more important to the model than satisfaction ( = .19). The correlation coefficient resulting from the analysis shows that there is a relatively strong correlation (R = .79) between the 4 relationship dimensions and the participants giving history with the organizations. S howing that the resulting regressi on line is a moderate predictor of the subjects past giving, the coefficien t of determination is relatively strong (r2 = .62). Thus, 62 percent of the variance in the number of year s participants have donate d to the organizations is explained by the 4 relationship dimensions. The resulting regression equation is as follows: Number of Years of Donating = -10.04 + .31(trus t) + .1(satisfaction) + .32(commitment) + .25(control mutuality) This line is statistically significan t as F (4, 1701) = 693.19 (p < .001). Another method that can be used to analyze which of the 4 relationship dimensions are most important in predicting the number of year s of giving is stepwise regression. Stepwise regression is a statistical technique used to account for the variance of a dependent variable by examining the linear combinations of independent variables that are added and removed from the regression equation. Just like the previous regr ession test, the independent variables are the mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions, and the dependent variable is the number of years the participants donated to the nonprofit organizati ons. Table 4-7 presents the results of the 4 models that emerged from the statistical test including the unstandard ized and standardized coefficients, t-values, and p-values for the dimensions included in the models.

PAGE 130

130 In the first model, the indepe ndent variable that had the st rongest effect on the number of years giving to the organization was commitme nt. This variable (t = 35.23 p < .001) and the constant (t = -13.24, p < .001) were both statistically significan t. For the first model, the regression equation, y = -4.39 + 1.73(commitment) was statistically significant as F(4, 1701) = 1241.2, p < .001. However, this streamlined equa tionwith a moderate correlation of R = .65 explains only 42% of the total variance of th e subjects past giving to the organizations. The second model included 2 variablestrus t (t = 24.36, p < .001) and commitment (t = 24.80, p < .001)and a constant (t = -25.5, p < .001) that were stat istically significant. The stronger correlation (R = .76) and th e coefficient of determination (r2 = .57) indicate that the regression equation, y = -8.43 + 1.18(trust) + 1.18(commitment) explains slightly more variance than the first model. The third model explained even more variance in the participants giving history. Three variablescommitment (t = 20.76, p < .001), trust (t = 15.41, p < .001), and control mutuality (t = 13.9, p < .001)were statistically significant as was the consta nt (t = -29.49, p < .001). The resulting regression line/equation is: Number of Years of Donating = -9.53 + .99( commitment) + .82(trust) + .76(control mutuality) The fourth model explains the most variance of the participants giving history, and the correlation is also the strongest. The correlati on coefficient (R = .79) indicates a moderately strong correlation, and the coe fficient of determination (r2 = .62) shows that the model explains 62 percent of total variance in the number of years donors have made gifts to the nonprofit organizations. All 4 of the models were statis tically significant, t hough the fourth model F(4, 1701) = 693.19, p < .001) shows the strongest statisti cal strength. For all the models, a positive

PAGE 131

131 evaluation of the relationship dime nsion measures meant that the participant was more likely to have made multiple gifts to the organization. Th e regression line for this model is the same as the line for the first regression test of the s econd hypothesis that incl uded all 4 dimensions. Based on the Pearsons correlati on and regression tests, the second hypothesis is supported. Research Question 2 RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be predicted based on the donors evaluation of the relationship? Although the early results have indicated that the relationshi p dimension measures have shown that major gift and annual donors evaluate the relationship differently and that the number of donations given to a nonprofit organization ar e moderately correlated with the relationship evaluation, additional tests need to be conducted to demonstr ate relationship managements predictive abilities. To test th e 4 relationship dimension measur es ability to predict a donors likelihood of giving, the studys s econd research question was crea ted and data were analyzed using discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis is a sta tistical procedure that determines the best linear combination of continuously measured independent variables to classify cases into different known groups. For this study, the independent variables were th e mean scores on the 4 relationship dimensions measured on a 9-point Likert scale, and the de pendent variable was the classification of donors into those who did and those who did not donate to the relevant nonprofit organizations most recent fundraising campaign in Fall 2006. Table 4-8 presents the results of the multiple discriminant analysis, showing the unstandard ized and standardized coefficients, Wilks Fratio, and the means and standard deviations for the 2 groups of donorsthose who donated to the campaign (Group 1) and those who did not donate (Group 2).

PAGE 132

132 As Table 4-8 shows, all 4 of the dimensions were statistically significant for the function. However, trust was the most important independen t variable that led to group prediction. Trust, for example, has a Wilks value of .66, which means that 66 pe rcent of the variance in this variable is not explained by group differences Although this number is relatively high, the variance in the 2 groups is e xplained more by trust than the remaining 3 variables. When examining the interaction of the relatio nship dimensions, trust and satisfaction were the variables that discriminated best between the 2 groups based on the value of the standardized coefficients. The canonical correlation of the disc riminant function, R = .64, means that there is a moderate correlation between all of the indepe ndent variables together and the discriminant function score. The functions Wilks value (.59) means that 59 perc ent of the variance in the discriminant function score is not explained by group differences. Based on the Chi-square test, the Wilks of the function is st atistically significant ( 2 = 909.12, df = 2, p < .001). Given the statistical significance of the functi on and of the 4 relationship dimensions, it is not surprising that all of the variables were used to create the model to predict the discriminant function score. The model is as follows: Discriminant Function Score = -8.78 + .79(trus t) + .54(satisfaction) -.01(commitment) + .06(control mutuality) The discriminant function scores for each gr oup are known as group centroids. The further apart these mean scores are, the more discri minating the function is. The group centroids for Groups 1 and 2 of this function are .77 and -.92, respectively. Given the statistical signif icance of the function and the distance between the group centroids, it is possible to test the model to s ee if it can properly pred ict whether donors made a gift to the nonprofit organizati ons last fundraising campaign or not. Table 4-9 presents how

PAGE 133

133 many cases were correctly classified against t hose that were not base d on the previously mentioned model. As the table shows, th e model was very accurate in predicting group membership for individuals who donated to the la st campaign as it correc tly predicted 770 of 929 cases. Though less powerful, the model was mode rately successful in predicting the second group. Of the survey participants who did not donate during the Fall 2006 campaign, 198 were incorrectly predicted as not giving to the cam paign even though they did. The model did correctly predict that 578 particip ants did not donat e to the campaign. Overall, the success rate of this model at predicting group membership was 79.1 percent (1,348 of 1,705 cases correctly predicted). To de termine if this hit ra te was statistically significant, the t-value had to be calculated, and it was found to be significant (t = 18.59, df = 1703, p < .001). Therefore, the answer to the second research question is that participation in the most recent fundraising campaign can be predicte d by the donors evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization. Research Question 3 RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Gruni g variables adequately represent the organizationpublic relationship? Given other aspects of orga nization-public studied by Le dingham and Bruning (e.g, 1999), this study wanted to determine how well these di mensions represented the overall relationship. To answer the third research question, another multiple regression test was performed. For this test, the independent variables are the mean scores on the 4 re lationship dimensions, and the dependent variable is the particip ants score on the following item: Now thinking overall about your relationship wi th [name of nonprofit organization], please circle the number that corresponds to how you view your rela tionship on the following scale: Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative

PAGE 134

134 This 9-point Likert scale ques tion was reverse coded. Table 410 presents the unstandardized and standardized coefficients, t-values, and p-va lues from the multiple regression analysis. Based on the statistical test, all 4 of the relationship dimensions were important in predicting the overall evaluation of the relationship. Trust (t = 13.78, p < .001), satisfaction (t = 8.94, p < .001), commitment (t = 11.53, p < .001), and control mutuality (t = 12.37, p < .001) were all influential in the mode l, whereas the constant (t = -.741, p = .46) was not. Looking at the standardized coefficients of the relationship dimensions, trust ( = .28) was the most important independent variable in predicting th e relationship evaluation. Control mutuality ( = .26) and commitment ( = .25) were also more important to the model than satisfaction ( = .19). The correlation coefficients resulting from th e analysis shows that there is a relatively strong correlation (R = .78) between the 4 relationship dimensions and the participants overall rating of the relationship with the relevant nonpr ofit organization. Showi ng that the resulting regression line is a moderate predictor of the subjects evaluation, the coefficient of determination is relatively strong (r2 = .60). Thus, 60 percent of the variance in the overall relationship evaluation is explained by the 4 re lationship dimensions. The resulting regression line is as follows: Overall Relationship Score = -1.01 + .3(trust) + .21(satisfac tion ) + .26(commitment) + .28(control mutuality) This line is statistically significan t as F (4, 1701) = 644.11 (p < .001). A stepwise regression was also conducted to answer the third research question. Similar to the previous regression test, the independent variables are the 4 relationship dimensions, and the dependent variable is the part icipants overall evalua tion of the relationship using the same 9point Likert Scale (very positive to very negative) Table 4-11 presents the results of the 4

PAGE 135

135 models that emerged from the statistical test including the unstandard ized and standardized coefficients, t-values, and p-values for the dimension indices. In the first model, the indepe ndent variable that had the strongest effect on the donors overall evaluation of the relationship was contro l mutuality. This variable (t = 32.22, p < .001) and the constant (t = 17.61, p < .001) were both statistically significant. The first models regression equation, y = 2.26 + .7(control mutuality), was statistically si gnificant as F(4, 1701) = 1240.2, p < .001. However, this streamlined equa tionwith a moderate correlation of R = .65 explains only 42 percent of the total va riance of the donors overall evaluation. The second model included 2 variables control mutuality (t = 23.81, p < .001) and commitment (t = 21.35, p < .001)and a constant (t = 6.00, p < .001) that were statistically significant. The stronger corre lation (R = .74) and the coefficient of determination (r2 = .54) indicate that the regression equation, y = .797 + .49(control mut uality) + .42(commitment) explains slightly more variance than the first model. The third model explained even more va riance in the donors evaluation of the relationship. Three variablescontrol mutuality (t = 15.27, p < .001), commitment (t = 18.68, p < .001), and trust (t = 12.83, p < .001) were statistically significant as was the constant (t = 2.15, p = .05). The resulting regression line/equation is: Y = .286 + .34(control mutuality) + .37(commitment) + .28(trust) This final model explains the most varian ce of the relationship evaluation, and the correlation is also the strongest. The correlati on coefficient (R = .78) indicates a moderately strong correlation, and the coe fficient of determination (r2 = .60) shows the model explains 60% of total variance of donors overall evaluation of their re lationship with the nonprofit organizations. All 4 of the models were statis tically significant although the third model (F(4,

PAGE 136

136 1701) = 644.11, p < .001) had the greatest statistical strength. For all the models, a positive evaluation of the relationship dimensions meant th at the donor was more like ly to have a positive overall evaluation of the relationship as well. Th e answer to the third re search question, then, is that Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) 4 relationship di mensions do a fair job of representing the organization-public relationship, at least the relationship between a nonprofit organization and its donors. However, based on this studys findings, 40 percent of the variance in the overall evaluation of the relationship is not explained by the 4 dimensions. Research Question 4 RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a favorable rating on the relationship cultivation strategies? The fourth research question mirrors the first one, except that it deals with the 10 cultivation strategies rather than the 4 relations hip dimensions. Mean scores were computed for the 10 strategy indices and are presented in Table 4-12. As shown in Table 4-12, donors evaluated all of the strategies pos itively, although there app ears to be a fair amount of variance in the degree of favorability. Of the 10 strategies, the 4 stewardship strategies and openness were evaluated most positively by the donors. Recipr ocity (M = 6.95, SD = 1.07) was the strategy that was viewed most positively, and networking rece ived the lowest evaluation (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40). Even though networking was evaluated lower than the other strategi es, it still was rated positively on the 9-point Likert scale (1 = strongly di sagree, 9 = strongly agree). The answer to the fourth research question is that give nonpr ofit organizations a favor able rating on all 10 of the cultivation strategies. Hypothesis 3 H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the nonprofits relationship cu ltivation strategies more positively.

PAGE 137

137 Although the relationship cultivation strategi es were evaluated positively by all of the donors, these strategies may be enacted very differently depending on th e donors classification as annual giving or major gift donor. Because of their gift-giving potential, major gift donors may receive a higher degree of information and involvement though cultivation strategies. For example, more information about the nonprofit or ganizations governance and financial standing may be given to major gift donors than to thei r annual giving counterparts. Major gift donors may also have more interpersonal communica tion with the organizations leadership. Fundraising literature indicates that all donors may not experi ence the nonprofit-donor relationship similarly. Annual giving donors may begin to receive more personalized communication from nonprofits as they establis h a growing giving history and research on the donor grows, the organization may not use certai n advanced cultivation strategies until that donor has given a significant gift. Table 4-13 presents the means and standard de viations for the 2 gr oups evaluation of the 10 relationship cultivation strategi es. A simple comparison indicat es that major gift donors did evaluate the strategies more positively than annual giving donor s. Major gift donors evaluated positivity lower than the other 9 strategies (M = 6.55, SD = 1.10) and reciprocity as the highest (M = 7.53, SD = 0.92). Although they rated the 10 strategies lower, annual gift donors also evaluated the strategies favorably. As with the major gift donors, reciprocity received the highest evaluation by annual gi ving donors (M = 6.80, SD = 1.05). Networking was evaluated lowest by the annual giving donors (M = 5.69, SD = 1.43); however, it should be noted that even this strategy received a positive evaluation. To determine if statistically significant diffe rences existed in how the 2 groups evaluated the relationship cultivation strategies, a one-way ANOVA wa s conducted for each of the 10

PAGE 138

138 indices. For this test, the i ndependent variable is the donor classification (major gift versus annual giving) and the dependent variables are the mean scores for the 10 relationship cultivation strategies. Table 4-14 shows th e results of the ANOVAs. The 2 types of donors did differ in their evaluations. Major gift donors evaluated al l 10 of the cultivation strategies significantly higher than annual giving donors. The smallest difference between the 2 groups evaluations was for reciprocity (.38), and the biggest differe nce was found for networking (.98); however, all of the evaluations were different at the p < .001 level of signifi cance. The results support the third hypothesis. Research Question 5 RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultiv ation strategies proposed by public relations scholars, which are the most in fluential in terms of their e ffect on donors evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization? Even though analyses determined that donors to the nonprofit organizations in the study evaluated all 10 of the relationship cultivati on strategies positively, there were notable differences in the mean scores on the strategies As Table 4-12 shows, reciprocity (M = 6.95, SD = 1.07) was the strategy that received the most favorable evaluation, followed by reporting (M = 6.87, SD = 1.09), responsibility (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07), and openness (M = 6.62, SD = 1.32). Networking (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40), access (M = 6.01, SD = 1.33), and positivity (M = 6.02, SD = 1.29) were the 3 strategies that were evaluated the lowest. However, these mean scores reveal little about the effect the cultiv ation strategies have on the no nprofit-donor relationship. Simply receiving the highest evaluation of all 10 strategies does not make reciprocity the most important strategy in terms of the nonpr ofit-donor relationship. To determine which of the 10 strategies ha d the greatest impact on how donors evaluated their relationship with the nonpr ofit organizations, it is necessa ry to perform more complex

PAGE 139

139 statistical tests. Structur al equation modeling (SEM) can te ll which of the strategies was influential on the 4 relationship dimensions. SEM is a combination of factor analysis (measurement modeling) and regression analysis (p ath modeling) that can estimate a series of interrelated relationships between variables to determine which are most influential on the others. In recent years, comm unication scholars have advocated that more research needs to incorporate SEM to test theoretical b oundaries (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002). Confirmatory factor analysis Highlighting the power of SE M, Kaplan (2000) described the technique as a melding of factor analysis and path analysis into one comprehensive statistical methodology (p. 3). With most SEM test s, a two-step process is required to evaluate the interrelationships between la tent and observed variables. In the first step, the measurement models are created through a series of confir matory factor analyses (CFAs). When the measurement model has been validated, path modeling can be done. Several criteria can be used to determine wh ether the measurement and path models fit the observed data. Table 4-15 lists the 5 tests used by this study to evaluate the models. The Chisquare goodness of fit sta tistic is frequently used by researchers to determ ine if the data fit the model. Often, nonsignificant Chi-square values are used to evaluate the model; however, Bollen (1989) suggests that it may be more appropriate to calculate the ra tio of the Chi-square value to the degrees of freedom given the sensitivity of the Ch i-square statistic to sample sizes. Using this approach, if the ratio is less than 5, the model generally indicates a good fit. Other methods of evaluation used by this st udy are the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the root mean squared error approximation (RMSEA). For all of these methods the values range from 0 to 1.00. For CFI, GFI, and NFI, higher values indi cate that the model is a good fit. Generally, measurements of

PAGE 140

140 .90 or higher are regarded as be ing a good fit for the model to th e data. Unlike the previous 3 methods, RMSEA uses lower values to determin e the appropriateness of the model. RMSEA values of less than .05 generally are us ed to indicate a good fit for the model. Because this study sought to determine the in fluence of the 10 rela tionship cultivation strategies on the 4 relationship dimensions, it was necessary to perform 2 separate CFAs. CFAs were chosen over exploratory f actor analysis because the hypothesized factor structure came from existing public relations literature and theo ries. Exploratory factor analysis is more appropriate for factors that are trying to deduce theory. The CFA test examines the extent to which a proposed measurement model fits the colle cted data (Hoyle, 1991). For both CFAs used in this study, a list-wise deleti on procedure was used when missing data were found in the file. Fortunately, only 2 surveys were returned that did not have responses for every questionnaire item. The first CFA examined the relationship between the 4 relationship dimensions and the 23 items on the survey that represented those variab les. Table 4-16 provides the results of the CFA for the measurement model of the relationship dime nsions. Of the 23 items that were originally entered into the model, 17 significantly and suc cessfully loaded on thei r designated factors. Trust and commitment each had 1 variable removed from the factor because they were not significant, and control mutuality and satisfac tion each had 2 items removed. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 17 indicators in the relationship dimension measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of the indicators had standardized loadings equal to or higher than .70 as Hoyle (1991) recommended. All of the factor loadings in the sta ndardized solutions were stat istically significant at p < .001.

PAGE 141

141 Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-16 can be deemed valid, it is necessary to check the 5 fit tests for SEM to de termine if the measurement model reasonably fits the data. Table 4-17 shows that this model met the 5 criteria fo r the fit tests (Chi-square/df = 2.09, CFI = .99, GFI = .99, NFI = .99, and RMSEA = .025). Therefore, the measurement model of the relationship dimensions had good construct reliability and validity. Figure 4-1 illustrates the measurement model between the 4 relationshi p dimensions and the items used to measure those variables. Table 4-18 presents the results of the CF A for the relationship cultivation strategy measurement model. Much like the measurement model for the relationship dimensions, 8 of the 10 strategies had items that were derived from the literature and existing theory removed from the factor. Only the stewardshi p strategies of responsibility a nd reporting were found to be valid and reliable without removing item s. The CFA results indicated that the reciprocity construct needed to have 2 items removed from the factor while the remaining 7 strategies each had 1 item removed. Each of the first 6 strategies listed in Table 4-18 had 1 item removed during the measurement modeling. For example, the access c onstruct originally was measured by 4 items. Even though the Cronbachs alpha values were .83 and .90 for the their views and my views access indices, respectively, the fourth item wa s not found to be valid given the overall model, and so it had to be removed. For the 4 stewards hip strategies, reciproc ity had 2 items removed, and relationship nurturing had 1 item removed. Of the 40 items that originally were created to measure the relationship cultivation strategies, 31 were ultimately included in the measurement model, which is illustrated in Figure 4-2.

PAGE 142

142 As shown in Table 4-19, the measurement mode l indicated that the model fit the observed data with support from all 5 tests. The criteria were met for the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (1.86), the comparative fit index (.998), the goodness of fit index (.991), the normed fit index (.995), and the root mean squared error ap proximation (.023) tests. Therefore, the second measurement model is said to have g ood construct reliability and validity. Regression analysis The presence of 2 reliable and valid measurement models allows the study to answer the fifth research question regarding which cultivat ion strategies have the most effect on how donors evaluate the nonprofit-donor relationship. The original model that was tested with path modeling is illustrated in Fi gure 4-3. This model was subjected to the same criteria outlined in Table 4-15 to determine th e appropriateness of th e model to the observed data. The relationships between all the variab les were subjected to path model analysis. Table 4-20 presents the statistically significant st andardized coefficients and error for the path between each relationship dimension a nd each relationship cultivation strategy. The analysis revealed that every relationship cultivation strategy exce pt reciprocity had a direct influence on evaluation of the relationshi p dimensions. However, one of the remaining strategies, assurances, had a statistically signific ant negative relationship with the 4 relationship dimensions. There were mixed results for th e remaining strategies. Access, networking, responsibility, and relationship nurturing all significantly affect ed trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. Sharing of tasks had a significant impact on trust, and openness significantly influenced satisfaction. Positivity had a strong influence on how control mutuality was evaluated. Reporting significantly infl uenced control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. Interestingly, even though reciproc ity had the highest mean score when evaluated

PAGE 143

143 by donors as reported earlier, it did not have a strong association with any relationship dimension. As shown in Table 4-21, the Chi-square/degr ees of freedom ratio (2.36), the comparative fit index (.998), the goodness of fit index (.997), the normed fit in dex (.996), and the root mean squared error approximation (.028) tests were all met successfully. As shown by Table 4-21, this model is appropriate for the data based on the results of the fit tests. In Table 4-20, standardized path estimates are displayed to facilitate compar ison of the regression coe fficients. It should be noted that only significant regr ession coefficients are shown. Figure 4-4 shows the results of th e statistical tests for the sign ificant individual paths in the final model. Due to the number of significant pa ths, the statistical significance of each path is not presented in the figure; howev er, the values are available in Table 4-20 and are discussed in the text. Overall, the results show that fundraise rs need to incorporate a variety of cultivation strategies into their efforts in order to have donors evaluate th e relationship positively. Access, sharing of tasks, networking, assurances, re sponsibility, and rela tionship nurturing all significantly affected trust; however, the effect size varied considerably. Assurances ( = -.08, p < .001) actually had a ne gative impact on the extent to wh ich donors perceived trust with the organization. The remaining 5 strategies had a positive impact on the construct. Relationship nurturing had the largest impact on trust ( = .24, p < .001), and this relationship was the strongest one in the model. The effect size of relationship nurturing on tr ust is 4.8 times that of sharing of tasks ( = .05, p < .05) and 2.2 times that of access ( = .11, p < .001), networking ( = .11, p < .001), and responsibility ( = .11, p < .001). The relations hip strategies of openness, positivity, reciprocity, and reporti ng did not significantly affect how donors evaluated trust.

PAGE 144

144 Seven relationship strategies had significan t impacts on how donors ev aluated balance of power and control in the relationship. Access ( = .17, p < .001) had the largest impact on the construct, and it is 4.3 time s the size of positivity ( = .04, p < .05) and 2.1 times the size of reporting ( = .08, p < .01). The impact of access on donor s evaluation of balance of power and control was also 1.5 times the size of networkings impact ( = .11, p < .001), 1.2 times the size of reportings impact ( = .14, p < .001), and only slightly gr eater than that of relationship nurturing ( = .15, p < .001). Again, assurances had a negative impact on how donors evaluated the relationship in regards to control mutuality ( = -.07, p < .001). Sharing of tasks, openness, and reciprocity did not have a statistically si gnificant influence on the extent to which donors evaluated control mutuality in the relationship. Regarding satisfaction, 7 of the 10 strategies had an impact on how donors evaluated the dimension. Relationship nurturing ( = .15, p < .001) had the strongest impact on the satisfaction dimension. Its impact was 2.1 times larger than that of openness ( = .07, p < .001), 1.9 times that of reporting ( = .08, p < .01), 1.7 times that of access ( = .09, p < .001), and 1.5 times that of networking ( = .10, p < .001). Responsibility had an effect on satisfaction very similar to that of relationship nurturing ( = .14, p < .001). Assurances had a negative impact on how donors evaluated satisfacti on with the relationship ( = -.12, p < .001). Sharing of tasks, positivity, and reciprocity did not impact the level of a donors satisfaction. The last relationship dimension, commitment, was positively influenced by 5 of the relationship strategies. Relationship nurturing ( = .17, p < .001) and networking ( = .17, p < .001) had the same impact on commitment, and they were both only slightly more powerful than responsibility ( = .16, p < .001). Relationship nurturi ng and networking were 1.8 times more powerful than access ( = .09, p < .001) and 1.6 times stronger than reporting ( = .10, p < .001).

PAGE 145

145 Assurances had a negative impact again on how donors evaluated commitment ( = -.10, p < .001). Finally, sharing of tasks, positivity, op enness, and reciprocity did not impact the evaluation of commitment. In answer to the fifth research question, re lationship nurturing, repor ting, networking, and access appear to be the most influe ntial cultivation strate gies in terms of their effect on donors evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Po sitivity, sharing of tasks, and reporting had varying degrees of significant impact on some of the dimensions, while assurances had negative impact on all of the relationship dimensions. Finally, it is very interesting to note that reciprocitythe strategy that was evaluated most positively by donorsdid not significantly affect how the donors responded to any of the 4 relationship dimensions. Research Question 6 RQ6: Do annual gift and majo r gift donors experience the rela tionship cultivation strategies differently in terms of influencing their ev aluation of the relati onship with the nonprofit organization? This studys sixth research question posed a question very similar to the previous one; however, it added a new aspect to the inquiry. Fundraising literat ure says that major gift donors are likely to receive more personalized attention from a nd have more interpersonal communication with the fundraising team than annual gift donors. Findings previously reported support the literature by showing that annual giving and major gift donors evaluated the strategies differently. Given established diffe rences between the 2 groups of donors, the sixth question sought to determine if the relationship cultivation strategies have different impacts on the donor groups evaluation of the relationship.

PAGE 146

146 Major Gift Donors To answer this question, the structural e quation modeling process outlined in the earlier section on the fifth research questi on was repeated. However, rather than using the entire dataset of donors, 2 separate subsets were created and subjected to the same statistical procedures. The major gift donors were examined first, followed by the annual giving donors. To determine which cultivation strategies influenced majo r gift donors evaluations of the relationship dimensions the most, confirmatory factor analys es had to be conducted on both the dimensions and the strategies to discard items that were d eemed invalid through statistical tests. The same criteria presented in Table 4-15 were used to ev aluate the measurement and path models for the 2 donor groups. Table 4-22 presents the measurement model, or c onfirmatory factor analysis results, for the relationship dimensions as evaluated by the ma jor gift donors. Of the 23 items that were originally entered into the model, 20 were significantly and successfully loaded on their designated factors. Trust and satisfaction we re left intact, while commitment had 1 item removed and control mutuality had 2 items removed from the factor due to lack of statistical significance. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated th at the remaining 20 indicators in the relationship dimensions measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of the factor loadings in the standardized solutions were statistically significant at p < .001. Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-22 can be deemed valid, it is necessary to check the 5 tests to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits the data. Table 4-23 shows that this model met the criter ia for the 5 fit indices (Chi-square/df = 1.35, CFI = .98, GFI = .95, NFI = .95, and RMSEA = .031). Th erefore, the measur ement model of the relationship dimensions had good c onstruct reliability a nd validity. Figure 4-5 illustrates the measurement model between the 4 relationship dime nsions and the items used to measure them.

PAGE 147

147 The process was repeated for the relationship cultivation strategies as evaluated by the major gift donors. Table 4-24 presents the meas urement model for the strategies. Of the 40 items that were originally entered into the mode l, 33 were significantly and successfully loaded on their designated factors. Access, reciprocit y, and reporting did not have any items removed from their indices. However, sharing of tasks, openness, networking, positivity, assurances, responsibility, and relationship nur turing each had 1 item removed fr om the factor because it was not significant. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 33 indicators in the cultivation st rategies measurement model dem onstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of the fact or loadings in the standardized solutio ns were statistically significant at p < .001. As shown in Table 4-25, the re sults indicate that the measur ement model fit the observed data with support from all 5 tests. The criteria were met for the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (1.34), the comparative fit index (.993), the goodness of fit index (.969), the normed fit index (.972), and the root mean squared error ap proximation (.031) tests. Therefore, the second measurement model in Figure 4-6 is said to have good construct reliability and validity. Regression analysis Given the presence of 2 reliable and valid measurement models, it is now possible to determine which cultivation strate gies have the most impact on how major gift donors evaluate the nonprofit-donor re lationship. The original model that was tested with path modeling is illustrated in Figure 4-3 was retested exclusively for the major gift donors. This model was subjected to the same criteria outlin ed in Table 4-15 to dete rmine the appropriateness of the model to the observed data. The relationshi ps between all the variables were subjected to the path model analysis. Table 4-26 presents the statistically significant standardized

PAGE 148

148 coefficients and errors for the paths between each relationship cultivat ion strategy and each relationship dimension. The analysis revealed that only 6 of the 10 cult ivation strategies had a significant influence on major gift donors evaluation of the relationship dimensions. All of the significant paths were positive with the exception of reportings impact on satisfaction. None of the 6 strategies influenced all 4 of the dimensions. Responsibilit y did influence 3: trust, control mutuality, and commitment. Relationship nurturing significantly impacted trust and control mutuality, and reciprocity had a positive impact on satisfacti on and commitment. Sharing of tasks had a significant impact on trust, and access significantly in fluenced control mutuality. It is interesting to note that the stewardship strategies appear to have greater significant influence on how major gift donors evaluated the relati onship dimensions than donors in general. However, it is necessary to make sure the mode l is appropriate given the data. As shown in Table 4-27, analysis revealed that the structural model of Figure 4-7 fits the data well, based on the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (.088), the comparative fit index (.99), the goodness of fit index (.99), the normed fit index (.97), and the root mean squared error residual (.01) tests. Standardiz ed path estimates are displayed to facilitate comparison of the regression coefficients. It shoul d be noted that only significant regression coefficients are shown. Annual Giving Donors The SEM process was repeated for annual givi ng donors. To determine which cultivation strategies influenced annual gift donors evaluations of the re lationship dimensions the most, confirmatory factor analyses had to be conduc ted on both the relationship dimensions and the strategies to discard items that were deemed invalid through statistic al tests. The same criteria

PAGE 149

149 presented in Table 4-15 were used to evaluate the measurement and path models for the second donor group. Table 4-28 presents the measurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis, results for the relationship dimensions as evaluated by the annu al gift donors. Of the 23 items that were originally entered into the model, 20 were significantly and successfully loaded on their designated factors. Trust had 2 items removed, and satisfaction had 1 item removed due to lack of statistical significance. Control mutuality and commitment were left intact. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstrated that the remaining 20 indicators in the relationship dimension measurement model demonstrated strong loadings on the factors. All of the factor loadings in the standardized solutions were st atistically significant at p < .001. Before the measurement model presented in Table 4-28 can be deemed valid, it is necessary to check the 5 tests to determine if the measurement model reasonably fits the data. Table 4-29 shows that this model met the criter ia for the 5 fit indices (Chi-square/df = 1.87, CFI = .99, GFI = .99, NFI = .99, and RMSEA = .025). Th erefore, the measur ement model of the relationship dimensions, shown in Figure 4-8, ha d good construct reliability and validity. The process was repeated for the relationship cultivation strategies as evaluated by the annual giving donors. Table 4-30 presents the measurement model for the relationship cultivation strategies. Of the 40 items that were originally entered into the model, 33 were significantly and successfully loaded on their de signated factors. Access, networking, positivity, assurances, and relationship nurturing each had 1 item removed from the factor because it was not significant, and reciprocity had 2 items remove d. The remaining 4 strategies remained intact. The magnitude of the factor loadings demonstr ated that the remaining 33 indicators in the

PAGE 150

150 relationship dimension measurement model demonstr ated strong loadings on the factors. All of the factor loadings in the st andardized solutions were sta tistically significant at p < .001. As shown in Table 4-31, the re sults indicate the measurement model fit the observed data. The criteria were met for the Chi-square/degre es of freedom ratio (2.51), the comparative fit index (.997), the goodness of fit index (.993), the normed fit index (.995), and the root mean squared error residual (.034) test s. Therefore, the second measurement model is said to have good construct reliability and validity. The m easurement model is displayed in Figure 4-9. Regression analysis. Given the presence of 2 reliable and valid measurement models, it is now possible to determine which cultivation strate gies have the most impact on how annual gift donors evaluate the nonprofit-donor re lationship. The original model that was tested with path modeling is illustrated in Figure 4-3 was retested exclusively using the data provided by the annual giving donors. This model was subjected to the same criteria outlined in Table 4-15 to determine the appropriateness of the model to the observed data. The relationships between all the variables were subjected to the path model analysis. Table 4-32 pres ents the statistically significant standardized coefficients and e rrors for the paths between each relationship cultivation strategy and each relationship dimension for annual gift donors. Unlike the results for major gift donors, this an alysis indicated that all 10 strategies had a significant impact on annual gift donors evaluati on of the relationship dimensions. Much like the overall donor analysis, assurances had a stat istically significant negative effect on of the 4 relationship dimensions. There were mixed results for the rema ining strategies. Networking, positivity, responsibility, and relationship nurtu ring significantly affected trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. Access had a significant impact on control mutuality and satisfaction, and openness si gnificantly influenced trus t and satisfaction. Reporting

PAGE 151

151 significantly influenced contro l mutuality, satisfaction, and co mmitment. Interestingly, both reciprocity and sharing of tasks had statistical ly significant negative influences on how annual giving donors evaluated trust a nd commitment, respectively. As shown in Table 4-33, analysis revealed that the structural model of Figure 4-10 fits the data well, based on the Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (0.48), the comparative fit index (.99), the goodness of fit index (.99), the normed fit index (.99), and the root mean squared error approximation (.02) tests. Standardized path esti mates are displayed to f acilitate comparison of the regression coefficients. It should be noted that only signif icant regression coefficients are shown. Major gift donors compared to annual giving donors. Now that both path models have been completed for major gift and annual givi ng donors, it is possible to answer the sixth research question, which sought to determine if th e relationship cultivation strategies impact the groups evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationsh ip differently. The short answer to the question is that the strategies do differ in thei r influence on the 2 groups evaluation. However, a comparison of the findings provides a fuller answ er regarding how the groups experience the cultivation strategies differently. Whereas the annual giving donors evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit was influenced by all 10 cultivation strategies, ma jor gift donors evaluati ons were only impacted by 6 of the 10 strategies. Of those 6, all 4 of Ke llys (2000; 2001) stewards hip strategies had an influencealthough reporting had a negative im pact on the evaluation of satisfaction ( = -.13). The 3 strongest links for major gift donors we re between reciprocity and commitment ( = .21), relationship nurturing and trust ( = .20), and access and control mutuality ( = .19).

PAGE 152

152 The relationship cultivation strategies more br oadly impacted the evaluation of annual gift donors. Unlike their counterparts, reporting fo r annual giving donors had a positive impact on 3 relationship dimensions. There were negative impacts for sharing of tasks on commitment ( = .07), reciprocity on trust ( = -.07), and assurances on all 4 of the relationship dimensions. The 4 strongest positive links for annual giving donors we re between relationship nurturing and trust ( = .21), networking and commitment ( = .18), responsibility and satisfaction ( = .18), and responsibility and commitment ( = .17). Similar to the results for major gift donors, the next most significant paths for annual giving donors ca me from Kellys (2000 ; 2001) stewardship variables. The strong performance of the stewardship va riables in the structural equation modeling, however, should not discount the cont ributions of the other 6 relati onship cultivation strategies. The 2 groups had similar reactions to access and how it contributed to the evaluation of control mutuality. Sharing of tasks had a positive influe nce for major gift donors, but it had a negative impact for annual giving donors. Several of the strategies proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) positively influenced a nnual gift donors, but did not imp act major gift donors. These differences ultimately help distinguish how fund raisers cultivate relationships with donors at different levels of giving di fferently, which is discussed mo re in the discussion chapter. Research Question 7 RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising te am and donors agree/disagree on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? The studys seventh research question sought to determine whether donors and members of the fundraising team viewed the organization s relationship with its donors similarly on both the relationship and the relationship cultivation st rategies. Analysis revealed that there was agreement on all 4 dimensions and 10 strategies in that both sides viewed all 14 variables

PAGE 153

153 favorably (i.e., mean scores higher than 5 on a 9point scale). However, as Table 4-34 shows, donors did not evaluate the relationship dimensions or the cultivation strategies as favorably as the fundraising team. Of the 4 dimensions, donors felt committed to the organization and its mission, but even though this was their strongest ev aluation it was significantly less than how the fundraising team members felt about commitment (D-score = .46 ; t = -4.17, df = 1828, p<.001). Similarly, the organizations representatives had more trus t (D-score = .96; t = -8.85, df = 1828, p<.001) and satisfaction (D-score = .86; t = -6.68, df = 1828, p<.001) in the re lationship. The donors felt that power generally was balanced between them and the organization as indicated by a mean score greater than the neutral point. However, the fundraising team felt the power balance was more evenly distributed (D-score = .69; t = -8.04, df = 1828, p<.001). Similar results were found when the donors a nd fundraisers were as ked to evaluate the value of the strategies used to maintain the re lationship. Donors viewed all of the cultivation strategies positively; however, they did not view them as favorably as the fundraisers. When comparing the D-scores and utilizing independe nt t-tests, the greatest differences existed between the 2 sides views on networking (D -score = 1.22; t = -9.45, df = 1828, p < .001) and access (D-score = 1.02; t = -8.33, df = 1828, p < .001). Although the donors evaluated networking positively, their views of the hospital s networking with community groups and the government were significantly less positive than the viewpoints of th e fundraising team. For the remaining 8 relationship cultivation strate gies, there were also statistically different evaluations in varying levels. Th e 2 groups were most similar in the evaluations of responsibility (D-score = .32; t = -3.27 df = 1828, p < .01). Of the remaining 7 strategies, the attitudes of the groups were the next closest for the stewardship variables of reci procity (D-score = .64; t = -

PAGE 154

154 6.51, df = 1828, p < .001) and reporting (D-score = .60; t = -5.91, df = 1828, p < .001), with donors having lower evaluations than the fundraisi ng team. The remaining variables also were all favored more by the fundraising team. In or der of increasing distance between the 2 groups, the evaluations of these relations hip cultivation strategies were all statistically different: openness (D-score = .71; t = -5.91, df = 1828, p < .001), relationship nurturing (D-score = .75; t = -7.07, df = 1828, p < .001), assurances (D-s core = .79; t = -7 .01, df = 1828, p < .001), positivity (D-score = .88; t = -7.44, df = 1828, p < .001) and sharing of tasks (D-score = .92; t = -7.34, df = 1828, p< .001). Independent t-test results demonstrate that the answer to the seventh research question is that donor s and fundraising team members are in agreement that the relationship dimensions and strate gies are positive; however, stat istically significant differences exist between the 2 groups on all of the variables. Research Question 8 RQ8: To what extent do fundraising t eam members and donors perceive agreement/ disagreement between themselves and the othe r side on the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? The eighth research question sought to dete rmine whether either side of the nonprofitdonor relationship perceived agreement with the other in how the overall relationship and the cultivation strategies were evaluated. Tabl e 4-35 presents the comparison between the donors views and their estimates of how the fundraisers would answ er the same questions. The donors perceived a significant difference between themselv es and the organization s fundraisers on all 4 of the dimension indices and the strategy scales. The smallest perceived difference was for the satisfaction level of how the orga nization created relationships with its donors (D-score = .08; t = -9.88, df = 1705, p<.001). The donors perceived that the fundraisers would feel power was more balanced (D-score = .19; t = -17.89, df = 1705, p< .001) and that they viewed donors as being

PAGE 155

155 more committed to the relationship (D-score = .12; t = -12.12, df = 1705, p<.001) than they actually are. Additionally, th e donors thought that the fundraise rs would perceive a greater amount of trust (D-score = .14; t = -12.15, df = 1705, p<.001) in the nonprofit-donor relationship than truly existed. Although there was statistical difference in how the donors evaluated the dimensions and how they estimated the fundraisers would, the Dscores indicate that the differences were reasonably small. The D-scores for the 4 relations hip dimensions were clos er than all but 3 of the D-scores for the relationship cultivation strategies. When evaluating the perceived agreement for the strategies, there was an overa ll consensus that donors felt fundraisers would evaluate the strategies more favorably than they would. The greatest difference existed for the networking variable. Donors fe lt that fundraisers thought ne tworking would be far more important for the relationship than it actually is (D-score = 1.06; t = -23.35, df = 1705, p < .001). This was the only strategy where the calculated Dscore was greater than one-fourth of 1 point. Generally, there appears to be agreement on the importance of the strategies even though statistically significant differences existed. Refl ecting their own evaluati ons of the strategies, donors felt that fundraisers would favor the stewardship strategies over the other symmetrical strategies. Donors felt that fundr aisers would indicate that recipr ocity (D-score = .17; t = -16.82, df = 1705, p<.001), reporting (D-s core = .20; t = -19.59, df = 1705, p<.001), responsibility (Dscore = .17; t = -19.49, df = 1705, p < .001), and re lationship nurturing (D-score = .19; t = 17.24, df = 1705, p<.001) were more valuable to the re lationship than the donors felt they were. Interestingly, the donors had similar views on the remaining symmetrical strategies proposed in the literature The smallest difference between the donors views and the estimates of the fundraising teams views was for sharing of tasks (D-score = .13; t = -11.95, df = 1705, p <

PAGE 156

156 .001). Again, just like the relatio nship dimensions, there was a stat istically significant difference between the views and perceived views even th ough the evaluations were reasonably close for openness (D-score = .19; t = -16.28, df = 1705, p < .001), access (D-score = .20; t = 17.24, df = 1705, p < .001), positivity (D-score = .23; t = 20.39, df = 1705, p < .001), and assurances (Dscore = .24; t = -20.09, df = 1705, p < .001). As pr eviously reported, the greatest difference existed for the networking variable. Turning to perceived agreement from the organizations viewpoint, members of the fundraising team perceived agreement across all 4 dimensions and 10 strategies. Furthermore, they perceived a significant difference in the degree of agreement on only 1 variable, trust (Dscore = .08; t = 2.59, df = 123, p<.05). Table 4-36 presents the results. In summary, the answer to the eighth resear ch question is that bot h the fundraising team members and donors to the nonprofit organizations perceive agreement with each other on the positivity of the relationship dimensions a nd cultivation strategies. Even though donors perceived agreement, they believed the fundraisi ng team members would ev aluate the variables more positively than the donors did. The f undraising team members, on the other hand, perceived agreement on all 4 relationship dimensions and 10 cultivation strategies. There was only 1 statistically signif icant difference in the fundraising t eams views and their estimates of their donors perspectives. Research Question 9 RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising te am and charitable donors accurate/inaccurate in predicting the other sides views on the evaluation of th e nonprofit-donor relationship? The ninth research question examined how accurate the 2 sides were with their estimates by comparing the estimates of 1 group with the ac tual evaluations by the other group. As shown

PAGE 157

157 in Table 4-37, donors underestimated the view s of the fundraising practitioners on every variable. Furthermore, with 1 exception, the degree of the unde restimation was statistically significant. For the relationship management dimens ion variables, trust (D-s core = .82; t = -8.10, df = 1828, p<.001) and control mutuality (D-s core = .67; t = -6.77, df = 1828, p<.001) were underestimated more than satisfaction (D-s core = .61; t = -6.0 7, df = 1828, p<.001) and commitment (D-score = .34; t = -3.37, df = 1828, p<.01). Table 4-37 shows that similar results emerged fo r the relationship cultivation strategies. Donors underestimated the views of the fundraising team across all of the variables; however, the difference between donors estim ated views and the actual view s of the fundraising team was greater for access (D-score = .82; t = -6.96, df = 128, p < .001) and sharing of tasks (D-score = .79; t = -6.56, df = 128, p < .001). The smallest di fferences existed for re sponsibility (D-score = .15; t = -1.57, df = 128, p = .12) and networking (D-score = .16; t = -7.95, df = 128, p < .001) although the latter of these 2 variables was still statistically significant. For the remaining 6 strategies, donors underestimated the fundraising teams view s by nearly one-half to threequarters of a point on assurances (D-score = .55; t = -5.32, df = 128, p < .001), openness (Dscore = .52; t = -5.02, df = 128, p < .001), positiv ity (D-score = .65; t = -6.10, df = 128, p < .001), reciprocity (D-score = .47; t = -5.13, df = 128, p < .001), re porting (D-score = .40; t = 4.15, df = 128, p < .001), and relationship nurturi ng (D-score = .56; t = -5.68, df = 128, p < .001). Examining the fundraising teams estimations of donors views with donors actual views reveals that on 7 of the 8 measures the fundraise rs significantly overestim ated all of the donors views. Table 4-38 shows that there was almost a one-point overestimate for 3 of the relationship dimension variables: trust (D-score = .88; t = -8.19, df = 1828, p<.001), commitment (D-score = .51; t = -4.61, df = 1828, p<.001), and control mutuality (D-sco re = .85; t = -8.00, df =1828,

PAGE 158

158 p<.001). Even though the D-score was smaller for satisfaction (D-score = .71; t = -6.86, df = 1828, p<.001), the statistical strength was as strong as the other relationship dimension measures. As shown in Table 4-38, opposite results occurr ed when determining the accuracy of the fundraising teams estimates. Whereas the donors underestimated the fundraising teams views, the fundraising team overestimated the donors viewpoints. Not surprising given previous results, the biggest overestimation was for how the fundraising team thought the donors would evaluate the networking vari able (D-score = 1.28; t = 9.96, df = 1828, p < .001). The fundraising team had almost a one -point overestimation for severa l other relationship cultivation strategies, including access (D-s core = .99; t = -8.11, df = 1828, p < .001), positivity (D-score = .92; t = -7.85, df = 1828, p < .001), and sharing of tasks (D-score = .95; t = -7.67, df = 1828, p < .001), The fundraising teams estimate of the do nors views were closest when it came to the importance of responsibility on the part of the organization (D-score = .34; t = -3.41, df = 1828, p < .01). However, the differences for the remain ing variables reveal important insight into the relationship between the organizations and their donors in how assurances (D-score = .77; t = 7.01, df = 1828, p < .001), openness (D-score = .71; t = -5.91, df = 1828, p < .001), reciprocity (D-score = .65; t = -6.67, df = 1828, p < .001), reporting (D-sco re = .64; t = 6.36, df = 1828, p < .001), and relationship nurturing (D-score = .78; t = -7.35, df = 1828, p < .001) impact the relationship. To answer the ninth research question, both si des generally are accurate in their estimates of the other sides views, although donors undere stimate the fundraising team members views and the fundraising team members overestimate th e views donors have regarding the relationship dimensions and cultivation strategies.

PAGE 159

159 Research Question 10 RQ10: What coorientation states exist between the fundraising team and charitable donors on the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? The comparisons highlighted in the previous 3 research questions ar e designed to reveal the 4 states of the coorientation model: consensus, dissensus, false consensus, and false conflict. Recapping this studys findings, donors and fundrai sing practitioners generally are in agreement on all 4 of the relationship dimensions and the 10 relationship cultivati on strategies. Even though there were many significant di fferences in the levels of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy, both sides of the relationship vi ewed the various aspects of the nonprofit-donor relationship favorably. Applying th e coorientation states to thes e findings, the answer to the final research question is that donors and fundraising team member s are in a state of consensus on all of the variables. As Tabl e 4-39 shows, the states of diss ensus, false conflict, and false consensus do not exist in this relationship.

PAGE 160

160 Table 4-1. Relationship Dimensi ons Means across 3 Organizations. San Francisco General Hospital Marin General Hospital Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland Fundraising Team Donors Fundraising Team Donors Fundraising Team Donors My Views Trust 7.31 6.20 7.28 6.41 7.61 6.73 Commitment 7.29 6.45 6.95 6.64 7.15 6.87 Satisfaction 7.09 6.23 7.06 6.36 7.16 6.65 Control Mutuality 7.18 6.14 7.08 6.20 7.20 6.53 Their Views Trust 7.17 6.38 7.15 6.57 7.63 6.82 Commitment 7.26 6.55 7.07 6.80 7.20 6.96 Satisfaction 6.99 6.28 7.02 6.48 7.32 6.73 Control Mutuality 7.24 6.38 6.95 6.37 7.26 6.69

PAGE 161

161 Table 4-2. Relationship Cultivation Stra tegies Means across 3 Organizations. San Francisco General Hospital Marin General Hospital Childrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland Fundraising Team Donors Fundraising Team Donors Fundraising Team Donors My Views Access 6.83 5.84 6.98 5.82 7.22 6.35 Positivity 6.84 5.85 6.76 5.87 7.07 6.30 Openness 7.08 6.39 7.10 4.45 7.72 7.00 Sharing of Tasks 7.06 6.03 7.12 5.97 7.08 6.46 Assurances 7.10 6.07 7.00 6.00 6.83 6.39 Networking 7.23 5.68 7.07 5.81 7.05 6.17 Reciprocity 7.48 6.98 7.53 6.90 7.72 6.97 Reporting 7.45 6.81 7.31 6.88 7.61 6.92 Responsibility 7.01 6.75 6.96 6.72 7.31 6.86 Relationship Nurturing 7.11 6.24 7.09 6.43 7.49 6.80 Their Views Access 6.71 5.96 6.93 6.00 7.27 6.63 Positivity 6.94 6.11 6.84 6.07 7.04 6.55 Openness 7.14 6.59 7.12 6.66 7.65 7.13 Sharing of Tasks 7.11 6.13 7.21 6.11 7.07 6.63 Assurances 7.11 6.31 6.85 6.25 6.94 6.64 Networking 7.25 6.04 7.04 6.13 7.23 6.41 Reciprocity 7.53 7.14 7.51 7.03 7.74 7.19 Reporting 7.42 7.01 7.31 7.09 7.64 7.11 Responsibility 7.06 6.85 6.90 6.91 7.35 7.09 Relationship Nurturing 6.97 6.49 7.11 6.68 7.64 6.88 Table 4-3. Donors Evaluati on of Relationship with Nonpr ofits based on Donor Type. Major Gift Donors Annual Giving Donors Mean Std. Dev N Mean Std. Dev. N Trust 7.02 1.01 358 6.31 1.18 1348 Commitment 7.14 .95 358 6.54 1.23 1348 Satisfaction 6.82 1.19 358 6.32 1.14 1348 Control Mutuality 6.80 1.25 358 6.17 1.20 1348

PAGE 162

162 Table 4-4. One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of the Donors Relationship with the Nonprofit Organization. Source of Variation SS df MS F-score p-value Trust 141.25 1,1704141.25107.45 .000 Commitment 102.49 1,1704102.49 73.84 .000 Satisfaction 69.52 1,1704 69.52 57.86 .000 Control Mutuality 112.71 1,1704112.71 86.83 .000 Table 4-5. Pearsons r Correla tion of Giving History and Eval uation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. Years Donating to Organization Trust Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Years Donating to Organization 1.00 .69*** .65*** .54*** .64*** Trust 1.00 .62*** .37*** .47*** Control Mutuality 1.00 .52*** .50*** Satisfaction 1.00 .65*** Commitment 1.00 *** p < .001 Table 4-6. Multiple Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with the Number of Years Donating to the Organization. Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized Coefficient ( ) t-value p-value Constant -10.04 -29.66 .000 Trust .84 .31 15.83 .000 Satisfaction .28 .10 4.77 .000 Commitment .85 .32 15.25 .000 Control Mutuality .68 .25 12.01 .000 R = .787, R2 = .62, F (4, 1701) = 693.19, p < .000, n = 1705

PAGE 163

163 Table 4-7. Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indi ces for Number of Years of Donating to the Organization. Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized Coefficient ( ) t-value p-value Model 1 Constant -4.39 -13.24 .000 Commitment 1.73 .65 35.23 .000 Model 2 Constant -8.43 -25.50 .000 Commitment 1.18 .45 24.80 .000 Trust 1.18 .44 24.36 .000 Model 3 Constant -9.53 -29.49 .000 Commitment .99 .37 20.76 .000 Trust .82 .30 15.41 .000 Control Mutuality .76 .28 13.90 .000 Model 4 Constant -10.04 -29.66 .000 Commitment .85 .32 15.25 .000 Trust .84 .31 15.83 .000 Control Mutuality .68 .25 12.01 .000 Satisfaction .28 .10 4.77 .000 Model 1: R = .65, R2 = .42, F (4,1701) = 1241.23, p = .000, n = 1705 Model 2: R = .76, R2 = .57, F (4,1701) = 1133.24, p = .000, n = 1705 Model 3: R = .78, R2 = .61, F (4,1701) = 905.10, p = .000, n = 1705 Model 4: R = .79, R2 = .62, F (4,1701) = 693.19, p = .000, n = 1705 Table 4-8. Discriminant Function Analysis of Relationship Dimensi ons with Participation in the Most Recent Fundraising Campaign. Group 1 (n = 929)Group 2 (n = 776) B Wilks F (1, 1703) MeanStd. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Constant -8.78 Trust .79 .76 .66 856.71* 7.08 .92 5.70 1.01 Satisfaction .54 .53 .78 476.64* 6.90 .93 5.85 1.04 Commitment -.01 -.02 .83 346.78* 7.11 1.02 6.12 1.17 Control Mutuality .06 .06 .79 455.31* 6.79 .94 5.71 1.14 R = .64, Wilks of function = .59, 2 = 909.12, df = 2, group centroids = (.77,-.92) *p < .001

PAGE 164

164 Table 4-9. Classification Matrix of Discriminant Analysis Function. Predicted Original Group 1 (Yes) Group 2 (No) Group 1 (Yes) 770 198 Group 2 (No) 159 578 2 = 567.05, df = 1, p <.001 Table 4-10. Multiple Regression of Relationship Dimension Indices with Overall Relationship Score. Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized Coefficient ( ) t-value p-value Constant -1.01 -.741 .459 Trust .30 .28 13.78 .000 Satisfaction .21 .19 8.94 .000 Commitment .26 .25 11.53 .000 Control Mutuality .28 .26 12.37 .000 R = .776, R2 = .60, F (4, 1701) = 644.11, p = .000, N = 1705

PAGE 165

165 Table 4-11. Stepwise Regression of Relationship Dimension Indi ces with Overall Relationship Score. Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized Coefficient ( ) t-value p-value Model 1 Constant 2.26 17.61 .000 Control Mutuality .70 .65 32.22 .000 Model 2 Constant .797 6.00 .000 Control Mutuality .49 .45 23.81 .000 Commitment .42 .40 21.35 .000 Model 3 Constant .286 2.15 .032 Control Mutuality .34 .32 15.27 .000 Commitment .37 .35 18.68 .000 Trust .28 .26 12.83 .000 Model 4 Constant -1.01 -.741 .46 Control Mutuality .28 .26 12.37 .000 Commitment .26 .25 11.53 .000 Trust .30 .28 13.78 .000 Satisfaction .21 .19 8.94 .000 Model 1: R = .65, R2 = .42, F (4,1701) = 1240.20, p = .000, N = 1705 Model 2: R = .74, R2 = .54, F (4,1701) = 1013.38, p = .000, N = 1705 Model 3: R = .76, R2 = .58, F (4,1701) = 795.29, p = .000, N = 1705 Model 4: R = .78, R2 = .60, F (4,1701) = 644.11, p = .000, N = 1705 Table 4-12. Donor Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategy Indices. Variable Mean ( n = 1706) Standard Deviation Access 6.01 1.33 Positivity 6.02 1.29 Openness 6.62 1.32 Sharing of Tasks 6.17 1.37 Assurances 6.16 1.23 Networking 5.89 1.40 Reciprocity 6.95 1.07 Responsibility 6.78 1.07 Reporting 6.87 1.09 Relationship Nurturing 6.50 1.15

PAGE 166

166 Table 4-13. Major Gift and Annual Giving Donors Mean Scores on the 10 Cultivation Strategies Indices. Major Gift Donors Annual Giving Donors Mean Std. Dev N Mean Std. Dev. N Access 6.67 1.21 358 5.84 1.31 1348 Positivity 6.55 1.10 358 5.88 1.29 1348 Openness 7.16 1.07 358 6.48 1.34 1348 Sharing of Tasks 6.84 1.04 358 5.99 1.39 1348 Assurances 6.85 .98 358 5.98 1.23 1348 Networking 6.67 .98 358 5.69 1.43 1348 Reciprocity 7.53 .92 358 6.80 1.05 1348 Reporting 7.29 1.01 358 6.76 1.10 1348 Responsibility 7.08 .96 358 6.70 1.11 1348 Relationship Nurturing 7.04 .97 358 6.36 1.15 1348 Table 4-14. One-Way ANOVA on Evaluation of th e 10 Relationship Cultivation Strategies by Donor Type. Source of Variation SS df MS F-score p-value Access 191.84 1,1704191.84115.429 .000 Positivity 125.40 1,1704125.40 78.94 .000 Openness 131.25 1,1704131.25 79.39 .000 Sharing of Tasks 204.80 1,1704204.80116.27 .000 Assurances 212.48 1,1704212.48152.76 .000 Networking 273.30 1,1704273.30150.83 .000 Reciprocity 151.30 1,1704151.30144.59 .000 Reporting 80.81 1,1704 80.81 70.90 .000 Responsibility 40.79 1,1704 40.79 36.36 .000 Relationship Nurturing 130.98 1,1704130.98105.93 .000 Table 4-15. Model Fit Criteria fo r Structural Equation Modeling. Model Fit Index Criteria Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05

PAGE 167

167 Table 4-16. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for All Donors. Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Trust The organization respects its donors. .96 a The organization can be re lied on to keep its promises to donors. .81 (.021)*** When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. .83 (.024) *** I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. .74 (.025) *** The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. (Reverse) .74 (.031) *** Control Mutuality The organization and donors are atte ntive to each others needs. .96 a The organization does not believe the opi nions and concerns of its donors are important. (Reverse) .87 (.021) *** I believe donors have influence on the decisi on makers of the organization. .89 (.020) *** When donors interact with this organi zation, they have a sense of control over the situation. .74 (.030) *** Satisfaction Donors are happy with the organization. .92 a Both the organization and its donors benef it from their relationship. .96 (.023) *** Most donors are happy in their interacti ons with the organization. .83 (.023) *** The organization fails to satisfy the need s of its donors. (Reverse) .70 (.030) *** Commitment I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with donors. .96 a I cannot see that the orga nization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. (Reverse) .93 (.018) *** There is a long-lasting b ond between the organization and its donors. .84 (.019) *** Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. .79 (.021) *** a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The numbers outside parentheses indi cate standardized estimates ( ). The numbers in parentheses indicate standard error. *** p < .001 Table 4-17. Fit Measures for the OrganizationPublic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 2.096 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .997 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .992 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .995 Root Mean Squared Error Approximiation (RMSEA) .05 .025

PAGE 168

168 Figure 4.1. Measurement model of the orga nization-public relationship dimensions. Satisfaction Commitment Trust Control Mutuality Trust Item #2 Trust Item #3 Trust Item #1 Trust Item #4 Trust Item #6 Control Mutuality Item #1 Control Mutuality Item #2 Control Mutuality Item #3 Control Mutuality Item #5 Satisfaction Item #1 Satisfaction Item #2 Satisfaction Item #3 Satisfaction Item #5 Commitment Item #1 Commitment Item #2 Commitment Item #3 Commitment Item #4 .96 .81 .83 .74 .74 .96 .87 .89 .74 .92 .96 .83 .70 .79 .84 .93 .96

PAGE 169

169 Table 4-18. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies. Relationship Cultivation Strategies Access The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. (Reverse) .89 a The organization provides donors with opportuni ties to meet its staff. .93 (.026) *** When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. .83 (.023) *** Sharing of Tasks The organization is involved in mana ging issues that dono rs care about. .95 a The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. .87 (.022) *** The organization is flexible when work ing with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. .83 (.023) *** Openness The organizations annual report is a valuable source of information for donors. .98 a The organization does not provide donor s with enough information about what it does with donations. (Reverse) .89 (.015) *** The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. .80 (.016) *** Networking The organization effectively builds coali tions with groups that address that address issues that donors care about. .98 a The organizations alliances with othe r like-minded groups are useless to donors. (Reverse) .87 (.017) *** The organizations alliances with gove rnment agencies are useful for its donors. .82 (.019) *** Positivity Receiving regular communications from th e organization is beneficial to donors. .99 a T he organizations communication w ith donors is courteous. .94 (.020) *** The organization attempts to make its inte ractions with donors enjoyable. .79 (.025) *** Assurances The organization makes a genuine effort to provide pers onal responses to donors concerns. .99 a The organization communicates the impor tance of its donors. .88 (.018) *** When donors raise concerns, the organization ta kes these concerns se riously. .76 (.021) *** Reciprocity The organization acknowledges fundraisi ng donations in a timely manner. .78 a The organization always sends me a tha nk you letter for my donations. .94 (.059) *** Reporting The organization informs donors ab out its fundraising successes. .83 a The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. .96 (.034) *** The organizations annual report details how much money was raised in that year. .80 (.046) ***

PAGE 170

170 Table 4-18. Continued Relationship Cultivation Strategies Reporting, continued. The organization does not provide donor s with information about how their donations were used. (Reverse) .84 (.041) *** Responsibility The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their donations. .99 a The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will of the donors. (Reverse) .78 (.026) *** Donors have confidence that th e organization will use their do nations wisely. .81 (.026) *** The organization tells donors what projec ts their donations will fund. .73 (.024) *** Relationship Nurturing Donors only hear from the organizati on when it is soliciting for donations. (Reverse) .85 a The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its relationships with donors. (Reverse) .79 (.032) *** Donors receive personalized attention from the or ganization. .73 (.045) *** a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The numbers outside parentheses indi cate standardized estimates ( ). The numbers in parentheses indicate standard error. *** p < .001

PAGE 171

171 Figure 4-2. Measurement model of the relationship cultiv ation strategies. Reciprocity Reciprocity Item #1 Reciprocity Item #2 Assurances Assurances Item #1 Assurances Item #2 Assurances Item #3 Positivity Positivity Item #1 Positivity Item #2 Positivity Item #3 Networking Networking Item #1 Networking Item #2 Networking Item #3 Openness Openness Item #1 Openness Item #2 Openness Item #3 Sharing of Tasks Sharing of Tasks Item #2 Sharing of Tasks Item #3 Sharing of Tasks Item #4 Access Access Item #1 Access Item #2 Access Item #3 .89 .93 .83 .95 .87 .83 .98 .89 .80 .98 .87 .82 .99 .94 .79 .99 .88 .76 .78 .94

PAGE 172

172 Figure 4-2. Continued Reporting Responsibility Relationship Nurturing Reporting Item #1 Reporting Item #2 Reporting Item #3 Reporting Item #4 Responsibility Item #1 Responsibility Item #2 Responsibility Item #3 Responsibility Item #4 Relationship Nurturing Item #1 Relationship Nurturing Item #2 .83 .96 .80 .84 .79 .85 .73 .81 .78 .99 .73 Relationship Nurturing Item #3

PAGE 173

173 Table 4-19. Fit Measures for the Relationship Cultivation Strategies Measurement Model. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 1.86 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .998 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .991 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .995 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .023 Figure 4-3. Initial model of the relationship be tween relationship cultiv ation strategies and organization-public relationship dimensions. Positivity Assurances Reciprocity Reporting Responsibility Relationship Nurturing Trust Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Access Sharing of Tasks Openness Networking

PAGE 174

174 Table 4-20. Path Model of Relationship Cultiv ation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions. Path Standardized coefficient Standardized Error Access Trust .11 .02*** Access Control Mutuality .17 .02*** Access Satisfaction .09 .02*** Access Commitment .09 .02*** Sharing of Tasks Trust .05 .01* Openness Satisfaction .07 .02*** Networking Trust .11 .03*** Networking Control Mutuality .11 .02*** Networking Satisfaction .10 .02*** Networking Commitment .17 .03*** Positivity Control Mutuality .04 .02* Assurances Trust -.08 .03*** Assurances Control Mutuality -.07 .03*** Assurances Satisfaction -.12 .02*** Assurances Commitment -.10 .03*** Reporting Control Mutuality .08 .03** Reporting Satisfaction .08 .03** Reporting Commitment .10 .03*** Responsibility Trust .11 .03*** Responsibility Control Mutuality .14 .03*** Responsibility Satisfaction .14 .04*** Responsibility Commitment .16 .04*** Relationship Nurturing Trust .24 .03*** Relationship Nurturing Control Mutuality .15 .03*** Relationship Nurturing Satisfaction .15 .03*** Relationship Nurturing Commitment .17 .03*** p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 4-21. Fit Measures for the Path Mode l of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions. Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 2.36 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .998 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .997 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .996 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .028

PAGE 175

175 Figure 4-4. Final path model of the relationshi p between relationship cu ltivation strategies and organization-public relationship dimensions for all donors. Positivity Assurances Reciprocity Reporting Responsibility Relationship Nurturing Trust Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Access Sharing of Tasks Openness Networking

PAGE 176

176 Table 4-22. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Major Gift Donors. Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Trust The organization respects its donors. 1.00 a The organization can be re lied on to keep its promises to donors. 1.03 (.09)*** When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. .91 (.08) *** I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. 1.14 (.09) *** I feel very confident about the or ganizations ability to accomplish its mission. .70 (.08)*** The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. (Reverse) .91 (.11)*** Control Mutuality The organization and donors are atte ntive to each others needs. 1.00 a The organization does not believe the opi nions and concerns of its donors are important. (Reverse) .90 (.05) *** I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. .81 (.05) *** The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. .72 (.05) *** Satisfaction Donors are happy with the organization. 1.00 a Both the organization and its donors benefit from their re lationship. .99 (.07) *** Most donors are happy in their interacti ons with the organization. 1.01 (.09) *** Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. .88 (.10)*** The organization fails to satisfy the need s of its donors. (Reverse) .70 (.030) *** Most donors enjoy dealing with th is organization. .95 (.10)*** Commitment I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with donors. 1.00 a I cannot see that the orga nization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. (Reverse) 1.06 (.06) *** There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. .79 (.07) *** Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. .82 (.05) *** a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The numbers outside parentheses indi cate standardized estimates ( ). The numbers in parentheses indicate standard error. *** p < .001

PAGE 177

177 Table 4-23. Fit Measures for Ma jor Gift Donors Organization-P ublic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 1.349 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .987 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .951 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .953 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .031

PAGE 178

178 Figure 4-5. Measurement model of the organiza tion-public relationship dimensions for major gift donors. Control Mutuality Control Mutuality Item #1 Control Mutuality Item #2 Control Mutuality Item #3 Control Mutuality Item #4 1.00 .90 .81 .72 Trust Trust Item #2 Trust Item #3 Trust Item #1 Trust Item #4 Trust Item #5 1.00 1.03 .91 1.14 .70 Trust Item #6 .91 Commitment Commitment Item #1 Commitment Item #2 Commitment Item #3 Commitment Item #4 .82 .79 1.06 1.00 Satisfaction Satisfaction Item #1 Satisfaction Item #2 Satisfaction Item #3 Satisfaction Item #4 1.00 .99 1.01 .88 Satisfaction Item #5 Satisfaction Item #6 .70 .95

PAGE 179

179 Table 4-24. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Major Gift Donors. Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies Access The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. (Reverse) 1.00 a The organization provides donors with opportuni ties to meet its staff. 1.53 (.09) *** When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. 1.20 (.07) *** The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific staff on specific issues. 1.01 (.07)*** Sharing of Tasks The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. (Reverse) 1.00 a The organization is involved in managing issu es that donors care a bout. .86 (.07) *** The organization works with donors to develop solutions that be nefit donors. .71 (.07) *** Openness The organizations annual report is a valuable source of information for donors. 1.00a The organization does not provide donor s with enough information about what it does with donations. (Reverse) 1.06 (.05) *** The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. .78 (.04) *** Networking The organization effectively builds coali tions with groups that address that address issues that donors care about. 1.00 a The organizations alliances with othe r like-minded groups are useless to donors. (Reverse) 1.01 (.06) *** The organizations alliances with othe r community groups are useful to its donors. .70 (.05) *** Positivity Receiving regular communications from th e organization is beneficial to donors. 1.00 a The organization attempts to make its intera ctions with donors enjoyable. .89 (.09) *** The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. .98 (.11) *** Assurances The organization makes a genuine effort to provide pers onal responses to donors concerns. 1.00 a The organization communicates the importa nce of its donors. .97 (.05) *** When donors raise concerns, the organization take s these concerns seri ously. .84 (.06) *** Reciprocity The organization acknowledges fundraisi ng donations in a timely manner. 1.00 a The organization always sends me a tha nk you letter for my donations. 1.10 (.09)*** The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for th eir contributions. (Reverse) .95 (.10)***

PAGE 180

180 Table 4-24. Continued Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies Reciprocity, continued Because of my previous donations, the organizat ion recognizes me as a friend. .91 (.08)*** Reporting The organization informs donors ab out its fundraising successes. 1.00 a The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1.17 (.08) *** The organizations annual report details how much money was raised in that year. 1.06 (.09) *** The organization does not provide donor s with information about how their donations were used. (Reverse) 1.13 (.10) *** Responsibility The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their donations. 1.00 a The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will of the donors. (Reverse) .78 (.07) *** The organization tells donors what projects their donations will fund. .72 (.06) *** Relationship Nurturing Donors only hear from the organizati on when it is soliciting for donations. (Reverse) 1.00 a Donors receive personalized attention from the or ganization. 1.07 (.15) *** The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. .81 (.16) *** a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The numbers outside parentheses indi cate standardized estimates ( ). The numbers in parentheses indicate standard error. *** p < .001

PAGE 181

181 Table 4-25. Fit Measures for the OrganizationPublic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Major Gift Donors. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 1.34 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .993 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .969 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .972 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .031

PAGE 182

182 Figure 4-6. Measurement model of the relationshi p cultivation strategies for major gift donors. Assurances Assurances Item #1 Assurances Item #2 Assurances Item #3 Positivity Positivity Item #1 Positivity Item #3 Positivity Item #4 Networking Networking Item #1 Networking Item #2 Networking Item #4 Sharing of Tasks Sharing of Tasks Item #1 Sharing of Tasks Item #2 Sharing of Tasks Item #3 1.00 .86 .71 Openness Openness Item #1 Openness Item #2 Openness Item #3 1.00 1.06 .78 1.00 1.01 .70 1.00 .89 .98 1.00 .97 .84 Access Access Item #1 Access Item #2 Access Item #3 1.00 1.53 1.20 Access Item #4 1.01

PAGE 183

183 Figure 4-6. Continued Reporting Responsibility Reporting Item #1 Reporting Item #2 Reporting Item #3 Reporting Item #4 Responsibility Item #1 Responsibility Item #2 Responsibility Item #3 1.00 1.17 1.06 1.13 .72 .78 1.00 Relationship Nurturing Relationship Nurturing Item #1 Relationship Nurturing Item #3 1.07 1.00 .81 Relationship Nurturing Item #4 Reciprocity Reciprocity Item #1 Reciprocity Item #2 1.00 1.10 Reciprocity Item #3 Reciprocity Item #4 .95 .91

PAGE 184

184 Table 4-26. Path Model of Relationship Cultiv ation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Major Gift Donors. Path Standardized coefficient Standardized Error Access Control Mutuality .19 .03*** Sharing of Tasks Trust .09 .05* Reciprocity Satisfaction .11 .05* Reciprocity Commitment .21 .05*** Reporting Satisfaction -.13 .04** Responsibility Trust .18 .06** Responsibility Control Mutuality .14 .05** Responsibility Commitment .12 .05* Relationship Nurturing Trust .20 .05*** Relationship Nurturing Control Mutuality .12 .04** p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 4-27. Fit Measures for the Path Mode l of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Di mensions for Major Gift Donors. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 .878 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .999 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .990 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .972 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .009

PAGE 185

185 Figure 4-7. Final path model of the relationshi p between relationship cu ltivation strategies and organization-public relationship di mensions for major gift donors. Positivity Assurances Reciprocity Reporting Responsibility Relationship Nurturing Trust Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Access Sharing of Tasks Openness Networking

PAGE 186

186 Table 4-28. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors. Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions Trust The organization respects its donors. 1.00 a The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. .79 (.02) *** When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. .86 (.03) *** I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. .74 (.03) *** Control Mutuality The organization and donors are atte ntive to each others needs. 1.00 a The organization does not believe the opi nions and concerns of its donors are important. (Reverse) .92 (.02) *** I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. .95 (.02) *** The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. .77 (.03) *** When donors interact with this organi zation, they have a sense of control over the situation. .80 (.03) *** The organization gives donors enough say in th e decision-making process. .72 (.04) *** Satisfaction Donors are happy with the organization. 1.00 a Both the organization and its donors benefit from their re lationship. .98 (.02) *** Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. .86 (.03) *** Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. .75 (.03) *** The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) .82 (.03) *** Commitment I cannot see that the orga nization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. (Reverse) 1.00 a I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with donors. 1.13 (.03) *** There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. .98 (.03) *** Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. .92 (.04) *** I would rather have a relationship with th is organization than not. .85 (.04) *** a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The numbers outside parentheses indi cate standardized estimates ( ). The numbers in parentheses indicate standard error. *** p < .001

PAGE 187

187 Table 4-29. Fit Measures for the OrganizationPublic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Annual Giving Donors. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 1.874 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .997 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .990 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .994 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .025

PAGE 188

188 Figure 4-8. Measurement model of the organiza tion-public relationship dimensions for annual giving donors. Trust Trust Item #2 Trust Item #3 Trust Item #1 Trust Item #4 1.00 .79 .86 .74 Control Mutuality Control Mutuality Item #4 Control Mutuality Item #1 Control Mutuality Item #2 Control Mutuality Item #3 1.00 .92 .95 .77 Control Mutuality Item #5 Control Mutuality Item #6 .80 .72 Satisfaction Satisfaction Item #1 Satisfaction Item #2 Satisfaction Item #3 Satisfaction Item #4 1.00 .98 .86 .75 Satisfaction Item #5 .82 Commitment Commitment Item #1 Commitment Item #2 Commitment Item #3 Commitment Item #4 .92 .98 1.13 1.00 Commitment Item #5 .85

PAGE 189

189 Table 4-30. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Relationship Cultivation Strategies for Annual Giving Donors. Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies Access The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. (Reverse) 1.00 a The organization provides donors with opportuni ties to meet its staff. 1.13 (.02) *** When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. .88 (.03) *** Sharing of Tasks The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. (Reverse) 1.00 a The organization is involved in managing issu es that donors care a bout. .84 (.03) *** The organization works with donors to develop solutions that be nefit donors. .75 (.03) *** The organization is flexible when work ing with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. .77 (.03) *** Openness The organizations annual report is a valuable source of information for donors. 1.00 a The organization does not provide donor s with enough information about what it does with donations. (Reverse) .84 (.03) *** The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. .74 (.02) *** The organization shares enough information with donors about the organizations governance. .76 (.02) *** Networking The organization effectively builds coali tions with groups that address that address issues that donors care about. 1.00 a The organizations alliances with othe r like-minded groups are useless to donors. (Reverse) .94 (.02) *** The organizations alliances with government ag encies are useful for donors. .82 (.03) *** Positivity Receiving regular communications from th e organization is beneficial to donors. 1.00 a T he organizations communication with donors is courteous. .84 (.02) *** The organization attempts to make its intera ctions with donors enjoyable. .70 (.03) *** Assurances The organization makes a genuine effort to provide pers onal responses to donors concerns. 1.00 a The organization communicates the importa nce of its donors. .71 (.02) *** Donors do not believe that the organizati on really cares about their concerns. (Reverse) .72 (.03) ***

PAGE 190

190 Table 4-30. Continued Indicators Relationship Cultivation Strategies Reciprocity The organization acknowledges fundraisi ng donations in a timely manner. 1.00 a The organization always sends me a tha nk you letter for my donations. 1.37 (.11) *** Reporting The organization informs donors ab out its fundraising successes. 1.00 a The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1.17 (.04) *** The organizations annual report details how much money was raised in that year. .97 (.04) *** The organization does not provide donor s with information about how their donations were used. (Reverse) .78 (.041 *** Responsibility The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their donations. 1.00 a The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will of the donors. (Reverse) .84 (.03) *** Donors have confidence that the organization will use their dona tions wisely. .87 (.03) *** The organization tells donors what projects their donations will fund. .90 (.04) *** Relationship Nurturing Donors only hear from the organizati on when it is soliciting for donations. (Reverse) 1.00 a The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its relationships with donors. (Reverse) .74 (.03) *** The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. .84 (.07) *** a Values were not calculated because leading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance. The numbers outside parentheses indi cate standardized estimates ( ). The numbers in parentheses indicate standard error. *** p < .001

PAGE 191

191 Table 4-31. Fit Measures for the OrganizationPublic Relationship Dimensions Measurement Model for Annual Giving Donors. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 2.51 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .997 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .993 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .995 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .034

PAGE 192

192 Figure 4-9. Measurement model of the relations hip cultivation strategies for annual giving donors. Access Access Item #1 Access Item #2 Access Item #3 1.00 1.13 .88 Sharing of Tasks Sharing of Tasks Item #2 Sharing of Tasks Item #3 Sharing of Tasks Item #4 .84 .75 .77 Sharing of Tasks Item #1 1.00 Networking Networking Item #1 Networking Item #2 Networking Item #3 1.00 .94 .82 Positivity Positivity Item #1 Positivity Item #2 Positivity Item #3 1.00 .84 .70 Assurances Assurances Item #1 Assurances Item #2 Assurances Item #4 1.00 .71 .72 Openness Openness Item #2 Openness Item #3 Openness Item #4 .84 .74 .76 Openness Item #1 1.00

PAGE 193

193 Figure 4-9. Continued Reciprocity Reciprocity Item #1 Reciprocity Item #2 1.00 1.37 Reporting Responsibility Relationship Nurturing Reporting Item #1 Reporting Item #2 Reporting Item #3 Reporting Item #4 Responsibility Item #1 Responsibility Item #2 Responsibility Item #3 Responsibility Item #4 Relationship Nurturing Item #1 Relationship Nurturing Item #2 1.00 1.17 .97 .78 .74 1.00 .90 .87 .84 1.00 .84 Relationship Nurturing Item #4

PAGE 194

194 Table 4-32. Path Model of Relationship Cultiv ation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions for Annual Giving Donors. Path Standardized coefficient Standardized Error Access Control Mutuality .11 .03*** Access Satisfaction .06 .03* Sharing of Tasks Commitment -.07 .02** Openness Trust .05 .02** Openness Satisfaction .06 .02** Networking Trust .10 .03*** Networking Control Mutuality .10 .03*** Networking Satisfaction .10 .03*** Networking Commitment .18 .03*** Positivity Trust .07 .03* Positivity Control Mutuality .09 .03** Positivity Satisfaction .06 .03* Positivity Commitment .09 .03** Assurances Trust -.11 .03** Assurances Control Mutuality -.11 .03** Assurances Satisfaction -.14 .04*** Assurances Commitment -.15 .03*** Reciprocity Trust -.07 .03** Reporting Control Mutuality .11 .04** Reporting Satisfaction .12 .04** Reporting Commitment .12 .03** Responsibility Trust .11 .04*** Responsibility Control Mutuality .15 .04*** Responsibility Satisfaction .17 .04*** Responsibility Commitment .17 .04*** Relationship Nurturing Trust .21 .03*** Relationship Nurturing Control Mutuality .12 .03*** Relationship Nurturing Satisfaction .16 .03*** Relationship Nurturing Commitment .16 .04*** p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 4-33. Fit Measures for the Path Mode l of Relationship Cultivation Strategies and Organization-Public Relationship Di mensions for Annual Giving Donors. Model Fit Index Criteria Fit Statistics Chi-square/degrees of freedom 5 .484 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .90 .999 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .90 .999 Normed Fit Index (NFI) .90 .999 Root Mean Squared Error Approximation (RMSEA) .05 .019

PAGE 195

195 Figure 4-10. Final path model of the relationshi p between relationship cultivation strategies and organization-public relationship dime nsions for annual giving donors. Positivity Assurances Reciprocity Reporting Responsibility Relationship Nurturing Trust Control Mutuality Satisfaction Commitment Access Sharing of Tasks Openness Networking

PAGE 196

196 Table 4-34. Agreement between Donors and the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. Variable Mean of Donors Views (n = 1706) Standard Deviation Mean of Fundraising Teams Views (n = 124) Standard Deviation D-Score Dimensions Trust 6.46 1.18 7.42 .83 .96*** Satisfaction 6.42 1.11 7.11 .94 .86*** Commitment 6.66 1.20 7.12 .91 .46*** Control Mutuality 6.30 1.17 7.16 .84 .69*** Strategies Access 6.01 1.33 7.03 1.03 1.02*** Assurances 6.16 1.23 6.95 1.05 .79*** Networking 5.89 1.40 7.11 1.02 1.22*** Openness 6.62 1.32 7.33 1.03 .71*** Positivity 6.02 1.28 6.90 1.00 .88*** Sharing of Tasks 6.17 1.23 7.09 1.07 .92*** Reciprocity 6.95 1.07 7.59 .98 .64*** Responsibility 6.78 1.07 7.10 1.05 .32** Reporting 6.87 1.09 7.47 .93 .60*** Relationship Nurturing 6.50 1.15 7.25 1.09 .75*** **p<.01, ***p<.001

PAGE 197

197 Table 4-35. Donors Perceived Agreement with the Fundraising Team on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. Variable Mean of Donors Views (n = 1706) Standard Deviation Mean of Donors Estimate of Fundraising Teams Views (n = 1706) Standard Deviation DScore Dimensions Trust 6.46 1.18 6.60 1.10 .14*** Satisfaction 6.42 1.11 6.50 1.08 .08*** Commitment 6.66 1.20 6.78 1.12 .12*** Control Mutuality 6.30 1.17 6.49 1.08 .19*** Strategies Access 6.01 1.33 6.21 1.29 .20*** Assurances 6.16 1.23 6.40 1.12 .24*** Networking 5.89 1.40 6.95 1.07 1.06*** Openness 6.62 1.32 6.81 1.14 .19*** Positivity 6.02 1.28 6.25 1.15 .23*** Sharing of Tasks 6.17 1.23 6.30 1.31 .13*** Reciprocity 6.95 1.07 7.12 1.00 .17*** Responsibility 6.78 1.07 6.95 1.04 .17*** Reporting 6.87 1.09 7.07 1.03 .20*** Relationship Nurturing 6.50 1.15 6.69 1.06 .19*** ***p<.001

PAGE 198

198 Table 4-36. The Fundraising Team s Perceived Agreement with Donors on the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. Variable Mean of Fundraising Teams Views (n = 124) Standard Deviation Mean of Fundraising Teams Estimate of Donors Views (n = 124) Standard Deviation DScore Dimensions Trust 7.42 .83 7.34 .77 .08* Satisfaction 7.11 .94 7.13 .88 .02 Commitment 7.12 .91 7.17 .83 .05 Control Mutuality 7.16 .84 7.15 .77 .01 Strategies Access 7.03 1.03 7.00 .93 .03 Assurances 6.95 1.05 6.93 1.02 .02 Networking 7.11 1.02 7.17 1.12 .06 Openness 7.33 1.03 7.33 .82 .00 Positivity 6.90 1.00 6.94 1.05 .04 Sharing of Tasks 7.09 1.07 7.12 1.06 .03 Reciprocity 7.59 .98 7.60 .95 .01 Responsibility 7.10 1.05 7.12 1.08 .02 Reporting 7.47 .93 7.51 1.03 .04 Relationship Nurturing 7.25 1.09 7.28 1.01 .03 *p<.05

PAGE 199

199 Table 4-37. Donors Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. Variable Mean of Donors Estimate of Fundraising Teams Views (n = 1706) Standard Deviation Mean of Fundraising Teams Views (n = 124) Standard Deviation DScore Dimensions Trust 6.60 1.10 7.42 .83 .82*** Satisfaction 6.50 1.08 7.11 .94 .61*** Commitment 6.78 1.12 7.12 .91 .34** Control Mutuality 6.49 1.08 7.16 .84 .67*** Strategies Access 6.21 1.29 7.03 1.03 .82*** Assurances 6.40 1.12 6.95 1.05 .55*** Networking 6.95 1.07 7.11 1.02 .16*** Openness 6.81 1.14 7.33 1.03 .52*** Positivity 6.25 1.15 6.90 1.00 .65*** Sharing of Tasks 6.30 1.31 7.09 1.07 .79*** Reciprocity 7.12 1.00 7.59 .98 .47*** Responsibility 6.95 1.04 7.10 1.05 .15 Reporting 7.07 1.03 7.47 .93 .40*** Relationship Nurturing 6.69 1.06 7.25 1.09 .56*** **p<.01, *** p<.001

PAGE 200

200 Table 4-38. The Fundraising Teams Accuracy on Estimates of the Evaluation of the NonprofitDonor Relationship. Variable Mean of Fundraising Teams Estimates of Donors Views (n = 124) Standard Deviation Mean of Donors Views (n = 1706) Standard Deviation DScore Dimensions Trust 7.34 .77 6.46 1.18 .88*** Satisfaction 7.13 .88 6.42 1.11 .71*** Commitment 7.17 .83 6.66 1.20 .51*** Control Mutuality 7.15 .77 6.30 1.17 .85*** Strategies Access 7.00 .93 6.01 1.33 .99*** Assurances 6.93 1.02 6.16 1.23 .77*** Networking 7.17 1.12 5.89 1.40 1.28*** Openness 7.33 .82 6.62 1.32 .71*** Positivity 6.94 1.05 6.02 1.28 .92*** Sharing of Tasks 7.12 1.06 6.17 1.23 .95*** Reciprocity 7.60 .95 6.95 1.07 .65*** Responsibility 7.12 1.08 6.78 1.07 .34** Reporting 7.51 1.03 6.87 1.09 .64*** Relationship Nurturing 7.28 1.01 6.50 1.15 .78*** **p<.01, *** p<.001

PAGE 201

201 Table 4-39. Coorientation St ates on Key Variables of th e Nonprofit-Donor Relationship. Variable Agreement between 2 Sides Agreement Perceived by Donors Agreement Perceived by Fundraising Team State of Coorientation Trust Yes Yes Yes Consensus Satisfaction Yes Yes Yes Consensus Commitment Yes Yes Yes Consensus Control Mutuality Yes Yes Yes Consensus Access Yes Yes Yes Consensus Assurances Yes Yes Yes Consensus Networking Yes Yes Yes Consensus Openness Yes Yes Yes Consensus Positivity Yes Yes Yes Consensus Sharing of Tasks Yes Yes Yes Consensus Reciprocity Yes Yes Yes Consensus Responsibility Yes Yes Yes Consensus Reporting Yes Yes Yes Consensus Relationship Nurturing Yes Yes Yes Consensus

PAGE 202

202 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This study sought to advance relationship management theory by refining previous relationship dimensions, adding new cultivati on strategies, measuring both sides of the organization-public relationshi p, and measuring the organizat ion-public relationship across multiple organizations. Through surveys that were mailed to a random sample of major gift and annual giving donors to 3 Northe rn California nonprofit hospita ls and to members of the hospitals fundraising teams, this study found that the relationshi p dimensions and the hospitals cultivation strategies were evaluated positiv ely by both the donors and the organizations fundraising teams. However, the dimensions and the strategies we re evaluated differently by all 3 groups (2 donor types and fundr aising team). These differences not only have significant impact on the nonprofit-donor relationship but al so public relations understanding of the specialization, its relationship to the academic discipline, and our understanding of relationship management. Before interpreting the results of this study, a brief summary of the fi ndings related to the studys hypotheses and research que stions is necessary. The firs t research questions analysis found that donors evaluate the 4 relationship di mensions positively, and the first hypothesis found that major gift donors evaluated the relation ship dimensions more favorably than annual giving donors. However, the second hypothesis found that donors of both groups evaluated the relationship dimensions more favorably as the number of gifts made to the organizations increased. The second research questions anal ysis found that these dimensions provide the ability to predict past involvement with the or ganization, and the results of the third research question suggested that the 4 dimensions do an adequate job of descri bing the overall nonprofit-

PAGE 203

203 donor relationshiphowever, a large amount of the variance in the relati onship is unexplained by these dimensions. Paralleling earlier findings, results of th e fourth research question found that donors evaluated all 10 of the relationship cultivation st rategies positively, and the third hypothesis was correct in predicting that majo r gift donors would evaluate th em more favorably then annual giving donors. The fifth research question f ound that a variety of the theory-derived interpersonal communication strategies and pr ofessionally derived stewardship strategies impacted donors evaluation of the relationship dimensions. Meanwhile, results of the sixth research question revealed that major gift and an nual gift donors are imp acted by the relationship cultivation strategies differently. Finally, turning to the vi ews of donors and the fundr aising team members, the coorientation methodology revealed that the 2 sides of the nonpr ofit-donor relationship are in consensus in how they view the relationship. Ov erall, the 2 sides are in agreement with their views on the 4 relationship dimensions and 10 cu ltivation strategies. The 2 sides perceive agreement with one another, and th ey are generally accurate in thei r estimations of the other side. The results of the seventh, eighth, and ninth research questions i ndicate that although they share positive evaluations of the dimensions and strategies, there are significant differences in how favorably they evaluate them. The Nonprofit-Donor Relationship When Hon and J. Grunig (1999) discussed re lationship measurement in the monograph that introduced the topic to prof essional and academic circles, they concluded by reviewing how the general public viewed relationships with di fferent organizations, including the American Red Cross, Microsoft, and the National Rifle Asso ciation, regardless of whether those surveyed interacted with the organizations Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) study was generic, similar to the

PAGE 204

204 generic studies of donors without regard to affili ation with specific organizations. This multipleorganization approach, however, was soon aband oned by scholarly pursuits. Instead, scholars began studying the relationships that 1 or ganization had with 1 stakeholder group. While this single-organization approach was important to further test the relationship dimension scales, the scales now have been validated and found reliable in many different settings. This applied case-st udy type of approach may not be the most appropriate for the public relations field now that scholarly pursuits seek to refi ne the relationship management theory. For theoretical development to occur, relationship management studies need to move beyond a case study approach. For example, Waters (2006) and ONeil (2007) have both studied the nonprofit-donor relationship using single organizations to assess the levels of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. These 2 studies examined the relationship with a healthcare and human services organization, respectiv ely. The studies found that th e donors of the 2 organizations evaluated the 4 dimensions positively. But, one has to ask how these resu lts truly represent the nonprofit-donor relationship? What if these orga nizations practiced excellent public relations? Is it fair to then make claims that their prog ramming and relationship cul tivation represented the entire spectrum of nonpr ofit-donor relationships? Scholars have long studied the impact that th e implementation of diffe rent public relations programming has on stakeholders. Examining th e nature of public relations in different organizations led to the Excellence Theory and the push for symmetrical communication in diverse organization settings. This theory was able to withstand scrutiny only because it was created after an extensive globa l study looking at more than 3 00 organizations in 3 different countries. Relationship management ha s yet to be tested so rigorously.

PAGE 205

205 However, it is necessary to start testing the relationship management paradigm in settings of more than 1 organization to truly understand how public relations practitioners cultivate and manage relationships with key stakeholders. If studies remain with in the confines of 1 organization, scholars will never be able to comp are the impact of public relations programs on relationships. To truly unders tand relationship management, good a nd bad relationships, or welldeveloped and poorly-developed ones, must be ex amined. These comparisons are necessary if the field truly is interested in theoretical development. Given the numerous studies that have examin ed the relationship between an organization and public using the Hon and J. Grunig (1999) scales, it is time to move beyond singleorganization applied research scenar ios. Scholars now need to start trying to make sense of the relationship paradigm and pull di fferent components together in to 1 overarching theoretical perspective. For this reason, this study examined the nonprofit-donor relationship across 3 fundraising organizations in the nonprofit healthcare subs ector. Although this only represents 1 aspect of the nonprofit sector, it is an encour aging first step in moving the relationship management paradigm forward, especially gi ven the similarities of the results across organizations. Relationship Quality and Dimensions Paralleling public rela tions scholarly inquiry into relati onship management, this study first explored relationship quality by evaluating the views of the donors and the fundraising teams based on 4 key dimensions: trust, commitment, satisfaction, and contro l mutuality. Although it was first discussed at the beginni ng of the results chapter, it is necessary to quickly recap the similarities and differences across the 3 organi zations before examining either side of the nonprofit-donor relationship.

PAGE 206

206 Given this studys encouragement for examina tion of the organizati on-public relationship across multiple organization, it is important to se e the trends that emerged from the evaluation across all 3 organizations. All of the groups evaluated the relationship positively. So, in essence, they are all in agreement according to the coorientation methodology. Differences, however, do exist and would naturally be expected when comparing indepe ndent organizations. San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) is the y oungest organization in te rms of its fundraising experience; thus, it may not have the experien ce and well-shaped fundraising programs as the other 2 hospitals. Overall, th e SFGH donors evaluated the relationship less favorably than the donors of Marin General Hospital (MGH) and Ch ildrens Hospital & Research Center of Oakland (CHRCO). Additionally, the organizati on with the most fundraising experience and the largest endowment, CHRCO, had its donors and fundr aising team evaluate the relationship more positively than the other organizations. As discussed in the methodology chapter, thes e 3 hospitals all have fundraising programs that are similar to most large nonprofit organizat ions: annual giving, major gift, and planned giving efforts. These 3 organizations all also have varying levels of implementation of ePhilanthropy programs to tap into the digital communities of Northern California. However, nonprofit organizations raise funds differently. Comm unication may not be as frequent from certain organizations when talki ng about elements of reporting (e .g., newsletters, annual reports, or their Web-based counterparts). The persona l touches, such as face-to-face meetings or handwritten thank-you notes on acknowledge ment letters, may be more common in organizations with larger resources allocated to th e fundraising department. So the differences in how the organizations evaluate th e relationship are only natural.

PAGE 207

207 The other main trend that emerged across the 3 organizations is the di fference in evaluation of the relationship between the 2 groups. The f undraising team evaluated the relationship more strongly than donors in all 3 organi zations. This difference is impor tant to examine in relation to the management implications of the nonprofit orga nizations dominant coal ition, and it will be addressed in the coorientation methodology discussion in this chapter. However, for now, it is interesting to note that this trend em erged across all 3 organizations. Given these overarching trends, it is possible to discuss the results as they relate to an overall nonprofit-donor relationshi p. This study examined the relationship dimensions in relation to both sides of th e nonprofit-donor relationship. For donors, commitment was the dimension that was evaluated most favorably overall (M = 6.66, SD = 1.20), followed by trust (M = 6.46, SD = 1.18), satisfaction (M = 6.42, SD = 1.11), and control mutuality (M = 6.30, SD = 1.17). When separating the donors into annual giving and major gift donors, similar results emerged. Commitment received the highest eval uations, and control mutuality was the lowest for both groups. With few exceptions, previous studies have simply measured the perspectives of the external stakeholder group. Wh ile this may provide insight in to the publics views of the relationship, it ignores the member s of the organization who make the decisions that ultimately impact those relationships. To bring a symm etrical approach to st udying the nonprofit-donor relationship, the members of the fundraising team were also aske d to complete the survey so comparisons could be made to determine similar ities and differences in the fundraising team members and donors views. When it comes to the evaluations of the fundraising team, trust was viewed most favorably. Satisfaction was the re lationship dimension with the lo west mean score. However,

PAGE 208

208 the lowest fundraising team evaluation was stil l significantly higher th an the highest rated dimension from the donors perspectives. Sim ilar to the relationship dimensions and each hospitals donors, there were variations am ong the fundraising team at each institution. Although the fundraising team evaluated the relationship higher than the donors, it is important to keep in mind that the team memb ers were asked to evaluate the organizations relationship with its donors. The majority of th e fundraising team interact with major gift donors and prospects as dictated by Paretos prin ciple, whichwhen applied to the fundraising processexplains that 20 percent of the donors w ill provide 80 percent of the gifts to charitable nonprofit organizations. So even though they are the minority in terms of percentages of the overall donor database, major gift donors receiv e a significant proportio n of the fundraising teams attention. This may infl ate the overall evaluation of the f undraising team, especially as there are fundraisers who primarily work in ca rrying out the annual giving and e-Philanthropy programs, which produce significantly more donor s in terms of sheer numbers but smaller amounts of gifts. All 3 of the hospitals include d in this study have fundraise rs working with annual giving donors. Although the survey did not specify wh ich donors the fundraising team members should consider when evaluating the relati onship, the range of answers seem s to hint that the fundraisers who worked with annual giving donors did view th e relationship less favora bly than their major gift counterparts. On all 4 relationship dimens ions, there was a wide range when looking at the maximum and minimum values for the indices. Fo r example, the views on the control mutuality index ranged from a low of 4.67 to a high of 8.67. Clearly there are so me fundraising team members who do not feel the relationship is wellbalanced between the 2 parties. These lower

PAGE 209

209 evaluations may very well stem from those indi viduals who work exclus ively with the annual giving donors. These differing results for the donors and fundr aising team members are intriguing given the current state of nonprofit Americ a, which has been challenged in recent years due to scandals involving respected, nationally known organizati ons. Increasingly, donors are holding nonprofit organizations to higher standards of accountability and transparency. With the fina ncial scandals of the United Way in the 1990s and the Ameri can Red Cross in 2001, donors no longer have a blind trust for organizations out to do good (S argeant & Lee, 2002). Nonprofits now have to prove that they worthy of support. Indeed, a Br ookings Institution repor t found that the publics confidence in the nations charit able nonprofit sector fell to an all-time low in 2003: Only 13 percent expressed a great deal of confid ence in nonprofit organiza tion, while 37 percent reported that they had not too much or no confidence in the sector (Light, 2003). Among the chief concerns highlighted by the Brookings Institution report were concerns that nonprofit organizations sp ent donations wisely, that nonp rofit leaders made strategic decisions that were unbiased and fair, that nonprofit organizations de dicated enough time to developing quality programs that truly addresse d the cause of social ills, and that nonprofit leaders were paid too much (Light, 2003). Al armingly, more than 60 pe rcent of respondents felt that nonprofit organizati ons wasted money. However, the report found several high notes for nonprofit organizations. Overall, the respondents evaluated nonprofit orga nizations highly in terms of de livering programs to those in need. Even though 60 percent of respondents be lieved nonprofit organiza tions wasted money, this was significantly lower than American bus inesses (81%) and the g overnment (93%). For organizations dedicated to growing relations hips with their donor s and improving their

PAGE 210

210 reputation, proper resource allocation can ensure th at practitioners can ed ucate donors about the organizations use of donations du ring the cultivation process. In her description of the fundraising process, Kelly (2000) said that fundraisers should be involved in stewardship for 20 pe rcent of the time dedicated to work. These results support her claims that stewardship is second only to research in its importance to effective fundraising. All 4 components of stewardshipreciprocity, respon sibility, reporting and relationship nurturing can be utilized to demonstrate an organization s accountability and res ponsibility. However, unless an organization is willing to dedicate resour ces to carrying out its stewardship, it will not be able to take advantage of relationship development. Practitioner literature suggests that one of the best ways to gain the support and trust of donors is for nonprofits to manage their finances wisely. Not only does this mean carrying out programs and services in a cost effective and efficient manner, but nonprofit organizations have an obligation to follow donors requests when they specify how they want their donations to be used. As the United Way and Red Cross scandals pointed out, accountability no longer simply means keeping a low overhead and not using donati ons to fund extravagant salaries. Now, donor intent has become increasingly important. Kelly (2000) suggested that organizations accu rately report how they used donations in a timely manner. This can be reported either th rough direct mailings of annual reports (Neal, 2001), the provision of 990 IRS tax forms (Wat ers, 2005), or even th rough interpersonal communication (Hart, 2001). The In ternet is increasing being used to convey this information in digital downloads (Olsen, Keevers, Paul, & Covi ngton, 2001). Fundraising associations, such as the Association for Fundraising Professionals an d Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, are encouraging their members to digitize their fina ncial information to make it available to the

PAGE 211

211 general public. Additionally, this is becoming significantly easier as beginning in 2006 the IRS is mandating that nonprofit organi zations use e-file to submit th eir fiscal information to the government; this file could easily be uploa ded to the nonprofits Web site as well. Given the importance of trust in the literat ure on the nonprofit-donor relationship, it is interesting that donors did not eval uate trust as the highest of th e 4 dimensionseven major gift donors. Perhaps one reason for this is that 2 of th e 3 hospitals in this st udy are guilty of playing the zero-sum filing game. MGH and CHRC O both reported spending nothing on their fundraising expenses on their IRS 990 tax forms despite raising $4.2 and $10.4 million, respectively, from individual donors. These or ganizations obviously spent money on raising such a large amount of charitable gifts; howev er, their misleading tax forms may cause donors to doubt their trustworthiness. Gi ven the increasing numbers of charity watchdog groups, such as CharityNavigator.org and Guidestar.org, ma ny nonprofit organizati ons are striving to demonstrate that they dedicate more money to pr ograms and services rather than to fundraising and administrative costs. Wa nting to show a reduced amount of organizational resources dedicated to fundraising causes so me nonprofit organizations to repor t that they spent nothing on fundraising even though the adage, You have got to spend money to make money, applies to fundraising programs. Even though questions of trustworthiness may be present, 1 trend that was very evident from the data is that the donors are committed to the relationship with the organizations and their missions. Though not surprising that individuals who are willing to donate money to an organization would have some level of commit ment to that organization, it was somewhat unexpected that this would be th e relationship dimension that donor s evaluated most favorably.

PAGE 212

212 However, in the past several years, the media have paid increasing a ttention to the nations healthcare crises. California, in particular, is facing a financial crisis in terms of supporting its public facilities (e.g., government-sponsored clin ics and hospitals) in pr oviding care for the uninsured. Additionally, the incr easing numbers of AIDS cases, as well as obesity rates among Californias children, have received special attention from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the California Endowment, 2 foundations created to a ddress the states growing health problems. The universal provision of health care has also emerged as an early issue being debated by the 2008 presidential candidates. This increased attention may help explain why these donors evaluated their commitment to the organizatio ns higher than the other dimensions. The distribution of power and control is 1 aspe ct of the fundraising pr ocess that is often misunderstood. Many assume that the individua l donor holds the power in the relationship because the donor has the money to give to th e organization. However, this assumption is flawed. Donors have very diffe rent motivations for donating to nonprofits, and by understanding donors motivations the organization retains a sign ificant amount of power. For example, Prince and File (1994) found that 11 per cent of donors do so for social reas ons. They want to see their name associated with specific projects or ha ve hospital wings or lounges named after them. These naming rights are quite valuable to cert ain donors, and organizations retain power by requiring very large donations for the naming rights. Likewise, organizations have th e ability to say no to donati ons, and many do so regularly when donors try to place too many restrictions on how the donation can be used. For example, the SFGH Foundation turned down a donation of $25,000 in 2003 because the donor insisted that the gift only be used to provide healthcare servic es to individuals from a specific San Francisco

PAGE 213

213 zip code. For the relatively young foundation, the administrative burden was viewed as too cumbersome for such a small staff. With the rise of what is termed venture philanthropy many donors want to play a significant role in the planning and delivery of nonprofit programs and services. The balance of power comes into play when nonpr ofit organizations are discussing these potential ventures with such donors. To be socially accountable to its consumers, nonprofit organi zations must not stray from their original missions simply because a donor is willing to fund a program that is somewhat connected to the organizations goals. Unfortunately, many smaller organizations fall victim to this mission creep because the availa bility of funds is too alluring. Nonprofit organizations should be willing to listen to their donors; however, they must also stand strong to their missions or risk losing th e trust of their other donors. Finally, the relationship dimension of satisfact ion is important for the relationship, but it was one where the views of the fundraising team and the donors were furthest apart. The difference between the 2 groups is particular ly striking given that Ki (2006) found that satisfaction was the relationship di mension that led to the others. Fortunately, public relations and fundraising literature provide s several relationship maintenan ce and cultivation strategies that can be used to enhance donors satisfac tion with their relati onship with the nonprofit organizations, such as reporting on how donors gifts were used and providing access to members of the organization. Relationship Cultivation Strategies This study broadened the understanding of rela tionship cultivation strategies in public relations by testing 6 derived fr om interpersonal communication literature as well as creating scales for 4 stewardship strategies proposed by Kelly (2000, 2001), which are derived from professional practice. These 10 strategies were all evaluated positively by both the donors and

PAGE 214

214 members of the fundraising team, just like the 4 relationship dime nsions. Again, several patterns emerged when looking at the evaluations across a ll 3 organizations. First, the fundraising team evaluated the strategies more positively than the donors. Also the donors evaluated the stewardship strategies more pos itively than the 6 interpersona lly derived ones. Finally, networking was evaluated the lowest by the donors overall. Looking at the evaluation of the strategies in terms of the 2 groups of donors, differences between the groups start to emerge. Annual gi ving donors typically are c ontacted twice a year for solicitations and receive othe r quarterly communications from the hospitals. All of the hospitals send out newsletters to these donors, and one mails an annual report while the other 2 make the annual report available on their Web site and reference it in the newsletters. For these donors, reciprocity and reporting were the 2 mo st favorably rated relationship cultivation strategies based on their mean scores. They appreciate the acknowledgement and the words of gratitude, and the newsletters throughout the year allow the donors to understand how their donations are being used as well as th e situations the hospitals face. The results of the structural equation modeli ng showed that fundraise rs really need to incorporate a variety of the 10 strategies into their programming if they want to cultivate relationships with their annual giving donors. For example, providing access to contact information and offering opportunities to meet the organizations staff and leadership had a significant positive influence in how the donors ev aluated their views of satisfaction in the relationship as well as the leve ls of the control and power ba lance. Being open about the organizations programs and services, its governance, and the issues it face s directly influenced how donors evaluated tr ust and satisfaction.

PAGE 215

215 Access, positivity, sharing of tasks, assuranc es and networking all received evaluations that were only slightly greater than the neutra l point on the 9-point scale. Taking the standard deviation into account, a substantial number of the annual giving donors evaluated these strategies negatively. The differences in eval uations of these strategies were powerful in showing how the different strategies impact th e relationship dimensions. For example, although networking overall received a lower mean score than the other relationship cultivation strategies, the donors views of that strategy were quite pow erful in predicting how the donors felt about the levels of trust ( = .10, p < .001), satisfaction ( = .10, p < .001), control mutuality ( = .10, p < .001), and commitment ( = .18, p < .001) in the relationship. Positivity, responsibility, and relationship nurturing also had a statistically significant posit ive influence on all 4 of the relationship dimensions. Reportingproviding donors with information about what was done with their donations and informing them about organizational succes sesdid not have an influence on trust. However, it did significantly influence the remaining 3 dimensions. In outlining the basic principles of reporting, Kelly (2001) details how reporting information can help an organization demonstrate its accountability. Re porting can lead to increased le vels of public confidence in an organization when it takes time to reinforce its effectiveness (Dressel, 1980). Seemingly, this should lead to increased levels of trust in an organization, but the resu lts from the structural equation modeling showed that it had no statistica lly significant impact on this aspect of the relationship. Instead, reporting may help the organization de monstrate its social responsibility rather than its accountability. Kelly (2001) notes that th e 2 concepts are closely related; however, in this case it seems that telling donors about the or ganizations performance led to increased levels

PAGE 216

216 of satisfaction and commitment to the organizati on and its cause. Given the higher evaluations for commitment, it seems that fundraisers desiring to build trust should focus on other strategies. The results for reporting were not the only unexpected findings that emerged from the structural equation modeling. Sharing of ta sks, which focuses on donors and the fundraising team working together to resolve problems and trying to find what public relations defines as a win-win zone had no statistically significant influence on the relationship dimensions other than a negative influence on commitment to the organization. Looking at the 2 types of donors, annual giving donors typically are not involved in organizational decision-making. While the fundraising team certainly would keep such donors views in mind, they ge nerally would take a more personal approach regard ing decision making with major gift donors who have the ability to make much larger donations. Assurances had a negative consequence for a ll 4 of the relationship dimensions. This strategy was operationally define d as the fundraising team provi ding personal responses to concerns, taking these concerns seriously, and communicating th e importance of its donors. Although conceptualized as a posi tive aspect of the relationshi p, these actions had a negative impact on trust ( = -.11, p < .01), satisfaction ( = -.14, p < .001), control mutuality ( = -.11, p < .01), and commitment ( = -.15, p < .001). In recent years, the American Red Cross, Nature Conservancy, and United Way were all found to be using donated funds for projects ot her than what the donors had intended. The American Red Cross initially directed some dona tions to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to an account to be used for future disasters be fore the media began focusing on the practice. A Washington Post expos revealed that the Nature Conser vancy used donors gifts for loans to its board members, and the national media fo cused on William Aramonys egregious use of

PAGE 217

217 donations to support a lavish lifes tyle. Perhaps the regularity with which these scandals occur has caused donors who are not invited to partic ipate in those one-on-one meetings with the organizations fundraisers to be skeptical when they are told that they are valued by the organization or their concerns are important. Despite receiving the highest mean score fr om annual giving donors, reciprocity did not have an impact on commitment, satisfaction, or c ontrol mutuality. Surpri singly, the structural equation modeling revealed that the acts of r ecognition and expressions of gratitude had a statistically significant negative in fluence on the trust dimension ( = -.07, p < .01). Reciprocity did, however, have a powerful impact on the major gift donors as it enhanced their levels of commitment ( = .21, p < .001) and satisfaction ( = .11, p < .01). As results regarding the sixth research ques tion demonstrated, annual giving and major gift donors experience the nonprofit-donor relationship quite differently. Wh ereas the structural equation modeling tests found that 9 of the 10 st rategies impacted a nnual giving donors views of the relationship dimensions, only 6 strategies had the same impact for major gift donors. Openness, networking, positivity, and assurances did not influence the evaluations of the 4 dimensions in a significant positive or negative manner. Access led to increased views that the power was balanced between the donors and the nonprofit organizations ( = .17, p < .001). Similarly, 2 stewar dship strategies had a similar impact. Responsibility ( = .14, p < .001) and relationship nurturing ( = .15, p < .001) both influenced how major gift donors evaluated the balance of power between themselves and the fundraising team. Annual giving donors evaluation of the dist ribution of power experienced positive influence from networki ng, positivity, and reporting.

PAGE 218

218 The distribution of power was influenced th e most by the access that major gift donors had. These donors are the ones who are more likel y to receive personalized attention from the organization. Because of major gift donors potential for making la rge financial donations, organizations often will give them much grea ter access to members of the nonprofits dominant coalition and fundraising team leaders. Majo r gift donors may also have acquaintances on the board of directors. Because of their connections to the organization, they are the ones who have the ability to ask specific questions and rece ive prompt attention from the organization. Therefore, the impact of providing access to these donors leads to more positive feelings of control mutuality. Major gift donors often place restrictions on wh at organizations can do with their gifts. For example, a major gift donor could tell the fundraising team that the donation can only be used to fund support groups or rehabilitation prog rams. When the organization reports back that the donation was used for these programs and discusses the impact of the programs, the donor also is able to feel that th e power is balanced because the organization followed his or her wishes. For major gift donors, only 2 of the 10 strategi es impacted the levels of satisfaction. Both of those strategies were from Kellys (2000, 2001) stewardship elements. However, the 2 strategies had opposite influence on the dimens ion. Satisfaction was positively influenced by reciprocity ( = .11, p < .05) while reporting ( = -.13, p < .01) had a ne gative influence. In other words, major gift donors appreciated be ing recognized as a donor and thanked for their gifts; however, providing them with newslett ers and annual reports may not be the most appropriate methods to make them feel satisfied with the relationship. Perhaps because of their

PAGE 219

219 heightened levels of access, major gift donors may not feel they need to see printed reports about organizational activities because their que stions will be addressed personally. For major gift donors, 2 stewards hip strategies, reciprocity ( = .21, p < .001) and responsibility ( = .12, p < .05), influenced the levels of commitment while none of those derived from interpersonal commun ication literature did. Only 2 of the interpersonal strategies influenced the relationship dimensions. As previously discussed, access influenced the evaluations of control mutuality, and trust was influenced by the sharing of tasks ( = .09, p < .05). Trust, however, was more significantly influenced by relationship nurturing ( = .20, p < .001) and responsibility ( = .18, p < .01). When the 2 donor groups are combined into 1, the only strategy that does not influence the dimensions is reciprocity. Goulder (as cited in Kelly, 2001) said that reciprocity was a universal component of all moral codes (p. 284). However, it did not have a strong influence when donors as a whole evaluated the relationshi p. It is important to note, however, that reciprocity was impactful on major gift donors bu t not the annual giving donors. This may be due to the sample sizes of the 2, major gift (n = 358) and annual giving (n = 1348) donors. Again, perhaps influenced by the sample size of the annual giving sample, organizational assurances had a negative influence on th e 4 dimensions in th e overall nonprofit-donor relationship even though there was no statis tical significance for the major gift donors. The remaining 8 strategies vari ed in their impact across the 4 dimensions. Four of these strategies had statistically significant positive influences on all 4 dimensions. Access, networking, responsibility, and relationship nurturing all dire ctly influenced how donors evaluated their levels of trus t, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Based on the standardized coefficients, rela tionship nurturing and responsibility were the 2 most important

PAGE 220

220 strategies; however, access was also very importa nt in the evaluation. But what does this mean for fundraising practitioners? Implications for the Practice Though structural equation modeling was not us ed to evaluate the impact that the relationship cultivation strate gies had on the fundraising te am members views of the relationship, their perspectives of the stra tegies have important consequences for how relationship cultivation is execute d. Fortunately, the results of th e coorientation portion of the study found that the fundraising te am generally was in agreemen t with the donors on how they viewed the importance of the 10 rela tionship cultivation strategies. Even though they were in agreement, the 2 gr oups viewed the strategies very differently. Because of the sample size, the evaluations for th e strategies were all st atistically significant even though some strategies had relatively small D-scores (e.g., responsibility). The greatest differences existed for the networking strategy. The fundraising team (M = 7.11, SD = 1.03) and donors (M = 5.89, SD = 1.40) had viewpoints that were vastly different; however, the coorientation methodology shows that they are in agreement because their views are both on the positive side of the 9-point Likert scale. These differences have an impact on how the relationship between a donor and nonprofit organization unfolds. If the fundraising team view s certain strategies as being more important than others, then there can be consequences to the relationship if the donors do not share those views. This scenario seems to be present for th e sharing of tasks strategy. There was nearly a 1point differential in how the 2 gr oups evaluated this strategy. In other words, the fundraisers felt that the hospitals worked with donors to reach mutually benefi cial solutions to problems that the donors cared about. Donors, however, did not perc eive that the organization was as willing to work with the donors as much as the fundraisers did. Investing re sources in the sharing of tasks

PAGE 221

221 strategy would be costly for the organizations as the strategy ultimately had little impact on the relationship dimensions as shown by the structural equation modeling. Most organizations would not have access to structural equation modeling results on which to base programming decisions, but the c oorientation methodology does provide significant insights into how the fundrai sing team can improve the relationship status with the organizations donors. By examining the perceived agreement and the accuracy of the viewpoints of donors, the organization can make a ppropriate decisions to have programming that appeals to donors. In this study, the fundraisi ng team felt that donors w ould have very similar evaluations of the rela tionship cultivation strategies. Only 1 of the fundraising teams evaluations and the fundraising teams estimates of the donors views were statistically different, that being the trust rela tionship dimension. For several of the rela tionship cultivation strategies, th e fundraising team thought that the donors would value the strategies even more than the fundraising team. Although the differences werent statistically significant, the fundraising team reported th at they believed donors would evaluate all 4 stewardship strategies, positivity, sh aring of tasks, and networking higher than the team members did. The differe nce was greatest for the networ king strategy (D-score = .06). Based on the accuracy results, the fundraising te am misread the donors. The fundraising team overestimated the donors views on all 10 relatio nship strategies. The fundraising teams estimate (M = 7.12, SD = 1.08) of the donor s actual views (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07) on responsibility was as close as the teams estimates came for any of the 10 strategies. But, even this was substantially greater th an the donors actual views. This overestimation on the part of the fundraising team could create problems for the relationship.

PAGE 222

222 Measuring both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship offers insight into the management of relationships. Organizations that measure both the views of internal and external publics are able to find out areas where the re lationship can be improved. Using the nonprofitdonor relationship as an example, this study fou nd that the 2 sides evaluated networking very differently. The fundraising te am felt that donors would evaluate the networking strategy quite favorably (M = 7.17); however, the donors had only a slightly positive view of the organizations external connections (M = 5.89). Given the nonprofit organizations overestimation of this stra tegy, the dominant coalitions face an important decision: How do they resolve the difference and bring the 2 sides into closer agreement? The fundraising team could simply abandon the pursuit of co alitions with other groups focusing on healthcare issues. Howeve r, they could also engage the donors in conversations about the importance of networ king for the organization. By concentrating communication efforts on those issues where the 2 si des have the greatest discrepancies can help lead to an increased understan ding about the importance of th e issues. For example, the fundraising team can educate donors about why the organizations pur sue different partners in the community. Through feature articles in newsletters, Web pages, or sections in the annual report, the organization can stress the importance of co alitions in helping the organization reach its mission. The donors can also share their feeli ngs with the fundraising team by providing feedback or having conversations with key members of the organization if they are major gift donors. This study sought to offer insight into how nonprofit organizations can improve their relationships with their donors. Overall, evidence from this st udy shows that the relationship is healthy, but more focused communication can lead to improved evaluations of the relationship

PAGE 223

223 and cultivation strategies. Stru ctural equation modeling revealed that certain strategies have more impact on the relationship dimensions than ot hers. This analysis is not meant to create a formula that organizations can use to manipulate donors into giving to an organization. Instead, the analysis shows how nonprofit organizations can improve their relationships with their donors. As the study shows, fundraising is built on relationships. Organizations cannot build lasting relationships with donors when initial don ations are given based on deception or guilt. Nonprofit organizations that use emotionallymanipulative messages will not cultivate longlasting relationships with donors. Through open communication and a willingness to work with donors, nonprofit organizations can produce mutually beneficial relation ships with their donors while working to achieve their missions. Impact on Public Relations Theory While this study provided a gr eater understandin g of the nonprofit-donor relationship, it also expanded the boundaries of the relationship management paradigm. The study provided further validation of the 4 relationship dimensions proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999), and it is only the second study that tested the impact of relationship cultivation strategies on the evaluation of the relationship dimensions. It pr ovided new scales to measure the levels of stewardship in the organizationpublic relationship, and it also introduced the measurement of both sides of the relationship to further understa nd the importance of degrees of agreement and disagreement about elements of the relationship. All 4 of these innovatio ns of the organizationpublic relationship introduce ne w thoughts on how public relations scholarship has approached these concepts in the past and raise questions about how they will be treated in the future.

PAGE 224

224 Measuring the Organization-Public Relationship Public relations scholarship has examined the 4 dimensions proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) in many different settings. Trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality have been found to be reliable and valid concepts to describe the relationshi p that exists in public affairs, community relations, consumer re lations, and now fundraising. But, can the organization-public relationship be summed up by 4 concepts? To answer this question, the study returns to the third rese arch question, which asked how well the 4 dimensions represent the overall relati onship. This question used multiple regression to determine the suitability of the 4 dimensions to describe the overall relationship rather than using structural equation modeling as Ki (2006) di d. Despite using a diffe rent statistical test, similar results emerged. Ki found that commitme nt was the most important concept influencing how Florida Farm Bureau members felt about thei r overall relationship with the organization. Satisfaction and trust were also important, but control mutuality had little impact on the overall evaluation. In the current study, 2 separate regression test s were conducted to evaluate the impact of the 4 dimensions on the overall relationship the donors experienced. When all 4 concepts were entered, trust ( = .28, t = 13.78, p < .001) had the most impact though control mutuality ( = .26, t = 12.37, p < .001) and commitment ( = .25, 11.53, p < .001) were not far behind. Unlike Kis results, all 4 dimensions were found to be st atistically significant in predicting the overall relationship evaluati on as satisfaction ( = .19, t = 8.94, p < .001) was also helpful in the 4variable model in addition to a constant. With all 4 variables in the model, it should explain a majority of variance in the ove rall relationship question, and it di d. However, this model only explained 60 percent of the variance.

PAGE 225

225 A stepwise regression was also conducted to see if a more si mplified model might be more appropriate. However, the results for the 3 noninclusive models did no t improve the variance explanation. In the first model, control mutu ality emerged as the str ongest indicator of the overall relationship ( = .65, t = 32.22, p < .001) though it onl y explained 42 percent of the variance. Commitment ( = .40, t = 21.35, p < .001) joined control mutuality ( = .45, t = 23.81, p < .001) and a constant in the model, but it sti ll only explained 54 percent of the variance. When trust ( = .26, t = 12.83, p < .001) was entered into the model along with commitment ( = .35, t = 18.68, p < .001), control mutuality ( = .32, t = 15.27, p < .001), and a constant, the model still only accounted for 58 percent of the va riance. So the model with all 4 dimensions entered does explain the greates t amount of variance (60%). However, the question remains: What variab le(s) account for the remaining 40 percent? Though not its original intent, this study draw s from its results to proposes 2 additional relationship dimensions that may help explain the overall relationship. The first dimension is admiration. Admiration is defined as being attracted to another w hom one wants to be like (de Rivera & Grinkis, 1986, p. 358). Though not intr oduced by public relations scholars into the discussion of the organization-publ ic relationship, it has been studied in the interpersonal communication literature (e.g., Furman & Buhr mester, 1992). Lopes, Salovey, and Straus (2003) found that admiration helped enhance the quali ty of relationships in a social setting. Admiration could also build those relationshi ps between publics and organizations. At first glance, this concept seems close to satisfact ion; however, there are se veral key distinctions that are best explained by examining them in different public relations environments. In the nonprofit-donor relationship, donors may be pleased with how the organiza tion interacts with

PAGE 226

226 them and feel that the organizati on meets their needs. But, this concept does not re ally tap into a deeper respect for the organizations work and mission. Commitment was found to be strongly eval uated by the donors and also seems to be closely related to the admiration concept. Howe ver, it seems that the underlying idea behind the concept is very different. Donors may admire certain nonprofit organizations because they address issues that the government or for-profit sector simply will not, such as working with the terminally ill or bringing controversial political issues to so cietys attention. Anecdotally, admiration also seems to be presen t in other public relations settings. There is a segment of the general public who has a problem with the globa l capitalistic push by companies like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and other big-box retailers. When these organizations move into new areas, they frequently face heated discussions with activist publics. However, there are other chain stores, such as Trader Joes and Peets Coffee, that are often welcomed into neighborhoods. Trader Joes is a national gr ocery store chain dedi cated to unconventional groceries from smaller independent producer s and top-quality organi c and non-genetically modified foods, while Peets Coffee, a West Coast coffeehouse rivaling Starbucks, generously donates money and volunteer hours to community organizations. Consumers may admire these organizations dedication to smaller companies and their local communities, respectively. Consumers may be satisfied with the persona l relationship they have with their local Trader Joes or Peets Coffee, and they may be committed to those retail outlets because they perceive the organizations are tr ying to build that long-term rela tionship. But what helps these organizations stand out from their competition may not have much to with their actual products or services; it may be that these organizations have built a competitive advantage for certain publics by investing in aspects of corporate so cial responsibility. Apria, Brnn, and Schultz

PAGE 227

227 (2004) found that Scandinavian ci tizens had more positive evaluations of companies that they trusted and admired. After studyi ng different for-profit companies business strategies and their success and failure rates, Miles a nd Snow (2001) found that companie s that invested in socially responsible behavior that produced feelings of admiration were more likely to have long-term support from the general public. Fortune magazine even recognizes th e value of admiration as it annually produces lists of the nations most admired companies in 19 different industry categories. Public relations scholarship needs to introduce this relationship dimension into the discussion on organization-publ ic relationships to provide a better understanding of how relationships can be managed. The second relationship dimension that is proposed based on the studys findings is appreciation. Reciprocity was found to be the relationship cultivation strategy that was evaluated most favorably by both sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship. Yet, the structural equation modeling revealed that it had l ittle impact in the overall nonprof it-donor relationship in terms of influencing the relationship dimensions. Apprec iation has been defined in several different academic disciplines. A psychological definiti on of appreciation involves making all choices valuable and leading to positive consequences in the end (Ojanen, 1996, p. 79). Adler and Fagley (2005) defined appreciation as acknow ledging the value and meaning of somethingan event, a person, a behavior, an objectand feeling a positive emotional connec tion to it (p. 81). The Adler and Fagley definition parallels Kell ys (2001) conceptualiza tion of reciprocity. The acknowledgement of the relationship is simila r to the recognition component of reciprocity, while the positive emotional connection reflects the gratitude component. This linkage warrants further exploration by public rela tions scholars, especially as business and management studies

PAGE 228

228 have found that customer appreciation leads to brand loyalty and increased positive behavior, such as sales (Ragins & Greco, 2003; Dychi, 2001). Increasingly, for-profit companies are collect ing personal demographic information from their customers and instituti ng programs whereby they acknow ledge their customers through different incentives. For example, customers who have signed up to receive the Ghirardelli Chocolates e-newsletter receive coupons for a free sundae on their birthday, and many stores, such as New York and Company and the grocer Safeway, offer discounts or gift certificates when customers purchase a specified amount of products from the store. By acknowledging the customer in this manner, the stores are able to produce favorable evaluations of the company. Studies have even found that stores, such as Be st Buy or Wal-Mart, that employ individuals to greet customers as they enter the store benefit from greater feelings of appreciation in their customer base (Beatty, Mayer, Coleman, Reynolds, & Lee, 1996). Although these examples are small tokens of acknowledgement and gratitude, research has shown they contribute to producing the desired effects the organiza tions want, such as increased sales and brand loyalty. The potential impact of appreciation extends beyond consumer and donor publics. Perhaps activists appreciate thos e organizations who acknowledge their concerns and are willing to meet with them more than thos e organizations that cont inue their operations regardless of the activists concerns. On-going media relations activities often involve public relations practitioners thanking journalists for st ories that were writte n about the organization (Howard & Matthews, 1995). Although the addition of these 2 relationshi p dimensions does not make the existing relationship management theory more parsimoni ous, it may add to the fields understanding of how important relationships are to the longevity of organizational success. The results of the

PAGE 229

229 discriminant analysis found that the dimensions did a fair j ob of predicting those donors who contributed to the organizations success (e .g., donating in the most recent fundraising campaign). Where the 4 existing dimensions faile d was in predicting those that did not give during the campaign or those that were a hindrance to the or ganizations success. Trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mu tuality are all positiv e dimensions of the relationship as are admiration and appreciation. Perhaps inclusion of a dimension that measures conflict may add value to the predictivity of the theory. Furman and Buhrmesters (1985) relationship inventory includes m easures for conflict and was important in identifying damaged interpersonal relationships. These scholars cont end that the identifica tion and recognition of conflict can then lead to behavior changes to resolve the conflict. Public relations literature is rich with in formation on negotiation and conflict resolution (e.g., Plowman, 1996; Plowman, 1998). Since conf lict can be a product of the interaction between an organization and its st akeholders, this dimension need s to be measured and included in the organization-public relationship model. Pe rhaps then, the predictive nature of the theory can be enhanced even more than now offered by the 4 existing dimensions offer. Further evidence to support the inclusion of conflict measures into the m odel results from the inclusion of conflict resolution strategies into Hon and J. Grunigs (1 999) relationship management discussion. How can Plowman s (1996) resolution strategies of contending, avoiding, accommodating, or compromising be discussed rega rding the organization-public relationship if there is no measure of conflict in the model? This studys resear ch design did not measure the impact of the conflict resoluti on strategies because of the im plied positive nature of the relationship between a donor and a nonprofit organization (i.e., donating money to an organization without any obligation to do so).

PAGE 230

230 Future explorations into conflict resolution and negotiation in public relations will increase the legitimacy of the relationship management paradigm by adding a negative dimension of relationships to the model. Although conflict wa s not measured in this study of 3 nonprofit hospitals, perhaps organizations i nvolved in scandals may seek to include such measures in the future. Relationship Cultivation Strategies If admiration, appreciation, and conflict were included in the organization-public relationship dimensions, then the model becomes quite complex and difficult to measure. Perhaps simplification of the relationship cultivat ion strategies could help lessen the density of the model and make the theory one th at the profession could implement. Many of the strategies proposed by Bruni ng and Ledingham (1998), Hon and J. Grunig (1999), Huang (1997), Hung (2002), and Kelly (2000, 2001) seem to overlap. For example, Hungs keeping promises strategy is a core element of Kellys responsibility strategy. Similarly, access and openness focus on sharing information with a stakeholder group. Positivity and assurances, although defined differently conceptually, touch on similar issues. Positivity involves making the interactions with publics plea sant, while assurances stresses letting publics know they are important. Networking with differe nt external groups to help discuss and resolve problems is similar to the goals of the sharing of tasks strategy, which s eeks to reach mutually beneficial decisions with the stakeholders. The strategies derived from the interpersonal communication literature are linked. The interconnectivity of the strategies raises an interesting questi on for the organizationpublic relationship model: Should public relations sc holarship continue to concentrate its research on relationship cult ivation strategies on those derived from interpersonal communication theory? The theory -based strategies tested in th is study were originally created

PAGE 231

231 for the interpersonal relationship, while Kellys (2000, 2001) stewardship stra tegies were derived from professional practice. Public relations scholarship has demonstr ated that there are similarities between an interpersonal relationshi p and the organization-pub lic relationship, but is it realistic to think that the cultivation strategies for both ty pes of relationships should also be based on interpersonal strategies? Other disciplines have aggressively been st udying relationships as well. Organizational communication, business management, and sociology are rich with studie s on how relationships develop, prosper, and fail in different realms. Given the unique perspectives that the different academic fields offer, it is important that publ ic relations scholars open their relationship explorations to such fields in an organized manne r. A small number of scholars have been very active in exploring concepts introduced in ot her disciplines, for example, anthropomorphism (Bruning, Langenhop, & Green, 2004). These sc holars have challenged public relations traditional notion of relationship cultivation and have expanded the measurement of relationships. But new theoretical perspectives will not produce a powerful relationship management theory alone. Public relations scholars often say that the ga p between the profession and the academy is widening. Scholars complain that practi tioners rarely read research articles from either the Journal of Public Relations Research or Public Relations Review Practitioners, conversely, say they do not read th e research because the topics ar e not those that impact their daily duties. Instead of turning to theoretical concepts in books and j ournal articles, public relations scholars can start bui lding the bridge with the prof ession by pulling the relationship strategies from practitione r literature or even engaging them in discussions about the relationship

PAGE 232

232 management paradigm, in particular by asking them how they conceptualize the different relationship cultivation strategies. Based on the results from this studys stru ctural equation modeli ng, a combination of theory-derived and practice-de rived strategies works best in predicting the relationship dimensions. Access, sharing of tasks, openness and positivitythe strategies derived from interpersonal communication theoryall were found to be significant positive indicators of a donors trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. However, these specific strategies were not as powerful as the more broadly defined stewar dship strategies of relationship nurturing and responsibility. These stewardship st rategies were first conceptualized based on Kellys (1998) experiences as a fundraiser and through a review of practi tioner literature. Drawing on these sources, she was able to step back and see a bigger picture of how these strategies impacted the nonprofit-donor relationship. In extend ing the stewardship strategies to the entire public relations pr ofession, Kelly (2001) found suppor t for these practitioner-based strategies in scholarly discussi ons on different elements of r eciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing. As this study found, both the theory-derived and profession-derive d strategies were important in predicting the relationship dimensi ons. However, too many strategies makes the model too complex for the profession to use, so 1 more question has to be addressed: Is it better to have a detailed litany of relati onship cultivation strategies that overlap or a condensed list that groups strategies into related con cepts? Public relations most sign ificant theory to date is the Excellence Theory. Critics of the theory have proposed th e Contingency Theory (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997) of public relations as an alternative perspective; however, its 87 variables are simply too many to really fit into most measur ement schema. With a growing

PAGE 233

233 list of relationship cultivation strategies, relations hip management theory also approaches levels of being unmanageable and further distancing the profession and the acad emy from one another. To keep the relationship management theory as parsimonious as possible while still retaining relevancy, perhaps scholars need to deve lop a condensed listing of strategies that are more broadly defined. Relationshi p cultivation strategies were di scussed in Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) original monograph. Yet, it was not until Kis (2003) study of Fortune 500 companies Web sites or Kis (2006) study of the Florida Farm Bureau that measurement of the strategies was attempted. Instead, scholars ha ve discussed different strategi es and their applicability to different settings (e.g., Hung, 2006). Perhaps the strategies specified by Hon and J. Grunig (1999) in the Institute for Public Relations monogr aph (access, positivity, networking, sharing of tasks, assurances, and openness) have yet to be subjected to inquiry by many public relations scholars because they are too specific. Because of the multitude of different public rela tions specializations, it is quite difficult to create multi-item scales that extend across all of these sub-functions of public relations, especially when considering that the specializ ations often have very different types of programming. Stepping back a nd taking a broader perspectiv e on relationship cultivation strategies may help eliminate th is challenge. Though not the inte nt of this particular study, the researcher does see ways that the relationship cultivation strategies can be reconceptualized for a more simplified approach. Reporting, openness, and access could all be classified as a Communication and Information Provision stra tegy, while sharing of tasks and networking could be conceptualized as a Cooperation strategy. Assuran ces, positivity, and reciprocity could be reduced to a Recognition strategy, or they could all be collapsed under the Relationship Nurturing strate gy. Kellys (2001) responsibili ty strategy identified an

PAGE 234

234 organizations responsible behavior in the eyes of the stakeholders. This strategy could be combined with those discussed in corporate soci al responsibility literature for a larger, more impactful Responsibility construct. Finally, a Conflict Resolution st rategy should be in place to help identify and repair negative elem ents of the organization-public relationship; a conceptualization of conflict resolution strategi es would provide balance to the inclusion of a conflict dimension. Perhaps with a shortened, s implified approach to th e conceptualization of relationship cultivation strategies, these 6 strategi es can help elicit further scholarly inquiry into the presence and impact of these strate gies on the organizatio n-public relationship. Symmetrical Measurement of the Or ganization-Public Relationship The final contribution this study makes to public relations scho larship is the introduction of symmetrical measurement of the or ganization-public relationship. Previous studies have simply measured the external stakeholders in the rela tionship even though several scholars have called for the symmetrical approach (Ferguson, 1984; Se ltzer, 2005). Ironically, the discipline that advocates two-way communication between an organization and its publics still conducts research on relationships in an asymmetric manner. Previous studies did not take the views of those inside the organization into account. For example, Waters (2006) and O Neil (2007) only measured the vi ews of donors to describe the nonprofit-donor relationship. Althou gh this provided insight into the views of the donors, they are not the group making the decisi ons that impact how the fundr aising department functions. The views of the dominant coalit ionin the current study defined as members of the fundraising teammust be considered. As Seltzer (2005) points out Study after study tiptoes around the coorientational approach without utilizing the perceptions of both the organization and its publics in measuring the relationship between them (p. 14). Had the measurement of the fundraisers views and their

PAGE 235

235 estimations of donors views not occurred, the f undraisers might not have known that they had underestimated donors positivity of the organization s responsible use of charitable gifts. By using the coorientation me thodology, the research highlight s the significant differences between the perceptions of the participants from several different perspectives. Though the differences between the 2 sides on many variab les are small, the organization can include proactive symmetrical programming to engage its donors in convers ations so they can resolve differences in understanding the dynamics of the re lationship. This conversation will allow them to move closer to being in exact agreement. The findings suggest that the nonpr ofit hospitals need to improve their cultivation efforts. The fundraising teams overestimated the donors view s on all of the variables. The differences between the relationship dimensions were not as great as the di fferences between views of the relationship cultivation strategies. This mi sperception could have been costly had the fundraising teams implemented programming base d on their estimates of what the donors thought. Perhaps in addition to more symmetrical methods of communicating with donors, these findings suggest that the organizations s hould implement more non-fundraising directed communications, such as newsletters or e-mail updates of successful program and service delivery, to educate donors why they engage in some strategies, su ch as networking. Had this study simply measured the relations hip from the donors perspective, significant insights into the overall relati onship would not have been re vealed. The members of the fundraising teams had misread the perceptions of the donors even though they had worked closely with the donors. While some of the diffe rences were minimal, they reveal important information about the coorientation methodology. Comparing the 2 sides of the nonprofit-donor

PAGE 236

236 relationship is not as simple as agreement/disagr eement. Based on these results, the 2 sides are in states of consensus on all of the vari ables. But, there are differences. Statistically, the difference between the donors views (M = 6.78, SD = 1.07) and the fundraising team members view s (M = 7.10, SD = 1.05) on responsibility is the same as the difference between the donors views (M = 5.89, Sd = 1.40) and the organizations views (M = 7.11, Sd = 1.02) on networking. The latter variable s D-score (1.22) is ne arly 1 point greater than that of the responsibility (0.32) variable. Is it accurate to say th at the 2 groups views on these concepts should be viewed similarly since th ey technically are both in agreement? There are degrees of agreement for situations like this on e where the 2 sides generally are in agreement. Through symmetrical conversations, it is possible to bring the 2 side s even closer in their views by increasing the levels of understanding betwee n each group. For this situation, donors might view the networks that the organi zations have created with external groups more favorably if the fundraising team explains why they are pursu ed, or the fundraising team at least could understand why this particular re lationship cultivation strategy is not effective for donors. The coorientation methodology is an im portant tool to determine which issues need to be addressed in the organization-public relationship. Public relations literature prescribes its pr actitioners to engage in a boundary-spanning rolekeeping 1 foot inside the organization and 1 foot outside in the community. While this study found agreement on all of the variables, the coorientation met hodology can be used by practitioners to develop a deeper understanding of the issues their organizations face with different publics. Because the perceptions of the organizations representatives need to be included in the organization-public relationshi p measurement, the figure demonstrating the organization-public relationship in the first chap ter needs to be updated. Figure 5-1 illustrates

PAGE 237

237 the update, which now includes the measurement of the organizations views. Scholars that fail to measure the views of the organizations are wi thholding valuable informa tion that could clarify and further develop the relati onship management paradigm. Figure 5-1. Revised model of the organization-pub lic relationship. Antecedent Organization Relationship Cultivation Strategy Publics Attitude and Behavior Relationship Dimensions

PAGE 238

238 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The nonprofit organization-donor rela tionship is vital to the ma intenance and longevity of the nonprofit sector. For nonprofit organizations to continue the provi sion of programs and services to society, it is vital that they dedica te resources into relationship cultivation with donors. The results of this study show that th ese organizations need to spend more time and effort developing relationships with their donor s. Although they evaluate the relationship positively, the donors fell short of the fundraisers expectations of how the donors viewed the relationship with the organization. Fortunatel y, public relatio ns literature provides several relationship maintenance strategi es that deal with symmetri cal communication. Engaging donors in more conversations to let them know they ar e appreciated will help en courage more loyalty in the relationship, but the nonprofit or ganization must also demonstr ate that it is committed to being both socially and fi nancially accountable. Reaching out to the greater public relations profession, it is vital to understand how different perspectives of the sides of th e organization-public relationship can impact organizations. As Dozier and Ehling (1992) war n, there can be disastrous consequences when programming decisions are made without measur ing both sides of the relationship. Fortunately, this study found that both sides view the nonpr ofit-donor relationship positively. The minor differences that emerged in the study, though stat istically significant, are easy to overcome by engaging donors in more conversations to resolve differneces. Given the results of the structural equation modeling, the study provides informa tion on how nonprofit organizations can best develop relationships with donors.

PAGE 239

239 Limitations of the Study When this study was started, 2 goals were create d: (1) to provide a better understa nding of the nonprofit-donor rela tionship by exploring the proposed relationship maintenance strategies that exists in public relati ons literature (Hon and Grunig, 1999; Kelly, 2001; Hung, 2002) and (2) to challenge the traditional organization-publ ic measurement method based on suggestions by Ferguson (1984), Broom and Dozi er (1990), and Ledingham (2001), among others. Thanks to the cooperation of 3 San Francisco Bay Area hospita ls, data were collected and analyzed from the fundraising teams at these healthcare organi zations and their major gift and annual giving donors. Though the results provided valuable insi ght into the fundraising process, the study had several limitations that need to be acknowledged. The first limitation concerns generalizeability. Though this is the first organization-public relationship study that looks at the dynamics of a re lationship across multiple organizations of the same public relations specialization, it is diffi cult to say that the re sults are generalizeable beyond nonprofit hospitals in Northern California. All 3 organizations are geographically located within a 60-mile radius of one another. The Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy published a study in 2005 that found that giving varies significantly by region (Havens & Schervish, 2005). Therefore, it is po ssible that the findings of the current study are the result of region. However, hea lthcare is 1 of the subsectors of the charitable nonprofit sector that is well-funded throughout the nation, not just in California. However, it is important to acknowledge that th e participating organiza tions were also very similar in that they were all nonprofit hospitals. As Salamon (2002) points out, the healthcare subsector is very diverse, ra nging from large nonprofit hospitals and large medical research facilities to small community hea lthcare clinics. All 3 nonprofit hos pitals have a mission that is dedicated to serving those in n eed of serious medical treatmen t in their specified geographic

PAGE 240

240 boundaries. The study did not look at other types of healthcare organizations, such as nonprofit substance abuse programs, commun ity healthcare clinics, or research cente rs. Although these organizations are still focused on healthcare issues, their missions are significantly different from nonprofit hospitals. The differe nce in organizational purposes and missions may produce different findings if this st udy were to be replicated. It is important to note, however, that the incorporation of the c oorientation methodology into the research design does requi re some similarities between th e participating organizations. The coorientation methodology typically has been used to measure 2 sides of an issue within the scope of 1 particular scenario, for example, measuring an organizations and 1 stakeholder groups views on a topic for 1 organization. Ho wever, this study applied the methodology across 3 organizations to be able to learn more about the overall nonpr ofit-donor relationship. In order to apply this design, the context had to be somewhat similar to warrant collapsing both sides of the relationship at 3 institutions into the overall nonprofitdonor relationship. Looking at the study from a different perspectiv e, another limitation is that this study only looked at nonprofits with missions in health care. Although many sources acknowledge that healthcare, along with higher education, employs more fundraisers than the other nonprofit subsectors outlined in chapter 2 (Kelly, 1998; Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2004), these subsectors face the same ch allenges in cultivating relationships with donors. Healthcare is one of the more often studied fundraising sectors because of its use of advanced strategies and tactics; others in fundraising often look up to healthcare fundr aisers, particularly those in nonprofit hospitals, as they aspire to emulate their sophis tication. However, other types of nonprofit organizations, such as th e United Way and the American Re d Cross, are also leaders in the nonprofit sector and excel at fundraising.

PAGE 241

241 Another way to expand the reach of the study even if it remains within the healthcare sectoris to look at organizations of different sizes. The smallest nonprofit hospital in this study in terms of its assets was San Francisco General Hospital, which had assets of $7.4 million at the end of 2004, according to its IRS 990 Tax Fo rm. Although these assets pale in comparison to larger nationally-known charit able nonprofits, it is quite la rge given that many nonprofits operate on significantly smaller budgets. Sala mon (2002) notes that one of the greatest difficulties in describing the sector is that the size of nonprofits varies considerably. To truly capture the essence of the nonprofit-donor relati onship, it is necessary to also include the experiences of those donors who give to smaller or ganizations, which are more likely not to have staff fundraisers. Without a doubt the relationship cultivation pr ocess would be different for these donors. Although there would be differences in looking at the nonprofit-donor relationship between large and small charitable nonprofits studying the subsector that hires the most fundraisers might also have yi elded different results. Parall eling the healthcare subsector, education fundraisers are also highly regarded within the f undraising community for their expertise. The education sector may be even mo re diverse in its scope than healthcare, and it includes organizations ranging fr om universities and colleges to private elementary and secondary schools. An analysis of this sector may have produced di fferent findings due to broader diversity than looking simply at nonpr ofit hospitals. Just as healthcare has the Association for Healthcare Phil anthropy (AHP), education fundrai sers have established their own organization, the Council for Advancemen t and Support of Education (CASE). Although this study examined 3 organizations of varying size and financial stature, comparing and contrasting 2 orga nizations (e.g., of different si zes or of different nonprofit

PAGE 242

242 subsectors) may serve as an important step in un derstanding which strategi es are more successful than others; however, the research er would need to be much more active in this research design as to eliminate any influence of other variables and to ensure that strategies are being carried out in a similar manner. In addition to questions about the populati on being studied, anothe r limitation of the study is the type of donors being studi ed. This study compared the vi ews of annual giving and major gift donors, which was categori zed based on yearly giving tota ls of less than $10,000 for annual giving and $10,000 or more for major gift donors. As indicated in chapter 1, there are other vehicles for charitable giving, most notably pl anned giving and e-Philanthropy. Planned giving, unlike the other forms of fundraising, is most often initiated by the donor rather than a fundraising team member. Donors seek out planne d giving opportunities to create charitable gift annuities, charitable remainder trusts, and estate pl anning options, whereas fundraising team members actively solicit for a nnual giving and major gift dona tions. Given the inherent differences in the nature of the gift, an individual es tablishing a planned gift with an organization may experience the nonprofit-donor relationship differently than either annual or major gift donors. Similarly, the rapid growth of e-Philanthropy is pushing nonprofit organizations to rethink their annual giving programs. e-Philanthropy is an alternative to nonprofit organizations traditional direct mail, workplace, and telephon e solicitations. Though pub lic relations scholars have discussed the impact of the Internet on developing relationships with key stakeholders (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Ki 2003), there has been little discussion about the differences that exist when a stakeholder group develops a cyberrelationship with an organization versus a relationship built on human contact with that organization. Baker (2005)

PAGE 243

243 highlights that the growth of e-Philanthropy is surging and that nonprofit s are increasingly using this giving vehicle to reduce expenses relate d to their annual givi ng programs. With ePhilanthropy becoming more commonplace, it is n ecessary to explore this aspect of the nonprofit-donor relationship. By including planned giving and e-Philanthropy donors in the research process, the current study would have been able to generalize mo re about the nonprofit-donor relationship. However, as Kelly (1998) highlights, there are 2 other donor publics that also need to be examined. Although they give significantly less in aggregate than individual donors, corporations and foundations provide charitable n onprofits with several billion dollars per year. Their insights would be valuable to enrich the research, as it would round out the scope of the nonprofit-donor relationship. One final limitation of the study is based on th e studys data collection procedures. First, the data concerning giving history were reporte d by the donor participants rather than being pulled from their actual giving records housed in the participating organizations donor databases. Though the answers were anonymousl y reported, the donors may have intentionally or unintentionally skewed the results by reportin g inaccurate information. The survey asked donors to report the number of times they had donated to the 3 hospitals in a given time period. Donors typically estimate that they have given more than they actua lly have. Whether this is due to wanting to provide socially acceptable answer s that make the respondent look and feel good or simply forgetting how many times and how much money was given, false answers inadvertently influences the data analysis. Had the study been able to link an indi viduals survey response with his or her donor record w ithout breaking the promise of a nonymity, then the findings would have been more solid.

PAGE 244

244 Finally, because the study used survey research, it is difficult to establish true causality. Survey research focuses on the study of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of people at a given moment. So while statistical analysis shows that the donors evaluation of the relationship dimensions was able to predic t past involvement with the no nprofit organizations fundraising campaigns, to demonstrate a causal relationshi p. An experiment would have been more appropriate to draw such conclusions. Suggestions for Future Research This study has created several new research streams that can bene fit both fundraising and public relations in terms of prof essional applications and theory building. First, the current study raises several questions that can be expl ored about the dynamics of the nonprofit-donor relationship. As highlighted in the limitati ons section, this study focused exclusively on healthcare nonprofits. Given the sophistication of the fundraising function in this subsector, it would be interesting to compare these results to those obtained fr om other types of charitable nonprofits, such as arts and cultu re or public/society benefit or ganizations. Perhaps comparing these findings to religious organizations, which r eceive the most charitable gift dollars in the United States from individual donors, or to e ducational nonprofits, which hire the most staff fundraisers, would produce intrig uing findings that would prov ide insights into relationship development and management for fundraisers. As noted in chapter 2, much of the knowle dge on the importance of relationships in fundraising is built on anecdotal evidence in pract itioner literature. Though these findings help provide a theoretical perspective on relationshi ps, more work needs to be done to fully understand the nonprofit-donor relati onship. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) originally discussed 2 types of relationships in their original m onograph, communal and exchange. Waters (2006)

PAGE 245

245 found that donors view the nonprof it-donor relationship as a co mmunal one rather than an exchange relationship. Hung (2006) introduced a continuum of relationshi p types that has yet to be tested through social scientific research me thods. These 5 types of the organization-public relationship (exploitive, contractual, exchange, covenantal and communal) should be explored in the nonprofit-donor relationship. Perhaps, different donors view the relationship differently based on their levels of involvement with a nonprofit organization. For example, a volunteer, who also happens to be a donor, may perceive the relations hip to be more contractual, while a former client or customer of the nonprofit may become a donor and view the relationship as being exchange-oriented. Scales need to be deve loped so public relations scholars can pursue understanding the different types of relationshi ps and their impact on public relations and fundraising management. The conflict resolution strategies proposed by Plowman (1995, 1996, 1998) were omitted from this study because of the assumed lack of conflict between nonprofit organizations and donors. In retrospect, these strategies may be ap plicable beyond situations involving scandals or controversies in the nonprofit setting. The c onflict resolution diagram proposed by Plowman (1995) and illustrated by Figure 6-1 might be appropriate for a scholarly understanding of major gift negotiations. By examining nonprofit orga nizations and donors wi llingness or intent to participate in a major gift ne gotiation, it would be possible to learn more about the power balance between the 2 parties. Although this study found that major gift donors viewed the power as balanced, a more interesting approach would have been to fo cus exclusively on major gift negotiations to determine the different appr oaches and thought proce sses the 2 sides of the nonprofit-donor relationship experience when co nsidering the donation. By focusing on major

PAGE 246

246 gift donors and their relationships with nonprofit organizations, it w ould be possible to determine if the 2 sides could resolve conf lict through cooperation or compromi se to see if they could reach the win-win zone rather th an avoid being involved in the nonprofit-donor relationship. Finally, as far as the nonprof it-donor relationship is concerne d, it would be interesting to study the impact of technology a nd e-Philanthropy on the relations hip. Ki (2003) has explored how Fortune 500 companies develop relationships online with their stakeholders, and Waters (2007) has assessed the information provided by charitable nonprofits on the Philanthropy 400 list concerning their fundraising, acc ountability, and transparency efforts. However, now that this study, as well as Kis (2006) dissertation, provides more solid operationalizations of relationship cultivation strategies, reexamini ng the Web sites of nonprofit organizations using access, openness, and reporting, among other rela tionship cultivation strategies, might offer greater insights into how they deve lop cyber-relationships with donors. The results of the current study also raise many questions for future public relations scholars to explore in areas ot her than fundraising. The newl y proposed stewardship scales could simply be tested and refined by examining their relevance in other public relations settings: however, as this study demonstrated, it may not be suitable to simply test the relationship cultivation scales in other set tings. Keeping Littlejohns (2002) criteria for judging theory in mind, the current organization-public relationship scholarship is becoming cumbersome with the large number of cultivation strategies that can be pulled from theory, practice, or a combination of both. Although not the original intent of this study, the newly pr esented cultivation strategies in chapter 5communication and informati on provision, cooperation, relationship nurturing, responsibility, and conflict resolutionmay help simplify the theory. Perhaps with a shortened, simplified approach to the conceptualization of re lationship cultivation strategies, these strategies

PAGE 247

247 can help elicit further scholarly inquiry into th e presence and impact of these strategies on the organization-public relationship. Concerning the cultivation strate gies, one additional approach to better understand the role these strategies play in the maintenance and de velopment of organizationpublic relationships is to broaden our current approach to defining the st rategies available to practitioners. While the application of interpersonal relationship dimensions, drawn from literature and theory, seems to have served the field well in the early stages of defining the organizati on-public relationship, it appears that the application of the interpersonal relationship cultivation strategies may have lost some of their original meaning when translat ed to the organization-public relationship. As highlighted in chapter 5, sociology, anthropol ogy, and business administration all have approached relationship cultivation differently. Perhaps these academic disciplines might offer additional insight into the or ganization-public relationship. Another approach to understanding relationshi p cultivation would be to turn to public relations practitioners for suggestions. Kelly s (2000, 2001) stewardship scales had a stronger impact on the nonprofit-donor relationship than t hose derived from inte rpersonal communication theory. The stewardship scal es originated from the caree r experiences of fundraising practitioners. By stopping to rethink the field s approach to measuring relationship cultivation, the relationship management theory may be able to bring the 2 groups of relationship management scholars, those using Hon and J. Grunigs (1999) approach and those exploring relationships under the tutelage of Bruning and Ledingham (1999), t ogether to crea te a stronger and more powerful paradigm fo r public relations scholarship. Although the cultivation strategies may need to be simplified, the results of this study indicate that there may be reason to add new dimensions to the 4 measured by current

PAGE 248

248 organization-public relationship studies. Trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality were only able to explain 60 percent of th e variance in how donors evaluated the overall relationship. Anecdotal evidence and scholarly research from ot her disciplines indicate that additional dimensions may be pr esent in the organizat ion-public relationship. As discussed in chapter 5, admiration, appreciati on, and conflict have all been studied in interpersonal communication literature (e.g., Furman & Buhrmest er, 1992); however, they were left behind by public relations scholars. With scales existi ng in interpersonal communication literature that could be adapted for public rela tions studies, these 3 relationshi p dimensions seem to offer significant promise for future orga nization-public relations studies. Finally, though the coorientation method has fr equently been discu ssed as a perspective that should be used in analyz ing the organization-public relations hip, this is one of the first attempts to study relationship management us ing Broom and Doziers prescribed methodology. By bringing the organizational decision makers or dominant co alition into the measurement picture, scholars are able to be tter understand the rela tionship; thus, they are in a better position to develop a higher theory of relationship manage ment for the public relations field. Also, from a practitioner perspe ctive, the comparison of the 2 sides th rough t-tests that examine agreement, accuracy, and perceived agreement enables the p ublic relations department to make better decisions in planning prog ramming or to convince the dominant coalition that things may not be as positive as they thought. The use of the coorientation methodology can help provide a great er understanding of relationship dynamics. Though this study only ex amined agreement, accuracy and perceived agreement between donors and the fundraising te am on the relationship dimension measures (commitment, satisfaction, trust a nd control mutuality), a future st udy that examined the 2 sides

PAGE 249

249 perspectives on the different relationship cultivat ion strategies could be equally intriguing. Do both sides value the same types of maintenance a nd cultivation strategies ? If an organization believes it is being very open but donors want more openness and reporting, then work can be done to resolve the situation and seek a mutually beneficial win-win zone through conversations between the 2 sides. The application of this methodology should be embraced by all facets of public relations research not just fundraising. Though Sallot and her research team (1998) used coorientation to examine the media relations practitioner-journalis t relationship, very little scholarship exists within the scope of other public relations specializations, such as public affairs or consumer relations. By applying the coorientation methodol ogy to these different s ub-functions, different results may emerge. Studying the organization-p ublic relationship in ac tivist settings or situations involving employers a nd labor unions may provide insight s into the role conflict and disagreement plays in the relationship. Th e current study found that the nonprofit-donor relationship was positive overall. However, organizat ion-public relationships are not all positive. By studying relationships where c onflict may be present, public relations scholars can further challenge the current understand ing of relationship management. This study deepened our understanding of the nonprofit-donor relationship and questioned the traditional approach to measuring the or ganization-public relationship. While the studys hypotheses were supported, thereby validati ng the fields knowle dge on relationship management, answers to the resear ch questions pose another set of questions for future research to explore. Public relations scholarship of th e organization-public rela tionship has come to a crossroad. To advance our theo retical framework, future studie s can no longer solely measure the stakeholders perspective of the organization-public relations hip. Future research must

PAGE 250

250 examine the impact of the views of organizationa l managers, including th e dominant coalition, in different public relations sett ings. Understanding the views of both sides of the organizationpublic relationship in terms of the relationship dime nsions and the strategies used to cultivate the relationship will advance and expand relations hip management theory. While many public relations specializations have yet to be te sted using the traditional organization-public relationship approach, replication of previous studies in new sett ings will do little to advance theory. By testing new thoughts and scales proposed by this study in new public relations domains, the fields understanding of organizatio n-public relationships w ill increase and perhaps bring public relations scholars a nd public relations pract itioners closer together in efforts to demonstrate the profession s value to organizations. Figure 6-1. Conflict resolution diagram applied to the fundraising profession. Nonprofit Organization Intent Donor Intent Low High High Avoiding Accommodating Compromising Cooperating Contending

PAGE 251

251 APPENDIX A SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL DONORS For each of the statements below, please evaluate your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the statement in the right column. Please circle the number th at best represents your response from the 9-point scale provided, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree Your View as a Donor of San Francisco General Hospital Your Estimate of the View of San Francisco General Hospitals Fundraisers SD SA SD SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization respects its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors are a ttentive to each others needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors are happy with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Both the organization and its donors benefit from the relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors are happy with their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I believe donors have influence on the decision-makers of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Compared to other nonprofit organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel confident about the organiza tion's ability to accomplish its mission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors interact with this organi zation, they have a sense of control over the situation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization gives donors say in the decision-making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 252

252 For each of the statements below, please evaluate how Sa n Francisco General Hospital develops relationships with its donors in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the statement in the right column. Use the same 9-point scale, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree to indicate your response. Your View as a Donor of San Francisco General Hospital Your Estimate of the View of San Francisco General Hospitals Fundraisers SD SA SD SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations annual report is a valuable source of information for donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to donors concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address issues that donors care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations communication with donors is courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it does with donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization communicates th e importance of its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations alliances with government agencies are useful for its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific st aff on specific issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Continued next page

PAGE 253

253 Your View as a Donor of San Francisco General Hospital Your Estimate of the View of San Francisco General Hospitals Fundraisers SD SA SD SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization shares enough information with donors about the organizations governance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations alliances with other community groups are useful to its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Because of my previous donations the organization recognizes me as a friend. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations annual report details how much money was raised in that year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not provide donors with information about how their donations were used. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will of the donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors have confidence that the organization will use their donations wisely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors what projects their donors will fund. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its relationships with donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors receive personalized a ttention from th e organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Now thinking overall about your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital, pleas e circle the number that corresponds to how you view your relationship on the following scale: Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative

PAGE 254

254 Please answer the following questions based on your personal demographic information to help us interpret your answers to better serve you and your community. What is your gender? ___ Male ___ Female What is your age? _______ Years old What is your race? ___ African-American/Black ___ Asian ___ Caucasian ___Hispanic/Latino ___Middle Eastern ___Native American ___Other:_________________ How long have you lived in your current community? ___Less than 1 year ___1 to 2 years ___2 to 5 years ___5 to 10 years ___10 to 20 years ___ 20 years or longer What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (check one) ___High school ___Four-year college degree ___Advanced degree (MS, MBA, Ph.D.) ___Other:_________________________________ What is your curren t employment status? ___Employed full-time ___Employed part-time ___Unemployed ____Retired ___Student ___Homemaker ___Other:___________________ What was your approximate household income last year before taxes? $ ________________________ What was your first contact with San Fr ancisco General Hospital? (check one) ___Patient ___Family member was a patient ___Friend was a patient ___Employed by hospital ___Family member employed by hospital ___Friend employed by hospital ___Partnership with community organization ___Partnership with government organization ___Other:__________________________________________ Have you been a patient at San Francisco General Hospital? ____ Yes ____ No Please answer the following questions about your charitable giving. How many years have you been donating to San Francisco General Hospital? ______ Approximately how much in total did you donate to the hospital last year? $ _______________ On average, how much have you donated to the hospital per year during the last five years? $ ______ ____ Including the hospital, how many organizations do you donate to each year, on average? ______ ___ Approximately how much in total did you donate to all charitable organizations last year? $ _____ ________ That completes the survey. Please return the survey to the University of Florida research team by using the enclosed self-addressed stam ped envelope. Thank you for your help.

PAGE 255

255 APPENDIX B SURVEY FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING TEAM MEMBERS For each of the statements below, please evaluate your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the statement in the right column. Please circle the number th at best represents your response from the 9-point scale provided, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree Your View as a Fundraising Team Member Your Estimate of the View of San Francisco General Hospitals Donors SD SA SD SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization respects its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors are a ttentive to each others needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment with its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors are happy with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Both the organization and its donors benefit from the relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors are happy with their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I believe donors have influence on the decision-makers of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Compared to other nonprofit organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I feel confident about the organiza tion's ability to accomplish its mission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors interact with this organi zation, they have a sense of control over the situation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization gives donors say in the decision-making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 256

256 For each of the statements below, please evaluate how Sa n Francisco General Hospital develops relationships with its donors in the left column. Then, estimate how you think the fundraising team at San Francisco General Hospital would respond to the statement in the right column. Use the same 9-point scale, where 1 equals strongly disagree and 9 equals strongly agree to indicate your response. Your View as a Fundraising Team Member Your Estimate of the View of San Francisco General Hospitals Donors SD SA SD SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations annual report is a valuable source of information for donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal responses to donors concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization effectively builds coalitions with groups that address issues that donors care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations communication with donors is courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it does with donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations alliances with other like-minded groups are useless to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization communicates th e importance of its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations alliances with government agencies are useful for its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes them seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific st aff on specific issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Continued next page

PAGE 257

257 Your View as a Fundraising Team Member Your Estimate of the View of San Francisco General Hospitals Donors SD SA SD SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization shares enough information with donors about the organizations governance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations alliances with other community groups are useful to its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization acknowledges fundraising donations in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization always sends me a thank you letter for my donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Because of my previous donations the organization recognizes me as a friend. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization informs donors about its fundraising successes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors how it has used their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organizations annual report details how much money was raised in that year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization does not provide donors with information about how their donations were used. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization considers its donors when deciding how to use their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization uses donations for projects that are against the will of the donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors have confidence that the organization will use their donations wisely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization tells donors what projects their donors will fund. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors only hear from the organization when it is soliciting donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization is more concerned with its fiscal health than with its relationships with donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donors receive personalized a ttention from th e organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The organization invites donors to participate in special events that it holds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Now thinking overall about your relationship with San Francisco General Hospital, pleas e circle the number that corresponds to how you view your relationship on the following scale: Very positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Negative

PAGE 258

258 Please answer the following questions based on your personal demographic information to help us interpret your answers to better serve you and your community. What is your gender? ___ Male ___ Female What is your age? _______ Years old What is your race? ___ African-American/Black ___ Asian ___ Caucasian ___Hispanic/Latino ___Middle Eastern ___Native American ___Other:_________________ How long have you lived in your current community? ___Less than 1 year ___1 to 2 years ___2 to 5 years ___5 to 10 years ___10 to 20 years ___ 20 years or longer What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (check one) ___High school ___Four-year college degree ___Advanced degree (MS, MBA, Ph.D.) ___Other:_________________________________ What is your curren t employment status? ___Employed full-time ___Employed part-time ___Unemployed ____Retired ___Student ___Homemaker ___Other:___________________ What was your approximate household income last year before taxes? $ ________________________ What was your first contact with San Fr ancisco General Hospital? (check one) ___Patient ___Family member was a patient ___Friend was a patient ___Employed by hospital ___Family member employed by hospital ___Friend employed by hospital ___Partnership with community organization ___Partnership with government organization ___Other:__________________________________________ Have you been a patient at San Francisco General Hospital? ____ Yes ____ No For these final questions, please answer about your charitable giving. How many years have you been donating to San Francisco General Hospital? ______ Approximately how much in total did you donate to the hospital last year? $ _______________ On average, how much have you donated to the hospital per year during the last five years? $ ______ ____ Including the hospital, how many organizations do you donate to each year, on average? $ ______ ___ Approximately how much in total did you donate to all charitable organizations last year? $ _____ ________ That completes the survey. Please return the surv ey to the University of Florida research team by using the enclosed self-addressed stam ped envelope. Thank you for your help.

PAGE 259

259 APPENDIX C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONA L REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL Dear (INSERT DONOR NAME), (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) is participating in a research project with the University of Florida to better understa nd the relationship between nonprofit organizations and their donors. Participation in the survey is completely voluntary. (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) does not give out personal information to anyone, so we are informing you about this project rather than the research team. To participate, please read the following information about the project and complete the enclosed survey. Then, pl ace the completed survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope and mail it back to the researchers. Thank you, (INSERT FUNDRAISERS NAME) Protocol Title: Relationship Management and Cultivati on Strategies in Nonprofit Fundraising Please read this consent document carefully befo re deciding to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study : The purpose of this study is to evaluate the importance of relationship building between nonprof it organizations and their donors. What you will be asked to do in the study : Upon reading the description about the project and agreeing to participate, you will be asked to comple te the enclosed survey. The survey consists of two sets of questions: (1) questions a bout your relationship with (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) and (2) questions about your individual demographics. Your name and email address are not being asked for. Information will be provided to (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) about the views of its donors, and they will relay information to donors through the organizations Web site in October, 2007. Time required : 15-20 minutes Risks and benefits : There are no anticipated physical, psychological, or economic risks involved with the study. There are no direct be nefits to you for partic ipating in this study; however, (INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME) will be nefit from your participation by being able to streamline its fundraising programs to become more efficient and cost-effective. Compensation : There is no financial compensation for participating in this research. Confidentiality : Neither your name nor contact information will be collected. Your completed survey will be assigned a code number. The data will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your demographic profile will not be used in any report.

PAGE 260

260 Voluntary participation : Participation in this study is vo luntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw : You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Richard D. Waters, Doctoral Ca ndidate, Dept. of Public Relations, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florid a, (352) 359-6837, rwaters@jou.ufl.edu Dr. Kathleen, S. Kelly, Professor, Dept. of Public Relations, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Flor ida, (352) 392-9359, kskelly@jou.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study : University of Florida Institutional Review Bo ard Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250, (352) 392-0433, irb2@ufl.edu Agreement : By signing on the following line an d completing the following survey, I acknowledge that I have r ead the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure, and I have receiv ed a copy of this description. Signature of Participant Date Approved by University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02 Protocol # 2006-U-1151 For Use Through 01/07/2008

PAGE 261

261 APPENDIX D LETTER MAILED TO DONORS BY THE NONPROFIT HOSPITALS The following letter was printed on organiza tional letterhead and ma iled by the fundraising directors at the three nonprofit hospitals to the donors included in the random sample. The content of the letter was kept ve ry general so that it would be a pproved by all thr ee participating organizations. Components of the letter that were tail ored by the organizations, such as hospital name and the donors contact info rmation, have been replaced by fi elds that were updated using the mail merge function. February 5, 2007 (FIRST NAME) (LAST NAME) (ADDRESS) (CITY), (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Dear (DONOR NAME), (HOSPITAL NAME) needs your help! No, wer e not asking for money. We need your input to help make our fundraising efforts more efficient. We are working with a research team at the University of Florida th at specializes in fundraising to better understand and improve the relationship we have with our donors. This survey focuses on the different strate gies that (HOSPITAL NAME) uses to develop relationships with donors. Your answers will be combined with other donors to help us understand the views of our community. Your part icipation will help us streamline and improve our fundraising programs. Reevaluating our fundrais ing efforts will allow us to focus our efforts on ways that we can pursue the mission of (HOSPITAL NAME) more efficiently. You were randomly selected from our donor da tabase to participate in the survey. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your response is extremely important and valuable for the results because a limited numbe r of surveys were distributed. Your answers

PAGE 262

262 will be used for statistical purposes and will remain strictly confidential to the extent provided by law. Your responses are confidential, and we will not share any personal information with the research team. If you decide to participate in our efforts, please read and sign the enclosed informed consent document, which details th e purpose of the survey. Please return the signed document as well as the completed survey to the research team at the University of Florida by using the selfaddressed, stamped return envelope. If you have a ny questions about the project, please feel free to contact me at (PHONE NUMBER) or e-mail me at (EMAIL ADDRESS). Thank you for your continued support of (HOSPITAL NAME). Sincerely, (NAME) (TITLE) (NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION)

PAGE 263

263 APPENDIX E POSTCARD REMINDER MAILED TO DONORS BY NONPROFIT HOSPITALS Postcards were mailed three days after the surveys were mailed, following the process recommended by Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004). The following text appeared on a postcard reminder that was mailed to donors in cluded in each hospitals random sample: Recently, you received a letter encouraging your completion of a survey designed to help us improve our fundraising efforts. If you ha ve already completed the survey, thank you! If you have not had the time to finish the su rvey yet, we hope you will take a few moments to complete it and use the self-address stamped return envelope to return the survey to the research team. The results of the survey w ill help us design a fundr aising plan that will help us more effectively and efficiently pur sue the mission of (Name of Hospital). Thank you in advance for your participation!

PAGE 264

264 REFERENCE LIST Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1999). Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations: A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28 (4), 416-431. Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciati on: Individual differences in finding value and meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 73 (1), 79114. AHP. (2007). AHP membership. Association for Healthcare Ph ilanthropy, Falls Church, VA. Retrieved online April 1, 2007, from http://www.ahp.org/membership/index.php. Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing. Apria, T., Brnn, P. S., & Schul tz, M. (2004). A reputation an alysis of the most visible companies in the Scandinavian countries. Corporate Reputation Review, 7 (3), 218-230. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collab oration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 69-97. Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Baker, H. (2005). Tsunami relief giving. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved March 9, 2005, from: http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/ts unami_relief_giving_1-18-05.html. Beatty, S. E., Mayer, M., Coleman, J. E., Reynolds K. E., & Lee, J. (1996). Customer-sales associate retail relationships. Journal of Retailing, 72 (3), 223-247. Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (1), 5-28. Blum, D. E. (2005, November 18). Char ities unaware of donor s perceptions. BusinessWeek Online Red Oak, IA. Retreived April 21, 2007, from: http://www.businessweek.com/bwda ily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051118-2369-db-085.htm. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables New York: Wiley. Bowers, J.W., & Courtwright, J. (1984). Communication research methods Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman and Co. Bracht, N., Finnegan, Jr., J. R., Rissel, C., We isbrod, R., Gleason, J., Corbett, J., & VeblenMortenson, S. (1994). Community owners hip and program continuation following a health demonstration project. Health Education Research, 9 (2), 243-255.

PAGE 265

265 Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-93 Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organizationpublic relationships: An update. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale: Exploring the role that stru ctural and personal commitment play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29 (3), 309-319. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Re lationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional orga nization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 157-170. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Public relations and consumer decisions: Examining the influence of organizationpublic relationships on consumer behavior. In (Eds. Jerry Biberman and Abbass Alkhafaji, Business Research Yearbook Internationa l Academy of Business Disciplines. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Pe rceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An explor ation of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26 (1), 85-95. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000b). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. ( 2004). Examining city-resident relationships: Linking community relations, rela tionship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations. Public Relations Review, 30 335-345. Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2000). The role of relationships in public relations: Examining the influence of relational atti tudes on behavioral intent. Communication Research Reports 17, 426-435. Bruning, S. D. & Ralston, M. (2001). Using a re lational approach to retaining students and building mutually beneficial student-univers ity relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 66, 337-345. Burlingname, D. F., & Hulse, L. J. (Eds.). (1991). Taking fund raising seriously: Advancing the profession and practi ce of raising money. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. ( 1992). Relational maintenance strate gies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs 59, 243-267.

PAGE 266

266 Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservatio n of relational characteristics: Maintenance strategies, equity, and lo cus of control. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 237-259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Canary, J. D., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintain ing relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M ., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9 (1), 31-63. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Cobb, N. K. (2002). The new philanthropy: Its impact on funding arts and culture. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 32 (2), 125-143. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thomson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web-or Internet-based surveys. Educational and psychological measurement, 60 (6), 821-836. Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management advant ages of a relational perspective. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 73-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock. A. R. (2005). The uses of marketing theory : Constructs, research propositions, and managerial implications. Marketing Theory, 5 (2), 165-184. Courtney, R. (2002). Strategic management for voluntary nonprofit organizations. New York: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions Newbury Park, CA: Sage publications. Cutlip, S. (1990). Fund raising in the United States: Its role in America's philanthropy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publis hers. (Originally published 1965). Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., and Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.). edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Daley, D. (2002). Red cross letter to 60 minut es details inaccuracies in March 10 report. American Red Cross, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 20, 2007, from http://www.redcross.org/news/other /special/020315let tersixtymin.html.

PAGE 267

267 de Rivera, J., & Grinkis, C. (1986). Emotions as social relationships. Motivation and Emotion, 10 (4), 351-369. DellaVedova, J. P. (2005). Measuring relationships: A mode l for evaluating U.S. air force public affairs programs Unpublished masters thesis, Univ ersity of Florida, Gainesville. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. DiPerna, P. (2003). Media, charity, and philant hropy in the aftermath of September 11. In N. Coe (Ed.), September 11: Perspectives from th e field of philanthropy, volume 2 (pp. 149158). Washington, DC: The Foundation Center. Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). Eval uation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us about their e ffects. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Drucker, P. F. (2006). Managing the nonprofit organization. New York: Collins. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. ( 1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51 (April), 11-27. Dychi, J. (2001). The crm handbook: A business guide to customer relationship management Boston: Addison-Wesley. Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 616638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferguson (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm Paper presented to the A ssociation for education in Journalism and Mass Communication a nnual convention, Gainesville, FL. Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Bu ilding a relationship that gets to yes Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fogal, R. E. (2005). Designing and managing the fundraising program. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (pp. 419-435). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fowler, Jr., F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Frommer, D. (2006). Americas most wired cities. Forbes New York, NY. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/30/wireless-wiredbroadband_cx_df_0831wir edcities.html.

PAGE 268

268 Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children s perceptions of the pe rsonal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63 (1), 103-115. Gilbert, M. C. (1999). Interview with Pete Mountanos of charitable way. Nonprofit Online News Seattle, WA. Retrieved online April 21, 2007, from http://news.gilbert.org/ features/featureReader$3594. Giving USA Foundation (2006). 2005 contri butions: $260.28 billion by source and contribution. The Giving In stitute, Glenview, IL. Re trieved January 30, 2006, from http://www.givinginstitu te.org/charts/index.cfm?pg=chart1.cfm&ID=xgusa1. Glaser, J. S. (1993). The united way scandal: An insider s account of what went wrong and why. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Goodwin, R. (2004). Garnering major gifts. Custom Development Solutions, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, SC. Retrieve d online April 18, 2007, from http://www.cdsfunds.com/garnering_major_gifts.html. Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M. A. (1998). Relationship marketing effectiveness: The role of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 15 (5), 443-459. Grace, K.S., & Wendroff, A.L. (2001). High impact philanthropy: How donors, boards, and nonprofit organizations can transform communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Greenfield, J. M. (1996). Fund-raising cost effectivenes s: A self-assessment workbook New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behavior s in professional associations. Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 34-49. Grunig, J. E. (1966). The role of in formation in economic decision making. Journalism Monographs, No. 3. Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 109. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From or ganizational effectiven ess to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relati ons strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the st udy and practice of public relations (pp. 2354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

PAGE 269

269 Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Re lations and Communication Management: Contributions to Effective Organizations (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism: How it limits th e effectiveness of or ganizations and how excellent public relations departme nts respond. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management: C ontributions to effective organizations (pp. 483-501). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communi cation management in three countries Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34 (3), 340-361. Hall, M. R. (1993). The deans role in fund raising Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Hall, M. R. (2002). Fundraising and public re lations: A comparison of programme concepts and characteristics. International Journal of Nonpro fit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(4), pp. 368-381. Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (1), 1-21. Hall, P. D. (2005). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of N onprofit Leadership and Management (pp. 3-38). San Franci sco: Jossey-Bass. Harvard University Library. (2006). Papers of Henry Dunster and the Dunster family: An inventory. Harvard Universi ty Library, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved online April 18, 2007, from http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/pasis/deliver/~hua23004. Havens, J. J., & Schervish, P. G. (2005). Geography and generosity: Boston and Beyond. Boston College: Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1990). Involvement: A key variable in peoples reaction to public policy issues. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 270

270 Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1991). Effects of i nvolvement on reactions to sources of messages and to message clusters. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 3, pp. 179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (1997). Multiple co nstituencies and the so cial construction of nonprofit organizationa l effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26 185 206. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprof it organizational effectiveness: Contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9 (1), 23-38. Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (2000) Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. American Review of P ublic Administration 30 146. Hibbert, S., & Home, S. (1996). Giving to charity: Questioni ng the donor decision process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13 (2), 4-13. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale develo pment practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21 (5), 967-988. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. ( 2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28 (4), 531-551. Holtz, S. (1999). Public relations on the Net: Winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public, and more! AMACOM: New York. Hon, L., & Brunner, B. (2002). Measuring public relationships among students and administrators at the University of Florida. Journal of Communication Management, 6(3) 227-238. Hon, L. C. & Grunig, J. (1999). Guidelines for measuring rela tionships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations Research. Howard, C. M., & Mathews, W. K. (1995). On deadline: Managing media relations Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press, Inc. Howe, F. (2001). The board members guide to fund raising San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoyle, R. H. (1991). Evaluating measurement mode ls in clinical research : Covariance structure analysis of latent variable models of self-conception. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59 67-76. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and c onflict management strategies Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Maryland, College Park.

PAGE 271

271 Huang, Y. H. (2001). Values of public relatio ns: Effects on organization-public relations mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Re lations Research, 13 (4) 265-301. Hung, C. J. F. (2000, November). Organization-public relationshi ps, relationship maintenance strategies, and relationship outcomes Paper presented to the E ducator's Academy, Public Relations Society of America, Miami, FL. Hung, C. J. F. (2000b). Global public relations: A study of public relations in China from economic systems perspectives Paper presented to the E ducators Academy, Public Relations Society of Americ a, World Congress, Chicago Hung, C. J. F. (2002). The interplays of relationship ty pes, relationship cultivation, and relationship outcomes: How multinational and Taiwanese companies practice public relations and organization-public re lationship management in China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Hung, C. J. F. (2004). Cultural influence on re lationship cultivation strategies: Multinational companies in China. Journal of Communication Management 8(3), 264-281. Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Explori ng types of organizati on-public relations and their implications for relationship management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (4), 393-426. Hung, C. J. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations: How to cultivate quality relationshi ps? In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. (1983) Generalizing about messages, Human Communication Research 9 pp. 169-91. Jo, S. (2003). Measurement of organization-public rela tionships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer-retailer relationship Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2005). Organisation-public rela tionships: Measurement validation in a uni versity setting. Journal of Communication Management, 9 (1), 14-. Jordan, R. R., & Quynn, K. L. (2001). Marketin g: printed materials and publications for donors and prospects. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 824833). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural e quation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park: Sage. Inglis, S. (1997). Roles of the board in amateur sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management 11 160.

PAGE 272

272 Kaid L. L. (1989). Content analysis In P. Emmert & LL Barker (Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior (pp. 197-217). New York: Longman. Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit orga nizations use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30 (3), 279-284. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), 94-101. Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Orga nizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and re lational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Me diated Communication, 11 (2), article 1. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public rela tions: A critical analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1995). Utilizing public relations theory to concep tualize and test models of fund raising. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72 (1), 106-127. Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund-r aising management Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1998b, November). Four organiza tional roles of fund raisers: An exploratory study. Paper presented to th e Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) 27th annual conference, Seattle, WA. Kelly, K. S. (2000). Stewardship: The missing step in the public relations pr ocess. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kelly, K. S. (2001). ROPES: A model of the f und-raising process. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 96-116). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kelly, K. S. (2002). The state of fund-raising theory and research. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New strategies for educ ational fund raising Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT. Kelly, K. S., Thompsom, M., & Waters, R. D. (2006). Improving the way we die: A coorientation study assessing agreement/dis agreement in the organization-public relationship of hospi ces and physicians. Journal of Health Communication, 11 (6), 607627. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. ( 1998). Building dialogic relations hips through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24 (3), 321334. Ki, E. J. (2003). Relationship maintenance strategies on Fortune 500 company Web sites Unpublished masters thesis, Univer sity of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 273

273 Ki, E. J. (2004, May). Relationship maintenance strategies on web sites: How do different industries utilize relationship maintenance strategies? Paper presented to the 2004 Annual Conference of International Communi cation Association, New Orleans. Ki, E. J. (2006). Linkages among relationship maintenanc e strategies, relationship quality outcomes, attitude, and behavioral intentions Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2005, August). Te sting the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and be havioral intentions. Paper pr esented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communi cation annual convention, San Antonio, TX. Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and beha vioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (1), 1-23. Ki, E. J., & Shin, J. H. (2005, May). The status of organization-public re lationship research in public relations: Analysis of pub lished articles between 1985 and 2004 Paper presented to the International Communication Associ ation annual conference, New York. Kinzey, R. (1999) Using public relations strategies to promote your nonprofit organization. New York: Haworth Press. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). A simple guide to advanced sta tistics for SPSS, version 13.0. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing. Kopenhaver, L. L., Martinson, D. L., & Ryan, M. (1984). How public relations practitioners and editors in Florida view each other. Journalism Quarterly 61 (4), 860-865. Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-comm unity relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27 (3), 285-295. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Exp licating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 181-198. Ledingham, J. A. (2006, August). A chronology of organization-stakeholder relationships with recommendations concerning prac titioner adoption of the rela tional perspective. Paper presented to the Association for Educati on in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, San Francisco, CA. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organizationpublic relationship. Public Relations Review, 24 (1), 55-65. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Publ ic relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PAGE 274

274 Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, J. A ., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an or ganizational context: Toward a theory of relational loyalty. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1 23-43. Lenkowsky, L. (2002). Foundations and corporat e philanthropy. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The State of Nonprofit America (pp. 355-386). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Light, P. C. (2003, December). To give or not to give: The crisis of c onfidence in charities. Reform Watch 7. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Light, P. C. (2005, September). What it takes to make charities effective. The Chronicle of Philanthropy Washington, DC. Retrieve d online April 20, 2007 from http://www.brookings.edu/view s/op-ed/light/20050901.htm. Lindahl, W. E. (1992). Strategic planning for fund raising: How to bring in more money using strategic resource allocation San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Lohmann, R. (1992). The theory of th e commons. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 297-310). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003) Emotional intelligence, personality, and the perceived quality of so cial relationships. Personality and Indivi dual Differences, 35 (3), 641-658. MacCullum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). A pplications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51 201-226. Matheny, R. E. (1999). Major gifts: Solicitation strategies Washington, DC: CASE Books. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). In integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3) 709-734. McKenna, R. (1991). Relationship marketing: Successful strategies for the age of the Customers Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interp ersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16 (4), 469-499. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2001). Fit, failure, & the hall of fame: How companies succeed or fail. New York: Free Press. Minnesota Council for Nonprofits. (2004). G overnance: Basics. Minnesota Council for Nonprofits, St. Paul, MN. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from http://www.mncn.org/basic_gov.htm.

PAGE 275

275 Moss, B. (2003, September). Use your annual report and form 990 for marketing. Nonprofit Fiscal Fitness, Blackbaud, Charleston, SC. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from http://www.blackbaud.com/files/Ne wsletters/FiscalFitness/2 003/FiscalFitnessSept2003.pdf Moss, D. (1995, June 23). Charity embezzler gets 7-year term. USA Today. UT Watch, Austin, TX. Retrieved online April 20, 2007 from http://www.utwatch.org/oldne ws/usatoday_unitedway_6_23_95.html. Murphy, T. B. (2000). Financial and psychological determinants of donors capacity to give. New Directions in Philanthropic Fundraising, 29 33-49. National Academies of Science and Engineering. (2007 ). Charitable gift annuities. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 21, 2007, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/Gi ving/Charitable_Gift_Annuities.html. National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2006, May 26). NCCS quick facts. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 18, 2007, from http://ncssdataweb.urban.org/ NCCS/files/quickfacts.htm. National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2007). NTEE classificati on system. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 19, 2007, from http://nccsdatabweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=73. Neal, K. (2001). A primer on nonprofit pr. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of co mmunicative acts. Psychological Review, 60 393-404. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face-to-fac e: Making network organizations work. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 288-308). Boston: Harv ard Business School Press. Nonprofit Congress. (2006). The United States nonprofit sector. Nation al Council of Nonprofit Associations, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://www.nonprofitcongress.org/ sites/nonprofitcogress.org/f iles/theme_editor/npcongress /US_sector_report.pdf. Nudd, S. P. (1991). Thinking strategically abou t information (pp.174-189). In H. A. Rosso (Ed.), Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nyland, J. (1995). Issue netw orks and nonprofit organizations. Review of Policy Research, 14 195-202. ONeil, J. (2006, August). The link between strong public relationshi ps and donor support. Paper presented to the Associ ation for Education in Journa lism and Mass Communications annual convention, San Francisco, CA.

PAGE 276

276 ONeil, J. (2007). The link between str ong public relationships and donor support. Public Relations Review, 33 (1), 99-102. Ojanen, M. (1996). Persua sion strategies applied in psychosocial rehabilitation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6 (2), 77-99. Olsen, M., Keevers, M.L., Paul, J. & Covington, S. (2001). E-relationship development strategy for the nonprofit fundraising professional. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 6 364-373. Ospina, S., Diaz, W., & OSullivan, J. F. ( 2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31 (1), 5-31. Ott, R. L. (1993). An introduction to statistic al methods and data analysis Boston: Duxbury Press. Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (1999). The dom ain and conceptual foundations of relationship marketing. In J. N. Sheth and A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of relationship marketing Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2006). Daily Internet activit ies. The Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Retr ieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/D aily_Internet_activities_7.19.06.htm. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2006b). Percentage of U.S. adults online. The Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/tr ends/Internet_Adoption_4.26.06.pdf. Plowman, K. D. (1995). Congruence between public relati ons and conflict resolution: Negotiating in the organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. Plowman, K. D. (1996, August). Negotiation and two-way models in pub lic relations. Paper presented to the Association for Educati on of Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, Anaheim, CA. Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for pub lic relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10 (4), 237-261. Prince, R. & File, K. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy : A new approach to cultivating major donors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ragins, E. J., & Greco, A. J. (2003). Customer relationship management and e-business: More than a software solution. Review of Business, 24 (1), 25-31.

PAGE 277

277 Ragsdale, J. D. (1995). Quality communication in achieving fundraising excellence. In D. A. Brehmer (Ed.), Communicating effectively with major donors (pp. 17-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ritzenhein, D. N. (2000). One mo re time: How do you motivate donors? New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 29 51-68. Rosso, H. (1991). Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state of nonprofit America Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Sallot, L. M., Steinfatt, T. M., & Salwen, M. B. (1998). Journalist s' and public relations practitioners' news values: Pe rceptions and cross-perceptions Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75 (2), 366-377. Sargeant, A. (2001). Using donor lifetim e value to inform fundraising strategy. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12 (1), 25-38. Sargeant, A. (2001b). Relationship fundr aising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 12 (2), 177-192. Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundr aisers guide to increasing lifetime value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust an d relationship commitment in the U. K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33 (2), 185202. Saxon-Harrold, S. K. E. (1999). Facts and findings, 3 (1). Washington DC: Independent Sector. Schervish, P. G. (2005). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major gifts. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 47, 59-87. Schoonraad, N. (2003). Managing financial communication: Towards a conceptual model. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Pretoria, Hillcrest, Pretoria, South Africa. Schwartz, J. J. (2001). Fund-raising ove rview. In J. M. Greenfield (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook: Fund raising (pp. 2-14). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Seltzer, T. (2005). Measuring the impact of public relati ons: Using a coorientational approach to analyze the organization-public relationship Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations Research. Smith, S. R. (2002). Social serv ices. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 149-186). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

PAGE 278

278 Snavely, K., & Tracy, M. B. (2000). Collaboration among rural nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11 (2), 145-166. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated ratings scales construction: An introduction Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Stacks, D. W., & Hocking, J. E. (1999). Communication research New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenanc e strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relationa l characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242. Stevenson, Jr., M., & Chaves, E. (2006). The nature conservancy, the press, and accountability. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3), 345-366. Tempel, E. R. (Ed.). (2003). Hank Rossos achieving excellence in fund raising San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Tindall, N. (2004, August). Analysis of fund raising models at public historically Black colleges and universities. Paper presented to the Association for Educ ation in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention. Toronto, CA. Venture Philanthropy Partners. ( 2004). High-engagement philant hropy: A bridge to a more effective social sector. Venture Philanthr opy Partners, Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from http://www.vppartners.org/report2004.html. Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). The origin s of public relations theory in economics and strategic management. Paper presented at the Second International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia. Viscern.com. (2006). Welcome to viscern. Viscern, Inc., Dallas, TX. Retrieved online September 7, 2006, from http://www.viscern.com/cms/index.html. Voss, G. B., Cable, D. M., & Voss, Z. G. (2000) Linking organizational va lues to relationships with external constituents: A st udy of nonprofit professional theatres. Organization Science Wagner, L. (2002). The new donor: Creation or evolution? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (4), 343-352. Waters, R. D. (2000). The third-person effect and fund-rais ing communication: Testing social and geographic distance Unpublished masters thes is, Syracuse University. Waters, R. D. (2005, August). Fund raising on th e internet: A content analysis of ePhilanthropy trends of the organizations on the Philanthropy 400. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Co mmunication annual convention, San Antonio, TX.

PAGE 279

279 Waters, R. D. (2006, August). Measuring the nonprofit-donor relationship: The impact of relationship cultivation on donor renewal. Pape r presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, San Francisco, CA. Waters, R. D. (2007). Building the nonprofitdonor relationship online: The increasing importance of e-Philanthropy. In Duhe, S., & Adams, T. (Eds), Mediated public relations: Relationship management across space, time and new media Peter Lang USA: New York. Waters, R. D., & Hendren, A. G. (2005, November). Fund raising for controversial issues: An experimental approach using the inoculati on theory. Paper presented to the National Communication Association a nnual conference, Boston, MA. Waters, R. D., Kelly, K. S., & Walker, M. L. (2005, August). The prac titioner roles of fund raising: An assessment of gender differences Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communi cation annual convention, San Antonio, TX. Weinstein, S. (2002). The complete guide to fundraising management New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Whelan, D. (2002, October 16). What the certif ied fund-raising executive credential means-and what it doesnt. Chronicle of Philanthropy Washington, DC. Retrieved online April 19, 2007 from http://www.philanthropy.co m/jobs/2002/10/31/20021031-91492.htm#where. Worley, D. A. & Little, J. K. (2002). The cri tical role of stewardship in fund raising: The coaches vs. cancer campaign. Public Relations Review, 28 99-112. Worth, M. J. (Ed.). (2002). New strategies for educational fund raising Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Zachrison, E. (2005). An interview with Er ik Zachrison, general secretary. European Fundraising Association, Brussels, Belgiu m. Retrieved online April 21, 2007 from http://www.efa-net.eu/english/dr opdown_menue/listofmembers.htm. Zhang,Y. (1999). Using the Internet fo r survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (1), 57-68.

PAGE 280

280 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Richard D. Waters is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Public Relations in the College of Journalism and Communi cations at the University of Fl orida. His research interests include technology and the fundraising process, relationship management and donor cultivation in the nonprofit sector, and the us e of public relations by nonprofit organizations. He is a former fundraising practitioner and consul tant to healthcare organizati ons in Northern California. Before attending the University of Florida, Waters received his Master of Science degree in public relations from the S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University in 2000 and his Bachelor of Arts in jo urnalism from the Grady College of Journalism at the University of Georgia in 1998.