• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System
 

Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System

on

  • 2,448 views

Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System

Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,448
Views on SlideShare
2,448
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System Document Transcript

    • ENGAGEMENT LEVELS OFHISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LEADERS IN ENTREPRENEURIALISM THROUGH FUNDRAISING A Dissertation by Monica Georgette Williams Submitted to the Graduate School Prairie View A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy August 2009 Major Subject: Educational Leadership
    • ABSTRACT Public Historically Black College and University leaders are beingincreasingly called upon to develop an entrepreneurial spirit thatencourages fundraising from the private sector. Fundraising at HBCUsis no longer the sole responsibility of development officers. Theoverwhelming truth is that donors want relationships with a variety ofinstitutional leaders and the direct beneficiaries of their gifts. So often,donors need to feel connected to a cause and the gift benefactor. Thisconnection presupposes direct involvement by university leaders in thecultivation activities for donors. Unfortunately, many HBCU leaders failto engage in the donor cultivation and stewardship process that creates acontinuum of giving by philanthropists. This researcher believes that thelack of money raised at public HBCUs could be attributed to a leaders’unwillingness to exercise entrepreneurial behavior. In an attempt to define and understand the entrepreneurialuniversity and its leader, the researcher applied Clark’s (1998)theoretical framework. Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurialactivities encompass third-stream income sources that generateinnovative, non-traditional revenues and stimulate engagement inactivities that produce and enhance traditional income streams. To address this problem, the researcher conducted a study thatquestioned whether there is a relationship between HBCU leaders’entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their
    • institutions. This study also examined the extent to which leadersvalued and carried out entrepreneurial activities, the factors associatedwith the best practices in fundraising, the degree to which theinstitutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities inboth the president’s and advancement offices. Finally, the researcherexplored the institutional leaders’ perception of their entrepreneurialabilities. This study utilized results from a questionnaire surveyingpresidents and fund development officers employed at five of theThurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 member schools to examine howentrepreneurial orientation among public HBCU presidents impactsrevenue generation or gifting at their respective institutions.
    • DEDICATION Words cannot express the debt of gratitude I owe you, Canaan L.Harris, MD, for your continued encouragement and support during myeducational journey. I thank you for saving me from myself. I dedicatemy career and this manuscript to you.
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My ever-evolving relationship with God has made this journeypossible. To Him, I am eternally grateful. The new mercies He grants meeach day have guided this project. It is only appropriate that I give allglory and honor to Him for giving me the wisdom and intelligence toproduce this body of literature. Brittaney Cooks, you are my greatest inspiration. Knowing howproud you are of me has motivated me in more ways than you know. Iam proud to have you as my daughter, and I look forward to the daywhen you, too, embrace all the rewards higher education has in store foryou. No matter what, Theodore Bruce Lawrence, I believe you are myfriend and my gift from God. I am thankful that I have you to challengethe ethical dimensions of my life. Your firm demeanor and interest in myconstant growth and development is what I value most. I only hope I canlive up to your belief that I will follow in the footsteps of the great MaryMcLeod Bethune. Thank you, Daryl Michelle, for sharing your daddywith me and Brittaney. Georgiana A. Thomas, “Mama”, when God made you mygrandmother, He gave me the greatest gift one could ever imagine. Youare my favorite girl! Your love and support keeps me going.
    • I could not have asked for better parental support than I receivedfrom my parents, June and Jerry Dillingham. During the times that Ithought I couldn’t keep going and wanted to give up, you showed up justin time to help me sort things out. Having you as my younger siblings, Jordan Williams and CherRiles, has helped me realize the importance of setting a good example.You and your spouses, Tavonye and Kevin, have encouraged meconstantly as I have sought to achieve this milestone. I hope that yourchildren, Joshua, Madison, and Joel will one day take advantage of allthe opportunities that education has to offer. To my aunt, Fleur Lyman, I sincerely appreciate your wisdom andobjectivity. I love you and Russell and only wish Gerrard was here tocelebrate this accomplishment with us. Living in Dallas, Texas, taught me survival skills. Gladys Williams,“Grandma”, thank you for your love and support. Jordan Williams, Sr.,Daddy, I inherited your love for education. Sister-friends have been with me in every aspect of my life.Theresa Moor, you have always wanted better for me than I did formyself. I am overwhelmed by our 30 years of amity and blessed that youunselfishly shared Aunt Barbara (Thompson) with me. Having theMoor’s (Jules, Jillyan and Jules) as my second family has been inspiring.
    • From childhood until now, I have always been able to depend onyou, Chandra Robertson-Bailey. You and Aunt Charlene (Rubit) haveconsistently been in my corner. I would be remiss if I did not mention my gratitude for thehospitality extended to me by Nelson and Michelle Bowman over the lastfew years. Your constant encouragement has meant more to me thanyou’ll ever know. Thanks for always keeping the light on! Patsy and Willie Drewrey, I can always depend on you to give it tome straight! You are great friends. xoxoxoxo Thank you to my “Sissy”, Sherilynn Scott, for always being therewhen I need you. God didn’t make us blood-sisters, but Shanda Patterson, you aremy sistah. I cannot tell you the many times you have lifted me up whenall I wanted to do was fall flat on my face. Two words come to mindwhen I think of you—guardian angel! Jessica Bell and Dominique Sanders, I am so thankful for thecamaraderie we have reciprocated over the years. All of my friends at the Sportsman Country Club, you haveencouraged me when I needed it the most. Love you Kim and Sherry! Charlene Evans and James Ward, you have been the mentors whohave guided me personally and professionally. I appreciate your insightand guidance throughout the years.
    • Willie Trotty and George Wright, I am grateful for the confidenceyou placed in me to lead the best development office among all HBCUs.The opportunity you granted me stimulated my interest in conductingthe research for this body of knowledge. Larry V. Green, Esq., I appreciate your confidence in me. Yourfriendship means the world! Extend the View Cabinet Members June & Marvin Brailsford, OpalJohnson Smith, Nathelyne A. Kennedy, and Roy G. Perry, you made thiswork important by giving me the confidence that HBCU alumni do valuetheir institutions. Thanks for your wisdom, Patty Lonsbary! Nina Wilson Jones, you have been my spiritual sister and teacherof many things. Because of your constant pouring into me, I believe thatI can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Pastors Mia & Remus Wright, your spiritual guidance has been mysource of strength many times during this process. Even though youlead an enormous flock, you have always made me feel like I was the onlymember at The Fountain of Praise. Your continued words ofencouragement and prayers will never be forgotten. Naomi Lede, it all started with you. You gave me my name which Ilater came to learn means “wise counselor”. Somehow, you always knewI would do great things…especially in education. Thank you so very
    • much for having that confidence in me. I always wanted to be a “doctor”because of you. Lastly, but most importantly, I would like to thank my committeemembers for pushing me to make this study worthwhile. To Dr. WilliamA. Kritsonis, you are a God-send; Dr. David Herrington, I hope you arepleased; Dr. Michael McFrazier, I never would have made it without yourencouragement; and Dr. Ronald Howard, I appreciate getting to knowyou. Dr. Lisa Hobson-Horton, I appreciate you serving on my committeeand for providing professional assistance. Dr. Tyrone Tanner, you didn’tserve on my committee, but you were always there when I needed you.
    • TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iiiDEDICATION...................................................................................................................vACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................viABSTRACT...........................................................................................viiiTABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................xiLIST OF FIGURES................................................................................xivLIST OF TABLES..................................................................................xiv IRB APPROVAL LETTER ...........................................................116 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FORM ........................................118 1. HBCU Leader Participant Letter of Consent Form.................119 2. Default Section......................................................................120 LIST OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ..................................................................................................161 United States & Virgin Islands...................................................162 Historically Black Colleges and Universities...............................162 Alabama....................................................................................162 Arkansas...................................................................................162 Delaware...................................................................................162 District of Columbia...................................................................162 Florida.......................................................................................163 Georgia......................................................................................163 Kentucky...................................................................................163 Louisiana...................................................................................163 Maryland...................................................................................164 Michigan....................................................................................164 Mississippi.................................................................................164 Missouri....................................................................................164 North Carolina...........................................................................164 Ohio..........................................................................................165 Oklahoma..................................................................................165 Pennsylvania.............................................................................165 South Carolina..........................................................................165 Tennessee..................................................................................166 Texas.........................................................................................166 Virginia......................................................................................166
    • West Virginia.............................................................................167 U.S. Virgin Islands.....................................................................167 EXPERIENCE SUMMARY...........................................................169 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE..................................................169 OTHER EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE....................................174 PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS ...............................................174 PUBLICATIONS..........................................................................175 EDUCATION..............................................................................175Grade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0........................................................................................176CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...............................................12 Overview......................................................................................12 History of Educational Fundraising.............................................13 History of African-American Philanthropy....................................18 Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education.....................................21CHAPTER III. METHOD........................................................................................29 Overview......................................................................................29 Research Questions ………………………………………………………..30 Research Design..........................................................................31 Population and Sample................................................................34 Instrumentation..........................................................................34 Research Procedures...................................................................41 Data Collection............................................................................42 Data Analysis..............................................................................42 Limitations of the Study..............................................................45CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA..................................................................47 Introduction................................................................................47
    • Research Questions.....................................................................47 Research Question 1....................................................................48 Research Question 2....................................................................49 Research Question 3....................................................................49 Research Question 4....................................................................49 Research Question 5....................................................................50 Respondent Information..............................................................50 Description of Institutions...........................................................53 Tier 1 Institutions...................................................................53 Tier 2 Institutions...................................................................54 Flagship Universities..............................................................54 Superior Universities..............................................................58 Entrepreneurial Operations.........................................................60 University Leader vs. Business Executive...............................62 Advancement Experience/Professional Development..............66 Who’s to Blame?.....................................................................69 Entrepreneurial Activities............................................................71 Unfunded Priorities................................................................72 Donor Cultivation and Solicitation..........................................77 Impact of Philanthropy...........................................................80 The Bottom Line.....................................................................83CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
    • RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………..85 Summary.....................................................................................85REFERENCES...............................................................................................................88APPENDICES........................................................................................96 Appendix A: Informed Consent...................................................97 Appendix B: Interview Questions................................................99 Appendix C: IRB Approval Form...............................................102 Appendix D: Questionnaire Response Form..............................104 Appendix E: Participant Responses...........................................110 Appendix F: Historically Black Colleges & Universities..............148CURRICULUM VITAE..........................................................................155
    • LIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1 – Title III: Aid for Institutional Development........................23Figure 4.1 – Participant Entrepreneurial Characteristics.............................61Figure 4.2 – The Fundraising Cycle.......................................................................78 LIST OF TABLESTable 3.1 – Research Questions Paired with Interview Questions..........43Table 4.1 – Respondent Identification..................................................................53Table 4.2 – Respondent Identification Numbers …..……………………….. 62Table 4.3 – Differences Between University Leaders and BusinessExecutives.............................................................................................63Table 4.4 – Responsible Parties for Fundraising................................... 70Table 4.5 – Current Fundraising Strategies...........................................75Table 4.6 – Future Fundraising Strategies ............................................76Table 4.7 – Impact of Fund Development …………………………………….82Table 4.8 – Funds Raised in Three Year Period .....................................83
    • CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem College and university presidents are consistently challenged withdeveloping new resources to support unfunded priorities at theirinstitutions. Faced with competing against historic non-profit agenciesand entities, these educational chief executive officers have the challengeof taking a more entrepreneurial approach toward the financing of theirschools. A review of the literature suggests that entrepreneurialleadership will help these leaders demonstrate more innovative andexpansive efforts. Research indicates that corporate, foundation, and privatephilanthropy at majority institutions substantially surpasses giftingtrends at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).Disparities in philanthropy between these two institutional types can beseen as high as 50%. Consequently, the need for external funds has puttremendous pressure on HBCU presidents so much so that 25% of thesepresidents left their jobs during the period 2000-2002 (New YorkAmsterdam News, 2002). The curtailments of federal funds, changingdemographics, and the entrance of private corporations into the businessof higher education have significantly affected the financial state ofhigher education institutions (Riggs, 2005). “As government support of
    • HBCUs decreases, and as the economy worsens, competition for fundingsources increases” (Reaves, 2006). For this reason, a study addressingthe engagement of HBCU presidents in entrepreneurialism throughfundraising was deemed necessary. Increasing fundraising initiatives at HBCUs means placing moreemphasis on cultivating alumni and educating them about theimportance of philanthropy. Without private support, these minorityflagship institutions are likely to fail, and it is the president’s job toeducate and engage the donor community. Engaging donors with thecapacity to make a significant financial or in-kind contribution wouldultimately translate into healthier endowments and impact the quality ofeducation provided at HBCUs. Statement of the Problem Tindall (2007) states that “fund raising has become vital to allHBCUs because those additional funds allow colleges and universities topromote and continue research programs, supplement budgetary weakspots, enhance campus infrastructure, upgrade the physical plant, andattract and retain prospective faculty” (p. 1). Tindall (2007) also notesthat the fund-raising efforts of both private and public HBCUs lingersignificantly behind the established fundraising programs at traditionallyWhite institutions.
    • Predominantly White institutions have alumni giving rates thatrange between 20-60 percent, whereas, Black college alumni giving ratestypically fall below ten percent (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins, 2003; Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). “At a time whenendowments are decreasing due to economic forces and public support ofinstitutions of higher education” is at an all-time low, “it is a matter ofsurvival that Black colleges increase their giving rates” (Holloman,Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins, 2003, p. 159). Unlike private HBCUs,public institutions are supported by state government entities. It is withthis fact in mind that seeking private philanthropy has not been apopular practice among public HBCUs. Contrarily, Cohen (2006) arguesthat “Although HBCUs alumni giving have been under attack for beingnegligent, African Americans on the contrary have maintained a rich anddiverse tradition of giving and philanthropic support in the UnitedStates” (p. 31). There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few scholars havedevoted time and effort to understanding the complexities and challengesassociated with fundraising at these institutions. By and large, schoolsare supported either by the United Negro College Fund (39 private HBCUmembers) or the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (47 member publicschools and 6 law schools). The Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF)is the only national organization to provide merit scholarships,
    • programmatic and capacity building support to its member institutions.Building upon this infrastructural support will help to prepare a newgeneration of leaders throughout the HBCU community and the world.Development professionals at these specialized institutions face agrowing dilemma – how to strengthen university resources in a climatethat has historically relied almost wholly on public funding (Williams &Kritsonis, 2006). Public HBCUs will eventually be forced to identifyprivate resources to survive and thrive. The higher education landscapeis changing rapidly, and both private and public institutions aresearching for new revenues – requiring more entrepreneurial ways(Bowen & Shapiro, 1998). Purpose of the Study Historically Black College and University leaders are increasinglybeing called upon to develop an entrepreneurial spirit that encouragesfundraising from the private sector. The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) to determine the entrepreneurial orientation of public HBCUadministrators (Corrigan 2002) and 2) to determine how thoseorientations are perceived to be related to the revenue-generatingactivities of their institutions and the institutions’ financial stability(Tierney 1988). Research QuestionsThe following qualitative research questions guided the study:
    • 1. What connection exists between the Historically Black College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their institution? 2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities? 3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors are associated with best practices in fundraising? 4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the institution? 5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the administrator’s role by the administrator? Theoretical Framework This study used Clark’s (1998) theoretical framework as a basis fordefining and understanding the entrepreneurial university. According toClark (1998), entrepreneurial activities comprise third-stream incomesources that include 1) innovative and profit-based, self-supportingoperations that go beyond traditional sources, such as businessdevelopment activities and innovative retail sales operations, 2) activitiesthat develop and enhance traditional income streams such asendowment and tuition, and 3) activities that involve both traditional andnontraditional aspects, such as distance learning, which uses
    • nontraditional methods of teaching to gain tuition, a traditional source ofincome. For this study, the researcher employed Clark’s (1998) theory tostudy the relationships between HBCU fundraising administrators atinstitutions within the Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 memberschools. While there are 47 member schools and six law schools in thiscohort, 17 institutions and all law schools were not included in thisstudy for reasons explained in Chapter III. Specifically, this investigationwill serve a two-fold purpose: 1) the identification of innovative andprofit-based self-supporting operations that go beyond traditionalsources; and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional incomestreams at the selected institutions. The third component of Clark’s(1998) study addressing both traditional and nontraditional activityaspects offers no relevance to this study and will not be included. Assumptions 1. Each administrator surveyed will be knowledgeable about employing entrepreneurial orientations necessary for increasing revenue generation. 2. Each administrator will respond to survey questions without prejudice thereby revealing the degree to which he/she is entrepreneurial.
    • 3. Each administrator surveyed will not breech the confidentiality relating to specific donors and/or fundraising practices. Delimitations of the Study1. This was a purposeful study. It focused on the entrepreneurial orientations administrators who practice fundraising on behalf of public HBCUs within the membership of the TMCF. HBCUs which are not members of the TMCF were not be included in the study.2. Only presidents and chief development officers were surveyed regarding their self-perception of engagement levels of entrepreneurial orientation. Limitations of the Study1. This study did not address the entrepreneurial orientation of presidents and chief development officers at private institutions or HBCUs affiliated with the United Negro College Fund.2. Because the survey was self-reported, presidents and chief development officers may not provide an objective, unbiased self-assessment regarding their entrepreneurial orientation.3. Some institutions invited to participate did not have the development office infrastructure or capacity to report data relative to the study.
    • Definition of TermsChief Development Officer – the person responsible for the advancementefforts within a defined area; the lead person in fundraising (Patton,1993).Entrepreneur – an organizational leader who tirelessly and activelytranscends good leadership and management practices and personallyidentifies opportunities, develops a creative and innovative vision,welcomes competition, and persuades others to contribute andparticipate; undertakes a challenge in a new way (Riggs, p. 10).Entrepreneurial activities – activities that generate revenue from non-traditional methods (Riggs, p. 10).Entrepreneurial Orientation – interest in entrepreneurial activityengagement (Riggs, p. 10).Fundraising – The solicitation of gifts from private sources, specificallyindividuals, corporations and foundations (Terrell & Gold, 1993).Financial Stability – a broad description of a steady state in which thefinancial system efficiently performs its key economic functions(Schinasi, 2004).Historically Black College(s) and University(ies) – public and privateeducational institutions founded for the purpose of educating BlackAmericans. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines anHBCU as "...any historically Black college or university that was
    • established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, theeducation of Black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationallyrecognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary[of Education)…" (White House Initiative on Historically Black Collegesand Universities, 2007).Institutional Advancement – Activities and programs undertaken todevelop understanding and support from constituencies to help achieveits goals in securing resources such as students, faculty, and dollars(Rowland, 1986).Non-traditional Revenue – philanthropically generated dollars or newrevenue garnered from the private sector (Williams & Kritsonis, 2007).Philanthropy – a charitable gift that expresses love for humankind(Sears, 1990).Traditional Revenue – money secured from tuition, sponsored programs(i.e. federally funded initiatives), or the public sector (Williams &Kritsonis, 2007). Significance of the Study Since the research on raising money at HBCUs is limited, thisstudy contributes to the existing body of literature, as well as, probessignificant issues surrounding entrepreneurial orientation and revenuegeneration at these specialized institutions. Results of this study will beof assistance to HBCU presidents and other administrators as they
    • employ a rational approach to developing and implementing acomprehensive fundraising program. Actually executing funddevelopment in a strategic, entrepreneurial way will be critical to thesurvival of these institutions. Summary Changing economic conditions at the state level have reduced theamount of governmental support available to public institutions of highereducation. These shrinking revenues have added a new responsibility tochief executive officers and administrators at institutions of highereducation. Accordingly, embracing an appreciation for cultivatingrelationships with donors is a necessary step for university presidents atpublic institutions. This is a different and oftentimes unwelcomeresponsibility among HBCU institutional leaders (Birnbaum, 1992). The fact of the matter is simply that HBCUs have to step up to theplate in order to compete with majority institutions. The competition isfierce for student enrollment, student recruitment, public funding, andnow private funds. A major source of fundraising difficulties arises fromthe small size of HBCUs and from their less-affluent alumni bases (NewYork Amsterdam News, 2002). “If historically Black colleges are to survive, they must learn how toplan effectively within the institutional context to achieve their desiredfund-raising results” (Barrett, p. 7). Each administrator’s leadership
    • strategy and how they focus on advancement activities and tactics makesa difference in the amount of private money the institution raises. It isobvious from this study that institutions must implement some methodof strategic planning to develop advancement activities and strategies.Employing a rational approach to developing and implementing acomprehensive fundraising campaign is key. Identifying institutionalneeds, developing plans for achieving those needs, beginning toimplement those plans, and actually executing the campaigns will becritical to the survival of these institutions.
    • CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview This chapter presents research on the engagement levels ofHistorically Black College and University (HBCU) presidents and chiefdevelopment officers in fundraising and the connection betweenincreasing educational resource development through entrepreneurialideology. Entrepreneurial ideology suggests that there is a morecomplex, integrated way of thinking that makes business people moresuccessful. Dunkelberg and Cooper (1988) describe entrepreneurs ashaving orientations that influence growth and independence.Accordingly, HBCU leaders that possess entrepreneurial characteristicscould be more successful in their fundraising efforts if they exerciseentrepreneurial ideology. This literature review begins with a brief historical overview offundraising and philanthropy which helps to understand the importanceof fundraising in education. Next, the researcher presents literature onthe history of African-American philanthropy in order to capture beliefsand assumptions around fundraising for African-Americans. Finally, thesection on entrepreneurialism in higher education provides acollaboration of thoughts surrounding the need for university
    • administrators to capture the spirit of entrepreneurialism in order to besuccessful in their fundraising efforts.History of Educational Fundraising The concept of private philanthropy and fundraising can be seenthroughout history for thousands of years. For centuries, Americanshave relied on fundraising to support religious infrastructure, politics,economic relief for families, and even wars. Humanitarian effortspromoting the spirit of giving can be witnessed prior to colonial dayswhen families shared their good harvests with less fortunate families(Schoenecke, 2005, p. 17). “From their earliest days, universities, colleges, and schools havedepended on fundraising and the generosity of benefactors, clients, andpublic bodies who shared their dreams and supported their purposes”(Rhodes, 1997, p. xvii). Harvard College, the oldest higher educationinstitution in the United States, was founded in 1634 as a result ofphilanthropic support provided by Reverend John Harvard (Worth,1993). By 1745, the only colleges in the colonies were Harvard, Williamand Mary, and Yale. Most college presidents in the colonial era wouldsolicit funding in order to assure institutional survival. More than 100 years later, in 1862, the first federal land grant actwas established, resulting in growth and expansion in higher education.Senator Justin Smith Morrill lobbied Congress for financial support to
    • establish colleges for industrial education. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and1890 granted federally controlled land to the states for the purpose ofbuilding educational institutions. As a result of the 1862 Act,institutions were commissioned to teach agriculture, military tactics,mechanic arts, and home economics in addition to classical studiesBrowning & Williams, 1978). By the second land grant act in 1890,several public institutions were funded by the states (Cultip, 1990).During the Industrial Revolution, college presidents solicited wealthybusinessmen to gain institutional support. Because of their generousphilanthropy, many institutions were renamed in honor of thesebenefactors. The establishment of land grant institutions paved the way for thecreation of some specialized public institutions, namely HBCUs. A keycomponent of the land grant system is the agricultural experimentstation program created by the Hatch Act of 1887. The Hatch Actauthorized direct payment of federal grant funds to each state toestablish an agricultural experiment station in connection with the landgrant institution (Browning & Williams, 1978). The amount of thisappropriation varies from year to year and is determined for each statethrough a formula based on the number of small farmers. A majorportion of the federal funds must be matched by the state. HBCUscreated under jurisdiction of the Morrill Acts are Alabama A & M
    • University, Tuskegee University, University of Arkansas Pine Bluff,Florida A & M University, Fort Valley State University, Kentucky StateUniversity, Southern University and A & M College, University ofMaryland Eastern Shore, Alcorn State University, Lincoln University,North Carolina A & T University, Langston University, South CarolinaState University, Tennessee State University, Prairie View A & MUniversity, University of the Virgin Islands, Virginia State University, andWest Virginia State University. Nearly ten years before land grant institutions were established,former slave owner, George Campbell, and former slave and communityleader, Lewis Adams, founded the Negro Normal School in Tuskegee.Adams negotiated the establishment of what is now known as TuskegeeUniversity in exchange for Adams’ influence on the Black vote (History ofTuskegee, 2008). Dr. Booker T. Washington was selected as the school’sfirst teacher and was installed as principal of the school in 1881.Tuskegee recognizes Dr. Washington as a highly skilled organizer andfundraiser who was counsel to American presidents, a strong advocate ofAfrican-American entrepreneurs, and instrumental in the founding ofSouthern educational institutions (History of Tuskegee, 2008).Dedicated in 1922, the Booker T. Washington Monument, “Lifting theVeil”, at the center of Tuskegee’s campus has an inscription that reads,
    • “He lifted the veil of ignorance from his people and pointed the way toprogress through education and industry” (History of Tuskegee, 2008). “Booker T. Washington stressed that the Negro would best benefitfrom agricultural training because this is how a living would be made”(Scott, 2000, p. 32). According to Scott (2000), being mechanicallyinclined, knowledgeable of commerce, familiar with domestic services,and professionally educated would help to advance the Negro. PrairieView A & M University in Prairie View, Texas, is an example of Dr.Washington’s vision for an industrial educational system. Established in1876 as the Alta Vista Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas forColored Youth, Prairie View A & M can be remembered for its role in thepreparation and training of teachers, farming programs, food preparationand preservation, and improving health. Today, Prairie View A & MUniversity continues to be recognized as an HBCU leader in the arts andsciences, home economics, agriculture, mechanical arts, and nursing. In 1896, the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson ruledthat separate public institutions could be established for Blacks andWhites. Hence, other HBCUs were established by four major missionsocieties. The American Missionary Association was a federalgovernment organization. The remaining three – the Freedmen’s AidSociety of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the American Baptist HomeMission Society, and the Board of Missions for the Freedmen of the
    • Presbyterian Church in the USA – were religious organizations (Cohen,2006). While the aforementioned societies were made up of Whites, ithas been argued that Black colleges supported by Whites were generallyregarded as more prestigious than those colleges supported by Blacks(Cohen, 2006). According to Cohen (2006), “between 1865 and 1915,Blacks contributed $25 million toward their own educational efforts,almost half that contributed by Whites” (p. 19). White missionaryphilanthropists financed and managed HBCUs with the highestenrollment. In 1902, John D. Rockefeller’s General Education Boardcontributed significantly to higher education for Blacks (Curti & Nash,1965). Gifts from this fund totaling nearly $130 million were grantedwithout respect to sex, creed, or race. The Supreme Court reversed its Plessy v. Ferguson decision in1954, ruling under Brown v. Board of Education that separateinstitutions denied Blacks an equal education. As a result of the 1954decision, public schools received funding for physical improvements andfinancial aid (Browning & Williams, 1978). Public HBCUs are by and large under-funded compared topredominantly White institutions as is evidenced by the disparity inbudgetary allocations between the two institutional types. Withoutexternal funding, HBCUs will be good institutions, but they will not havethe quality education that is essential for students to be successful.
    • “The interminable retrenchment of state and federal support has forcedcolleges and universities to become increasingly reliant on theprocurement of funds from private sources in order to recruit qualitystudents, retain distinguished faculty, and produce value addedresearch” (Johnsen, 2005, p.1). Changing economic conditions at the state level have reduced theamount of governmental support available to public institutions of highereducation. These shrinking revenues have added a new responsibility touniversity presidents. Embracing an appreciation for cultivatingrelationships with donors is a necessary responsibility for universityadministrators at public institutions but is a different and oftentimesunwelcome responsibility among HBCU institutional leaders (Birnbaum,1992, p. 39). As stated by Barrett, (2006), “If historically Black collegesare to survive, they must learn how to plan effectively within theinstitutional context to achieve their desired fund-raising results” (p. 7).History of African-American Philanthropy Unlike majority institutions, HBCUs have not had a long history ofprivate philanthropy. Until recently, there was not much emphasisplaced on alumni giving at Black colleges. In fact, “for many graduates ofHBCUs, giving back is not a priority and, in some cases, not aconsideration” (Reaves, 2006, p. 2). Contrarily, the Black Church and itscongregants have offered a source of inspiration for effective fundraising
    • among Black Americans. The church is characterized as a powerfulhistorical and contemporary influence regarding African-Americans andgiving, and the Black Church continues to be the extremely influential inthe lives of Black Americans (Reaves, 2006). “Throughout American history, the Black Church has occupied adistinctive position in the individual and collective lives of African-Americans” (Ellison, 1991, p. 4). Research indicates that African-Americans attend church more frequently, participate in church-relatedactivities, and belong to more church-affiliated activities than many otherAmericans. African-Americans look to the church for guidance,advocacy, and the promotion of social needs. Accordingly, fundraisingprofessionals at HBCUs could view the most effective fundraisingmechanism for African-Americans as the Black Church. Someresearcher, however, have pointed out that HBCUs have not followed themodel of the Black Church. In a study conducted by Holloman, Gasman& Anderson-Thompkins (2003), it is revealed that HBCU leaders did notask for contributions until the day of graduation, “however, fundraisingliterature tells us that colleges and universities need to educate theirstudents about giving as soon as they arrive on campus” (p. 156). Most African-Americans are taught philanthropy as childrenthrough their obligation to attend church and to make a donation.Through personal engagement and building trust, African-American
    • preachers convey the needs of the church and consistently encourageparishioners to support the work of the church. “It is surprising then,giving the way Black churches model giving for their youngest membersthat Black colleges do not” (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins,2003, p. 157). As Carson (2001) points out, “African-Americans understand thatthe role of the Black church – especially in the area of fundraising islegendary” (p. 4). Continuing, he says, “We recognize that the Blackchurch puts the force of authority and legitimacy behind its appeals toreach givers in the Black community. The Black Church is a triumphantexample of philanthropy among friends” (Carson, 2001, p. 4). “As Blacks became better educated and their churches grew innumbers and strength, their conviction began to be expressed throughthe notion that Blacks ought to have schools under their ownmanagement and financial control” (Cohen, 2006, p. 20). The originalpurpose of HBCUs was to teach freed slaves to read the Bible or becomepreachers or teachers (Kujovich, 1994). Early philanthropy for Black education has been described as “therichness and vitality of American life” and as “an illustration of America’sbroken promises, a crafty form of ‘generosity’ designed to prevent realreform” (Anderson & Moss, 1999, p.1). It is vastly argued that northernWhite philanthropists established HBCUs to maintain social peace and
    • to produce a capable but submissive workforce. Today, HBCU graduateshold significant status as stated by Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins (2003): In the future, a greater percentage of college alumni will be Black, and equipped with degrees. More African Americans will enter the middle class. Not only does this mean that more African Americans will be in a position to give, but as they advance economically, they will participate more fully in financial planning and institutionalized giving--tax incentives, charitable trusts, and living wills. Finally, as the children of African American alumni enter the institutions of their parents, those parents will seek to increase their giving in an effort to support the continued social and economic development of their families. This situation presents enormous opportunities for Black colleges to increase their financial stability and above all, to solidify their position within the Black community and within the greater world of American higher education (p. 159).Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education Presidents and other administrators of HBCUs continue to impressupon government officials the need for greater federal financial supportat a time when “cutbacks in federal and state spending coupled withinfrastructure repairs and staunch competition from mainstream
    • institutions with limited resources have ensured severe financialconstraints on America’s HBCUs” (Nealy, 2008). In early 2009, fundingfor HBCUs was cut by $85 million nationally in the category forStrengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities.Strengthening Historically Black Colleges Graduate Institutionsremained neutral for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009. Figure 2.1 illustratesthe Obama Administration’s aid for institutional development fundingallocations from 2007-2009 (White House Initiative on Historically BlackColleges and Universities).Figure 2.1
    • Title III: Aid for Institutional Development (B.A. in Millions) 2009 2007 2008 Request Strengthening Institutions (Part A) $79.5 $78.1 $78.1 Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (Part A) 23.6 23.2 — 1 (mandatory) — 30.0 30.01 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (Part A) 11.8 11.6 — 1 (mandatory) — 15.0 15.01 Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Part B) 238.1 238.1 153.1 1 (mandatory) — 85.0 85.01 Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (Part B) 57.9 56.9 56.9 Minority Science and Engineering Improvement (Part E) 8.7 8.6 8.6 Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (mandatory) — 15.01 15.01 Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions (mandatory) — 5.01 5.01 Strengthening Native American- serving nontribal institutions (mandatory) — 5.01 5.01 Total 419.6 571.5 451.7 1 Mandatory funds made available by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, P.L. 110-84 (September 27, 2007). These funds are not part of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Fundraising in higher education is the most widely recognizedsupplement to government funding. Several HBCUs have enjoyed thefruits of laborious fund development while the vast majority lag
    • significantly in obtaining philanthropic support. There is an obviousneed for HBCUs to modify their current fundraising practices to includeaggressive solicitation strategies for various constituencies.Corporations, foundations, alumni and other vehicles for securingprivate philanthropic gifts are essential to the survival of publicinstitutions of higher education. Across the nation, higher education has experienced a significantdecline in funding, yet enrollment in higher education is at an all-timehigh (Schoenecke, 2005). Riggs (2005) posits that “for most Americaninstitutions of higher education, traditional academic ideology held thatthe institution had no business in the marketplace” (p. 27).Traditionally, higher education communities were designed exclusively toprovide teaching, learning, and research. Accordingly, institutions ofhigher education did not exercise conventional business models in orderto generate current-use funds. Today, these institutions are expected toenter the marketplace, survive in the competitive market, and adapt thepractices of their for-profit counterparts. Until recently, public colleges and universities did not face theneed to compete with private entities because most public funds wereautomatically disbursed to public education. In the last two decades, thepublic funding landscape has changed drastically, causing publicinstitutions of higher education to embrace the entrance of private
    • corporations into the business of higher education (Cook, 1997).Institutions are being called upon by parents and students to addressconcerns about rising tuition costs, yet they are also being held moreaccountable by public funding entities. Due to the decline in stateresources, public institutions are placing stronger emphasis onfundraising (Riggs, 2005). Sears (1990) defines philanthropy as “anexpression of love for mankind” (p. 10) that includes “all gifts exceptthose from the State” (p.10). Riggs (2005) believes that “the rapid changes in economic,demographic, and political conditions that face American institutions ofhigher education indicate that both the institutions and their leadersmust be adaptable and diverse” (p. 3). Changes in the historical rolesand responsibilities of college presidents have presupposed that theseleaders possess entrepreneurial characteristics. “A business-likeorientation focused on efficiency, accountability, and productivity isreshaping the management of higher education” (Dingfelder, p. 2, 2007). Clark (1998) suggests that entrepreneurs embody a set ofcharacter traits that are synonymous with leaders. Entrepreneurialefforts by university administrators translate into institutionaltransformation. Attributes used to describe an individual withentrepreneurial orientation are innovative, creative, team builder,opportunist, proactive, risk taker, change agent, competitive, visionary,
    • and persuasive (Riggs, 2005). Other researchers have describedentrepreneurs as individuals who recognize and seize opportunities whenthey occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003). Princeton University’s WordNet (2008) describes innovative asbeing ahead of the times. Originative and productive are characteristicsof a creative individual. Team builders create better employees who arewilling to advance the mission of the organization through the leader’svision. Being an opportunist means making tough decisions regardlessof sacrifice. In seizing opportunities, individuals often take a proactiveapproach. One who controls a situation rather than responding to theoutcome embodies this attribute (WordNet, 2008). Implementing projectswithout regard to loss is what proactive risk takers do. Being entrepreneurial also means embracing change. A changeagent alters or modifies a current situation in hopes of improving it(WordNet, 2008). By and large, being a change agent requirescompetitive nature, vision, and persuasiveness. Employing an aggressivedisposition demonstrates competitiveness. Having a strong imaginationor image of predictability is what helps visionaries compete. Finally,calling others to action or belief is required. This persuasive personaalso lends credibility to entrepreneurs. Howard University president, H. Patrick Swygert can be describedas an entrepreneurial president. Swygert, along with assistance from
    • Howard University trustees and officers, lead the institution’s record-breaking fundraising campaign that yielded $275 million, the largestamount raised to-date by any HBCU. Masterson (2008) reports thatHoward officials sought to raise $100 million before Swygert convincedhis superiors that the goal was too modest. H. Patrick Swygert’s entrepreneurial attributes moved HowardUniversity to an unprecedented level, elevating Howard to its rankingamong the 136 institutions asked by the United States FinanceCommittee how they spend their endowments (Masterson, 2008).Swygert, an alumnus, invested $2 million in the campaign. HowardUniversity’s endowment now sits at a healthy $532 million, and there istalk of a $1 billion capital campaign in their future. It is expected thatuniversity officials will publish a report on lessons learned that will bemade available to other HBCUs. According to the director of the Council for Aid to Education’ssurvey on giving as reported by Masterson (2008), HBCUs have “lessmature fund-raising operations that rely more on money fromfoundations and corporations than from alumni” (p. 2). In order forHBCUs to increase their endowments through private philanthropy,alumni participation is necessary. Swygert recognized the importance ofre-engaging alumni by connecting them to students. His proactiveapproach could be one reason why annual alumni giving at Howard
    • increased from 4% to as high as 20% during the campaign (Masterson,2008). Waddell (1992) confirms that “empirical research is limited withrespect to fund-raising in public colleges and universities, particularlypublic Black institutions” (p. 3). In Scott’s (2000) study on successfulfundraising units at public historically Black colleges and universities,there are several references to the lack of research conducted related tofundraising at HBCUs. In retrospect, adding to the current scarce bodyof literature regarding HBCU fundraising is much needed and theprimary intent of this study.
    • CHAPTER III METHOD Overview The framework for conducting this investigation including sectionson research design, population and sample, instrumentation, researchprocedures, data collection, and data analysis is referenced in thischapter. Also addressed in this section are validity and reliability. This study was designed to examine the entrepreneurialengagement levels among Historically Black College and University(HBCU) administrators directing inquiry to 30 of the 47 TMCF memberschools. The TMCF law schools and seventeen member schools were notincluded in this study. Persons who currently serve as actingadministrators or those who had not been in their positions more thantwelve months were not included in this study. The rationale forexcluding these individuals was that they were serving on a temporarybasis and/or that they had not served in the current leadership capacitythat would allow them to objectively complete the questionnaire. Theadministrators who were eligible to participate in the study but sodeclined were represented in the seventeen schools not included in thestudy. Relationship-building is the premise for successful fundraising, soadministrators who had not had the opportunity to cultivate
    • relationships with donors due to their temporary assignment or minimaltime in office were not included. One interim administrator was includedin the study because at the time she completed the questionnaire, shewas serving in a permanent role. Strengthening university resources from the private sector in anenvironment that has traditionally relied on local and state funding ismandatory for HBCU survival. Bowen and Shapiro (1998) suggest that ifpublic HBCUs do not become aggressive about their fundraisingpractices and engage in entrepreneurial practices to increaseinstitutional revenue, they may not survive. Research QuestionsThe following qualitative research questions guided the study: 1. What connection exists between the Historically Black College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their institution? 2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities? 3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors are associated with best practices in fundraising? 4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the institution?
    • 5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the administrator’s role by the administrator? Research Design A qualitative study design was used to explore the connectionbetween HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financialstability of their universities. The qualitative variables used for this studyincluded: • the amount of employment training and preparation, • length of employment at the institution, • innovative approaches used on the job, • creativity in fundraising strategies, • team building exercises implemented, • opportunistic tactics used to get the job done, • risk-taking approach to realize fundraising goals, • competitive nature, • vision-driven initiatives, • ability to be proactive, • persuasiveness, • professional experience, • philosophy of fund development, and • the impact of private philanthropy on the institution
    • The qualitative method used for this research was open-endedquestions. Open-ended questions were used to capture responses ofindividuals in their natural settings. This qualitative method of inquiryhelped to build upon theory and seek to gain understanding of thesubject (Winegardner, 2004). According to Lee (1999), there are fourqualities that appear in qualitative studies. The first quality is thatstudies are conducted in a natural setting. Next, empirical data isgenerated as a result of participation by the researcher. Third, theresearch design allows for flexibility based upon the study. Finally,instruments, observation methods, and modes of analysis are notstandardized allowing for more extensive response set from participants(Lee, 1999). Qualitative research is that which refers to a person’s life, livedexperiences, behaviors, emotions, as well as organizational functioning,social movements, cultural phenomena, and interactions betweennations (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 11). This type of research can beextremely helpful when exploring research topics about which little isknown. This is especially applicable to the present study of theentrepreneurial engagement levels of HBCU administrators infundraising. There are no studies that examine this topic. Accordingly,the objective of this study was to explore issues surrounding the
    • entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU fundraisers that will allow others togain knowledge and understanding for university advancement purposes. There are generally common practices and standards used bydevelopment professionals to raise money. To ensure that philanthropymerits the respect and trust of the general public, these commonpractices are recognized and outlined by a number of organizationsincluding the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education(CASE) and the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP). Withmore than 3,400 member institutions of higher education, “CASE helpsits members build stronger relationships with their alumni and donors,raise funds for campus projects, produce recruitment materials, markettheir institutions to prospective students, diversify the profession, andfoster public support of education” (Council for the Advancement andSupport of Education, 2009). The Association of FundraisingProfessionals boasts more than 30,000 members in 200 chaptersthroughout the world by helping their members “advance philanthropythrough advocacy, research, education and certification programs”(Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2009). According to AFP(2009), its “association fosters development and growth of fundraisingprofessionals and promotes high ethical standards in the fundraisingprofession”.
    • Membership to CASE and AFP is strictly voluntary. It is not thepractice of either of these organizations to identify best practices infundraising for specific groups. In other words, standards set forth bythese organizations have been endorsed by some organizations andoverlooked by others. HBCUs often do not have the resources tosubscribe to these entities, and therefore, do not have access to thetechnical assistance and other benefits these organizations provide. Population and Sample A stratified sample based on enrollment size was used toselect a minimum of five schools for participation in this study. Forpurposes of this study, schools with 8,000 or more students wereconsidered Tier 1 institutions; institutions with 5,000 – 7,999 studentswere considered Tier 2 schools; schools with 2,000 – 4,999 students wereconsidered Tier 3 institutions; and Tier 4 schools represent those withless than 2,000 students. Instrumentation The instrument used in this study will be an original surveyquestionnaire based on prior research regarding the entrepreneurialorientation of presidents at majority institutions. Palys (2003) outlinesmany advantages to utilizing questionnaires when conducting research.First, surveys and questionnaires are an excellent way of gathering datafrom the respondents in a direct and timely manner. Another advantage
    • was that the questionnaire was distributed electronically and copies weremade available to participants at a regularly scheduled TMCFconference, thereby granting direct access to the conference participantswho are HBCU college presidents, development officers, alumni relationsprofessionals, and students. Using this research methodology in thismanner increases the response rate especially when respondents aregiven structured time within the conference to complete the survey.Palys (2003, p. 151) further states, “when a group of prospectiverespondents agrees to allow a researcher access to the group…responserates may approach 100 percent.” Types of questions used in the questionnaire were based on Clark’s(1998) discussion of entrepreneurial involvement by colleges anduniversities. Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial activities help togenerate non-traditional revenues (p. 25). For purposes of this study,non-traditional revenue generation includes (1) the identification ofinnovative and profit-based self-supporting operations that go beyondtraditional sources; and 2) activities that develop and enhancetraditional income streams at the selected institutions. The surveyinstrument was developed with this understanding in mind. The instrument used was an open-ended questionnaire designed tomeasure the entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU leaders. Theresearcher implemented the following plan for conducting research:
    • 1. Identified HBCU leaders to participate in the study.2. Once identified, participants were sent the participant letter of consent form (attached) requesting the leader to participate. a. If the leader agreed to participate by returning the consent form, he/she was given access to Survey Monkey where they completed the 15-question survey that sought responses to questions related to the amount of employment training and preparation, length of employment at the institution, innovative approaches used on the job, creativity in fundraising strategies, team building exercises implemented, opportunistic tactics used to get the job done, risk- taking approach to realize fundraising goals, competitive nature, vision-driven initiatives, ability to be proactive, persuasiveness, professional experience, philosophy of fund development, and the impact of private philanthropy on the institution.3. The open-ended questionnaire administered was an original survey questionnaire. Types of questions used in the questionnaire were based on Clark’s (1998) discussion of entrepreneurial involvement by colleges and universities.
    • Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial activities help togenerate non-traditional revenues (p. 25). For purposes ofthis study, non-traditional revenue generation included (1)the identification of innovative and profit-based self-supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources;and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditionalincome streams at the selected institutions. Using Clark’stheory, for example, the following was queried: a. HBCU leaders were asked to self-assess whether they are innovative, creative, a team-builder, an opportunist, a risk-taker, a change-agent, competitive, a visionary, proactive, and persuasive to determine what connection exists between the leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of the institution. Leaders were also asked when the institution last engaged in a capital campaign and how much private money the institution raised to evaluate the connection between the leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of the institution. (Research Question 1; Interview Questions 6, 14 & 15)
    • b. In asking what general differences HBCU leaders perceive between their role as a leader and the role of traditional business executives, the researcher examined the extent to which HBCU leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities. (Research Question 2; Interview Question 13)c. Strategies that HBCU leaders would like to implement in order to seek resources from private philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside of their control sought to frame the factors associated with best practices in fundraising. (Research Question 3; Interview Question 12)d. The impact of private philanthropy on institutional initiatives and the strategies HBCU leaders employ to seek resources from private philanthropists examined how the institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities in the leaders’ offices. (Research Question 4; Interview Questions 10 & 11)e. Responses from HBCU leaders regarding their philosophy of fund development and whom they hold accountable for fund development addressed the perception of the administrator’s role by the
    • administrator. (Research Question 5; Interview Questions 8 & 9) To avoid high attrition rates, follow-up telephone calls, e-mails,and letters were sent to targeted participants who had not respondedwithin 30 days. Seale (1999), in his assessment of the trustworthiness of a study,states that “the trustworthiness of a research report lies at the heart ofissues conventionally discussed as validity and reliability” (p. 226).Triangulation and peer examination were used to increase validity andreliability. Triangulation occurred through consistent use of multiplesources of evidence. Examination of the participant responses helpeddetermine accuracy through triangulated data obtained through thequestionnaires. Reliability is the extent to which a study can be duplicated.Qualitative research is difficult to have consistent reliability. Stake(1995) identifies techniques the researcher can use to help strengthenreliability. By using multiple means of data collection, the accuracy ofdata is increased. Keeping accurate records helps authenticate thefindings of the researcher. Detailed records of how data is collected,analyzed, and conclusions are reached increase the accuracy of records(Stake, 1995). Generalizations and comparisons can be made ifdescriptions are given that allow similar institutions to use the data at
    • their institution. Being able to ensure validity, reliability, andgeneralizations enhances qualitative research. Confidentiality is a critical component of research if trust is todevelop between participants and the researcher. There can be atremendous amount of fear regarding disclosure of vital information ifthe participant is unable to trust the researcher to maintain privacy atall costs. However, if confidentiality is secured, the participant is morelikely to provide key information. Glesne (1992) encourages researchersto provide participants with complete access to the research andinterview materials at all times which will give subjects more power overdocuments and reports that may contain information related to them. Tomaintain anonymity, study participants were referred to using a tieredstructure. Research projects must utilize diligence in creating a researchenvironment that brings no harm to the subject in any way. In additionto treating the subject with respect and care, this notion also involvedincluding the participant in a thorough discussion, prior to the actualresearch, regarding all aspects of the study and how these aspects mayimpact the participant. All factors were considered in fulfilling thisobligation, including the future possibility of the research beingpublished.
    • Research ProceduresThe procedures for implementing this study were as follows: 1. The researcher applied and received permission from the researcher’s institutional review board (IRB) to conduct the proposed study. Approval was granted to poll a minimum of five HBCUs. 2. Identified a stratified sample of college fundraisers within the TMCF membership to participate in the study. 3. Contacted the fundraisers at each institution and explained the research study. Each TMCF member school administrator was sent an electronic packet of information including a cover letter, abstract of the study, consent form, and the questionnaire. (APPENDIX C) The electronic version was sent to participants by e-mail, and each participant was able to access the questionnaire in Survey Monkey. 4. Notified the participant of his/her right to confidentiality, how their personal information would be handled over the duration of the study, and their right to withdraw without penalty once he/she agreed to engage in the study. Participant and institution names were not used when findings were reported. A pseudonym was assigned to each institution.
    • 5. Made questionnaires available through electronic mail, U.S. mail, and through conferences hosted by the TMCF. 6. Analyzed data for conclusion development. 7. Provided to participants a copy of the research results upon completion. Data Collection The 30 TMCF member presidents and their chief developmentofficers were contacted by electronic mail. In the electronictransmission, each president and development officer received a letterexplaining the purpose and significance of the study, an informedconsent statement, and the questionnaire. Once respondents accessedthe link to Survey Monkey’s website, they were prompted to select thechoice do not wish to participate or agree to participate. Once therespondent chose the agree to participate option, they were immediatelyredirected to the next page to begin the survey. As a follow-up to non-respondents, a reminder letter was sent by U.S. Mail with an additionalcopy of the survey. Finally, the researcher used telephone calls as ameans to follow up on questionnaire responses. Data Analysis This section presents the data analysis including a descriptiveanalysis of each of the study participants. Each respondent was askedbasic demographic information followed by the interview questions.
    • Each participant was asked the same set of questions in Survey Monkey.The data collected in Survey Monkey was analyzed through coding. Thecorrespondence between the research questions and the interviewquestions is documented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Research Questions Paired with Interview Questions RESEARCH QUESTIONS CORRESPONDING INTERVIEW QUESTION FROM QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What connection exists between the 6, 14, 15 Historically Black College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their institution? 2. To what extent do Historically Black 13 College and University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities? 3. At Historically Black Colleges and 4, 12 Universities, what factors are associated with best practices in fundraising? 4. How do the institutions’ development 7, 10, 11 practices influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the institution? 5. What is the perception of the 8, 9 entrepreneurial orientation of the administrator’s role by the administrator?
    • The researcher carefully read through each response and identifieda list of the main themes in the data. Insight into the operations of eachinstitution was gained by examining beliefs, assumptions, and roles offundraising administrators. These beliefs and assumptions comprised asignificant part of the institutional culture. The professional experienceand attitudes about fund development helped determine the level towhich the institution has entrepreneurial leadership. Also factored intoprofessional experience was the institution’s age, length of time thedevelopment office or foundation has been in existence, and actualphilanthropic dollars secured including the total of the endowment. Once the codes were developed, numeric variables were assigned toeach code, and the relevant numeric coding for each response wasdocumented. After each response was coded and verified, a frequencyanalysis of the numeric codings was conducted. Next, the researcherdocumented the findings using percentages, the nature of the themes,relationships and differences between the data, and interrelationshipswithin the themes. The data collected was used to provide a descriptive analysis aboutengagement levels of HBCU leaders in entrepreneurialism throughfundraising in the areas of employment training and preparation, lengthof employment at the institution, innovative approaches used on the job,creativity in fundraising strategies, team building exercises implemented,
    • opportunistic tactics used to get the job done, risk-taking approach torealize fundraising goals, competitive nature, vision-driven initiatives,ability to be proactive, persuasiveness, professional experience,philosophy of fund development, and the impact of private philanthropyon the institution. The results have been documented and displayed in the forms ofcharts, tables, and graphs. Summary measures of respondents’perceptions of their own entrepreneurial characteristics were producedby computing the average of responses to items regarding individualentrepreneurial traits. Specifically, descriptive statistical methods wereused to analyze the relationship between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurialorientation and the financial stability of their institution. Limitations to the Study There were several limitations to this study. The researcher wasthe primary instrument for data collection, therefore imposing concernsregarding ability and ethics (Creswell, 1998). When reviewing responsesto the questionnaires, the investigator must remain within theconceptual framework of the study. Specifically, questionnaires do have some limitations. Instructionsand questions must be clear and relative to professional development.Participants must not feel pressured to participate so as not to violateethical issues (Palys, 2003). Palys (2003) also warns researchers to be
    • considerate of volunteer bias. Volunteer bias is more likely to happenbecause participants who voluntarily participate are less objective thanthe general population causing the possibility of skewed results.
    • CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction Presented in this chapter are the findings that emerged from theresponses to the on-line questionnaire which sought to answer the fiveresearch questions guiding this study. The constructs for this studywere concepts that define entrepreneurial activities that could create anentrepreneurial university. According to Clark (1998), creatingopportunities to enhance revenue can be derived from 1) innovative andprofit-based, self-supporting operations that go beyond traditionalsources, such as business development activities and innovative retailsales operations and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditionalincome streams such as endowment and tuition. The methodology used to collect data and ascertain answers wasan on-line questionnaire using Survey Monkey, a secure on-line surveytool that enables respondents to respond quickly and easily. Responsesfrom questionnaire participants were enlightening and helped theresearcher to formulate concrete answers to the research questions. Research Questions 1. What connection exists between the Historically Black College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their institution?
    • 2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities? 3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors are associated with best practices in fundraising? 4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the institution? 5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the administrator’s role by the administrator? Research Question 1 The first research question sought to examine the existingconnection between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and thefinancial stability of their institutions. The linkages betweencharacteristics associated with entrepreneurial orientation and theamount of money raised at an institution can impact the level of successin private fundraising. Leaders who self-identified as being innovative,creative, team builders, opportunists, risk takers, change agents,competitive, visionaries, proactive and persuasive would be likely to haveraised more money than leaders who self-reported having fewerentrepreneurial characteristics.
    • Research Question 2 Research question two queried the extent to which HBCU leadersvalue and implement entrepreneurial activities. In order to assess thevalue placed on entrepreneurial activities and the likelihood ofimplementing those activities, participants were asked to report theirperception of differences between their role as a university leader and therole of a traditional business executive. Research Question 3 In the third research question, the researcher explored factorsassociated with best practices in fundraising. Through open-endedquestions, respondents were asked to document specialized training theyhad to prepare them for their positions and strategies they would like toemploy to seek resources from private philanthropists but are unable todo so because of various restraints. Training, or the lack thereof, isinfluential on the organizational structure and can positively ornegatively impact institutional fundraising. Research Question 4 The fourth research question examined how the institutions’development practices influenced entrepreneurial activities for thepurpose of advancing the institution. Respondents were asked to reporttheir professional experience in fund development as well as strategiesthey employ to seek resources from philanthropists. They were also
    • asked how philanthropy impacts institutional initiatives. In order tohave successful fundraising programs, leaders must be knowledgeableabout which practices have been beneficial to institutional advancementand which practices have had little or no impact. Research Question 5 Finally, the researcher examined how each leader perceived hisown entrepreneurial orientation. The leaders’ philosophy of funddevelopment and whom they felt responsible for raising money wereimportant constructs to examine. In higher education, all administratorsshould bear some responsibility for institutional advancement. Eachleaders’ perception regarding fundraising responsibilities as well as theirphilosophy of fundraising could determine the success or failure of afundraising program. Respondent Information Originally, 17 individuals from 16 institutions agreed to participatein the study. After agreeing to participate in the study, fouradministrators from four institutions withdrew from participation forunreported reasons. Two additional administrators replied that theywere “unable to participate” in the study but did not cite the reason whythey elected not to participate. The total number of participants in thestudy was 13 from 12 schools. The Institutional Review Boar at Prairie
    • View A&M University approved the study for a minimum of five schoolsto be selected. Numerous attempts were made by the researcher to secureadditional responses to the questionnaire. In addition to requests madeby electronic mail, the researcher sent the questionnaire by mail throughthe United States Postal Service and followed up with telephone calls tonon-respondents. Of the 30 schools eligible to participate in the study,representatives from 16 schools (53.3%) agreed to participate andaccessed the on-line questionnaire, but administrators from 13 schools(43.3%) actually completed the questionnaire. Administrators from HBCUs in Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland,North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginiaparticipated in the study. The following administrative titles representthe population of respondents: three university presidents, one vicechancellor of institutional advancement, one vice president of universityadvancement, one vice president for development and external relations,one vice president for university relations and development, one vicechancellor of development and university relations, one vice president forinstitutional advancement, one interim vice president for universityrelations (who at the time of survey completion had just been promotedto this position from the director of development position), one director ofdevelopment and one director of institutional advancement and planning.
    • In order to maintain confidentiality and protect anonymity, eachinstitution was given a pseudonym and categorized by enrollment size.Tier 1 schools were represented by having the word “flagship” at thebeginning of the pseudonym followed by a letter in the alphabet thatsignified the synchronized order in which questionnaires were received.Tier 2 schools were labeled with the word “superior” and a correspondingletter of the alphabet that represents the synchronized order in whichquestionnaires were received. Table 4.1 on the next page denotes thenumbers assigned to respondents who agreed to participate in the study,the institutional pseudonym and tier, and whether the institutionalrepresentative actually completed the survey after they agreed toparticipate.
    • Table 4.1Respondent IdentificationRespondent Pseudonym Tier Agreed to Completed Participate Questionnair e 1 Superior A 2   2  3 Superior B 2   4  5 Flagship B 1   6  7 Superior C 2   8 Superior D 2   9 Flagship C 1   10 Superior E 2   11 Flagship C 1   12 Flagship A 1   13 Flagship E 1   14  15 Flagship D 1   16 Flagship F 1   17 Flagship G 1  Note. Blanks in this table represent persons who agreed to participate inthe study and actually entered the secure questionnaire area but did notcomplete the questionnaire. Description of InstitutionsTier 1 Institutions Schools with 6,000 or more students were identified as Tier 1institutions. There were seven institutions represented in this category.Eight administrators completed the questionnaire. Flagship UniversityA, located in the southeastern United States, has a student enrollment of9,038. Flagship University B in the south central part of the United
    • States is home to 9,100 students. Also in the south central part of thecountry is Flagship University C with an enrollment of 8,600. FlagshipUniversity D is positioned in the southeast and has an enrollment of10,388. Flagship University E is in the Deep South with 8,500 students.Flagship University F, located in the mid-Atlantic region of the UnitedStates, has 7,000 students. Flagship University G in the southeast hasan enrollment of 6,442. (Surveys 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)Tier 2 Institutions Tier 2 institutions were categorized as schools with less than 6,000students. There were five institutions represented in this category.Superior University A is positioned in the southeast part of the UnitedStates with an enrollment of 3,061 students. Superior University B, alsolocated in the southeast, has 3,100 students. Superior University C,located in the northeast, has 2,524 students. Superior University D inthe southern region of the United States has 5,100 students. SuperiorUniversity E with 3,900 students is located in the Deep South. (Surveys1, 3, 7, 8, 10)Flagship University A Flagship University A is located in the southeast. The six-yeartenured vice president for university relations and development atFlagship University A responded to the questionnaire. This respondent,who will be referred to as Respondent 12 or R12-T1I (Respondent 12
    • representing Tier 1 Institution), has a Master of Education degree andhas been employed at Flagship University A for three years.Entrepreneurial characteristics that best described this respondent wereinnovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive, teambuilder, competitive, opportunist and visionary.Flagship University B Flagship University B is positioned in the south central part of thecountry. With a Master of Business Administration degree and morethan 30 years service in marketing and communications in multipledevelopment offices, this respondent has served in the capacity of vicepresident for university advancement for one year at Flagship UniversityB. This respondent will be referred to as Respondent 5 or R5-T1I(Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution). Entrepreneurialattributes that described this participant were innovative, proactive,creative, change agent, persuasive, team builder, and visionary.Flagship University C Flagship University C is also in the United States’ south centralregion. Both the president and director of development responded to thequestionnaire. The president, who will be referred to as Respondent 9 orR9-T1I (Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution), holds a Doctor ofPhilosophy degree and is a seasoned academician and veteran highereducation administrator. Having served as provost, vice provost,
    • academic program director and tenured faculty member at variousinstitutions, R9-T1I has led the university for six years. Entrepreneurialbehaviors the president reports to exhibit are proactive, change agent,persuasive, team builder and competitive. The director of development, who will be recognized as Respondent11 or R11-T1I (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1 Institution), has anundergraduate degree and has worked in the Office of Development forfive years. As is consistent with the attributes needed to increaseinstitutional giving, this director is innovative, proactive, creative, achange agent, persuasive, a team builder, an opportunist, and avisionary.Flagship University D Flagship University D is located in the southeast part of the UnitedStates. The associate vice chancellor of development and universityrelations responded to the questionnaire. With an undergraduate degreeand fifteen months serving as the associate vice chancellor at FlagshipUniversity D, this respondent has fifteen years experience as adevelopment director at two other institutions. This respondent, who willbe referred to as Respondent 15 or R15-T1I (Respondent 15 representingTier 1 Institution), reported having the following entrepreneurialattributes: innovative, proactive, creative, a change agent, persuasive, ateam builder, competitive, and a visionary.
    • Flagship University E Flagship University E is in the United States’ Deep South. Thepresident, who responded to the questionnaire and will be referred to asRespondent 13 or R13-T1I (Respondent 13 representing Tier 1Institution), holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence with more than 25 yearsexperience in preparation for this position. This respondent’sprofessional background in development and institutional advancementhave compliment the ten years of service given to the presidency atFlagship University E. Innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, changeagent, persuasive, team builder, competitive, opportunist, and visionaryare the words this respondent used to self-describe personalentrepreneurial characteristics.Flagship University F Flagship University F is located in the mid-Atlantic region of theUnited States. The vice president for institutional advancement, who willbe referred to as Respondent 16 or R16-T1I (Respondent 16 representingTier 1 Institution), completed the questionnaire. This respondent, whohas been employed at Flagship University F for nine years, has servedfive years in the current role. Innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative,change agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive, and visionary arethe words this respondent used to self-describe personal entrepreneurialcharacteristics.
    • Flagship University G Flagship University G is in the southeast part of the United States.The vice chancellor for university advancement, who will be referred to asRespondent 17 or R17-T1I (Respondent 17 representing Tier 1Institution), responded to the questionnaire. With an undergraduatedegree and some graduate studies, this respondent has seven yearsexperience in development. This respondent reported having thefollowing entrepreneurial attributes: innovative, proactive, a changeagent, a team builder, and a visionary.Superior University A Superior University A is located in the upland south/mid-Atlantic.The director of institutional advancement and planning completed thequestionnaire. This respondent has a Master of Science degree and hasbeen employed at Superior University A for nearly two and a half years.This respondent, referred to as Respondent 1 or R1-T2I (Respondent 1representing Tier 2 Institution), has development experience that spansover five years. Entrepreneurial characteristics that described this leaderwere innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, persuasive, a teambuilder and competitive.Superior University B Superior University B is also located in the United States’southeast region. The vice chancellor for institutional advancement, who
    • will be referred to as Respondent 3 or R3-T2I (Respondent 3 representingTier 2 Institution), responded to the questionnaire. This individual holdsa Master of Arts degree, has been employed at Superior University B forseven years, and has served in the role of vice chancellor for the lastthree years. Entrepreneurial attributes that described this respondentwere innovate, risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive,team builder, competitive, opportunist and visionary.Superior University C Superior University C is located in the northeast part of thecountry. The vice president for development and external relations, whohas been employed for eight years at Superior University C, completedthe questionnaire and will be referred to as Respondent 7 or R7-T2I(Respondent 7 representing Tier 2 Institution). With nearly thirty yearsexperience as a development professional, Respondent 7 has completedrequirements toward a Doctor of Management and holds ABD (all butdissertation) status. Entrepreneurial attributes that described thisparticipant were innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent,persuasive, team builder, competitive and visionary.Superior University D Superior University D is located in the southern region of theUnited States. The president, who will be referred to as Respondent 8,responded to the questionnaire. Respondent 8 or R8-T2I (Respondent 8
    • representing Tier 2 Institution) has been in office for five years and has aDoctor of Philosophy degree. Entrepreneurial characteristics thatdescribed this leader were innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative,change agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive and visionary.Superior University E Superior University E is positioned in the Deep South. The interimvice president for university relations, a doctoral candidate, completedthe questionnaire. This respondent, referred to as Respondent 10 orR10-T2I (Respondent 10 representing Tier 2 Institution), has beenemployed at Superior University E for five years and has nine years ofexperience as a development professional. Traits of entrepreneurialismthat describe this respondent are innovative, proactive, creative, changeagent, persuasive, team builder and visionary. Entrepreneurial Operations Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial behavior and activitiesdevelop and enhance traditional income streams. The degree to whicheach participant exhibited each entrepreneurial characteristic can beseen in Figure 4.1. All 13 respondents reported that they were proactiveteam-builders. Of the 13 respondents, 12 responded that they wereinnovative and persuasive change agents. Nearly 85%, or 11respondents shared that they exhibited creativity and vision.
    • Figure 4.1Participant Entrepreneurial Characteristics Entrepreneurial Characteristics 120 100 100 100 92.3 92.3 92.3 84.6 84.6 Percentage 80 69.2 53.8 60 40 30.8 20 0 e ve ive t e er st ve r ry t iv en ke t iv ni il d na tit si ct va Ag Ta ea tu pe ua Bu oa sio no or Cr m sk ge rs Pr Vi pp am In Pe Co Ri an O Te Ch According to Clark (1998), creating opportunities to enhancerevenue can be derived from innovative and profit-based, self-supportingoperations that go beyond traditional sources, such as businessdevelopment activities and innovative retail sales operations. The data inthis section represent how innovative and profit-based, self-supportingoperations go beyond traditional sources to meet fundraising goals. Aspreviously noted, each participant was assigned a unique identificationnumber documented in Table 4.2.
    • Table 4.2Respondent Identification Numbers Respondent Number/Institution Respondent Identification NumberRespondent 1 R1-T2Irepresenting Tier 2 InstitutionRespondent 3 R3-T2Irepresenting Tier 2 InstitutionRespondent 5 R5-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 7 R7-T2Irepresenting Tier 2 InstitutionRespondent 8 R8-T2Irepresenting Tier 2 InstitutionRespondent 9 R9-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 10 R10-T2Irepresenting Tier 2 InstitutionRespondent 11 R11-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 12 R12-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 13 R13-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 15 R15-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 16 R16-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionRespondent 17 R17-T1Irepresenting Tier 1 InstitutionUniversity Leader vs. Business Executive Each respondent was asked about their perception of thedifferences between their role as a university leader and that of atraditional business executive. University leaders responded that there
    • was a difference between the two executive types. Table 4.3 provides thisdata.Table 4.3Differences Between University Leaders and Business Executives Entrepreneurial Themes Frequency Examples of Participant Operations Code Responses 2Operations Code More difficult to get 3 “My perception: I must2: Differences support at spent a great deal of timebetween universities in having people "buy in" touniversity leader the things that I want toand business do.”executive “Must have buy-in from many different constituencies.” Businesses have 2 “Universities are process more stringent based and business are performance performance based.” expectations Little or no 5 “None. As a leader, my differences between responsibility is to university leaders galvanize and direct the and business creative and intellectual executives capacities of the staff to achieve our core purpose. This is the universal goal of leadership.” “Few; I came from the corporate world. Now have ability to tap spiritual/philosophical motivation to give.” More flexibility 2 “Lead by consensus and required by cooperation spanning university leaders areas that are not in direct control rather than top down corporate mode.”
    • The difference agreed upon by two respondents was that universityleaders believe they have more challenges with getting variousconstituencies to buy-in to their vision for the institution. My perception: I must spend a great deal of time in having people “buy in” to the thing that I want to do. (R11-T1I) (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1 Institution) Must have buy-in from many different constituencies. (R8-T2I) (Respondent 8 representing Tier 2 Institution) There are both internal and external struggles that minimize theleaders’ ability to raise significant amounts of money for institutionalsupport. One respondent believed that the bureaucracy accounted forthe difference between university leaders and business executives.Another respondent believed that creating synergy between universityleadership and staff was a constant challenge but acknowledged hisresponsibility as a leader. As a leader, my responsibility is to galvanize and direct the creative and intellectual capacities of the staff to achieve (the institution’s) core purpose. This is the universal goal of leadership. (R12-T1I) (Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution) When there is no consensus between leadership and staff, thereare problems. Some leaders believe that they have less authority to
    • make meaningful changes at their institutions than business executiveshave in the companies they run. (There is) less authority to make personnel decisions (and) changes that will benefit the institution. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution) (Universities) lead by consensus and cooperation spanning areas that are not in direct control rather than the top down corporate mode. (R5-T1I) (Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution) Another theme that emerged in respondent’s answers regardingthe differences they perceived between university leaders and businessexecutives was that traditional businesses have more stringentperformance expectations. Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure that employees are meeting annual fundraising goals. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution) Universities are process-based and businesses are performance-based. (R7-T2I) (Respondent 7 representing Tier 2 Institution) One respondent disagreed with fellow advancement officers. (The) only difference is I work for a non-profit (organization). Aside from that, I’m responsible for revenue quotas and
    • goals, deadlines, staffing, etc. (R9-T1I) (Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution) Differences are not that great. (R16-T1I) (Respondent 16 representing Tier 1 Institution) Respondents who believed there was little or no difference betweentheir role as a university executive and a traditional business executiveappeared to have a more entrepreneurial spirit. Almost verbatim, twoleaders suggested that the universal goal of leadership is to convinceothers to accept the vision leadership that is in place. One participantwent as far to say that his experience as a corporate executive helped torealign institutional advancement goals. I came from the corporate world. (I) now have (the) ability to tap spiritual (and) philosophical motivation (for donors) to give. (R1-T1I) (Respondent 1 representing Tier 2 Institution)Advancement Experience and Professional Development Kouzes and Posner (2002) believe that training builds self-efficacyand encourages initiative. Most everyone who responded to thequestionnaire had some level of fundraising experience and/or training.Some respondents elected not to report additional training they had toprepare them for their positions. Respondent 1 had several years experience as a volunteerfundraiser and was previously employed as proposal manager for
    • engineering firms. Respondents 3, 8,10 and 16 have certificates infundraising management from Indiana University’s Center onPhilanthropy. Respondent 3 also has certification in estate planningfrom the National Institute of Estate Planning and completed a one yearseries in major and planned giving from John Brown Limited.Respondent 5 received professional development through the PublicRelations Society of America, and the National Association of StateUniversities and Land-Grant Colleges. Respondents 5, 10 and 16participated in training offered by the Council for the Advancement andSupport of Education. Respondent 10 also took part in training from theThurgood Marshall College Fund, the United Negro College Fund, andthe National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.Respondent 12 completed the Association of Fundraising Professionals’Faculty Training Academy, the National Association of GovernmentCommunicators’ Communication School, the Executive LeadershipInstitute through the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, theExecutive Management Institute at Vanderbilt University, the OwensGraduate School of Management, a professional developmentmanagement course from the National Association of College andUniversity Business Officers, a taxation seminar with CrescendoInteractive, Inc., courses in planned giving, accounting and auditing.Respondent 16 participated in seminars offered by the Association of
    • Fundraising Professionals. Presidents who responded climbed the ranksfrom faculty to administration, first serving in capacities of director,dean, vice president and provost. Some participants received more specialized training than others.The respondent who reported the most comprehensive combination ofadvancement experience and professional development shared thefollowing: Since 1987, I have worked as a consultant to community based organization and as a development professional for higher education institutions. I have raised more than $350 million. I have extensive experience in planning and managing capital campaigns; and planned giving, major gifts and annual fund programs. My expertise includes creating and implementing development plans and recruiting and managing volunteers. I have successfully generated philanthropic support from individuals, corporations, foundations, and industry associations. Throughout my career, I have received various awards and distinctions, including the Association of Fundraising Professional’s highest professional designation: Advanced Certified Fund Raising Executive credential. I continue to teach and lecture at seminars, classes, and conferences sponsored by the
    • Association of Fundraising Professionals and universities and colleges. (R12-T1I) (Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution)Who’s to Blame? When respondents were asked what members of their organization,including themselves, did they believe have responsibility for funddevelopment, five respondents said they felt that upper-leveladministration were responsible for fundraising, and five differentrespondents believed advancement staff should be accountable forinstitutional fundraising. Three respondents placed the responsibility offundraising on the entire university community (See Table 4.4).
    • Table 4.4Responsible Parties for FundraisingEntrepreneurial Themes Frequency Examples of ParticipantOperations Code Responses 1Operations Code Everyone in university 3 “Fund development is1: community everyone in theResponsibility organizationsfor Fundraising responsibility, specifically the president, who is the chief fundraiser; the vice president for University Relations and Development, who is the chief development officer; and the entire development staff …” Development/advancement 5 “Development staff with some Operations (research, alumni/student stewardship, alumni involvement records, gift coordinators); Annual Giving Program; Major Gift Program; Corp. & Foundation Relations; University Relations; Planned Giving; Government Relations; Alumni Affairs.” University administration 5 “President Vice Presidents Director of Development Grant Writer Prosopect Researcher Gifts & Grants Coordinator Alumni Relations Director.” “President, Executive Cabinet, Deans, Chairs, faculty, athletics.”
    • One respondent defined the responsibility of fundraising in detail. Fund development is everyone in the organizations responsibility, specifically the president, who is the chief fundraiser; the vice president for University Relations and Development, who is the chief development officer; and the entire development staff which includes the associate vice president; the assistant vice presidents; the foundations executive director; the director of Annual Giving; the associate director of Development; the associate director of Annual Giving; the assistant director of Annual Giving; the board of trustees; the prospect researcher; the donor relations manager; and the associate director of Alumni Relations. (R12-T1I) (Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution) Entrepreneurial Activities Activities that develop and enhance traditional income streamssuch as endowment and tuition are considered entrepreneurial.Increases in philanthropic giving are generally a result of donorcultivation and stewardship. Philanthropists have a tendency to supportinstitutional initiatives that are in direct alignment with their interests.Once a donor makes a financial investment, they will also devote timeand attention to a cause that inspires them. For this reason, university
    • leaders should identify priorities for which they seek donor support.Once the priorities are identified, leaders should begin the process ofdonor cultivation which will ultimately lead to solicitation of a gift. Theimpact of that donor’s gift means institutional sustainability andsurvival.Unfunded Priorities Developing a strategic plan for an organization is one way toestablish fundraising goals for institutional priorities. Strategic planningorchestrates how to achieve goals using a systemic approach. Oneleader reported that engaging in strategic planning helped them realizetheir vision. Fund development is more than seeking financial resources. It requires an understanding of the institutional priorities; an understanding of donor intent and must include ways to engage and involve donors and potential donors for long- term relationships. There should be a strategic, well-crafted plan for each constituency group to maximize opportunities to build resources and to sustain long-term relationships. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution) Some strategies that respondents identified as being helpful whenthey consider raising money were matching institutional need with donorpreference, connecting the donor to the appropriate gift closer, engaging
    • students in donor cultivation, investigating donor giving patterns,hosting meaningful special events, constant outreach, and usingelectronic mail as a vehicle for solicitation. When university leadersestablish a vision for the institution, they should establish a “wish list”that includes the unfunded priority, the cost for implementing the item,and names of prospective donors who might be interested in supportingthe initiative. Several participants in this study echoed similarsentiments when asked what strategies they employed to seek resourcesfrom private philanthropists. Create projects around which donors can be attracted. Show donors how they can make a difference in students’ lives and help them do that. (R1-T2I) (Respondent 1 representing Tier 2 Institution) Build university programs that that encourage confidence among external funders. (R8-T2I) (Respondent 8 representing Tier 2 Institution) 1. Develop a personal relationship with donors. 2. Educate them about the strengths of my University. 3. Work closely with them when submitting a proposal. (R11-T1I) (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1 Institution) 1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potential donors giving patterns
    • 3. Determining whether the donor has an interest in supporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural partner to make introductions, if necessary. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution) Engage them with the students and programs, (and) involve them in the development of programs. (R5-T1I) (Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution) Research (the donor’s) potential, establish relationship (with the prospective donor), ask (the prospect for money). (R16- T1I) (Respondent 16 representing Tier 1 Institution) Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 represent the responses to surveyquestions nine and ten. Five themes emerged when reviewing currentfundraising strategies utilized by the participants (Table 4.5). Threecategories surfaced in the data analysis of future fundraising strategiesamong participants (Table 4.6).
    • Table 4.5 Current Fundraising StrategiesEntrepreneurial Themes Frequency Examples of ParticipantActivity Code 1 Responses
    • Activity Code 1: Match 2 “Create projects aroundCurrent Strategies institutional which donors can be need with donor attracted.” preference “Build university programs that that encourage confidence among external funders” Know your 4 “1. Understanding the donor interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potential donors giving patterns 3. Determining whether the donor has an interest in supporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural partner to make introductions, if necessary.” Involve students 2 “Engage them with the and alumni in students and programs, donor involve them in the cultivation development of programs.” 21st Century 4 “Grant proposals solicitation Direct Mail strategies Personal solicitation including E-solicitation” technologically- “One-on-one cultivation driven and soliciation, direct cultivation and mail, call center and class solicitation agent program.” Special events “1. A signature event; 1 2. An annual campaign; 3. A major gift and planned giving program; 4. A corporate and foundation relations program; 5. A donor relations program.” Table 4.6
    • Future Fundraising Strategies Activity Code 2 Themes Frequency Examples of Participant ResponsesActivity Code 2: No future “Our strategies areFuture Strategies strategies planned 2 successful, there are no new ones I would employ. If I had more resources (i.e., budget and personnel) I could raise more money.” Increase number 8 “Hire more people to raise of development money.” staff in order to “Limited staffing, it takes increase donor money to raise money.” contact Engage more 1 “Board and volunteer volunteers/alumni relationships. Donor research Alumni, parents and friends” Maintain efficient 1 “Moves Management” donor records Successful fundraisers learn how to commingle their personal, philosophical view of fundraising with the organization’s strategic plan. One respondent recognized that sensational fund development happens as a result of thinking outside the box—being entrepreneurial. My belief is that fund developments purpose (as it pertains to higher education) is to advance the mission of the institution by raising money for current operations and capital projects; marketing the institutions to target audiences and publics; and attracting the types and kinds of students the institution desires. (R12-T1I) (Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution)
    • Donor Cultivation and Solicitation Successful institutions of higher education dedicate a significantamount of time and resources toward the development and solicitation ofphilanthropic gifts. Through donor cultivation, fundraisers develop astrategy to match the donor’s interest with the institution’s needs. Whiledonor cultivation is an on-going process, the culmination of cultivation issolicitation. Seiler (2009) suggests that there is a step-by-step cyclicalprocess involved in securing philanthropic support called The FundRaising Cycle.Figure 4.2The Fundraising Cycle © by Seiler (2009)
    • Seiler’s (2009) diagram represents how to effectively plan andexecute the fundraising process. Implementing a process such as this is
    • paramount to securing a gift. Ultimately, this continuous processsuggests that the fundraiser and the donor build a relationship. Severalstudy participants acknowledged the importance of relationship-buildingin their responses. Know your donor. (R7-T2I) (Respondent 7 representing Tier 2 Institution) Relationship building is the key ingredient to long-term funding relationships. (R9-T1I) (Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution) It is all about relationship development and being a matchmaker between donor and program/university. (R5- T1I) (Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution) Understanding the institutional mission and aligning institutional goals to the mission - in addition it is about relationship building. (R10-T2I) (Respondent 10 representing Tier 2 Institution) Donors give to organizations because they want to solve a problemor a challenge. Panas (2002) confirms that “major donors give to bold,heroic, and audacious programs rather than to needy institutions” (p.39). Newman (2002) advances Panas’ position stating, “As they travelalong the continuum of philanthropy, growing in stability, wealth, andacculturation, diverse donors shift their charitable motivations from
    • sharing to helping and eventually to investing” (p. 131). One participantin this study echoed these sentiments. Institutional initiatives drive philanthropy. We raise money to support the institutional initiatives which ultimately become the academic blueprint of our organization. (R12- T1I) (Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution)Impact of Philanthropy Philanthropy is viewed by many as the highest level of socialresponsibility. Private philanthropy can significantly transform aninstitution and “substantially increase the amount of discretionarydollars available to institutional leaders” (Cheslock & Gianneschi, 2008,p. 210). The following respondents reported that philanthropy closes thegap where government funds cease. Philanthropy helps us better define and explain our goals, showing how our activities benefit society. R11-T1I) (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1 Institution) It is essential as most state and federal entities only provide program support which excludes endowments and capital campaign projects. (R9-T1I) (Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution)
    • (Philanthropy) supports initiatives that are not covered by public resources. (R8-T2I) (Respondent 8 representing Tier 2 Institution) Having private dollars enables us to support the university’s highest priorities at a level far above what state funding supports. (R17-T1I) (Respondent 17 representing Tier 1 Institution) It has become an institutional priority, especially in the wake of diminishing state resources for higher education. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution) A single respondent shared that “private funding and investmentincome creates our University’s margin of excellence” (Respondent 15representing Tier 1 Institution). Toward that end, participants in thisstudy were asked about their philosophy of fund development and how itimpacts their institutions. The analysis of this query resulted in theemergence of three ways in which participants’ institutions could beimpacted through fundraising – a better caliber of students will beattracted to the institution, funding is increased through relationship-building, and the institution can build capacity (See Table 4.7).
    • Table 4.7Impact of Fund DevelopmentEntrepreneurial Themes Frequency Significant ParticipantOperations Code Responses 3
    • Operations Code Attract better 1 “Show donors how they can3: Philosophy caliber of make a difference inand impact of students studetns lives and help themFund do that.”Development “My belief is that fund developments purpose (as it pertains to higher education) is to advance the mission of the institution by raising money for current operations and capital projects; marketing the institutions to target audiences and publics; and attracting the types and kinds of students the institution desires.” Increase 6 “Understanding the funding through institutional mission and relationship- aligning institutional goals to building the mission - in addition it is about relationship building." “Relationship building is the key ingredient to longterm funding relationships.” Institutional 5 “Fund development is more capacity than seeking financial building resources. It requires an understanding of the institutional priorities; an understanding of donor intent and must include ways to engage and involve donors and potential donors for long- term relationships. There should be a strategic, well- crafted plan for each constituency group to maximize opportunities to build resources and to sustain long-term relationships.”The Bottom Line
    • In an effort to consider each leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation,the researcher queried participants about the amount of private moneythe institution raised and the last time the institution engaged in acapital campaign (See Table 4.8).Table 4.8Funds Raised in Three Year Period (*Represents approximate number)RESPONDENT MOST RECENT CAPITAL AMOUNT OF MONEY CAMPAIGN RAISED IN LAST THREE YEARS1 Not sure $500,0003 1991 $8,000,000*5 2003 $8,500,0007 Currently $6,000,0008 Currently Not reported9 2008 $15,000,00010 2000 $3,000,000*11 2008 $15,000,000*12 Planning phase for first $8,000,000 campaign13 Currently $25,000,00015 2007 $30,000,000*16 2007 Not reported17 2003 Not reported
    • CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATONS This chapter presents a summary of the study and a discussionbased upon the findings as a result of the data analysis. Concludingremarks will also address implications of the findings andrecommendations for further research. Summary Raising private money at public Historically Black Colleges andUniversities (HBCUs) is critical to institutional survival. This studyfocused on the level of engagement among HBCU leaders inentrepreneurial fundraising activities. The problem, as stated in ChapterI, is that fund-raising efforts of both private and public HBCUs lingersignificantly behind the established fundraising programs at traditionallyWhite institutions (Tindall, 2007). Development professionals at HBCUsare continuously challenged with how to advance their institutions in aclimate that has historically relied almost wholly on public funding(Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). It is important to reiterate that publicHBCUs are supported by state government entities. It is with this fact inmind that seeking private philanthropy has not been a popular practiceamong public HBCUs. Without private money, HBCUs minimize theirchances for survival.
    • Specifically, this study was inspired by Clark’s (1998) theory thatsuggests entrepreneurial activities help to generate non-traditionalrevenues through (1) the identification of innovative and profit-basedself-supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources; and 2)activities that develop and enhance traditional income streams at theselected institutions. The following questions guided the research for thestudy. 1. What connection exists between the Historically Black College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their institution? 2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities? 3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors are associated with best practices in fundraising? 4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the institution? 5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the administrator’s role by the administrator? In order to investigate why HBCU administrators have not been assuccessful or aggressive in seeking private philanthropy at a time whengovernment funding is shrinking, the literature review provided insight
    • about educational fundraising and its significance to HBCUs. Thehistory of African-American philanthropy and entrepreneurialism inhigher education also contributed to the literature review. A theme among participants in this study was that there was ashortage in staff in advancement offices. One respondent put it bestsaying “it takes money to raise money”, and raising money requires areasonable number of staff.
    • ReferencesAnderson, E., & Moss, A. (1999). Dangerous donations: Northern philanthropy and southern Black education, 1902-1930. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.Barrett, T. G. (2006). How strategic presidential leadership and institutional culture influenced fundraising effectiveness at Spelman College. Planning for Higher Education, 35(1), 5-18.Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bogdan, R. C., & S. K. Biklen (2003). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Bowen, W., & Shapirio, H. (1998). Universities and their leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Browning, J., & Williams, J. (1978). History and goals of Black institutions in higher learning. In Black colleges in America: Challenge, development and survival (pp. 68-93). New York: Teachers College Press.Carson, E. D. (2001). Giving strength: Understanding philanthropy in the Black community. Philanthropy Matters, 2, 4.
    • Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208-229.Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Cohen, R. T. (2006). Black college alumni giving: A study of the perceptions, attitudes, and giving behaviors of alumni donors at selected historically Black colleges and universities. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchCook, W. B. (1997). Fundraising and the college presidency in an era of uncertainty: From 1975 to the present. Journal of Higher Education, 1(1).Cooper, A., & Dunkelberg, W. (1988, Spring). Entrepreneurs perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing, 97-108.Corrigan, M. E. (2002). The American college president: 2002 edition. Washington: American Council on Education.Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Cultip, S. (1990). Fund raising in the United States: Its role in America’s philanthropy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Curti, M., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Denzin, K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dingfelder, D. C. (2007). Exploring the dimensions of entrepreneurial community colleges. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchEllison, C. G. (1991). Identification and separatism: Religious involvement and racial orientation of Black Americans. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 4.Fundraising pressures plague HBCU presidents (2002, September 26- October 2). New York Amsterdam News.Gasman, M. (2003). Fund raising from Black-College alumni: Successful strategies for supporting alma mater. Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, 22.Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
    • History of Thurgood Marshall college fund. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from Thurgood Marshall College Fund Web site: http://thurgoodmarshallfund.orgHistory of Tuskegee University. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from Tuskegee University Web site: http://tuskegee.eduHolloman, D. B., Gasman, M., & Anderson-Thompkins, S. (2003). Motivations for philanthropic giving in the African-American church: Implications for Black college fundraising. Journal of Research on Christian Education 12(2), 137-169.Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: EdITS.Johnsen, L. L. (2005). Understanding deliberative conflicts that confront academic fundraisers: A grounded theory study. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchKouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Kujovich, G. (1994). Public Black colleges: The long history of unequal funding. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2, 73-82.
    • Lee, T. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Masterson, K. (2008). Howard U. assembles fund-raising juggernaut. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 54.Nealy, M. J. (2008) HBCU presidents take their case for funding to congress. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23, 35.Newman, D. S. (2002). Opening doors: Pathways to diverse donors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Palys, T. (2003). Research decisions: Qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Scarborough, ON: Nelson.Panas, J. (2007). Asking: A 59-minute guide to everything board members, volunteers, and staff must know to secure a gift. Medfield, MA: Emerson & Church.Patton, S. L. (1993). The roles of key individuals. In M. J. Worth (Ed), Educational Fundraising: Principles and Practice (pp.3-9). Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.Reaves, N. (2006). African-American alumni perceptions regarding giving to historically Black colleges and universities. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchRhodes, F. (1997). Successful fund raising for higher education. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
    • Riggs, D. G. (2005). Entrepreneurial activities in independent college and university presidents: A view from the top. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchRowland, A. W. (1986). Handbook of institutional advancement. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.Schoenecke, M. (2005). A description of successful fundraising programs in student affairs divisions. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchSchinasi, G. J. (2004). Defining financial stability. International Monetary Fund Working Paper #04/187. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=879012Scott, L. V. (2000). A description of successful fund-raising units at public historically Black colleges and universities. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchSeale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.Sears, J. (1990). Philanthropy in the history of American higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    • Smith-Hunter, A. (2003, April). A psychological model of entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business and Economics, 1-11.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Terrell M. C., & Gold, J. A. (Eds.). (1993). New roles for educational fundraising and institutional advancement (pp. 17-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. Journal of Higher Education 59(1), 2-21.Tindall, N. T. J. (2007). Fund-raising models at public historically Black colleges and universities. Public Relations Review, 33 (2), 201-5.Waddell, J. (1992). A study of fund raising at the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) affiliated public black colleges and universities. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
    • White House initiative on historically Black colleges and universities. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite- index.htmlWilliams, M. G., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). National implications: Why HBCU presidents need entrepreneurial focus. National Journal: FOCUS On Colleges, Universities, and Schools 1(1).Williams, M. G., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Raising more money at the nation’s historically Black colleges and universities. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3 (1).Winegardner, K. (2004). The case study method of scholarly research. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.tgsa.edu/online/cybrary/case1.htmlWordNet 3.0. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from http://dictionary.reference.comWorth, M. J. (1993). Educational fundraising: Principles and practice. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.
    • APPENDICES
    • APPENDIX ACONSENT FORM
    • Participant Letter of Consent FormDateDear ___________________:I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research project under the direction of Dr.William Allan Kritsonis, professor in the Department of Educational Leadership andCounseling at Prairie View A&M University. Specifically, I will investigate theengagement levels of Historically Black College and University presidents anddevelopment officers in entrepreneurialism through fundraising.Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am requesting yourvoluntary participation in the study. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw fromthe study at any time, there will be no penalty. In the event that this study is published, apseudonym or “ghost name” will be used to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of yourname and affiliated institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with noidentifying information available.If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact me at832.498.8733 or Dr. Kritsonis at 281.550.5700.Sincerely,Monica G. WilliamsBy signing below, you are giving consent to participate in the above study.__________________________ _______________________ _______________Signature Printed Name DateQuestions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this study may be directed toPrairie View A&M University’s Institutional Review Board Regulatory ComplianceOfficer, Marcia C. Shelton at 936.261.1588.
    • APPENDIX BINTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS
    • Interview QuestionsBackground Questions 1. What is your title? 2. How many years of experience do you have in this position? 3. What is your highest level of education? 4. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position? 5. How long have you been employed at this institution? 6. Please circle the following words you feel best describe you: (RQ 1) innovative risk taker proactive creative change agent persuasive team builder competitive opportunist visionaryPhilanthropic Cultivation 7. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement? 8. What is your philosophy of fund development? (RQ 5) 9. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe responsible for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names) (RQ5) 10. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? (RQ4) 11. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? (RQ4) 12. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)? (RQ3) 13. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? (RQ2)Giving 14. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources? (RQ1)
    • 15. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? (RQ1)
    • APPENDIX CIRB APPROVAL LETTER
    • Office of Research and Development Voice.936.261.1588Prairie View, Texas 77446-4149 FAX 936.261.1599Anderson Hall, Room 104 mcshelton@pvamu.eduInstitutional Biosafety Committee Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Institutional Review BoardDATE: April 13, 2009 APPROVEDMEMORANDUMTO: Monica Williams, Doctoral candidate - COE- Principal Investigator William Kritsonis, PhD – Committee chair/advisor -EDLCFROM: Marcia C. Shelton, PhD, director, research regulatory complianceSUBJECT: Initial Review and DeterminationPROTOCOL NUMBER: 2008- 1101-101 Initial ReviewTITLE: Engagement Levels of Historically Black College and University Leaders inEntrepreneurialism through FundraisingREVIEW CATEGORY: Full Board Review– Reviewer: DE Wilson (11/10/2008)APPROVAL PERIOD: November 10, 2008 through November 9, 2009Determination was based on the following Code of Federal Regulations:45 CFR 46.110 (b) (1) – Some or all of the research appearing on the list and found by thereviewer(s) involve no more than minimal risk._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __(7) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research onperception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, andsocial behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation,human factors evaluation or quality assurance methodologies.(Note: Some research in this category may be exempt from the HHS regulations for the protection ofhuman subjects. 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (2) and (b) (3). This listing refers only to research that is not exempt.)Funded: - N/AProvisions:This research project has been approved for one (1) year. As principal investigator, you assume thefollowing responsibilities:1. Continuing Review: The protocol must be renewed each year in order to continue with the research project. A Continuing Review along with required documents must be submitted 30 days before the end of the approval period. Failure to do so may result in processing delays and/or non-renewal.2. Completion Report: Upon completion of the research project (including data analysis and final written papers), a Completion Report must be submitted to the IRB Office.3. Adverse Events: Adverse events must be reported to the IRB Office immediately.4. Amendments: Changes to the protocol must be requested by submitting an Amendment to the IRB Office for review. The Amendment must be approved by the IRB before being implemented.
    • APPENDIX DQUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FORM
    • 1. HBCU Leader Participant Letter of Consent Form1. Dear HBCU Leader:I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research project under thedirection of Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, professor in the Department ofEducational Leadership and Counseling at Prairie View A&M University.Specifically, I will investigate the engagement levels of Historically BlackCollege and University presidents and development officers inentrepreneurialism through fundraising.Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I amrequesting your voluntary participation in the study. If you choose not toparticipate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be nopenalty. In the event that this study is published, a pseudonym or “ghostname” will be used to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of your nameand affiliated institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate formwith no identifying information available.If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contactme at 832.498.8733 or Dr. Kritsonis at 281.550.5700.Sincerely,Monica G. WilliamsBy clicking "agree to participate" link below, you are giving consent toparticipate in the above study.Questions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this study maybe directed to Prairie View A&M University’s Institutional Review BoardRegulatory Compliance Officer, Marcia C. Shelton at 936.261.1588. Agree to participateDo not wish to participateDear HBCU Leader: I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research projectunder the direction of Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, professor in the Departmentof Educational Leadership and Counseling at Prairie View A&M University.Specifically, I will investigate the engagement levels of Historically Black Collegeand University presidents and development officers in entrepreneurialismthrough fundraising. Because of your involvement in the advancement ofHBCUs, I am requesting your voluntary participation in the study. If you choosenot to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be nopenalty. In the event that this study is published, a pseudonym or “ghost name”will be used to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of your name and affiliatedinstitution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with no identifyinginformation available. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this
    • study, please contact me at 832.498.8733 or Dr. Kritsonis at 281.550.5700.Sincerely, Monica G. Williams By clicking "agree to participate" link below, youare giving consent to participate in the above study. Questions regarding yourrights as a subject/participant in this study may be directed to Prairie ViewA&M University’s Institutional Review Board Regulatory Compliance Officer,Marcia C. Shelton at 936.261.1588.HBCU Presidents and Advancement QuestionnaireExit this survey 2. Default Section1. In which state is your institution located?2. What is your institutional enrollment?What is yourinstitutionalenrollment?UndergraduatestudentsGraduatestudentsCombinedstudentenrollment(undergraduatesand graduates)3. What is your title?4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?5. What is your highest level of education?6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
    • 8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Pleasechoose all that apply)Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of funddevelopment and university advancement?10. What is your philosophy of fund development?11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believehave responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles andexclude individual names)12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources fromprivate philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outsideyour locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as auniversity leader/executive and the role of traditional businessexecutives?16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?
    • 17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capitalcampaign?
    • APPENDIX EPARTICIPANT RESPONSES
    • Displaying 1 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal Response IPCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents and Address: 129.71.198.254Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)Custom Value: emptyResponse Started: Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:20:24 PM1. In which state is your institution located?West Virginia2. What is your institutional enrollment?Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 2,6483. What is your title?Director of Institutional Advancement & Planning4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?55. What is your highest level of education?MS6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?Many years of volunteer fundraising Past employment as Proposal Manager forEng Firms7. How long have you been employed at this institution?2 yr, 3 mo8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativepersuasiveteam buildercompetitive9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Major Gifts Officer Director10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Show donors how they can make a difference in studetns lives and help themdo that.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)President Director of Public Relations Director of Alumni Affairs Deans12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Major source of scholarships
    • 13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Create projects around which donors can be attracted14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Moves management15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Few; I came from the corporate world. Now have ability to tapspiritual/philosophical motivation to give16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?$500,00017. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?Not sure
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 2 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 68.62.173.167Response Started: Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:50:10 PM1. In which state is your institution located?No Response2. What is your institutional enrollment?No Response3. What is your title?No Response4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?No Response5. What is your highest level of education?No Response6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?No Response7. How long have you been employed at this institution?No Response8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?No Response10. What is your philosophy of fund development?No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)No Response12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?No Response13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?No Response14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?
    • No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?No Response16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?No Response
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 3 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 198.85.58.140Response Started: Fri, Apr 24, 2009 12:01:11 PM1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 3000Graduate students - 100Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 31003. What is your title?Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?35. What is your highest level of education?M.A.6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?Certification, Fundraising Management, I.U. Center on Philanthropy;certification, estate planning, National Institute of Estate Planning; John BrownLimited, one year series in Major and Planned Giving7. How long have you been employed at this institution?7 years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Assistant Director, Corporate Relations; Director, Major and Planned Gifts;Associate Vice Chancellor for Development; Vice Chancellor, Institutional
    • Advancement.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Fund development is more than seeking financial resources. It requires anunderstanding of the institutional priorities; an understanding of donor intentand must include ways to engage and involve donors and potential donors forlong-term relationships. There should be a strategic, well-crafted plan for eachconstituency group to maximize opportunities to build resources and to sustainlong-term relationships.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement Director of Development AnnualFund Coordinator Development officer, schools and programs DevelompentOfficer(2) Alumni Director Assistant Alumni Director12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?It has become an institutional priority, especially in the wake of diminishingstate resources for higher education.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potentialdonors giving patterns 3. Determining whether the donor has an interest insupporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural partner to makeintroductions, if necessary.14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?More face-to-face visits within the region and throughout the United States.15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Less authority to make personnel decisions/changes that will benefit theinstitution. Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure that employeesare meeting annual fundraising goals.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?Approxmately $8 million.17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?1991.
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 3 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 198.85.58.140Response Started: Fri, Apr 24, 2009 12:01:11 PM1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 3000Graduate students - 100Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 31003. What is your title?Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?35. What is your highest level of education?M.A.6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?Certification, Fundraising Management, I.U. Center on Philanthropy;certification, estate planning, National Institute of Estate Planning; John BrownLimited, one year series in Major and Planned Giving7. How long have you been employed at this institution?7 years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Assistant Director, Corporate Relations; Director, Major and Planned Gifts;Associate Vice Chancellor for Development; Vice Chancellor, Institutional
    • Advancement.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Fund development is more than seeking financial resources. It requires anunderstanding of the institutional priorities; an understanding of donor intentand must include ways to engage and involve donors and potential donors forlong-term relationships. There should be a strategic, well-crafted plan for eachconstituency group to maximize opportunities to build resources and to sustainlong-term relationships.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement Director of Development AnnualFund Coordinator Development officer, schools and programs DevelompentOfficer(2) Alumni Director Assistant Alumni Director12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?It has become an institutional priority, especially in the wake of diminishingstate resources for higher education.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potentialdonors giving patterns 3. Determining whether the donor has an interest insupporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural partner to makeintroductions, if necessary.14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?More face-to-face visits within the region and throughout the United States.15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Less authority to make personnel decisions/changes that will benefit theinstitution. Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure that employeesare meeting annual fundraising goals.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?Approxmately $8 million.17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?1991.
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 4 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 138.238.244.121Response Started: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 10:23:20 AM1. In which state is your institution located?No Response2. What is your institutional enrollment?No Response3. What is your title?No Response4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?No Response5. What is your highest level of education?No Response6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?No Response7. How long have you been employed at this institution?No Response8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?No Response10. What is your philosophy of fund development?No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)No Response12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?No Response13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?No Response14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?
    • No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?No Response16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?No Response
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 5 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 67.66.219.252Response Started: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 11:36:49 AM1. In which state is your institution located?Texas2. What is your institutional enrollment?Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 9,1003. What is your title?Vice President University Advancement4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?1 year in current position5. What is your highest level of education?MBA6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?professional development through PRSA, CASE, state university group(NASULGC)7. How long have you been employed at this institution?1 year8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildervisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?30+ years in marketing and communications work in developmentcommunications10. What is your philosophy of fund development?it is all about relationship development and being a matchmaker between donorand program/university11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)
    • President, Provost, VP Student Affairs, deans, department and program heads,advancement staff, faculty, student leaders12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?it should support institutional prioities rather than drive them. The matchshould be made between donor interests and institutional priorities/initiatives13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?engage them with the students and programs, involve them in the developmentof programs14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?expansion of advisory councils to all colleges--requires staffing for volunteermanagement15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?lead by consensus and cooperation spanning areas that are not in direct controlrather than top down corporate mode16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?$8.5 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?2003
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 6 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 129.207.110.71Response Started: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:04:26 PM1. In which state is your institution located?No Response2. What is your institutional enrollment?No Response3. What is your title?No Response4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?No Response5. What is your highest level of education?No Response6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?No Response7. How long have you been employed at this institution?No Response8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?No Response10. What is your philosophy of fund development?No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)No Response12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?No Response13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?No Response14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?
    • No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?No Response16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?No Response
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 7 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 204.152.134.2Response Started: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:23:43 PM1. In which state is your institution located?PA2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 1,973Graduate students - 551Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 2,5243. What is your title?Vice President, Development and External Relations4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?285. What is your highest level of education?DM (ABD)6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?No Response7. How long have you been employed at this institution?8 years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitivevisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?All aspects.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Know your donor.
    • 11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)All12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Directly impacts.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Board and volunteer relationships. Donor research Alumni, parents and friends14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?none15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Universities are process based and business are performance based.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?$6 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?currently.
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 8 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 168.16.162.29Response Started: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:45:13 PM1. In which state is your institution located?Louisiana2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 4,754Graduate students - 407Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 5,1613. What is your title?President4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?55. What is your highest level of education?Doctorate6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?Provost, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean and Associate Dean forCollege of Science, Director and Associate Director of College of Science,Chemistry Department Chair7. How long have you been employed at this institution?5 years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Lauded as “someone who can elevate the academic environment, grow researchopportunities, raise philanthropic dollars, and represent the campus to externalconstituencies,” Dr. Judson has been credited with improving campus finances,diversity, retention and graduation rates, fundraising efforts and sponsoredresearch during his tenure as a higher education administrator.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?"The pursuit of excellence requires much change--transformative change--and(that) we must be guided by high expectations, not influenced by lowexpectations others may have of us."
    • 11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Advancement staff, alumni staff, alumni volunteers12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Supports initiatives that are not covered by public resources.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Build university programs that that encourage confidence among externalfunders14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?With funding from Title III, the institution published a master development planthat identifies initiatives to increase organizational capacity. Among them isspace to house the University Advancement, Alumni Affairs and "all functionsassociated with expanding the institutions funding base."15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Must have buy-in from many different constituencies.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?Currently
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 9 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 165.95.111.254Response Started: Fri, May 1, 2009 1:07:55 PM1. In which state is your institution located?Texas2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 6250Graduate students - 1850Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 81003. What is your title?Director of Development4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?5yrs5. What is your highest level of education?BA6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?Certificate of Fundraising Management through the Center on Philanthropy7. How long have you been employed at this institution?5yrs8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam builderopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?5yrs10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Relationship building is the key ingredient to longterm funding relationships11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)
    • President Vice Presidents Director of Development Grant Writer ProsopectResearcher Gifts & Grants Coordinator Alumni Relations Director12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?It is essential as most state and federal entities only provide program supportwhich excludes endowments and capital campaign projects13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Grant proposals Direct Mail Personal solicitation E-solicitation14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Increasing staffing levels to accommodate an annual giving department andplanned giving department15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Only difference is I work for a non-profit. Aside from that, Im responsible forrevenue quotas & goals, deadlines, staffing etc...16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?15 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?We just completed our first CC in December 2008
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 10 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 70.157.5.99Response Started: Sun, May 3, 2009 5:56:04 PM1. In which state is your institution located?Mississippi2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 3,700Graduate students - 200Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 3,9003. What is your title?Interim Vice President, University Relations4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?95. What is your highest level of education?Doctoral Candidate6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?CASe, Indiana University of Philanthropy, Thurgood Marshall, UNCF, NAFEO7. How long have you been employed at this institution?5 years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildervisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?formal as well as informal training10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Understanding the institutional mission and aligning institutional goals to themission - in addition it is about relationship building11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)
    • President, Executive Cabinet, Deans, Chairs,faculty , athletics12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Tremendously. It closes the gap where federal state funds cease.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?One-on-one cultivation and soliciation, direct mail, call center and class agentprogram.14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Limited staffing, it takes money to raise money,15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?I dont beleive there are any diefferences.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?in excess of 3 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?9 years ago
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 11 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 67.201.99.2Response Started: Tue, May 5, 2009 9:37:33 PM1. In which state is your institution located?Texas2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 6,000Graduate students - 2,600Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 8,6003. What is your title?President4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?Six Years5. What is your highest level of education?Ph.D.6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?Provost for 8 years; Vice Provost for 6 years; Director of Academic Program for 4years; tenured faculty member for 20 years7. How long have you been employed at this institution?Six Years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)proactivechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitive9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Required to raise external funds in most of my Administrative jobs since 1986.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?It is essential to the goals of the Institution.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)President, VP for Development, Deans, Department Heads.12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
    • Philanthropy helps us better define and explain our goals, showing how ouractivities benefit society.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?1. Develop a personal relationship with them. 2. Educate them about thestrengths of my University. 3. Work closely with them when submitting aproposal.14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?My perception: I must spent a great deal of time in having people "buy in" to thethings that I want to do.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?My University has raised somewhere around $15 million.17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?We had a Capital Campaign from 2003-2008.
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 12 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 198.146.87.123Response Started: Tue, May 12, 2009 8:23:23 AM1. In which state is your institution located?Tennessee2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 7112Graduate students - 1926Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 90383. What is your title?vice president for University Relations and Development4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?six5. What is your highest level of education?M.Ed.6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?• Association of Fundraising Professionals’ Faculty Training Academy, 2008; •National Assoc. of Government Communicators’ Communication School, 2007; •Executive Leadership Institute, Indiana University Center on Philanthropy,2002; • Executive Management Institute, Vanderbilt University, OwensGraduate School of Management, 2002; • Taxation Seminar, CrescendoInteractive, Inc., 2000; • Planned Giving; Accounting and Auditing;Management, NACUBO Professional Development, 2000.7. How long have you been employed at this institution?three years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary
    • 9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Since 1987, I have worked as a consultant to community based organizationand as a development professional for higher education institutions. I haveraised more than $350 million. I have extensive experience in planning andmanaging capital campaigns; and planned giving, major gifts and annual fundprograms. My expertise includes creating and implementing development plansand recruiting and managing volunteers. I have successfully generatedphilanthropic support from individuals, corporations, foundations, and industryassociations. Throughout my career, I have received various awards anddistinctions, including the Association of Fundraising Professional’s highestprofessional designation: Advanced Certified Fund Raising Executive credential.I continue to teach and lecture at seminars, classes, and conferences sponsoredby the Association of Fundraising Professionals and universities and colleges.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?My belief is that fund developments purpose (as it pertains to higher education)is to advance the mission of the institution by raising money for currentoperations and capital projects; marketing the institutions to target audiencesand publics; and attracting the types and kinds of students the institutiondesires.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Fund development is everyone in the organizations responsibility, specificallythe president, who is the chief fundraiser; the vice president for UniversityRelations and Development, who is the chief development officer; and the entiredevelopment staff which includes, the associate vice president (1); the assistantvice presidents (2) the foundations executive director; the director of AnnualGiving, the associate director of Development; the associate director of AnnualGiving; the assistant director of Annual Giving; the board of trustees (13); theprospect researcher; the donor relations manager; and the associate director ofAlumni Relations12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Institutional initiatives drive philanthropy. We raise money to support theinstitutional initatives which ultimatley become the academic blueprint of ourorganization.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?1. A signature event; 2. An annual campaign; 3. A major gift and planned givingprogram; 4. A corporate and foundation relations program; 5. A donor relationsprogram.14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Our strategies are successful, there are no new ones I would employ. If I hadmore resources (i.e., budget and personnel) I could raise more money.15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?
    • None. As a leader, my responsibility is to galvanize and direct the creative andintellectual capacities of the staff to achieve our core purpose. This is theuniversal goal of leadership.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?$8 million. This represents a 100% increase over the previous three years.17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?We are planning the first one.
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 13 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 143.132.197.241Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:33:45 AM1. In which state is your institution located?Miwssissippi2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 7000Graduate students - 1500Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 85003. What is your title?Prez4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?105. What is your highest level of education?J.D.6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?25 years experience7. How long have you been employed at this institution?108. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?PArt of my job is to raise money.10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Selling investment opportunities.
    • 11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Dierctor of Institutional Advancement Assistant Director for Development12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?More and more13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?research potential, establish relationship, ask14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?hire more people to raise money15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?I am full service16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?$25m17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?In one now
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 14 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 216.228.137.147Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 2:34:56 PM1. In which state is your institution located?No Response2. What is your institutional enrollment?No Response3. What is your title?No Response4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?No Response5. What is your highest level of education?No Response6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?No Response7. How long have you been employed at this institution?No Response8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?No Response10. What is your philosophy of fund development?No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)No Response12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?No Response13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?No Response14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?
    • No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?No Response16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?No Response
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 15 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 152.8.40.210Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 3:30:31 PM1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 8,829Graduate students - 1,559Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 10,3883. What is your title?Associate Vice Chancellor of Development and University Relations4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?15 months5. What is your highest level of education?Undergraduate degree6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?15 years in Development as a development director (Emory University andUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)7. How long have you been employed at this institution?15 months8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitivevisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Annual giving, major gift fundraising, planned giving10. What is your philosophy of fund development?JF Smith Groups says it best, "Fund-raising is a team effort – it takes everyperson in the development office working together to achieve your goals andobjectives."
    • 11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Development Operations (research, stewardship, alumni records, giftcoordinators); Annual Giving Program; Major Gift Program; Corp. & FoundationRelations; University Relations; Planned Giving; Government Relations; AlumniAffairs12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Private funding and investment income creates our Universitys margin ofexcellence.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Cultivation, engagement, use of events, addition to boards, publicity, createnaming opportunities, planned or combination giving and stewardship.14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Build a better University Event program, create a Development CommunicationDirector positions and other writers; more resources for corporate andfoundation fundraising and more frontline fundraisers15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Bureaucracy16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?Approximately $30M17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?2000-2007
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 16 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 158.103.0.1Response Started: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 10:45:10 AM1. In which state is your institution located?Maryland2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 6500Graduate students - 5003. What is your title?Vice President, Institutional Advancement4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?55. What is your highest level of education?Bachelors6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?More than 20 years expereince in corporate sales and marketing Certificate inFundraising Management from the Center for Philanthropy at IndianaUniversity Numerous CASE A and AFP seminars7. How long have you been employed at this institution?9 years8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitivevisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Major Gifts Officer Director of Development10. What is your philosophy of fund development?Never let challenging economic conditions dampen or hinder your efforts. Keepasking.
    • 11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)President and Board Deans and Department Chairs Director of DevelopmentAnnual Fund Manager12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Biggest impact on providing additional financial assistance for students13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Constant outreach14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Unable to hire development officers because of financial constraints15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?Differences are not that great.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?2002-2007
    • Browse ResponsesDisplaying 17 of 17 respondents Go >><< Prev Next >> Jump To:Response Type: Normal ResponseCollector: Williams HBCU Presidents andAdvancement Dissertation (Web Link) IPCustom Value: empty Address: 152.12.8.31Response Started: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 8:09:40 AM1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 6,4423. What is your title?Vice Chancellor for University Advancement4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?75. What is your highest level of education?BA +6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?No Response7. How long have you been employed at this institution?No Response8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose allthat apply)innovativeproactivechange agentteam buildervisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund developmentand university advancement?Development Officer Consultant Foundation Director10. What is your philosophy of fund development?No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe haveresponsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names)Advancement Staff Chancellor Deans Program managers Volunteers (Trustees,Foundation Directors, etc)12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?Having private dollars enables us to support the universitys highest priorities ata level far above what state funding supports
    • 13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists?Social Research Networking, referrrals Query Letters14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)?Enhanced prospect research More face to face meetings outside of NC involvingChancellor and board members15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?No Response16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from privatephilanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?2003
    • APPENDIX FLIST OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
    • United States & Virgin Islands Historically Black Colleges and Universities AlabamaFour-Year PublicAlabama A&M UniversityAlabama State UniversityFour-Year PrivateConcordia College SelmaMiles CollegeOakwood UniversitySelma UniversityStillman CollegeTalladega CollegeTuskegee UniversityTwo-Year PublicBishop State Community CollegeShelton State Community College, C.A. Fredd CampusGadsden State Community College, Valley StreetJ.F. Drake State Technical CollegeLawson State Community CollegeTrenholm State Technical College ArkansasFour-Year PublicUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffFour-Year PrivateArkansas Baptist CollegePhilander Smith College DelawareFour-Year PublicDelaware State University District of ColumbiaFour-Year PublicUniversity of the District of Columbia
    • Four-Year PrivateHoward University FloridaFour-Year PublicFlorida A&M UniversityFour-Year PrivateBethune-Cookman CollegeEdward Waters CollegeFlorida Memorial University GeorgiaFour-Year PublicAlbany State UniversityFort Valley State UniversitySavannah State UniversityFour-Year PrivateClark Atlanta UniversityInterdenominational Theological CenterMorehouse CollegeMorehouse School of MedicineMorris Brown CollegePaine CollegeSpelman College KentuckyFour-Year PublicKentucky State University LouisianaFour-Year PublicGrambling State UniversitySouthern University A&M CollegeSouthern University at New OrleansFour-Year PrivateDillard University of LouisianaXavier UniversityTwo-Year PublicSouthern University at Shreveport
    • MarylandFour-Year PublicBowie State UniversityCoppin State CollegeMorgan State UniversityUniversity of Maryland Eastern Shore MichiganTwo-Year PrivateLewis College of Business MississippiFour-Year PublicAlcorn State UniversityJackson State UniversityMississippi Valley State UniversityFour-Year PrivateRust CollegeTougaloo CollegeTwo-Year PublicCoahoma Community CollegeHinds Community College, Utica MissouriFour-Year PublicHarris-Stowe State UniversityLincoln University North CarolinaFour-Year PublicElizabeth City State UniversityFayetteville State UniversityNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityNorth Carolina Central UniversityWinston-Salem State University
    • Four-Year PrivateBarber-Scotia CollegeBennett CollegeJohnson C. Smith UniversityLivingstone CollegeShaw UniversitySt. Augustines College OhioFour-Year PublicCentral State UniversityFour-Year PrivateWilberforce University OklahomaFour-Year PublicLangston University PennsylvaniaFour-Year PublicCheyney University of PennsylvaniaLincoln University South CarolinaFour-Year PublicSouth Carolina State UniversityFour-Year PrivateAllen UniversityBenedict CollegeClaflin UniversityMorris CollegeVoorhees CollegeTwo-Year PublicDenmark Technical CollegeTwo-Year PrivateClinton Junior College
    • TennesseeFour-Year PublicTennessee State UniversityFour-Year PrivateFisk UniversityKnoxville CollegeLane CollegeLemoyne-Owen CollegeMeharry Medical College TexasFour-Year PublicPrairie View A&M UniversityTexas Southern UniversityFour-Year PrivateHuston-Tillotson UniversityJarvis Christian CollegePaul Quinn CollegeSouthwestern Christian CollegeTexas CollegeWiley CollegeTwo-Year PublicSt. Philips College VirginiaFour-Year PublicNorfolk State UniversityVirginia State UniversityFour-Year PrivateHampton UniversitySaint Pauls CollegeVirginia Union UniversityVirginia University of Lynchburg
    • West VirginiaFour-Year PublicBluefield State CollegeWest Virginia State University U.S. Virgin IslandsFour-Year PublicUniversity of the Virgin Islands
    • CURRICULUM VITAE FOR MONICA WILLIAMS
    • Monica G. Williams, M.A. Curriculum Vitae May 20093310 Continental Drive (832) 498-8733 (C)Missouri City, Texas 77459 EXPERIENCE SUMMARYTwelve years cumulative experience in non-profit and educational philanthropycultivation and fundraising, human resource management, grant and proposaldevelopment, social services and academia, emphasized through delivery of programadministration and planning. Experience includes program development, management,proposal writing, budgeting, program evaluation, creation and implementation ofstrategic plan/policy and procedure manuals, public policy monitoring, and reportwriting. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCENovember 2008 – CurrentHoustonWorks USA – Houston, TX Director of Resource Development – Develop a comprehensive, integrated resource development plan including but not limited to awareness activities, annual gift campaign, stewardship plan, planned giving program, donor database development, and using current staff as development ambassadors; coordinate and manage a portfolio of principal and major gift prospects and provide administrative fundraising support to the CEO; work with the CEO and other members of the Executive Team to plan major events that will create awareness and opportunities for gifting; assist with the development of various HWUSA publications including the annual report and other publications that will encourage gifting opportunities; direct human resource staff and functions including but not limited to recruiting, benefits and compensation, development, disciplinary action, position definition, and appraisal systems; participate in formulating and administering company policies and developing long-range goals and objectives for employee performance; provide status reports to the Chief Executive Officer as requested, and respond to requests for information from internal and external constituents.June 2007 – November 2008Rice University – Houston, TX Director of Development – Planned, organized, and managed the development of major gift support for university fundraising priorities; qualification, identification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of major donor prospects capable of gifts at the $100,000+ level; managed a portfolio of 100 major gift prospect households; outlined major gift objectives and
    • fundraising activities for assigned region; engaged prospects in a donor-centered manner that moves the prospect along a continuum of gifting and assisted the prospect in achieving philanthropic interest; worked with senior University officials, prospects, and key volunteers to identify major prospects; prepared the way for solicitation by the President and other senior campus administrators (including athletics, deans, and directors of academic units), members of the Board of Trustees, or other senior level volunteers; responsible for developing and executing a campaign specific fundraising strategy for program priorities and schools in conjunction with other key constituents; recorded portfolio activity through contact and call reports, and communicate regularly with colleagues about activity; develop and oversee an effective program for recognition, promote alumni relations in the assigned geographic region; identify and recruit major gift prospects to host local events.November 2005 – May 2007Prairie View A&M University – Prairie View, TX Associate Vice President for Development – Lead and directed first-ever $30 million capital initiative in University’s 130-year history; planned and strategized the cultivation, solicitation and stewardship of major gift prospects and donors/contributors; handled inquiries for planned giving prospects; assembled documentation needed for planned gifts; managed performance improvement process through identifying and analyzing important organizational and individual staff performance gaps, planned for future performance improvement, designed and developed cost-effective and ethically justifiable interventions to close performance gaps, implemented the interventions, and evaluated the financial and non- financial results; through management of the Office of Alumni Relations, worked with Director of Alumni Affairs to maximize alumni relationships and cultivate gifts; enhanced the reputation and appreciation of the University among all constituencies including students, faculty, parents, alumni, friends, foundations, and corporations; oversaw the development staff and lead all areas of development including annual giving, planned giving, corporation and foundation relations and development operations; personally managed a portfolio of pacesetter and major gift donors and prospective donors that yielded $22.5 million; enlisted, trained, and managed volunteers; worked with the Office of Institutional Relations and Public Service to plan major events to create awareness and opportunities for gifting; assisted the Director of University Relations with the development of various University publications including the annual report and other publications that encouraged gifting opportunities; worked cooperatively with University vice presidents and deans to cultivate gifts for unfunded priorities.May 2004 – November 2005Prairie View A&M University – Prairie View, TX Director of Development – Responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the development office including human resource management and day-to-day management of the University’s first-ever Capital Campaign; responsible for the success in meeting fundraising goals in support of selective programs and projects the University advocated and/or sponsored on a sustaining basis; planned, implemented and managed, with Campaign Counsel, the Prairie View A&M University Capital Campaign and other fundraising strategies and events; developed and standardized systems for prospect review, prospect management, and proposal development; managed campaign gift- accounting policies and provided specific assessments of campaign progress; planned and
    • implemented annual objectives as well as measured financial and programmatic success with the President and CEO; monitored and reported on the campaign budget; performed prospect research; identified prospective funding sources; initiated contact with prospects; actively pursued key relationships to secure funding or referrals to other sources; followed up on action items and managed competing deadlines; managed donor relations, files, records, and recognition programs; ensured compliance with all charitable giving laws including documentation; researched and wrote grant proposals appropriate for the University and tracked success of grants pursued and received; assisted in event planning to include sponsor packages, solicitation, recognition of sponsors and the achievement of fundraising goals for each event; represented organization at events to raise awareness and gain new supporters; made presentations to solicit support from alumni, other individuals, organizations, foundations, etc.August 2002 – May 2006Texas Southern University – Houston, TX Adjunct Faculty - Provided instruction in the area of Business and Professional Communication and Human Performance in an effort to teach students how to develop an awareness of basic communication theory, the communication process, and organizational communication models; Students were able to apply improved listening skills; demonstrate conceptual understanding of various types of effective traditional and electronic resumes; demonstrate an understanding of effective techniques for both the interviewee and the interviewer; gain experience in exercising team membership skills; gain awareness of effective leadership styles and leadership skills; demonstrate effective participation in planning and presenting a team project; and develop a knowledge and practical understanding of effective public speaking skills.April 2003 – April 2004Texas Southern University – Houston, TX Associate Director of Development – Developed and refined the base of donors and prospective donors to TSU; designed and executed the annual fund campaign; oversaw the standardized campus-wide systems for prospect identification and review, donor and prospect management (cultivation and stewardship), and major gift proposal development; assisted in donor research, major gift prospective donor identification and recordkeeping; and drafted written proposals for major gift solicitations in consultation with the Vice President for Development and the campus fundraising staff.June 2002 – March 2003Neighborhood Centers Inc. – Houston, TX Director of Community Based Initiatives –Responsible for the oversight of a $1,000,000 capital campaign to redesign/reconstruct the LaPorte Community Center; launched a plan to generate $20,000,000 for NCI operations for fiscal year 2003; direct the activities and administration of the center based program services; determine, allocate, and manage human and financial resources of the community based programs to meet agency and contract objectives; serve as an effective liaison between NCI and other social service or community programs which serve as target communities; keep abreast of policy issues that will affect the delivery of community based program services; work diligently with
    • advisory boards to secure community support for social service delivery; maintain relationship with community center advisory boards through monitoring of recruitment, meetings, and communications; ensure that community center implementation plans are reviewed with advisory boards; integrate and maximize the network of services provided by components of community based initiatives, implementation, and procedures; conduct and coordinate community based activities targeted at communities for the purpose of encouraging participation in NCI Community Based Programming; participate on boards that are advisory in nature at the local, state, and national levels; develop community assessment and planning tool designed to assist community center area managers and other program managers with strategic planning; assist other agency directors with philanthropic initiatives designed to support the redevelopment of community centers; resolve questions and complaints from external community regarding program services; research, analyze, and draft policy briefs addressing external and internal factors affecting program services; develop, initiate, and promote interagency communication with social services and various networks; educate and campaign for various community support and serve as a facilitator to create information and needs exchange that support the missions, goals, and objectives of NCI and community based services; design and prepare reports in response to agency, volunteer, and funding source needs; prepare, review, and otherwise actively participates in the effective implementation and monitoring of budgets pertaining to program operations in conjunction with agency financial services staff.March 2001 – June 2002Neighborhood Centers Inc. – Houston, TX Director of Program Operations –Responsible for the oversight of an $18,000,000 capital campaign to reconstruct and redevelop the Ripley Campus Community Center in the East End of Houston; wrote Requests for Proposals that generated more than $9,000,000 for community based program operations; direct the activities and administration of the center based program services; determine, allocate, and manage human and financial resources of the community based programs to meet agency and contract objectives; administer, supervise, and direct assigned programs through staff of professionals and support employees; serve as an effective liaison between the agency and other social service or community programs which serve as target communities; keep abreast of policy issues that will affect the delivery of community based program services; maintain effective structure for the advisory boards in order to maximize input from volunteers; design and prepare reports in response to agency, volunteer, and funding source needs; prepare, review, and otherwise actively participates in the effective implementation and monitoring of budgets pertaining to program operations in conjunction with agency financial services staff.December 1998 – March 2001Neighborhood Centers Inc. – Houston, TX Community Center Administrator -Responsible for overall administration of community center programs and operations whose primary function is to enhance the lives of economically disadvantaged youth and families through comprehensive social services; determine local community needs and program opportunities through demonstrated
    • knowledge of community; develop and maintain relationships with area service providers; select and ensure implementation of services/programs to meet community needs; oversee, monitor, and coordinate all center programs; assist in program planning and development; promote the community center and initiate and implement marketing of programs and enrollment; recruit, train and place volunteers at the community center; represent the agency in the community in promotion and planning of local events; administer relevant contracts and agreements as they apply to center operations; ensure maintenance of records and submit timely and accurate reports in accordance with agency policies and procedures; maintain relationship with Advisory Boards through recruitment, meetings and communications; monitor and implement portions of the budget related to center operations; enforce the agency policies on EEO and safety/health.October 1998– December 1998The Brown Schools/Harris County Juvenile Justice Charter Schools – Houston, TX Judicial Outreach for Literacy Training (JOLT) Manager-Handled overall administration of a literacy program designed to assist economically disadvantaged families and juvenile offenders with increasing literacy skills in order to become gainfully employed; focused on high academic standards with aligned curriculum to support a higher order of thinking in the whole family unit; offered parent training sessions that would often include interactive learning disciplines with their children; encouraged parents to assist their children with innovative ways in which to stay in school and the incentives associated with doing so.July 1997 – June 1998Sylvan At Work / Sylvan Learning Systems - Houston, Texas Center Director- Focused on serving remedial educational programs to TANF recipients in an effort to improve academic standards in adult education; selected/hired/trained appropriate professionals for center positions; managed Director of Education, Career Counselor, Computer Specialist and all other instructors effectively and appropriately; developed pertinent workshops for staff development days; created, monitored and modified staff schedules; conducted staff meetings for all employees for the purpose of assuring adherence to all instructional and administrative policies; performed 90day, 6 month and annual reviews of personnel; demonstrated a positive rapport and genuine concern for participants and programs; established and maintained face-to-face relationships with participants and/or management from Texas Department of Health/Human Services and Texas Workforce Commission; held conferences with instructors and/or Director of Education regarding student progress, as is necessary for timely contacts; established and maintained relationships with key community organizations; increased company awareness of Sylvan Learning Systems/ Sylvan At Work by actively establishing relationships and making presentations to company employees; administered diagnostic testing and summary of progress for each participant; developed and revised curriculum.August 1996 – July 1997LEAP, Incorporated - Houston, Texas
    • Instructor-Prepared high school and adult -aged students for a broad-based curriculum which would enable them to pass the General Educational Development (GED) test; taught the strategies involved in learning the basic concepts of math, literature, writing, science, and social studies.August 1995 – August 1996E.E. Worthing Senior High School, Houston Independent School District. - Houston, Texas English Teacher – Reinforced the importance of using the English language to high school students in grades 9-12; taught the strategies of the writing process to ensure that students passed the TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) test at the exit level; ensured that students progressed successfully through a broad-based curriculum which would eventually enable them to read, reason and communicate effectively; think creatively and critically; appreciate and apply knowledge of humanities and fine arts; use effective interpersonal skills and view issues from a global perspective; established and cultivated excellent rapport with parents.August 1994 – July 1995George Junior High School - Rosenberg, Texas English Teacher – Taught students the English language using highly motivational techniques to provide structure, direction and approval to individual needs in skills development; helped organize, develop and implement strategies for TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) preparation; organized and structured English development programs; established rapport with parents. OTHER EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE-Presented conference workshops and seminars to peer professionals in development-Presenter, Thurgood Marshall College Fund-Speaker for United Way Campaign-Excellent communication skills, both written and verbal-Presented conference workshops and seminars to economically disadvantaged youth andtheir educators-Community advocate for Crime Victims Association-In-kind tutor for multiple community literacy programs-Co-chair, 2002 United Way Capital Campaign PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALSThe Art and Science of Donor Development Certification – Advancement ResourcesThe Art of Fundraising I: The Fundamentals Certification – Rice UniversityThe Art of Fundraising II: Advanced Principles & Practices Certification – Rice UniversityPrinciples and Techniques of Fundraising Certification – Center on PhilanthropyPlanned Giving: Getting the Proper Start Certification – Center on PhilanthropyDeveloping Major Gifts Certification – Center on PhilanthropyInterpersonal Communication for Fundraising Certification – Center on Philanthropy
    • Nonprofit Management Institute Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.The Care and Feeding of a Volunteer Board Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.Organizational Development and Strategic Planning Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.Administration and Fiscal Management Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.Process Mapping and Improvement Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.Internal Evaluation Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.True Colors® Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc. AFFILIATIONSSociety for Human Resource Management (SHRM) MemberFred C. Johnson Foundation Board MemberMetamorphosis Women’s Empowerment Conference Board MemberGreater Houston Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Immediate Past Board MemberAssociation of Fundraising Professionals MemberCouncil for the Advancement and Support of Education MemberNational Association for the Advancement of Colored People MemberHouston Area Urban League MemberNational Association of Black Journalists Member PUBLICATIONS Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2006). Raising more money at the nation’shistorically black colleges and universities. National Journal for Publishing andMentoring Doctoral Student Research 3(1). Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). National implications: Why HBCUpresidents need entrepreneurial focus. National Journal: FOCUS On Colleges,Universities, and Schools 1(1). Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). National implications: Examiningmotivational factors among employees in higher education. The Lamar UniversityElectronic Journal of Student Research Summer 2007. Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). National focus on postmodernism inhigher education. The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research Summer2007. EDUCATIONPrairie View A&M University, College of Education, Prairie View, TexasABD for Doctor of Philosophy in Educational LeadershipDissertation Title: Engagement Levels of Historically Black College and UniversityLeaders in Entrepreneurialism Through FundraisingGrade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0
    • Texas Southern University, College of Arts and Sciences, Houston, TexasM.A. in CommunicationsMay 2002Grade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0Texas Southern University, Houston, TexasB.A. with concentration in News Editorial Journalism/EnglishAugust 1994Grade Point Average: 3.2 / 4.0Willowridge High School, Missouri City, TexasDecember 1984Honors Graduate