The purpose of this study was to identify factors accounting for variations in levels of private giving to United States higher education. A second objective was to quantify the effect of each variable on voluntary contributions. Two separate analyses were performed. A cross-sectional study was designed to determine why amounts given vary among institutions for the year 1977-78. Four models were created: an overall contributions and per alumnus contributions model, an economic resource model and an eclectic model. All were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression. The dependent variable used was private giving and the independent variables examined were related to the institution itself or the state environment. In the analysis Liberal Arts I institutions were separated from Research Universities I and tests were performed that divided the sample into public/private institutions, wealthy/poor regions, and sunbelt/snowbelt regions. Second, a time-series analysis of total giving to higher education institutions was performed encompassing the years 1932 to 1974. Again, ordinary least squares regression was used. The dependent variable was total giving (TG) to higher education and the primary independent variables were largely economic factors. In the time-series analysis, three models were probed: gross receipts, net receipts, and a national income model. The cross-sectional analysis found that RUI and LAI institutions share one major variable that is strongly associated with contributions to them: quality. Other factors were found to vary among regions and between nonalumni and alumni giving. It was found also that private giving is best explained through alumni. The time-series analyses had very high explanatory power. Division of the gross receipts model revealed a decided difference between individual and business giving with business responding to classical economic fashion and individuals contributing in apparent disregard of economic motives. It would appear that different characteristics should be stressed when dealing with the different donors to institutions of higher education. Alumni and nonalumni should be solicited in disparate manners and businesses and individuals should be pursued for gifts at different times with different strategies, according to economic indicators and the demonstrated needs of the college.

Not available / text

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which public universities are providing subsidies to tax-exempt, non-profit, legally distinct corporations which serve as university-affiliated foundations. Specifically, this investigation sought to determine (a) the percentage of universities providing subsidies, (b) the types of subsidies provided, (c) the dollar value of subsidies provided by the universities, and (d) whether statistically significant differences exist among the categories of the value of the foundations' endowed funds, university size, and the amounts of foundation unrestricted and restricted expenditures with respect to the presence, type, and dollar ranges of subsidies provided by universities to their affiliated foundations. A survey instrument was developed for purposes of gathering data for this study. The accessible population surveyed consisted of all four-year public universities and colleges with an enrollment exceeding 2,500 full-time students which were members of the National Association of College and University Auditors. Of the selected sample size of 125, a total of 83 usable responses were received, resulting in a completion rate of 66 percent. Based on the results of the study, the following information was obtained: (a) 94 percent of the universities provided at least one type of subsidy to their foundations; (b) 73 percent of the universities provided staff and 80 percent of the universities provided office space to their foundation; (c) 50 percent of the universities provided subsidies of $50,000 or more, 33 percent provided $100,000 or more, and 20 percent provided $250,000 or more to their foundation; and (d) foundations that received the lowest subsidies (zero) had the highest means for endowment values, student enrollments, and expenditures. / Graduation date: 1990

The purposes of this study were to determine and describe the roles of persons other than professional development staff in the solicitation of major gifts from private individuals for selected senior colleges and universities as perceived by senior development officers. The activities of four groups of nondevelopment staff, trustees, president/chancellor, private citizens, and nondevelopment staff/faculty, were examined through the four steps of the major gift solicitation process: identification and rating, cultivation, the in person solicitation, and the thank-you process following the gift. The population encompassed all accredited, degree granting four year colleges and universities in the United States which solicit major gifts from private individuals. The sample consisted of the 223 schools which had received one or more gifts of one million dollars or more from private individuals as reported in Giving USA. Philanthronin Digest, or The Chronicle of Higher Education, between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1987. The research instrument was a mailed questionnaire which was sent to the Chief Development Officer of the 223 schools in the sample. Replies were received from 162 institutions, for a response rate of 72.7%. Examination of the results of this study indicated that the services of nondevelopment personnel were used in the major gift solicitation process at the vast majority of schools in the United States, that over half of the major gift dollars solicited were attributable to the efforts of these individuals, and that the president/chancel lor was the most important advocate for an institution's development program followed by the trustees, private citizens, and finally the nondevelopment staff/faculty. Further examination of the data revealed specific determinants which a senior development officer should, for different nondevelopment groups, weigh more or less heavily when deciding which individual(s) will have the greatest likelihood of being influential with major donor prospects.

Past higher education fund-raising studies examining alumni giving across several institutions have had two main limitations. First, the multitude of independent variables used in these studies has made it difficult to determine whether past studies have discovered many different factors that influence levels of alumni gift revenue, or whether they have discovered a few common factors that have been represented by different sets of variables in each study. Second, past studies have failed to adequately describe causal mechanisms through which variables significantly related to gift revenue influence levels of gift revenue. The current study addresses the aforementioned limitations in creating an aggregate model of donor behavior for law school alumni. The study examines alumni giving at 41 ABA-approved law schools. The results indicate that four basic factors account for most (87 percent) of the variance in amounts of alumni annual fund revenue among different law schools. The four factors, listed in order of importance and shown with the variables that load highly on each factor, are the following: Factor l--"Institutional Quality" (variables are average LSAT scores of accepted law students; reputation of law school among professors at other law schools; reputation of law school's graduates among judges and practicing lawyers; average starting salaries of new graduates of the law school; total number of volumes in law library; number of volumes in law library divided by FTE enrollment;). Factor 2--"Institutional Size" (variables are: FTE law school enrollment; number of living law school alumni; number of FTE law faculty; total number of law school advancement staff people). Factor 3--"Relative Advancement Effort" (variables are: number of law school advancement staff people divided by number of living law school alumni; number of law school reunion classes solicited for special gifts each year). Factor 4--"Institutional Age" (variables are: age of law school; age of law school's parent institution). Differences between the factor structures for public and private law schools are examined. The study suggests possible causal mechanisms through which these four factors influence the amount of alumni gift revenue raised by each law school.

Most research studies of women in the college and university advancement profession measure the number of women in advancement positions, report their corresponding salaries and reflect on the differences between male and female employees in the same position. Little research explores how women achieve high ranking advancement positions and very few provide an analysis of the characteristics, influences and careers of successful female advancement professionals. This dissertation describes the life and work of Virginia Carter Smith, founding editor of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education's award winning publication CURRENTS. The career and contributions of Virginia Carter Smith are relevant and helpful to advancement professionals in colleges, universities and K-12 institutions. This study explores Smith's formative years as a child, describes her educational and extra-curricular preparation and identifies individuals who influenced her life and provided direction for her future. It also examines Smith's role in the formation and direction of CASE and CURRENTS. Smith successfully launched CURRENTS in 1975 when few women held senior-level positions in advancement-related fields. With Smith's contributions, CASE became the dominate professional organization for advancement professionals working in educational institutions, and CURRENTS continues to be an exemplary professional development periodical for individuals working in advancement. This study also examines how Smith promoted qualified individuals, particularly women, to senior-level positions in colleges and university advancement offices. Hundreds of women and men in the profession claim that Smith's served as a role model or mentor to them. Smith contributed to the increase of women in advancement offices nationally over the last twenty years. Her high standards for herself and for other development officers helped professionalize the field for everyone.

The objective of this research was to describe the extent to which Gift Annuity Agreements were used by United States higher education institutions in raising private philanthropic support during the period 1988-93.