While the entire weakened economy has had serious implications for higher education and the public investment in the mission of community college, the literature reveals a limited amount of research regarding the types, prevalence, and accountability of more sophisticated fundraising efforts in community colleges. Community colleges are seeking to broaden their revenue generating efforts through private fundraising, alumni development, grant writing, legislative relations, and entrepreneurial partnerships similar to traditional four year higher education institutions. This study focuses on assessing and analyzing Texas public community college fundraising, especially the community colleges with the most limited financial resources and greatest student needs. The study participants included 163 presidents and fundraising professionals from the fifty Texas public community colleges, who were invited to participate in an electronic survey with 20 questions. The research also included ten semi-structured telephone interviews, triangulated with publicly-available background information and data. The research answers four questions: 1) What functions are community colleges employing for fundraising?; 2) To what extent do community colleges coordinate all of their fundraising activities?; 3) What fundraising functions or activities are most effective for community colleges?; and 4) In particular, is there a significant relationship between institutional wealth, enrollment, and/or geographic location and amount of dollars raised by the community college? Findings revealed that while small colleges have the highest institutional wealth, large colleges raise the most dollars. While the types and coordination of fundraising functions, and centralized staffing for these efforts, are limited for most Texas public community college respondents, fundraising effectiveness is most often correlated with enrollment and geographical location, board or administrative leadership, and private and grant development. The most significant finding of the study revealed that smaller size and rural location does not directly translate into lower institutional wealth, as measured by amount of dollars raised. Furthermore higher institutional wealth does not guarantee more dollars raised. The implications translate to a greater need for research on community college fundraising and accountability, assessment on equity issues, public investment in community colleges. / text

This study compares the perceptions of presidents and academic and fiscal vice presidents of Texas public senior colleges and universities and with those of (appointed) members of the Texas Coordinating Board. A survey instrument was developed, based upon appropriate coordinating board functions discussed in the literature review, A five-point scale was used to measure intensity or agreement or disagreement. Responses were subjected to one way analysis of variance to determine differences between administrators and board members. Differences significant at the .05 level are reported. Administrators and board members differed significantly on all statements related to centralized control versus internal autonomy. Board members endorsed a greater variety of roles and a higher level of activity for the board than did administrators, although members were not expansionistic. Administrators indicated diverse opinions regarding the board's role. Responses related to formula funding were similar. Board members believed that requests to the legislature for higher education funding needs should be presented in terms of a statewide system; administrators indicated uncertainty. Both agreed on the increasing importance of long-range planning in formula development, but administrators were unsure whether such planning would help provide stability and realistic expectations in funding. Both groups endorsed a greater role for the board in collecting, interpreting, and disseminating information regarding higher education institutions. Neither subgroup offered an opinion regarding subjection of higher education budget requests to the criteria used for other state agencies. Board members and administrators disagreed as to whether private business standards were appropriate for higher education institutions. The relationship between funding recommended by the board and appropriations passed by the legislature was not considered appropriate for evaluating board success. State appropriations for higher education were seen as an investment in the state's economic future. Administrators did not believe college and university faculties understood the board s role in funding; board members were undecided.