- Email: [email protected]
Fund-raising models at public historically Black colleges and universities
Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
Fund-raising models at public historically Black colleges and universities Natalie T.J. Tindall ∗ Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Oklahoma, 395 West Lindsey, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-4201, United States Received 20 December 2006; received in revised form 20 December 2006; accepted 20 February 2007
Abstract This empirical study examined whether public historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) predominantly practiced the press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetrical, two-way symmetrical or mixed motive models of fund raising. The findings reported the heavy usage of press agentry model of fund raising by advancement officers. The most interesting concept emerging from the research was the emergence of a mixed motive model of fund raising. The model describes the practice of fund raising in an adaptable and changing environment and incorporates asymmetrical and symmetrical tactics that describes the actual practice of fund raising. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fund raising; Colleges and universities; Public relations; Mixed motive model
Fund raising is defined as “the management of relationships between a charitable organization and its donor publics” (Kelly, 1998, p. 8). Few scholars have devoted time and effort to understanding the complexities and nuances of fund raising, the roles embodied by practitioners, and its connection to public relations. The principal goal of the present study is to examine the fund-raising programs at historically Black public universities within the context of public relations theory. Although the fund-raising efforts of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have been studied in education, no studies have approached fund raising by HBCUs from a communication or public relations perspective. This research is essential in understanding the current contexts in which HBCU fund-raisers or institutional advancement officers operate. Theoretically, this research is important because it extends the work of Kelly (1991, 1998) and examines the existence of a mixed motive model of fund raising advanced by Alessandrini (1998) as a positive model of practice. 1. Review of literature 1.1. Public historically Black colleges and universities For more than a century, HBCUs have been the “the carriers, the architects, and the guardians of the Afro-American culture as well as the catalyst for social change” (Robinson, 1997, p. 43). Of the 105 operating HBCUs, 43 are ∗
Tel.: +1 405 325 4052. E-mail address: [email protected].
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.004
202
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
public institutions. Of the Black students attending HBCUs, approximately 70% attend public institutions (Yates, 2001). The pursuit of private, unrestricted gifts is necessary for the continuance of historically Black colleges and universities; limited financial and operational resources have plagued HBCUs since their inception. Fund raising has become vital to all HBCUs because those additional funds allow colleges and universities to promote and continue research programs, supplement budgetary weak spots, enhance campus infrastructure, upgrade the physical plant, and attract and retain prospective faculty. However, the fund-raising efforts of both private and public HBCUs linger behind the established fund-raising programs at traditionally White institutions. Howard University, a private university located in Washington, D.C., has the largest HBCU endowment, approximately $323.70 million (U.S. Department of Education, 2003), but that pales in comparison to the endowments of Harvard University, Stanford University, and Cornell University (Council for Aid to Education, 2005). Over two decades, individual contributions to HBCUs have increased. Some of the notable gifts to Black colleges include Bill and Camille Cosby’s $20 million donation to Spelman College and Oprah Winfrey’s $2 million gifts to Morehouse College and gift of several endowed chairs to her alma mater, Tennessee State University (Williams & Ashley, 2004). In 2003, magazine publisher John H. Johnson donated $4 million to Howard University’s School of Communications, which was renamed in his honor (“Publisher gives $4 Million to Howard,” 2003). Although many celebrity donations have been made to HBCUs in the past decades and several HBCUs have inaugurated multimillion dollar capital campaigns, alumni giving at most HBCUs – public and private – has been eclipsed by donations from corporations and foundations. Annual donations from alumni average five to 10% when the average is approximately 25% for private colleges and 60% for elite colleges (Gasman, 2002; Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins, 2003). 2. Mixed motive model of fund raising Based on Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) four models of public relations, Kelly (1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1998) identified four models of fund raising. The four identified models of public relations are derived from the directional flow of communication between publics (a one-way or two-way communication flow) and from the intended balance of communication and its effects (asymmetrical and symmetrical). According to Kelly (1995b), the press agentry/publicity model of fund raising was the model most frequently practiced by charitable organizations and within all gift programs, and the two-way symmetrical model was the least frequently enacted model. However, the emphasis of fund raising is shifting to the symmetrical concepts of relationship building, proper stewardship, and two-way communication. Based on game theory, the mixed motive model of public relations and fund raising is a blend of symmetrical and asymmetrical perspectives that is used to gain understanding, accuracy, and cooperation. Equilibrium must be established between the two parties. The needs of the organization must be balanced against the interests of the publics. Murphy (1991) wrote, “The mixed-motive model of public relations preserves the central importance of one’s own interests, yet acknowledges the power of opposing viewpoints” (p. 127). Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002) subsumed the mixed motive model underneath the two-way symmetrical model of public relations, believing it to be “a way of reconciling the organization’s and public’s interest” (p. 309). However, this reconciliation has not been tested for fund raising. The mixed motive model, however, is applicable to fund raising and its practitioners. Practitioners can incorporate asymmetrical and symmetrical behaviors to achieve short-term results and long-term goals and allow practitioners to adjust the usage of communication styles to suit the internal and external environments. In Alessandrini’s (1998) study of public university fund-raisers, the practitioners reported using all models and perceived themselves as practicing the two-way symmetrical model, but the public universities were less likely to practice the two-way symmetrical model. According to Alessandrini, “A mixed-motive approach may allow fundraisers [sic] to aspire to tenets of a normative two-way symmetrical model of fund raising while operating along a continuum in the short term” (p. 62). 3. Method This is an exploratory study for purposes of examining the feasibility of Kelly’s (1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1998) fundraising models at public HBCUs. Based on the assumptions and suggested from the arguments offered by Kelly and Alessandrini (1998), the research questions posed for this project were the following: Which models of fund raising do HBCUs typically employ? Do historically Black public colleges and universities practice two-way symmetrical fund raising?
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
203
To test the research questions, each participant received a 16-item questionnaire. These self-administered questionnaires asked the respondents about the general practices of their development office. Respondents completed the questionnaires and returned them to the researcher in a 1-month period. Follow-up phone calls were used to retrieve demographic information and information about the size and scope of the institutional advancement/fund-raising function. Also, to gather reported financial statistics such as state appropriations and institutional allocations, the researcher used the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and Grapevine databases. 3.1. Participants The participants for this study were the top fund-raising administrators at public HBCUs located in the 21 states and one U.S. territory. The researcher sent e-mail messages to the top institutional advancement officers listed in the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) membership directory. Since the CASE directory did not have complete contact information for all colleges and universities, the researcher obtained the fund-raising officers’ telephone numbers and e-mail addresses through their university Web sites. Out of 39 eligible schools, 30 schools responded to the questionnaire, making the response rate for the questionnaire 76.92%. 3.2. Survey instrument The survey instrument was adapted from Kelly (1995b). To measure each of the four models, Kelly designed statements that explained how nonprofit organizations practice donor relations. The 16 items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicated “strongly disagree” and 7 indicated “strongly agree.” To construct the questions on the organization of the advancement function, the researcher used studies and surveys reviewed by Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) to gather specific advancement information. Basic demographic questions on education and experience were created based on Carbone’s (1987) research that defined the “modal fund-raising professional” (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p. 32). 4. Data analysis Correlations reported in the research were generated from an SPSS database. Additive scales were formed from the 16 items measuring the fund-raising models, and mean scores were calculated for the indices and for individual questionnaire items. To demonstrate the extent to which each item of an index measured the same concept, Cronbach’s alphas were computed. Factor analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the models. Spearman’s rho were conducted on the fund-raising models; Kendall’s tau-b correlations were conducted on the practitioner characteristics and the models, and cross-tabulations with the chi-square test and Pearson’s r correlations were conducted on the financial data and the fund-raising organizational context data. 5. Results 5.1. Demographics Of the development officers who participated in the research (N = 30), 14 were fund-raisers at public historically Black colleges with the land grant designation, and 16 were from non-land grant universities. The median founding date for the institutions in the study was 1888. The majority of respondents (66.7%) were male (N = 30). The most common functions of the advancement office at public HBCUs were the annual fund, capital campaign, and major gifts programs. At the time of the study, most of the public HBCU advancement offices were started less than 5 years ago (n = 24). The mean number of employees in the advancement function was 13, with a minimum of two employees and a maximum of 42. Of those employees, the mean number of them reporting directly to the top advancement officers was 7.5. Twenty-six executives reported having a centralized office (n = 28), but six institutions reported that individual colleges or departments had their own fund-raising function (n = 28).
204
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
5.2. Knowledge and use of fund-raising models Use of the publicity model was highest (M = 5.21, N = 30). Following closely behind was the two-way symmetrical model (M = 5.11, n = 28). The mixed motive model had a mean of 4.68 (n = 29), and the public information model had a mean of 4.60. The two-way asymmetrical model finished last (M = 4.46, n = 28). The reliability of the measures for the two-way symmetrical (␣ = .65), two-way asymmetrical (␣ = .37), press agentry (␣ = .45), and public information models (␣ = .39) was low. Only the mixed motive model (␣ = .87) provided a strong indicator that the measures constructing the model had the same underlying concept. 5.3. Validity of the models To test the validity of the models and to replicate the data analysis performed by Alessandrini (1998), correlations were computed between the indices of the four models. The two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models had moderate correlations with each other (.417, p < .05), but the mixed motive model was highly correlated with the two-way asymmetrical model (.504, p < .01) and moderately correlated with the two-way symmetrical model (.875, p < .01). The models were not affected by institutional variables such as institutional support, state appropriations, and age of advancement office. However, three practitioner characteristics had a significant correlation with one or more of the models. Gender, age, and level of education did affect the practice of the fund-raising models at the HBCUs in this study. The next step in the data analysis was to identify any relationships between the variables listed above. Through the Pearson’s r correlations, significant relationships demonstrated the influence of funding to the programs of and resources available to the advancement office. Strong and positive correlations were found between state appropriations for both academic years and several factors—total number of employees (r = .409, p < .05; r = .409, p < .05), institutional support (r = .494, p < .01; r = .417, p < .05), number of advancement employees who reported directly to the top fund-raising administrator (r = .526, p < .01; r = .459, p < .05), ending value of endowments (r = .650, p < .01; r = .576, p < .01), and employees who directly reported to the top fund-raising administrator (r = .526, p < .01; r = .459, p < 05). The age of the institution had a significant relationship with the number of employees who reported to the top fund-raising officer (r = −.534) and the ending value of the institutional endowment (r = −.417, p < .05). 6. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the fund-raising models within public HBCUs and to contribute to the theoretical body of knowledge in fund raising that has neglected those institutions. The findings of the study suggest that the press agentry/publicity model, not the two-way symmetrical model, is widely practiced. Whether a practitioner is male or female may affect the practice of the two-way symmetrical model, with practitioners relying on the concepts of symmetry and collaboration to achieve institutional goals. There are several interesting and significant inverse, or negative, relationships; although relatively small, these inverse relationships are logical. The age and level of education attained by the practitioner may discriminate against three of the five models. The greater the educational level reached by the practitioners, the less likely practitioners will practice the press agentry/publicity model. Institutional advancement officers with advanced education rely on a combination of techniques to achieve organizational goals and may spend less time on the crafts of publicity. The age of the practitioner may influence the practice of the mixed motive and two-way symmetrical models. Younger practitioners may rely on a combination of techniques, especially the two-way symmetrical, to induce giving, while older practitioners may rely on the one-way models that fit the institution’s traditions and norms. The prevalence of the publicity model may exist because the “small shop” operation, whether it is the top fundraising officer alone maintaining the office or the officer with a few colleagues, is predominant at public HBCUs. In this study, the mean number of employees for an advancement office was 7.5. The participants did not break out which employees were fund-raising staff working specifically on alumni relations or corporate relations and which employees were clerical. Instead, many gave a lump number of employees that could include administrative assistants, secretaries, and clerks. The smaller shop operation may not have the time, financial resources, or people to implement the two-way symmetrical model.
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
205
Also, fund-raisers may utilize this publicity model because of a desire to put the university in a positive light. Whether it is the thought that Black colleges should be assimilated or mainstreamed, that they suffer from an intellectual crisis, or that they suffer from mismanagement, HBCUs have suffered through severe criticism since their inception. Those criticisms weigh heavily, whether they are true or not; therefore, concern about the portrayal of the institution in the media is high. To control its image, an HBCU may embrace the one-way press agentry model to gain favorable publicity, keep the media at arms’ length, and give donors a positive image than portrayed in the media. The institutional allocations to advancement may not be sufficient for the introduction of two-way communication methods. The environmental scanning and research methods encouraged by Dozier, Grunig, and Grunig (1995) included surveys, depth interviews, formal research studies, communication audits, event evaluations, and subscriptions to public opinion agencies. That list could continue to grow if subscriptions to demographic databases and sophisticated donor management software were included. These activities require implementation by advancement offices that already are tautly stretched to invest in new programming. Those new research programs may take time and money away from the hiring of employees, training and memberships, and other activities. This research on the fund-raising efforts and operations of HBCUs contributes to the growing body of knowledge on HBCUs; however, it takes on an alternate route with its examination of the fund-raising efforts through a public relations frame. Within the public relations field, this research has replicated successfully the models conceptualized by Kelly (1991), thus, helping to build a research tradition within the fund-raising area. This research also tested the mixed motive model of fund raising and showed that practitioners embrace symmetrical and asymmetrical tactics. Further qualitative and quantitative research must be done to understand the experience of fund-raisers and whether the theoretical underpinnings of fund raising fully capture the dimensions and complexities of fund-raisers’ work. References Alessandrini, J. G. (1998). Analysis of fund-raising models at Florida’s public universities. Unpublished masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. Brittingham, B. E., & Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fund raising in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University. Carbone, R. F. (1987). Fund raisers of academe. College Park, MD: Clearinghouse for Research on Fund Raising. Council for Aid to Education. (2005). The voluntary support of education 2005. New York: Council for Aid to Education. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gasman, M. (2002). An untapped resource: Bringing African Americans into the college and university giving process. The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement, 2, 280–292. Gasman, M., & Anderson-Thompkins, S. (2003). Fundraising from Black-college alumni: Successful strategies for supporting alma mater. New York: Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1995a). The fund-raising behavior of U.S. charitable organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 111–137. Kelly, K. S. (1995b). Utilizing public relations theory to conceptualize and test models of fund raising. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 106–127. Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund raising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 115–133. Publisher gives $4 Million to Howard; Communications school to get new name. (2003, February 27). Black Issues in Higher Education, 20(1), p. 16. Robinson, Y. A. (1997). The federal commitment to historically black colleges and universities: The dollars and sense of Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). U.S. Department of Education FY 2003 performance and accountability report. Washington, D.C.: Author. Williams, J., & Ashley, D. (2004). I’ll find a way or make one: A tribute to historically Black colleges and universities. New York: Harper Collins. Yates, E. L. (2001, July 5). Capital campaigns. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(10). Retrieved August 31, 2006, from EBSCO database.
Fund-raising models at public historically Black colleges and universities Natalie T.J. Tindall ∗ Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Oklahoma, 395 West Lindsey, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-4201, United States Received 20 December 2006; received in revised form 20 December 2006; accepted 20 February 2007
Abstract This empirical study examined whether public historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) predominantly practiced the press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetrical, two-way symmetrical or mixed motive models of fund raising. The findings reported the heavy usage of press agentry model of fund raising by advancement officers. The most interesting concept emerging from the research was the emergence of a mixed motive model of fund raising. The model describes the practice of fund raising in an adaptable and changing environment and incorporates asymmetrical and symmetrical tactics that describes the actual practice of fund raising. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fund raising; Colleges and universities; Public relations; Mixed motive model
Fund raising is defined as “the management of relationships between a charitable organization and its donor publics” (Kelly, 1998, p. 8). Few scholars have devoted time and effort to understanding the complexities and nuances of fund raising, the roles embodied by practitioners, and its connection to public relations. The principal goal of the present study is to examine the fund-raising programs at historically Black public universities within the context of public relations theory. Although the fund-raising efforts of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have been studied in education, no studies have approached fund raising by HBCUs from a communication or public relations perspective. This research is essential in understanding the current contexts in which HBCU fund-raisers or institutional advancement officers operate. Theoretically, this research is important because it extends the work of Kelly (1991, 1998) and examines the existence of a mixed motive model of fund raising advanced by Alessandrini (1998) as a positive model of practice. 1. Review of literature 1.1. Public historically Black colleges and universities For more than a century, HBCUs have been the “the carriers, the architects, and the guardians of the Afro-American culture as well as the catalyst for social change” (Robinson, 1997, p. 43). Of the 105 operating HBCUs, 43 are ∗
Tel.: +1 405 325 4052. E-mail address: [email protected].
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.004
202
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
public institutions. Of the Black students attending HBCUs, approximately 70% attend public institutions (Yates, 2001). The pursuit of private, unrestricted gifts is necessary for the continuance of historically Black colleges and universities; limited financial and operational resources have plagued HBCUs since their inception. Fund raising has become vital to all HBCUs because those additional funds allow colleges and universities to promote and continue research programs, supplement budgetary weak spots, enhance campus infrastructure, upgrade the physical plant, and attract and retain prospective faculty. However, the fund-raising efforts of both private and public HBCUs linger behind the established fund-raising programs at traditionally White institutions. Howard University, a private university located in Washington, D.C., has the largest HBCU endowment, approximately $323.70 million (U.S. Department of Education, 2003), but that pales in comparison to the endowments of Harvard University, Stanford University, and Cornell University (Council for Aid to Education, 2005). Over two decades, individual contributions to HBCUs have increased. Some of the notable gifts to Black colleges include Bill and Camille Cosby’s $20 million donation to Spelman College and Oprah Winfrey’s $2 million gifts to Morehouse College and gift of several endowed chairs to her alma mater, Tennessee State University (Williams & Ashley, 2004). In 2003, magazine publisher John H. Johnson donated $4 million to Howard University’s School of Communications, which was renamed in his honor (“Publisher gives $4 Million to Howard,” 2003). Although many celebrity donations have been made to HBCUs in the past decades and several HBCUs have inaugurated multimillion dollar capital campaigns, alumni giving at most HBCUs – public and private – has been eclipsed by donations from corporations and foundations. Annual donations from alumni average five to 10% when the average is approximately 25% for private colleges and 60% for elite colleges (Gasman, 2002; Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins, 2003). 2. Mixed motive model of fund raising Based on Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) four models of public relations, Kelly (1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1998) identified four models of fund raising. The four identified models of public relations are derived from the directional flow of communication between publics (a one-way or two-way communication flow) and from the intended balance of communication and its effects (asymmetrical and symmetrical). According to Kelly (1995b), the press agentry/publicity model of fund raising was the model most frequently practiced by charitable organizations and within all gift programs, and the two-way symmetrical model was the least frequently enacted model. However, the emphasis of fund raising is shifting to the symmetrical concepts of relationship building, proper stewardship, and two-way communication. Based on game theory, the mixed motive model of public relations and fund raising is a blend of symmetrical and asymmetrical perspectives that is used to gain understanding, accuracy, and cooperation. Equilibrium must be established between the two parties. The needs of the organization must be balanced against the interests of the publics. Murphy (1991) wrote, “The mixed-motive model of public relations preserves the central importance of one’s own interests, yet acknowledges the power of opposing viewpoints” (p. 127). Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002) subsumed the mixed motive model underneath the two-way symmetrical model of public relations, believing it to be “a way of reconciling the organization’s and public’s interest” (p. 309). However, this reconciliation has not been tested for fund raising. The mixed motive model, however, is applicable to fund raising and its practitioners. Practitioners can incorporate asymmetrical and symmetrical behaviors to achieve short-term results and long-term goals and allow practitioners to adjust the usage of communication styles to suit the internal and external environments. In Alessandrini’s (1998) study of public university fund-raisers, the practitioners reported using all models and perceived themselves as practicing the two-way symmetrical model, but the public universities were less likely to practice the two-way symmetrical model. According to Alessandrini, “A mixed-motive approach may allow fundraisers [sic] to aspire to tenets of a normative two-way symmetrical model of fund raising while operating along a continuum in the short term” (p. 62). 3. Method This is an exploratory study for purposes of examining the feasibility of Kelly’s (1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1998) fundraising models at public HBCUs. Based on the assumptions and suggested from the arguments offered by Kelly and Alessandrini (1998), the research questions posed for this project were the following: Which models of fund raising do HBCUs typically employ? Do historically Black public colleges and universities practice two-way symmetrical fund raising?
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
203
To test the research questions, each participant received a 16-item questionnaire. These self-administered questionnaires asked the respondents about the general practices of their development office. Respondents completed the questionnaires and returned them to the researcher in a 1-month period. Follow-up phone calls were used to retrieve demographic information and information about the size and scope of the institutional advancement/fund-raising function. Also, to gather reported financial statistics such as state appropriations and institutional allocations, the researcher used the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and Grapevine databases. 3.1. Participants The participants for this study were the top fund-raising administrators at public HBCUs located in the 21 states and one U.S. territory. The researcher sent e-mail messages to the top institutional advancement officers listed in the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) membership directory. Since the CASE directory did not have complete contact information for all colleges and universities, the researcher obtained the fund-raising officers’ telephone numbers and e-mail addresses through their university Web sites. Out of 39 eligible schools, 30 schools responded to the questionnaire, making the response rate for the questionnaire 76.92%. 3.2. Survey instrument The survey instrument was adapted from Kelly (1995b). To measure each of the four models, Kelly designed statements that explained how nonprofit organizations practice donor relations. The 16 items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicated “strongly disagree” and 7 indicated “strongly agree.” To construct the questions on the organization of the advancement function, the researcher used studies and surveys reviewed by Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) to gather specific advancement information. Basic demographic questions on education and experience were created based on Carbone’s (1987) research that defined the “modal fund-raising professional” (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p. 32). 4. Data analysis Correlations reported in the research were generated from an SPSS database. Additive scales were formed from the 16 items measuring the fund-raising models, and mean scores were calculated for the indices and for individual questionnaire items. To demonstrate the extent to which each item of an index measured the same concept, Cronbach’s alphas were computed. Factor analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the models. Spearman’s rho were conducted on the fund-raising models; Kendall’s tau-b correlations were conducted on the practitioner characteristics and the models, and cross-tabulations with the chi-square test and Pearson’s r correlations were conducted on the financial data and the fund-raising organizational context data. 5. Results 5.1. Demographics Of the development officers who participated in the research (N = 30), 14 were fund-raisers at public historically Black colleges with the land grant designation, and 16 were from non-land grant universities. The median founding date for the institutions in the study was 1888. The majority of respondents (66.7%) were male (N = 30). The most common functions of the advancement office at public HBCUs were the annual fund, capital campaign, and major gifts programs. At the time of the study, most of the public HBCU advancement offices were started less than 5 years ago (n = 24). The mean number of employees in the advancement function was 13, with a minimum of two employees and a maximum of 42. Of those employees, the mean number of them reporting directly to the top advancement officers was 7.5. Twenty-six executives reported having a centralized office (n = 28), but six institutions reported that individual colleges or departments had their own fund-raising function (n = 28).
204
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
5.2. Knowledge and use of fund-raising models Use of the publicity model was highest (M = 5.21, N = 30). Following closely behind was the two-way symmetrical model (M = 5.11, n = 28). The mixed motive model had a mean of 4.68 (n = 29), and the public information model had a mean of 4.60. The two-way asymmetrical model finished last (M = 4.46, n = 28). The reliability of the measures for the two-way symmetrical (␣ = .65), two-way asymmetrical (␣ = .37), press agentry (␣ = .45), and public information models (␣ = .39) was low. Only the mixed motive model (␣ = .87) provided a strong indicator that the measures constructing the model had the same underlying concept. 5.3. Validity of the models To test the validity of the models and to replicate the data analysis performed by Alessandrini (1998), correlations were computed between the indices of the four models. The two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models had moderate correlations with each other (.417, p < .05), but the mixed motive model was highly correlated with the two-way asymmetrical model (.504, p < .01) and moderately correlated with the two-way symmetrical model (.875, p < .01). The models were not affected by institutional variables such as institutional support, state appropriations, and age of advancement office. However, three practitioner characteristics had a significant correlation with one or more of the models. Gender, age, and level of education did affect the practice of the fund-raising models at the HBCUs in this study. The next step in the data analysis was to identify any relationships between the variables listed above. Through the Pearson’s r correlations, significant relationships demonstrated the influence of funding to the programs of and resources available to the advancement office. Strong and positive correlations were found between state appropriations for both academic years and several factors—total number of employees (r = .409, p < .05; r = .409, p < .05), institutional support (r = .494, p < .01; r = .417, p < .05), number of advancement employees who reported directly to the top fund-raising administrator (r = .526, p < .01; r = .459, p < .05), ending value of endowments (r = .650, p < .01; r = .576, p < .01), and employees who directly reported to the top fund-raising administrator (r = .526, p < .01; r = .459, p < 05). The age of the institution had a significant relationship with the number of employees who reported to the top fund-raising officer (r = −.534) and the ending value of the institutional endowment (r = −.417, p < .05). 6. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the fund-raising models within public HBCUs and to contribute to the theoretical body of knowledge in fund raising that has neglected those institutions. The findings of the study suggest that the press agentry/publicity model, not the two-way symmetrical model, is widely practiced. Whether a practitioner is male or female may affect the practice of the two-way symmetrical model, with practitioners relying on the concepts of symmetry and collaboration to achieve institutional goals. There are several interesting and significant inverse, or negative, relationships; although relatively small, these inverse relationships are logical. The age and level of education attained by the practitioner may discriminate against three of the five models. The greater the educational level reached by the practitioners, the less likely practitioners will practice the press agentry/publicity model. Institutional advancement officers with advanced education rely on a combination of techniques to achieve organizational goals and may spend less time on the crafts of publicity. The age of the practitioner may influence the practice of the mixed motive and two-way symmetrical models. Younger practitioners may rely on a combination of techniques, especially the two-way symmetrical, to induce giving, while older practitioners may rely on the one-way models that fit the institution’s traditions and norms. The prevalence of the publicity model may exist because the “small shop” operation, whether it is the top fundraising officer alone maintaining the office or the officer with a few colleagues, is predominant at public HBCUs. In this study, the mean number of employees for an advancement office was 7.5. The participants did not break out which employees were fund-raising staff working specifically on alumni relations or corporate relations and which employees were clerical. Instead, many gave a lump number of employees that could include administrative assistants, secretaries, and clerks. The smaller shop operation may not have the time, financial resources, or people to implement the two-way symmetrical model.
N.T.J. Tindall / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 201–205
205
Also, fund-raisers may utilize this publicity model because of a desire to put the university in a positive light. Whether it is the thought that Black colleges should be assimilated or mainstreamed, that they suffer from an intellectual crisis, or that they suffer from mismanagement, HBCUs have suffered through severe criticism since their inception. Those criticisms weigh heavily, whether they are true or not; therefore, concern about the portrayal of the institution in the media is high. To control its image, an HBCU may embrace the one-way press agentry model to gain favorable publicity, keep the media at arms’ length, and give donors a positive image than portrayed in the media. The institutional allocations to advancement may not be sufficient for the introduction of two-way communication methods. The environmental scanning and research methods encouraged by Dozier, Grunig, and Grunig (1995) included surveys, depth interviews, formal research studies, communication audits, event evaluations, and subscriptions to public opinion agencies. That list could continue to grow if subscriptions to demographic databases and sophisticated donor management software were included. These activities require implementation by advancement offices that already are tautly stretched to invest in new programming. Those new research programs may take time and money away from the hiring of employees, training and memberships, and other activities. This research on the fund-raising efforts and operations of HBCUs contributes to the growing body of knowledge on HBCUs; however, it takes on an alternate route with its examination of the fund-raising efforts through a public relations frame. Within the public relations field, this research has replicated successfully the models conceptualized by Kelly (1991), thus, helping to build a research tradition within the fund-raising area. This research also tested the mixed motive model of fund raising and showed that practitioners embrace symmetrical and asymmetrical tactics. Further qualitative and quantitative research must be done to understand the experience of fund-raisers and whether the theoretical underpinnings of fund raising fully capture the dimensions and complexities of fund-raisers’ work. References Alessandrini, J. G. (1998). Analysis of fund-raising models at Florida’s public universities. Unpublished masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. Brittingham, B. E., & Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fund raising in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University. Carbone, R. F. (1987). Fund raisers of academe. College Park, MD: Clearinghouse for Research on Fund Raising. Council for Aid to Education. (2005). The voluntary support of education 2005. New York: Council for Aid to Education. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gasman, M. (2002). An untapped resource: Bringing African Americans into the college and university giving process. The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement, 2, 280–292. Gasman, M., & Anderson-Thompkins, S. (2003). Fundraising from Black-college alumni: Successful strategies for supporting alma mater. New York: Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1995a). The fund-raising behavior of U.S. charitable organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 111–137. Kelly, K. S. (1995b). Utilizing public relations theory to conceptualize and test models of fund raising. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 106–127. Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund raising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 115–133. Publisher gives $4 Million to Howard; Communications school to get new name. (2003, February 27). Black Issues in Higher Education, 20(1), p. 16. Robinson, Y. A. (1997). The federal commitment to historically black colleges and universities: The dollars and sense of Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). U.S. Department of Education FY 2003 performance and accountability report. Washington, D.C.: Author. Williams, J., & Ashley, D. (2004). I’ll find a way or make one: A tribute to historically Black colleges and universities. New York: Harper Collins. Yates, E. L. (2001, July 5). Capital campaigns. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(10). Retrieved August 31, 2006, from EBSCO database.