Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member...

ENGAGEMENT LEVELS OF

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LEADERS

IN ENTREPRENEURIALISM THROUGH FUNDRAISING

A Dissertation

by

Monica Georgette Williams

Submitted to the Graduate SchoolPrairie 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 being

increasingly called upon to develop an entrepreneurial spirit that

encourages fundraising from the private sector. Fundraising at HBCUs

is no longer the sole responsibility of development officers. The

overwhelming truth is that donors want relationships with a variety of

institutional leaders and the direct beneficiaries of their gifts. So often,

donors need to feel connected to a cause and the gift benefactor. This

connection presupposes direct involvement by university leaders in the

cultivation activities for donors. Unfortunately, many HBCU leaders fail

to engage in the donor cultivation and stewardship process that

creates a continuum of giving by philanthropists. This researcher

believes that the lack 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 entrepreneurial

university and its leader, the researcher applied Clark’s (1998)

theoretical framework. Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial

activities encompass third-stream income sources that generate

innovative, non-traditional revenues and stimulate engagement in

activities that produce and enhance traditional income streams.

To address this problem, the researcher conducted a study that

questioned 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 leaders

valued and carried out entrepreneurial activities, the factors

associated with the best practices in fundraising, the degree to which

the institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial

activities in both the president’s and advancement offices. Finally, the

researcher explored the institutional leaders’ perception of their

entrepreneurial abilities.

This study utilized results from a questionnaire surveying

presidents and fund development officers employed at five of the

Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 member schools to examine how

entrepreneurial orientation among public HBCU presidents impacts

revenue 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 my

educational journey. I thank you for saving me from myself. I dedicate

my career and this manuscript to you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My ever-evolving relationship with God has made this journey

possible. To Him, I am eternally grateful. The new mercies He grants

me each day have guided this project. It is only appropriate that I give

all glory and honor to Him for giving me the wisdom and intelligence to

produce this body of literature.

Brittaney Cooks, you are my greatest inspiration. Knowing how

proud you are of me has motivated me in more ways than you know. I

am proud to have you as my daughter, and I look forward to the day

when you, too, embrace all the rewards higher education has in store

for you.

No matter what, Theodore Bruce Lawrence, I believe you are my

friend and my gift from God. I am thankful that I have you to challenge

the ethical dimensions of my life. Your firm demeanor and interest in

my constant growth and development is what I value most. I only

hope I can live up to your belief that I will follow in the footsteps of the

great Mary McLeod Bethune. Thank you, Daryl Michelle, for sharing

your daddy with me and Brittaney.

Georgiana A. Thomas, “Mama”, when God made you my

grandmother, He gave me the greatest gift one could ever imagine.

You are my favorite girl! Your love and support keeps me going.

I could not have asked for better parental support than I received

from my parents, June and Jerry Dillingham. During the times that I

thought I couldn’t keep going and wanted to give up, you showed up

just in time to help me sort things out.

Having you as my younger siblings, Jordan Williams and Cher

Riles, has helped me realize the importance of setting a good example.

You and your spouses, Tavonye and Kevin, have encouraged me

constantly as I have sought to achieve this milestone. I hope that your

children, Joshua, Madison, and Joel will one day take advantage of all

the opportunities that education has to offer.

To my aunt, Fleur Lyman, I sincerely appreciate your wisdom and

objectivity. I love you and Russell and only wish Gerrard was here to

celebrate 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 for

myself. I am overwhelmed by our 30 years of amity and blessed that

you unselfishly shared Aunt Barbara (Thompson) with me. Having the

Moor’s (Jules, Jillyan and Jules) as my second family has been inspiring.

From childhood until now, I have always been able to depend on

you, Chandra Robertson-Bailey. You and Aunt Charlene (Rubit) have

consistently been in my corner.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my gratitude for the

hospitality extended to me by Nelson and Michelle Bowman over the

last few years. Your constant encouragement has meant more to me

than you’ll ever know. Thanks for always keeping the light on!

Patsy and Willie Drewrey, I can always depend on you to give it

to me straight! You are great friends. xoxoxoxo

Thank you to my “Sissy”, Sherilynn Scott, for always being there

when I need you.

God didn’t make us blood-sisters, but Shanda Patterson, you are

my sistah. I cannot tell you the many times you have lifted me up

when all I wanted to do was fall flat on my face. Two words come to

mind when I think of you—guardian angel!

Jessica Bell and Dominique Sanders, I am so thankful for the

camaraderie we have reciprocated over the years.

All of my friends at the Sportsman Country Club, you have

encouraged me when I needed it the most. Love you Kim and Sherry!

Charlene Evans and James Ward, you have been the mentors

who have guided me personally and professionally. I appreciate your

insight and guidance throughout the years.

Willie Trotty and George Wright, I am grateful for the confidence

you placed in me to lead the best development office among all

HBCUs. The opportunity you granted me stimulated my interest in

conducting the research for this body of knowledge.

Larry V. Green, Esq., I appreciate your confidence in me. Your

friendship means the world!

Extend the View Cabinet Members June & Marvin Brailsford, Opal

Johnson Smith, Nathelyne A. Kennedy, and Roy G. Perry, you made this

work important by giving me the confidence that HBCU alumni do

value their institutions. Thanks for your wisdom, Patty Lonsbary!

Nina Wilson Jones, you have been my spiritual sister and teacher

of many things. Because of your constant pouring into me, I believe

that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Pastors Mia & Remus Wright, your spiritual guidance has been

my source of strength many times during this process. Even though

you lead an enormous flock, you have always made me feel like I was

the only member at The Fountain of Praise. Your continued words of

encouragement and prayers will never be forgotten.

Naomi Lede, it all started with you. You gave me my name

which I later came to learn means “wise counselor”. Somehow, you

always knew I 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 committee

members for pushing me to make this study worthwhile. To Dr.

William A. Kritsonis, you are a God-send; Dr. David Herrington, I hope

you are pleased; Dr. Michael McFrazier, I never would have made it

without your encouragement; and Dr. Ronald Howard, I appreciate

getting to know you. Dr. Lisa Hobson-Horton, I appreciate you serving

on my committee and for providing professional assistance. Dr. Tyrone

Tanner, you didn’t serve on my committee, but you were always there

when I needed you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iii

DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... vi

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................ vii i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. x i

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. x iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... x iv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1

Background of the Problem..........................................................1

Statement of the Problem.............................................................2

Purpose of the Study....................................................................4

Research Questions......................................................................4

Theoretical Framework.................................................................5

Assumptions.................................................................................6

Delimitations of the Study............................................................7

Limitations of the Study................................................................7

Definition of Terms.......................................................................8

Significance of the Study..............................................................9

Summary....................................................................................10

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................... 1 2

Overview ..................................................................................... 1 2

History of Educational Fundraising ............................................. 13

History of African-American Philanthropy ................................... 18

Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education ..................................... 21

CHAPTER 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 .............................................................. 45

CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA ....................................................................47

Introduction ................................................................................ 47

Research Questions .................................................................... 47

Research Question 1 ................................................................... 48





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 .................................................................... 83

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND ....

RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………..85

Summary .................................................................................... 85

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 88

APPENDICES ......................................................................................... 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 ............ 148

CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................ 155

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 – Title III: Aid for Institutional Development .......................23

Figure 4.1 – Participant Entrepreneurial Characteristics ............................61

Figure 4.2 – The Fundraising Cycle ...................................................................... 78

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 – Research Questions Paired with Interview Questions ........43

Table 4.1 – Respondent Identification ................................................................53

Table 4.2 – Respondent Identification Numbers . . …..……………………….. 62

Table 4.3 – Differences Between University Leaders and Business Executives............................................................................................63

Table 4.4 – Responsible Parties for Fundraising .................................. 70

Table 4.5 – Current Fundraising Strategies .......................................... 75

Table 4.6 – Future Fundraising Strategies ........................................... 76

Table 4.7 – Impact of Fund Development …………………………………….82

Table 4.8 – Funds Raised in Three Year Period .................................... 83

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

College and university presidents are consistently challenged

with developing new resources to support unfunded priorities at their

institutions. Faced with competing against historic non-profit agencies

and entities, these educational chief executive officers have the

challenge of taking a more entrepreneurial approach toward the

financing of their schools. A review of the literature suggests that

entrepreneurial leadership will help these leaders demonstrate more

innovative and expansive efforts.

Research indicates that corporate, foundation, and private

philanthropy at majority institutions substantially surpasses gifting

trends at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Disparities in philanthropy between these two institutional types can

be seen as high as 50%. Consequently, the need for external funds

has put tremendous pressure on HBCU presidents so much so that

25% of these presidents left their jobs during the period 2000-2002

(New York Amsterdam News, 2002). The curtailments of federal funds,

changing demographics, and the entrance of private corporations into

the business of higher education have significantly affected the

financial state of higher education institutions (Riggs, 2005). “As

government support of HBCUs decreases, and as the economy

worsens, competition for funding sources increases” (Reaves, 2006).

For this reason, a study addressing the engagement of HBCU

presidents in entrepreneurialism through fundraising was deemed

necessary.

Increasing fundraising initiatives at HBCUs means placing more

emphasis on cultivating alumni and educating them about the

importance of philanthropy. Without private support, these minority

flagship institutions are likely to fail, and it is the president’s job to

educate and engage the donor community. Engaging donors with the

capacity to make a significant financial or in-kind contribution would

ultimately translate into healthier endowments and impact the quality

of education provided at HBCUs.

Statement of the Problem

Tindall (2007) states that “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” (p. 1). Tindall (2007)

also notes that the fund-raising efforts of both private and public

HBCUs linger significantly behind the established fundraising programs

at traditionally White institutions.

Predominantly White institutions have alumni giving rates that

range between 20-60 percent, whereas, Black college alumni giving

rates typically fall below ten percent (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-

Thompkins, 2003; Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). “At a time when

endowments are decreasing due to economic forces and public support

of institutions of higher education” is at an all-time low, “it is a matter

of survival 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

with this fact in mind that seeking private philanthropy has not been a

popular practice among public HBCUs. Contrarily, Cohen (2006)

argues that “Although HBCUs alumni giving have been under attack for

being negligent, African Americans on the contrary have maintained a

rich and diverse tradition of giving and philanthropic support in the

United States” (p. 31).

There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few scholars have

devoted time and effort to understanding the complexities and

challenges associated with fundraising at these institutions. By and

large, schools are supported either by the United Negro College Fund

(39 private HBCU members) or the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (47

member public schools 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 new generation of leaders throughout the HBCU

community and the world. Development professionals at these

specialized institutions face a growing dilemma – how to strengthen

university resources in a climate that has historically relied almost

wholly on public funding (Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). Public HBCUs

will eventually be forced to identify private resources to survive and

thrive. The higher education landscape is changing rapidly, and both

private and public institutions are searching for new revenues –

requiring more entrepreneurial ways (Bowen & Shapiro, 1998).

Purpose of the Study

Historically Black College and University leaders are increasingly

being called upon to develop an entrepreneurial spirit that encourages

fundraising from the private sector. The purpose of this study was

two-fold: 1) to determine the entrepreneurial orientation of public

HBCU administrators (Corrigan 2002) and 2) to determine how those

orientations are perceived to be related to the revenue-generating

activities of their institutions and the institutions’ financial stability

(Tierney 1988).

Research Questions

The 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

for defining and understanding the entrepreneurial university.

According to Clark (1998), entrepreneurial activities comprise third-

stream income sources that include 1) innovative and profit-based,

self-supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources, such as

business development activities and innovative retail sales operations,

2) activities that develop and enhance traditional income streams such

as endowment and tuition, and 3) activities that involve both

traditional and nontraditional aspects, such as distance learning, which

uses nontraditional methods of teaching to gain tuition, a traditional

source of income.

For this study, the researcher employed Clark’s (1998) theory to

study the relationships between HBCU fundraising administrators at

institutions within the Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 member

schools. While there are 47 member schools and six law schools in this

cohort, 17 institutions and all law schools were not included in this

study for reasons explained in Chapter III. Specifically, this

investigation will serve a two-fold purpose: 1) the identification of

innovative and profit-based self-supporting operations that go beyond

traditional sources; and 2) activities that develop and enhance

traditional income streams at the selected institutions. The third

component of Clark’s (1998) study addressing both traditional and

nontraditional activity aspects 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 Study

1. 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 Study

1. 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 Terms

Chief Development Officer – the person responsible for the

advancement efforts within a defined area; the lead person in

fundraising (Patton, 1993).

Entrepreneur – an organizational leader who tirelessly and actively

transcends good leadership and management practices and personally

identifies opportunities, develops a creative and innovative vision,

welcomes competition, and persuades others to contribute and

participate; 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 activity

engagement (Riggs, p. 10).

Fundraising – The solicitation of gifts from private sources, specifically

individuals, corporations and foundations (Terrell & Gold, 1993).

Financial Stability – a broad description of a steady state in which the

financial system efficiently performs its key economic functions

(Schinasi, 2004).

Historically Black College(s) and University(ies) – public and private

educational institutions founded for the purpose of educating Black

Americans. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an

HBCU as "...any historically Black college or university that was

established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the

education of Black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally

recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the

Secretary [of Education)…" (White House Initiative on Historically Black

Colleges and Universities, 2007).

Institutional Advancement – Activities and programs undertaken to

develop understanding and support from constituencies to help

achieve its goals in securing resources such as students, faculty, and

dollars (Rowland, 1986).

Non-traditional Revenue – philanthropically generated dollars or new

revenue 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, this

study contributes to the existing body of literature, as well as, probes

significant issues surrounding entrepreneurial orientation and revenue

generation at these specialized institutions. Results of this study will

be of assistance to HBCU presidents and other administrators as they

employ a rational approach to developing and implementing a

comprehensive fundraising program. Actually executing fund

development in a strategic, entrepreneurial way will be critical to the

survival of these institutions.

Summary

Changing economic conditions at the state level have reduced

the amount of governmental support available to public institutions of

higher education. These shrinking revenues have added a new

responsibility to chief executive officers and administrators at

institutions of higher education. Accordingly, embracing an

appreciation for cultivating relationships with donors is a necessary

step for university presidents at public institutions. This is a different

and oftentimes unwelcome responsibility among HBCU institutional

leaders (Birnbaum, 1992).

The fact of the matter is simply that HBCUs have to step up to

the plate in order to compete with majority institutions. The

competition is fierce for student enrollment, student recruitment,

public funding, and now private funds. A major source of fundraising

difficulties arises from the small size of HBCUs and from their less-

affluent alumni bases (New York Amsterdam News, 2002).

“If historically Black colleges are to survive, they must learn how

to plan effectively within the institutional context to achieve their

desired fund-raising results” (Barrett, p. 7). Each administrator’s

leadership strategy and how they focus on advancement activities and

tactics makes a difference in the amount of private money the

institution raises. It is obvious from this study that institutions must

implement some method of strategic planning to develop

advancement activities and strategies. Employing a rational approach

to developing and implementing a comprehensive fundraising

campaign is key. Identifying institutional needs, developing plans for

achieving those needs, beginning to implement those plans, and

actually executing the campaigns will be critical to the survival of

these institutions.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

This chapter presents research on the engagement levels of

Historically Black College and University (HBCU) presidents and chief

development officers in fundraising and the connection between

increasing educational resource development through entrepreneurial

ideology. Entrepreneurial ideology suggests that there is a more

complex, integrated way of thinking that makes business people more

successful. Dunkelberg and Cooper (1988) describe entrepreneurs as

having orientations that influence growth and independence.

Accordingly, HBCU leaders that possess entrepreneurial characteristics

could be more successful in their fundraising efforts if they exercise

entrepreneurial ideology.

This literature review begins with a brief historical overview of

fundraising and philanthropy which helps to understand the

importance of fundraising in education. Next, the researcher presents

literature on the history of African-American philanthropy in order to

capture beliefs and assumptions around fundraising for African-

Americans. Finally, the section on entrepreneurialism in higher

education provides a collaboration of thoughts surrounding the need

for university administrators to capture the spirit of entrepreneurialism

in order to be successful in their fundraising efforts.

History of Educational Fundraising

The concept of private philanthropy and fundraising can be seen

throughout history for thousands of years. For centuries, Americans

have relied on fundraising to support religious infrastructure, politics,

economic relief for families, and even wars. Humanitarian efforts

promoting the spirit of giving can be witnessed prior to colonial days

when families shared their good harvests with less fortunate families

(Schoenecke, 2005, p. 17).

“From their earliest days, universities, colleges, and schools have

depended on fundraising and the generosity of benefactors, clients,

and public bodies who shared their dreams and supported their

purposes” (Rhodes, 1997, p. xvii). Harvard College, the oldest higher

education institution in the United States, was founded in 1634 as a

result of philanthropic support provided by Reverend John Harvard

(Worth, 1993). By 1745, the only colleges in the colonies were

Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale. Most college presidents in the

colonial era would solicit funding in order to assure institutional

survival.

More than 100 years later, in 1862, the first federal land grant

act was 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 and 1890 granted federally controlled land to the states for the

purpose of building 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

studies Browning & 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

wealthy businessmen to gain institutional support. Because of their

generous philanthropy, many institutions were renamed in honor of

these benefactors.

The establishment of land grant institutions paved the way for

the creation of some specialized public institutions, namely HBCUs. A

key component of the land grant system is the agricultural experiment

station program created by the Hatch Act of 1887. The Hatch Act

authorized direct payment of federal grant funds to each state to

establish an agricultural experiment station in connection with the land

grant institution (Browning & Williams, 1978). The amount of this

appropriation varies from year to year and is determined for each state

through a formula based on the number of small farmers. A major

portion of the federal funds must be matched by the state. HBCUs

created 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 State

University, Southern University and A & M College, University of

Maryland Eastern Shore, Alcorn State University, Lincoln University,

North Carolina A & T University, Langston University, South Carolina

State University, Tennessee State University, Prairie View A & M

University, University of the Virgin Islands, Virginia State University,

and West Virginia State University.

Nearly ten years before land grant institutions were established,

former slave owner, George Campbell, and former slave and

community leader, Lewis Adams, founded the Negro Normal School in

Tuskegee. Adams negotiated the establishment of what is now known

as Tuskegee University in exchange for Adams’ influence on the Black

vote (History of Tuskegee, 2008). Dr. Booker T. Washington was

selected as the school’s first teacher and was installed as principal of

the school in 1881. Tuskegee recognizes Dr. Washington as a highly

skilled organizer and fundraiser who was counsel to American

presidents, a strong advocate of African-American entrepreneurs, and

instrumental in the founding of Southern educational institutions

(History of Tuskegee, 2008). Dedicated in 1922, the Booker T.

Washington Monument, “Lifting the Veil”, 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 to progress through education

and industry” (History of Tuskegee, 2008).

“Booker T. Washington stressed that the Negro would best

benefit from agricultural training because this is how a living would be

made” (Scott, 2000, p. 32). According to Scott (2000), being

mechanically inclined, knowledgeable of commerce, familiar with

domestic services, and professionally educated would help to advance

the Negro. Prairie View A & M University in Prairie View, Texas, is an

example of Dr. Washington’s vision for an industrial educational

system. Established in 1876 as the Alta Vista Agricultural and

Mechanical College of Texas for Colored Youth, Prairie View A & M can

be remembered for its role in the preparation and training of teachers,

farming programs, food preparation and preservation, and improving

health. Today, Prairie View A & M University continues to be

recognized as an HBCU leader in the arts and sciences, home

economics, agriculture, mechanical arts, and nursing.

In 1896, the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson ruled

that separate public institutions could be established for Blacks and

Whites. Hence, other HBCUs were established by four major mission

societies. The American Missionary Association was a federal

government organization. The remaining three – the Freedmen’s Aid

Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Home

Mission 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, it

has been argued that Black colleges supported by Whites were

generally regarded 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

missionary philanthropists financed and managed HBCUs with the

highest enrollment. In 1902, John D. Rockefeller’s General Education

Board contributed significantly to higher education for Blacks (Curti &

Nash, 1965). Gifts from this fund totaling nearly $130 million were

granted without respect to sex, creed, or race.

The Supreme Court reversed its Plessy v. Ferguson decision in

1954, ruling under Brown v. Board of Education that separate

institutions denied Blacks an equal education. As a result of the 1954

decision, public schools received funding for physical improvements

and financial aid (Browning & Williams, 1978).

Public HBCUs are by and large under-funded compared to

predominantly White institutions as is evidenced by the disparity in

budgetary allocations between the two institutional types. Without

external funding, HBCUs will be good institutions, but they will not

have the quality education that is essential for students to be

successful. “The interminable retrenchment of state and federal

support has forced colleges and universities to become increasingly

reliant on the procurement of funds from private sources in order to

recruit quality students, retain distinguished faculty, and produce value

added research” (Johnsen, 2005, p.1).

Changing economic conditions at the state level have reduced

the amount of governmental support available to public institutions of

higher education. These shrinking revenues have added a new

responsibility to university presidents. Embracing an appreciation for

cultivating relationships with donors is a necessary responsibility for

university administrators at public institutions but is a different and

oftentimes unwelcome responsibility among HBCU institutional leaders

(Birnbaum, 1992, p. 39). As stated by Barrett, (2006), “If historically

Black colleges are to survive, they must learn how to plan effectively

within the institutional 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 of

private philanthropy. Until recently, there was not much emphasis

placed on alumni giving at Black colleges. In fact, “for many graduates

of HBCUs, giving back is not a priority and, in some cases, not a

consideration” (Reaves, 2006, p. 2). Contrarily, the Black Church and

its congregants have offered a source of inspiration for effective

fundraising among Black Americans. The church is characterized as a

powerful historical and contemporary influence regarding African-

Americans and giving, and the Black Church continues to be the

extremely influential in the lives of Black Americans (Reaves, 2006).

“Throughout American history, the Black Church has occupied a

distinctive 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-related

activities, and belong to more church-affiliated activities than many

other Americans. African-Americans look to the church for guidance,

advocacy, and the promotion of social needs. Accordingly, fundraising

professionals at HBCUs could view the most effective fundraising

mechanism for African-Americans as the Black Church. Some

researcher, however, have pointed out that HBCUs have not followed

the model of the Black Church. In a study conducted by Holloman,

Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins (2003), it is revealed that HBCU

leaders did not ask for contributions until the day of graduation,

“however, fundraising literature tells us that colleges and universities

need to educate their students about giving as soon as they arrive on

campus” (p. 156).

Most African-Americans are taught philanthropy as children

through 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 encourage

parishioners to support the work of the church. “It is surprising then,

giving the way Black churches model giving for their youngest

members that Black colleges do not” (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-

Thompkins, 2003, p. 157).

As Carson (2001) points out, “African-Americans understand that

the role of the Black church – especially in the area of fundraising is

legendary” (p. 4). Continuing, he says, “We recognize that the Black

church puts the force of authority and legitimacy behind its appeals to

reach givers in the Black community. The Black Church is a

triumphant example of philanthropy among friends” (Carson, 2001, p.

4).

“As Blacks became better educated and their churches grew in

numbers and strength, their conviction began to be expressed through

the notion that Blacks ought to have schools under their own

management and financial control” (Cohen, 2006, p. 20). The original

purpose of HBCUs was to teach freed slaves to read the Bible or

become preachers or teachers (Kujovich, 1994).

Early philanthropy for Black education has been described as

“the richness and vitality of American life” and as “an illustration of

America’s broken promises, a crafty form of ‘generosity’ designed to

prevent real reform” (Anderson & Moss, 1999, p.1). It is vastly argued

that northern White philanthropists established HBCUs to maintain

social peace and to produce a capable but submissive workforce.

Today, HBCU graduates hold 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

impress upon government officials the need for greater federal

financial support at a time when “cutbacks in federal and state

spending coupled with infrastructure repairs and staunch competition

from mainstream institutions with limited resources have ensured

severe financial constraints on America’s HBCUs” (Nealy, 2008). In

early 2009, funding for HBCUs was cut by $85 million nationally in the

category for Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges Graduate Institutions

remained neutral for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009. Figure 2.1 illustrates

the Obama Administration’s aid for institutional development funding

allocations from 2007-2009 (White House Initiative on Historically

Black Colleges and Universities).

Figure 2.1

Title III: Aid for Institutional Development (B.A. in Millions)

2007 2008

2009Request

Strengthening Institutions (Part A) $79.5 $78.1 $78.1 Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (Part A) 23.6 23.2 — (mandatory) — 30.01 30.01

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (Part A) 11.8 11.6 — (mandatory) — 15.01 15.01

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Part B) 238.1 238.1 153.1 (mandatory) — 85.01 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

— 5.01 5.01

nontribal institutions (mandatory)

Total 419.6 571.5 451.7

1Mandatory 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 recognized

supplement to government funding. Several HBCUs have enjoyed the

fruits of laborious fund development while the vast majority lag

significantly in obtaining philanthropic support. There is an obvious

need for HBCUs to modify their current fundraising practices to include

aggressive solicitation strategies for various constituencies.

Corporations, foundations, alumni and other vehicles for securing

private philanthropic gifts are essential to the survival of public

institutions of higher education.

Across the nation, higher education has experienced a significant

decline in funding, yet enrollment in higher education is at an all-time

high (Schoenecke, 2005). Riggs (2005) posits that “for most American

institutions of higher education, traditional academic ideology held that

the institution had no business in the marketplace” (p. 27).

Traditionally, higher education communities were designed exclusively

to provide teaching, learning, and research. Accordingly, institutions

of higher education did not exercise conventional business models in

order to generate current-use funds. Today, these institutions are

expected to enter the marketplace, survive in the competitive market,

and adapt the practices of their for-profit counterparts.

Until recently, public colleges and universities did not face the

need to compete with private entities because most public funds were

automatically disbursed to public education. In the last two decades,

the public funding landscape has changed drastically, causing public

institutions 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 address

concerns about rising tuition costs, yet they are also being held more

accountable by public funding entities. Due to the decline in state

resources, public institutions are placing stronger emphasis on

fundraising (Riggs, 2005). Sears (1990) defines philanthropy as “an

expression of love for mankind” (p. 10) that includes “all gifts except

those from the State” (p.10).

Riggs (2005) believes that “the rapid changes in economic,

demographic, and political conditions that face American institutions of

higher education indicate that both the institutions and their leaders

must be adaptable and diverse” (p. 3). Changes in the historical roles

and responsibilities of college presidents have presupposed that these

leaders possess entrepreneurial characteristics. “A business-like

orientation focused on efficiency, accountability, and productivity is

reshaping the management of higher education” (Dingfelder, p. 2,

2007).

Clark (1998) suggests that entrepreneurs embody a set of

character traits that are synonymous with leaders. Entrepreneurial

efforts by university administrators translate into institutional

transformation. Attributes used to describe an individual with

entrepreneurial orientation are innovative, creative, team builder,

opportunist, proactive, risk taker, change agent, competitive,

visionary, and persuasive (Riggs, 2005). Other researchers have

described entrepreneurs as individuals who recognize and seize

opportunities when they occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003).

Princeton University’s WordNet (2008) describes innovative as

being ahead of the times. Originative and productive are

characteristics of a creative individual. Team builders create better

employees who are willing to advance the mission of the organization

through the leader’s vision. Being an opportunist means making tough

decisions regardless of sacrifice. In seizing opportunities, individuals

often take a proactive approach. One who controls a situation rather

than responding to the outcome embodies this attribute (WordNet,

2008). Implementing projects without regard to loss is what proactive

risk takers do.

Being entrepreneurial also means embracing change. A change

agent alters or modifies a current situation in hopes of improving it

(WordNet, 2008). By and large, being a change agent requires

competitive nature, vision, and persuasiveness. Employing an

aggressive disposition demonstrates competitiveness. Having a strong

imagination or image of predictability is what helps visionaries

compete. Finally, calling others to action or belief is required. This

persuasive persona also lends credibility to entrepreneurs.

Howard University president, H. Patrick Swygert can be

described as 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 largest amount raised to-date by any HBCU. Masterson

(2008) reports that Howard officials sought to raise $100 million before

Swygert convinced his superiors that the goal was too modest.

H. Patrick Swygert’s entrepreneurial attributes moved Howard

University to an unprecedented level, elevating Howard to its ranking

among the 136 institutions asked by the United States Finance

Committee how they spend their endowments (Masterson, 2008).

Swygert, an alumnus, invested $2 million in the campaign. Howard

University’s endowment now sits at a healthy $532 million, and there

is talk of a $1 billion capital campaign in their future. It is expected

that university officials will publish a report on lessons learned that will

be made available to other HBCUs.

According to the director of the Council for Aid to Education’s

survey on giving as reported by Masterson (2008), HBCUs have “less

mature fund-raising operations that rely more on money from

foundations and corporations than from alumni” (p. 2). In order for

HBCUs to increase their endowments through private philanthropy,

alumni participation is necessary. Swygert recognized the importance

of re-engaging alumni by connecting them to students. His proactive

approach 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 with

respect to fund-raising in public colleges and universities, particularly

public Black institutions” (p. 3). In Scott’s (2000) study on successful

fundraising units at public historically Black colleges and universities,

there are several references to the lack of research conducted related

to fundraising at HBCUs. In retrospect, adding to the current scarce

body of literature regarding HBCU fundraising is much needed and the

primary intent of this study.

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Overview

The framework for conducting this investigation including

sections on research design, population and sample, instrumentation,

research procedures, data collection, and data analysis is referenced in

this chapter. Also addressed in this section are validity and reliability.

This study was designed to examine the entrepreneurial

engagement levels among Historically Black College and University

(HBCU) administrators directing inquiry to 30 of the 47 TMCF member

schools. The TMCF law schools and seventeen member schools were

not included in this study. Persons who currently serve as acting

administrators or those who had not been in their positions more than

twelve months were not included in this study. The rationale for

excluding these individuals was that they were serving on a temporary

basis and/or that they had not served in the current leadership

capacity that would allow them to objectively complete the

questionnaire. The administrators who were eligible to participate in

the study but so declined were represented in the seventeen schools

not included in the study.

Relationship-building is the premise for successful fundraising, so

administrators who had not had the opportunity to cultivate

relationships with donors due to their temporary assignment or

minimal time in office were not included. One interim administrator

was included in the study because at the time she completed the

questionnaire, she was serving in a permanent role.

Strengthening university resources from the private sector in an

environment that has traditionally relied on local and state funding is

mandatory for HBCU survival. Bowen and Shapiro (1998) suggest that

if public HBCUs do not become aggressive about their fundraising

practices and engage in entrepreneurial practices to increase

institutional revenue, they may not survive.

Research Questions

The following qualitative research questions guided the study:






3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors

are associated with best practices in fundraising?



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 connection

between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial

stability of their universities. The qualitative variables used for this

study included:

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-ended

questions. Open-ended questions were used to capture responses of

individuals in their natural settings. This qualitative method of inquiry

helped to build upon theory and seek to gain understanding of the

subject (Winegardner, 2004). According to Lee (1999), there are four

qualities that appear in qualitative studies. The first quality is that

studies are conducted in a natural setting. Next, empirical data is

generated as a result of participation by the researcher. Third, the

research design allows for flexibility based upon the study. Finally,

instruments, observation methods, and modes of analysis are not

standardized allowing for more extensive response set from

participants (Lee, 1999).

Qualitative research is that which refers to a person’s life, lived

experiences, behaviors, emotions, as well as organizational

functioning, social movements, cultural phenomena, and interactions

between nations (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 11). This type of research

can be extremely helpful when exploring research topics about which

little is known. This is especially applicable to the present study of the

entrepreneurial engagement levels of HBCU administrators in

fundraising. 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

to gain knowledge and understanding for university advancement

purposes.

There are generally common practices and standards used by

development professionals to raise money. To ensure that

philanthropy merits the respect and trust of the general public, these

common practices are recognized and outlined by a number of

organizations including the Council for the Advancement and Support

of Education (CASE) and the Association of Fundraising Professionals

(AFP). With more than 3,400 member institutions of higher education,

“CASE helps its members build stronger relationships with their alumni

and donors, raise funds for campus projects, produce recruitment

materials, market their institutions to prospective students, diversify

the profession, and foster public support of education” (Council for the

Advancement and Support of Education, 2009). The Association of

Fundraising Professionals boasts more than 30,000 members in 200

chapters throughout the world by helping their members “advance

philanthropy through advocacy, research, education and certification

programs” (Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2009). According

to AFP (2009), its “association fosters development and growth of

fundraising professionals and promotes high ethical standards in the

fundraising profession”.

Membership to CASE and AFP is strictly voluntary. It is not the

practice of either of these organizations to identify best practices in

fundraising for specific groups. In other words, standards set forth by

these organizations have been endorsed by some organizations and

overlooked by others. HBCUs often do not have the resources to

subscribe to these entities, and therefore, do not have access to the

technical assistance and other benefits these organizations provide.

Population and Sample

A stratified sample based on enrollment size was used to

select a minimum of five schools for participation in this study. For

purposes of this study, schools with 8,000 or more students were

considered Tier 1 institutions; institutions with 5,000 – 7,999 students

were considered Tier 2 schools; schools with 2,000 – 4,999 students

were considered Tier 3 institutions; and Tier 4 schools represent those

with less than 2,000 students.

Instrumentation

The instrument used in this study will be an original survey

questionnaire based on prior research regarding the entrepreneurial

orientation of presidents at majority institutions. Palys (2003) outlines

many advantages to utilizing questionnaires when conducting

research. First, surveys and questionnaires are an excellent way of

gathering data from the respondents in a direct and timely manner.

Another advantage was that the questionnaire was distributed

electronically and copies were made available to participants at a

regularly scheduled TMCF conference, thereby granting direct access

to the conference participants who are HBCU college presidents,

development officers, alumni relations professionals, and students.

Using this research methodology in this manner increases the

response rate especially when respondents are given structured time

within the conference to complete the survey. Palys (2003, p. 151)

further states, “when a group of prospective respondents agrees to

allow a researcher access to the group…response rates may approach

100 percent.”

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 to generate non-traditional revenues (p. 25). For purposes of this

study, non-traditional revenue generation includes (1) the identification

of innovative and profit-based self-supporting operations that go

beyond traditional sources; and 2) activities that develop and enhance

traditional income streams at the selected institutions. The survey

instrument was developed with this understanding in mind.

The instrument used was an open-ended questionnaire designed

to measure the entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU leaders. The

researcher 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 to generate non-traditional revenues (p. 25).

For purposes of this 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 traditional income streams at the selected

institutions. Using Clark’s theory, 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 responded

within 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 of

issues conventionally discussed as validity and reliability” (p. 226).

Triangulation and peer examination were used to increase validity and

reliability. Triangulation occurred through consistent use of multiple

sources of evidence. Examination of the participant responses helped

determine accuracy through triangulated data obtained through the

questionnaires.

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 strengthen

reliability. By using multiple means of data collection, the accuracy of

data is increased. Keeping accurate records helps authenticate the

findings 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

if descriptions are given that allow similar institutions to use the data

at their institution. Being able to ensure validity, reliability, and

generalizations enhances qualitative research.

Confidentiality is a critical component of research if trust is to

develop between participants and the researcher. There can be a

tremendous amount of fear regarding disclosure of vital information if

the participant is unable to trust the researcher to maintain privacy at

all costs. However, if confidentiality is secured, the participant is more

likely to provide key information. Glesne (1992) encourages

researchers to provide participants with complete access to the

research and interview materials at all times which will give subjects

more power over documents and reports that may contain information

related to them. To maintain anonymity, study participants were

referred to using a tiered structure.

Research projects must utilize diligence in creating a research

environment that brings no harm to the subject in any way. In addition

to treating the subject with respect and care, this notion also involved

including the participant in a thorough discussion, prior to the actual

research, regarding all aspects of the study and how these aspects

may impact the participant. All factors were considered in fulfilling this

obligation, including the future possibility of the research being

published.

Research Procedures

The 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 development

officers were contacted by electronic mail. In the electronic

transmission, each president and development officer received a letter

explaining the purpose and significance of the study, an informed

consent statement, and the questionnaire. Once respondents

accessed the link to Survey Monkey’s website, they were prompted to

select the choice do not wish to participate or agree to participate.

Once the respondent chose the agree to participate option, they were

immediately redirected 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 additional copy of the survey. Finally, the researcher used

telephone calls as a means to follow up on questionnaire responses.

Data Analysis

This section presents the data analysis including a descriptive

analysis of each of the study participants. Each respondent was asked

basic 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. The correspondence between the research questions and the

interview questions 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 Historically Black College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their institution?

6, 14, 15

2

.

To what extent do Historically Black College and University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities?

13

3 At Historically Black Colleges and 4, 12

. 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?

7, 10, 11

5

.

What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the administrator’s role by the administrator?

8, 9

The researcher carefully read through each response and

identified a list of the main themes in the data. Insight into the

operations of each institution was gained by examining beliefs,

assumptions, and roles of fundraising administrators. These beliefs

and assumptions comprised a significant part of the institutional

culture. The professional experience and attitudes about fund

development helped determine the level to which the institution has

entrepreneurial leadership. Also factored into professional experience

was the institution’s age, length of time the development office or

foundation has been in existence, and actual philanthropic dollars

secured including the total of the endowment.

Once the codes were developed, numeric variables were

assigned to each code, and the relevant numeric coding for each

response was documented. After each response was coded and

verified, a frequency analysis of the numeric codings was conducted.

Next, the researcher documented the findings using percentages, the

nature of the themes, relationships and differences between the data,

and interrelationships within the themes.

The data collected was used to provide a descriptive analysis

about engagement levels of HBCU leaders in entrepreneurialism

through fundraising in the areas 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 results have been documented and displayed in the forms of

charts, tables, and graphs. Summary measures of respondents’

perceptions of their own entrepreneurial characteristics were produced

by computing the average of responses to items regarding individual

entrepreneurial traits. Specifically, descriptive statistical methods

were used to analyze the relationship between HBCU leaders’

entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their

institution.

Limitations to the Study

There were several limitations to this study. The researcher was

the primary instrument for data collection, therefore imposing

concerns regarding ability and ethics (Creswell, 1998). When

reviewing responses to the questionnaires, the investigator must

remain within the conceptual framework of the study.

Specifically, questionnaires do have some limitations.

Instructions and questions must be clear and relative to professional

development. Participants must not feel pressured to participate so as

not to violate ethical issues (Palys, 2003). Palys (2003) also warns

researchers to be considerate of volunteer bias. Volunteer bias is more

likely to happen because participants who voluntarily participate are

less objective than the general population causing the possibility of

skewed results.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

Presented in this chapter are the findings that emerged from the

responses to the on-line questionnaire which sought to answer the five

research questions guiding this study. The constructs for this study

were concepts that define entrepreneurial activities that could create

an entrepreneurial university. According to Clark (1998), creating

opportunities to enhance revenue can be derived from 1) innovative

and profit-based, self-supporting operations that go beyond traditional

sources, such as business development activities and innovative retail

sales operations and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional

income streams such as endowment and tuition.

The methodology used to collect data and ascertain answers was

an on-line questionnaire using Survey Monkey, a secure on-line survey

tool that enables respondents to respond quickly and easily.

Responses from questionnaire participants were enlightening and

helped the researcher 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?







institution?



Research Question 1

The first research question sought to examine the existing

connection between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the

financial stability of their institutions. The linkages between

characteristics associated with entrepreneurial orientation and the

amount of money raised at an institution can impact the level of

success in 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 have raised more money than leaders who self-reported

having fewer entrepreneurial characteristics.

Research Question 2

Research question two queried the extent to which HBCU leaders

value and implement entrepreneurial activities. In order to assess the

value placed on entrepreneurial activities and the likelihood of

implementing those activities, participants were asked to report their

perception of differences between their role as a university leader and

the role of a traditional business executive.

Research Question 3

In the third research question, the researcher explored factors

associated with best practices in fundraising. Through open-ended

questions, respondents were asked to document specialized training

they had to prepare them for their positions and strategies they would

like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are

unable to do so because of various restraints. Training, or the lack

thereof, is influential on the organizational structure and can positively

or negatively impact institutional fundraising.

Research Question 4

The fourth research question examined how the institutions’

development practices influenced entrepreneurial activities for the

purpose of advancing the institution. Respondents were asked to

report their professional experience in fund development as well as

strategies they employ to seek resources from philanthropists. They

were also asked how philanthropy impacts institutional initiatives. In

order to have successful fundraising programs, leaders must be

knowledgeable about which practices have been beneficial to

institutional advancement and which practices have had little or no

impact.

Research Question 5

Finally, the researcher examined how each leader perceived his

own entrepreneurial orientation. The leaders’ philosophy of fund

development and whom they felt responsible for raising money were

important constructs to examine. In higher education, all

administrators should bear some responsibility for institutional

advancement. Each leaders’ perception regarding fundraising

responsibilities as well as their philosophy of fundraising could

determine the success or failure of a fundraising program.

Respondent Information

Originally, 17 individuals from 16 institutions agreed to

participate in the study. After agreeing to participate in the study, four

administrators from four institutions withdrew from participation for

unreported reasons. Two additional administrators replied that they

were “unable to participate” in the study but did not cite the reason

why they elected not to participate. The total number of participants

in the study was 13 from 12 schools. The Institutional Review Boar at

Prairie View A&M University approved the study for a minimum of five

schools to be selected.

Numerous attempts were made by the researcher to secure

additional responses to the questionnaire. In addition to requests

made by electronic mail, the researcher sent the questionnaire by mail

through the United States Postal Service and followed up with

telephone calls to non-respondents. Of the 30 schools eligible to

participate in the study, representatives from 16 schools (53.3%)

agreed to participate and accessed 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 Virginia

participated in the study. The following administrative titles represent

the population of respondents: three university presidents, one vice

chancellor of institutional advancement, one vice president of

university advancement, one vice president for development and

external relations, one vice president for university relations and

development, one vice chancellor of development and university

relations, one vice president for institutional advancement, one interim

vice president for university relations (who at the time of survey

completion had just been promoted to this position from the director of

development position), one director of development and one director

of institutional advancement and planning.

In order to maintain confidentiality and protect anonymity, each

institution was given a pseudonym and categorized by enrollment size.

Tier 1 schools were represented by having the word “flagship” at the

beginning of the pseudonym followed by a letter in the alphabet that

signified the synchronized order in which questionnaires were

received. Tier 2 schools were labeled with the word “superior” and a

corresponding letter of the alphabet that represents the synchronized

order in which questionnaires were received. Table 4.1 on the next

page denotes the numbers assigned to respondents who agreed to

participate in the study, the institutional pseudonym and tier, and

whether the institutional representative actually completed the survey

after they agreed to participate.

Table 4.1

Respondent Identification

Respondent Pseudonym Tier Agreed to Participate

Completed Questionnair

e1 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

in the study and actually entered the secure questionnaire area but did

not complete the questionnaire.

Description of Institutions

Tier 1 Institutions

Schools with 6,000 or more students were identified as Tier 1

institutions. There were seven institutions represented in this

category. Eight administrators completed the questionnaire. Flagship

University A, located in the southeastern United States, has a student

enrollment of 9,038. 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 the country is Flagship University C with an enrollment of 8,600.

Flagship University D is positioned in the southeast and has an

enrollment of 10,388. Flagship University E is in the Deep South with

8,500 students. Flagship University F, located in the mid-Atlantic

region of the United States, has 7,000 students. Flagship University G

in the southeast has an 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

6,000 students. There were five institutions represented in this

category. Superior University A is positioned in the southeast part of

the United States with an enrollment of 3,061 students. Superior

University B, also located in the southeast, has 3,100 students.

Superior University C, located in the northeast, has 2,524 students.

Superior University D in the southern region of the United States has

5,100 students. Superior University E with 3,900 students is located in

the Deep South. (Surveys 1, 3, 7, 8, 10)

Flagship University A

Flagship University A is located in the southeast. The six-year

tenured vice president for university relations and development at

Flagship 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 and

has been employed at Flagship University A for three years.

Entrepreneurial characteristics that best described this respondent

were innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent,

persuasive, team builder, competitive, opportunist and visionary.

Flagship University B

Flagship University B is positioned in the south central part of the

country. With a Master of Business Administration degree and more

than 30 years service in marketing and communications in multiple

development offices, this respondent has served in the capacity of vice

president for university advancement for one year at Flagship

University B. This respondent will be referred to as Respondent 5 or

R5-T1I (Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution). Entrepreneurial

attributes 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 central

region. Both the president and director of development responded to

the questionnaire. The president, who will be referred to as

Respondent 9 or R9-T1I (Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution),

holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree and is a seasoned academician

and veteran higher education administrator. Having served as provost,

vice provost, academic program director and tenured faculty member

at various institutions, R9-T1I has led the university for six years.

Entrepreneurial behaviors the president reports to exhibit are

proactive, change agent, persuasive, team builder and competitive.

The director of development, who will be recognized as

Respondent 11 or R11-T1I (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1

Institution), has an undergraduate degree and has worked in the Office

of Development for five years. As is consistent with the attributes

needed to increase institutional giving, this director is innovative,

proactive, creative, a change agent, persuasive, a team builder, an

opportunist, and a visionary.

Flagship University D

Flagship University D is located in the southeast part of the

United States. The associate vice chancellor of development and

university relations responded to the questionnaire. With an

undergraduate degree and fifteen months serving as the associate vice

chancellor at Flagship University D, this respondent has fifteen years

experience as a development director at two other institutions. This

respondent, who will be referred to as Respondent 15 or R15-T1I

(Respondent 15 representing Tier 1 Institution), reported having the

following entrepreneurial attributes: innovative, proactive, creative, a

change agent, persuasive, a team builder, competitive, and a

visionary.

Flagship University E

Flagship University E is in the United States’ Deep South. The

president, who responded to the questionnaire and will be referred to

as Respondent 13 or R13-T1I (Respondent 13 representing Tier 1

Institution), holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence with more than 25 years

experience in preparation for this position. This respondent’s

professional background in development and institutional

advancement have compliment the ten years of service given to the

presidency at Flagship University E. Innovative, risk taker, proactive,

creative, change agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive,

opportunist, and visionary are the words this respondent used to self-

describe personal entrepreneurial characteristics.

Flagship University F

Flagship University F is located in the mid-Atlantic region of the

United States. The vice president for institutional advancement, who

will be referred to as Respondent 16 or R16-T1I (Respondent 16

representing Tier 1 Institution), completed the questionnaire. This

respondent, who has been employed at Flagship University F for nine

years, has served five years in the current role. Innovative, risk taker,

proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive, team builder,

competitive, and visionary are the words this respondent used to self-

describe personal entrepreneurial characteristics.

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 as Respondent 17 or R17-T1I (Respondent 17 representing

Tier 1 Institution), responded to the questionnaire. With an

undergraduate degree and some graduate studies, this respondent has

seven years experience in development. This respondent reported

having the following entrepreneurial attributes: innovative, proactive, a

change agent, 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 the

questionnaire. This respondent has a Master of Science degree and

has been employed at Superior University A for nearly two and a half

years. This respondent, referred to as Respondent 1 or R1-T2I

(Respondent 1 representing Tier 2 Institution), has development

experience that spans over five years. Entrepreneurial characteristics

that described this leader were innovative, risk taker, proactive,

creative, persuasive, a team builder 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

representing Tier 2 Institution), responded to the questionnaire. This

individual holds a Master of Arts degree, has been employed at

Superior University B for seven years, and has served in the role of

vice chancellor for the last three years. Entrepreneurial attributes that

described this respondent were 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 the

country. The vice president for development and external relations,

who has been employed for eight years at Superior University C,

completed the questionnaire and will be referred to as Respondent 7 or

R7-T2I (Respondent 7 representing Tier 2 Institution). With nearly

thirty years experience as a development professional, Respondent 7

has completed requirements toward a Doctor of Management and

holds ABD (all but dissertation) status. Entrepreneurial attributes that

described this participant 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 the

United 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 a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Entrepreneurial characteristics that

described 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

interim vice president for university relations, a doctoral candidate,

completed the questionnaire. This respondent, referred to as

Respondent 10 or R10-T2I (Respondent 10 representing Tier 2

Institution), has been employed at Superior University E for five years

and has nine years of experience as a development professional.

Traits of entrepreneurialism that describe this respondent are

innovative, proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive, team builder

and visionary.

Entrepreneurial Operations

Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial behavior and activities

develop and enhance traditional income streams. The degree to which

each participant exhibited each entrepreneurial characteristic can be

seen in Figure 4.1. All 13 respondents reported that they were

proactive team-builders. Of the 13 respondents, 12 responded that

they were innovative and persuasive change agents. Nearly 85%, or

11 respondents shared that they exhibited creativity and vision.

Figure 4.1

Participant Entrepreneurial Characteristics

Entrepreneurial Characteristics

92.3

53.8

10084.6

92.3 92.3100

69.2

30.8

84.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Inno

vativ

e

Risk T

aker

Proacti

ve

Creat

ive

Change

Age

nt

Persu

asive

Team

Buil

der

Competitv

e

Oppor

tunis

t

Vision

ary

Per

cen

tag

e

According to Clark (1998), creating opportunities to enhance

revenue can be derived from innovative and profit-based, self-

supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources, such as

business development activities and innovative retail sales operations.

The data in this section represent how innovative and profit-based,

self-supporting operations go beyond traditional sources to meet

fundraising goals. As previously noted, each participant was assigned

a unique identification number documented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Respondent Identification Numbers

Respondent Number/Institution Respondent Identification

NumberRespondent 1 representing Tier 2 Institution

R1-T2I

Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution

R3-T2I


R5-T1I


R7-T2I


R8-T2I


R9-T1I


R10-T2I


R11-T1I


R12-T1I


R13-T1I


R15-T1I


R16-T1I


R17-T1I

University Leader vs. Business Executive

Each respondent was asked about their perception of the

differences between their role as a university leader and that of a

traditional business executive. University leaders responded that there

was a difference between the two executive types. Table 4.3 provides

this data.

Table 4.3

Differences Between University Leaders and Business Executives


Code 2

Themes Frequency Examples of Participant Responses

Operations Code 2: Differences between university leader and business executive

More difficult to get support at universities

3 “My perception: I must spent a great deal of time in having people "buy in" to the things that I want to do.”

“Must have buy-in from many different constituencies.”

Businesses have more stringent performance expectations

2 “Universities are process based and business are performance based.”

Little or no differences between university leaders and business executives

5 “None. As a leader, my responsibility is to galvanize and direct the creative and intellectual 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 required by university leaders

2 “Lead by consensus and cooperation spanning areas that are not in direct control rather than top down corporate mode.”

The difference agreed upon by two respondents was that

university leaders believe they have more challenges with getting

various constituencies 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 the

leaders’ ability to raise significant amounts of money for institutional

support. One respondent believed that the bureaucracy accounted for

the difference between university leaders and business executives.

Another respondent believed that creating synergy between university

leadership and staff was a constant challenge but acknowledged his

responsibility 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, there

are problems. Some leaders believe that they have less authority to

make meaningful changes at their institutions than business

executives have in the companies they run.

(There is) less authority to make personnel decisions (and)

changes that will benefit the institution. (R3-T2I)


(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 regarding

the differences they perceived between university leaders and

business executives was that traditional businesses have more

stringent performance expectations.

Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure that

employees are meeting annual fundraising goals. (R3-T2I)


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


Respondents who believed there was little or no difference

between their role as a university executive and a traditional business

executive appeared to have a more entrepreneurial spirit. Almost

verbatim, two leaders suggested that the universal goal of leadership

is to convince others to accept the vision leadership that is in place.

One participant went as far to say that his experience as a corporate

executive helped to realign 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-

efficacy and encourages initiative. Most everyone who responded to

the questionnaire had some level of fundraising experience and/or

training. Some respondents elected not to report additional training

they had to prepare them for their positions.

Respondent 1 had several years experience as a volunteer

fundraiser and was previously employed as proposal manager for

engineering firms. Respondents 3, 8,10 and 16 have certificates in

fundraising management from Indiana University’s Center on

Philanthropy. Respondent 3 also has certification in estate planning

from the National Institute of Estate Planning and completed a one

year series in major and planned giving from John Brown Limited.

Respondent 5 received professional development through the Public

Relations Society of America, and the National Association of State

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Respondents 5, 10 and 16

participated in training offered by the Council for the Advancement and

Support of Education. Respondent 10 also took part in training from

the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, the United Negro College Fund,

and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

Respondent 12 completed the Association of Fundraising Professionals’

Faculty Training Academy, the National Association of Government

Communicators’ Communication School, the Executive Leadership

Institute through the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, the

Executive Management Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Owens

Graduate School of Management, a professional development

management course from the National Association of College and

University Business Officers, a taxation seminar with Crescendo

Interactive, 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

ranks from 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 of advancement experience and professional

development shared the following:

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


Who’s to Blame?

When respondents were asked what members of their

organization, including themselves, did they believe have responsibility

for fund development, five respondents said they felt that upper-level

administration were responsible for fundraising, and five different

respondents believed advancement staff should be accountable for

institutional fundraising. Three respondents placed the responsibility

of fundraising on the entire university community (See Table 4.4).

Table 4.4

Responsible Parties for Fundraising


Code 1


Operations Code 1: Responsibility for Fundraising

Everyone in university community

3 “Fund development is everyone in the organization's 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 staff with some alumni/student involvement

5 “Development Operations (research, stewardship, alumni records, gift coordinators); Annual Giving Program; Major Gift Program; Corp. & Foundation Relations; University Relations; Planned Giving; Government Relations; Alumni Affairs.”

University administration 5 “PresidentVice PresidentsDirector of DevelopmentGrant WriterProsopect ResearcherGifts & Grants CoordinatorAlumni Relations Director.”“President, Executive Cabinet, Deans, Chairs, faculty, athletics.”

One respondent defined the responsibility of fundraising in detail.

Fund development is everyone in the organization's

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

foundation's 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


Entrepreneurial Activities

Activities that develop and enhance traditional income streams

such as endowment and tuition are considered entrepreneurial.

Increases in philanthropic giving are generally a result of donor

cultivation and stewardship. Philanthropists have a tendency to

support institutional initiatives that are in direct alignment with their

interests. Once a donor makes a financial investment, they will also

devote time and 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 of donor cultivation which will ultimately lead to solicitation

of a gift. The impact of that donor’s gift means institutional

sustainability and survival.

Unfunded Priorities

Developing a strategic plan for an organization is one way to

establish fundraising goals for institutional priorities. Strategic

planning orchestrates how to achieve goals using a systemic approach.

One leader reported that engaging in strategic planning helped them

realize their 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


Some strategies that respondents identified as being helpful

when they consider raising money were matching institutional need

with donor preference, connecting the donor to the appropriate gift

closer, engaging students in donor cultivation, investigating donor

giving patterns, hosting meaningful special events, constant outreach,

and using electronic mail as a vehicle for solicitation. When university

leaders establish 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 supporting the initiative. Several participants in this

study echoed similar sentiments when asked what strategies they

employed to seek resources from 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


Build university programs that that encourage confidence

among external funders. (R8-T2I) (Respondent 8


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)


1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor;

2. Researching the potential donor's 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)


Engage them with the students and programs, (and)

involve them in the development of programs. (R5-T1I)


Research (the donor’s) potential, establish relationship

(with the prospective donor), ask (the prospect for money).


Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 represent the responses to survey

questions nine and ten. Five themes emerged when reviewing current

fundraising strategies utilized by the participants (Table 4.5). Three

categories surfaced in the data analysis of future fundraising strategies

among participants (Table 4.6).

Table 4.5

Current Fundraising Strategies

Entrepreneurial Activity Code 1


Activity Code 1: Current Strategies

Match institutional need with donor preference

2 “Create projects around which donors can be attracted.”

“Build university programs that that encourage confidence among external funders”

Know your donor

4 “1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor;2. Researching the potential donor's giving patterns3. Determining whether the donor has an interest in supporting higher education.4. Identifying the natural partner to make introductions, if necessary.”

Involve students and alumni in donor cultivation

2 “Engage them with the students and programs, involve them in the development of programs.”

21st Century solicitation strategies including technologically-driven cultivation and solicitation

4 “Grant proposalsDirect Mail Personal solicitationE-solicitation”“One-on-one cultivation and soliciation, direct mail, call center and class agent program.”

Special events1

“1. A signature event; 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 Responses

Activity Code 2: Future Strategies

No future strategies planned

2“Our strategies are 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 of development staff in order to increase donor contact

8 “Hire more people to raise money.”“Limited staffing, it takes money to raise money.”

Engage more volunteers/alumni

1 “Board and volunteer relationships. Donor researchAlumni, parents and friends”

Maintain efficient donor records

1 “Moves Management”

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 development's 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 significant

amount of time and resources toward the development and solicitation

of philanthropic gifts. Through donor cultivation, fundraisers develop a

strategy to match the donor’s interest with the institution’s needs.

While donor cultivation is an on-going process, the culmination of

cultivation is solicitation. Seiler (2009) suggests that there is a step-

by-step cyclical process involved in securing philanthropic support

called The Fund Raising Cycle.

Figure 4.2

The Fundraising Cycle © by Seiler (2009)

Seiler’s (2009) diagram represents how to effectively plan and

execute the fundraising process. Implementing a process such as this

is paramount to securing a gift. Ultimately, this continuous process

suggests that the fundraiser and the donor build a relationship.

Several study participants acknowledged the importance of

relationship-building in 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-


Understanding the institutional mission and aligning

institutional goals to the mission - in addition it is about

relationship building. (R10-T2I) (Respondent 10


Donors give to organizations because they want to solve a

problem or 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 travel along the continuum of philanthropy, growing in

stability, wealth, and acculturation, diverse donors shift their charitable

motivations from sharing to helping and eventually to investing” (p.

131). One participant in 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-


Impact of Philanthropy

Philanthropy is viewed by many as the highest level of social

responsibility. Private philanthropy can significantly transform an

institution and “substantially increase the amount of discretionary

dollars available to institutional leaders” (Cheslock & Gianneschi, 2008,

p. 210). The following respondents reported that philanthropy closes

the gap where government funds cease.

Philanthropy helps us better define and explain our goals,

showing how our activities benefit society. R11-T1I)


It is essential as most state and federal entities only

provide program support which excludes endowments and

capital campaign projects. (R9-T1I) (Respondent 9


(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


It has become an institutional priority, especially in the

wake of diminishing state resources for higher education.


A single respondent shared that “private funding and investment

income creates our University’s margin of excellence” (Respondent 15

representing Tier 1 Institution). Toward that end, participants in this

study were asked about their philosophy of fund development and how

it impacts their institutions. The analysis of this query resulted in the

emergence of three ways in which participants’ institutions could be

impacted through fundraising – a better caliber of students will be

attracted to the institution, funding is increased through relationship-

building, and the institution can build capacity (See Table 4.7).

Table 4.7

Impact of Fund Development

Entrepreneurial Operations Code

3

Themes Frequency Significant Participant Responses

Operations Code 3: Philosophy and impact of Fund Development

Attract better caliber of students

1 “Show donors how they can make a difference in studetns' lives and help them do that.”“My belief is that fund development's 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 funding through relationship-building

6 “Understanding the institutional mission and aligning institutional goals to the mission - in addition it is about relationship building."

“Relationship building is the key ingredient to longterm funding relationships.”

Institutional capacity building

5 “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.”

The Bottom Line

In an effort to consider each leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation,

the researcher queried participants about the amount of private money

the institution raised and the last time the institution engaged in a

capital campaign (See Table 4.8).

Table 4.8

Funds Raised in Three Year Period (*Represents approximate number)

RESPONDEN

T

MOST RECENT CAPITAL CAMPAIGN

AMOUNT OF MONEY RAISED IN LAST THREE YEARS

1 Not sure $500,000

3 1991 $8,000,000*

5 2003 $8,500,000

7 Currently $6,000,000

8 Currently Not reported

9 2008 $15,000,000

10 2000 $3,000,000*

11 2008 $15,000,000*

12 Planning phase for first campaign

$8,000,000

13 Currently $25,000,000

15 2007 $30,000,000*

16 2007 Not reported

17 2003 Not reported

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATONS

This chapter presents a summary of the study and a discussion

based upon the findings as a result of the data analysis. Concluding

remarks will also address implications of the findings and

recommendations for further research.

Summary

Raising private money at public Historically Black Colleges and

Universities (HBCUs) is critical to institutional survival. This study

focused on the level of engagement among HBCU leaders in

entrepreneurial fundraising activities. The problem, as stated in

Chapter I, is that fund-raising efforts of both private and public HBCUs

linger significantly behind the established fundraising programs at

traditionally White institutions (Tindall, 2007). Development

professionals at HBCUs are continuously challenged with how to

advance their institutions in a climate that has historically relied

almost wholly on public funding (Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). It is

important to reiterate that public HBCUs are supported by state

government entities. It is with this fact in mind that seeking private

philanthropy has not been a popular practice among public HBCUs.

Without private money, HBCUs minimize their chances for survival.

Specifically, this study was inspired by Clark’s (1998) theory that

suggests entrepreneurial activities help to generate non-traditional

revenues through (1) the identification of innovative and profit-based

self-supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources; and 2)

activities that develop and enhance traditional income streams at the

selected institutions. The following questions guided the research for

the study.










institution?



In order to investigate why HBCU administrators have not been

as successful or aggressive in seeking private philanthropy at a time

when government funding is shrinking, the literature review provided

insight about educational fundraising and its significance to HBCUs.

The history of African-American philanthropy and entrepreneurialism in

higher education also contributed to the literature review.

A theme among participants in this study was that there was a

shortage in staff in advancement offices. One respondent put it best

saying “it takes money to raise money”, and raising money requires a

reasonable number of staff.

References

Anderson, 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/search

Cook, 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.

http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search

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


Ellison, 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.org

History of Tuskegee University. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from

Tuskegee University Web site: http://tuskegee.edu

Holloman, 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


Kouzes, 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.


http://thurgoodmarshallfund.org/

Lee, T. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research.


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



Rhodes, 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


Rowland, 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


Schinasi, 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=879012

Scott, 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


Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=879012

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=879012



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.


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



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.html

Williams, 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.html

WordNet 3.0. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from

http://dictionary.reference.com

Worth, M. J. (1993). Educational fundraising: Principles and practice.

Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

http://www.tgsa.edu/online/cybrary/case1.html

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-index.html

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORM

Participant Letter of Consent Form

Date

Dear ___________________:

I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research project under the direction of Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Prairie View A&M University. Specifically, I will investigate the engagement levels of Historically Black College and University presidents and development officers in entrepreneurialism through fundraising.

Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am requesting your voluntary participation in the study. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. 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 affiliated institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with no identifying information 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 signing below, you are giving consent to participate in the above study.

__________________________ _______________________ _______________Signature Printed Name Date

Questions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this study may be directed to Prairie View A&M University’s Institutional Review Board Regulatory Compliance Officer, Marcia C. Shelton at 936.261.1588.

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS

Interview Questions

Background Questions1. 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 proactivecreative change agent persuasiveteam builder competitiveopportunist visionary

Philanthropic 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)

Giving14. 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 C

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

Office of Research and Development Voice.936.261.1588Prairie View, Texas 77446-4149 FAX 936.261.1599Anderson Hall, Room 104 [email protected]

Institutional Biosafety Committee Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Institutional Review Board

DATE: April 13, 2009 APPROVED MEMORANDUMTO: Monica Williams, Doctoral candidate - COE- Principal Investigator

William Kritsonis, PhD – Committee chair/advisor -EDLC FROM: Marcia C. Shelton, PhD, director, research regulatory compliance SUBJECT: Initial Review and Determination

PROTOCOL NUMBER: 2008- 1101-101 Initial Review

TITLE: Engagement Levels of Historically Black College and University Leaders in Entrepreneurialism through Fundraising REVIEW CATEGORY: Full Board Review– Reviewer: DE Wilson (11/10/2008)APPROVAL PERIOD: November 10, 2008 through November 9, 2009

Determination 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 the reviewer(s) involve no more than minimal risk._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

(7) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social 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 of human 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 the following 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.

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FORM

1. HBCU Leader Participant Letter of Consent Form

1. Dear HBCU Leader:

I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research project under the direction of Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Prairie View A&M University. Specifically, I will investigate the engagement levels of Historically Black College and University presidents and development officers in entrepreneurialism through fundraising.

Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am requesting your voluntary participation in the study. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. 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 affiliated institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with no identifying information 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, you are giving consent to participate in the above study.

Questions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this study may be directed to Prairie View A&M University’s Institutional Review Board Regulatory Compliance Officer, Marcia C. Shelton at 936.261.1588.

Agree to participate

Do not wish to participateDear HBCU Leader: I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research project under the direction of Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Prairie View A&M University. Specifically, I will investigate the engagement levels of Historically Black College and University presidents and development officers in entrepreneurialism through fundraising. Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am requesting your voluntary participation in the study. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any

time, there will be no penalty. 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 affiliated institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with no identifying information 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, you are giving consent to participate in the above study. Questions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this study may be directed to Prairie View A&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 Section

1. In which state is your institution located?

2. What is your institutional enrollment?

What is your institutional enrollment? Undergraduate students

Graduate students

Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates)

3. What is your title?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/RefreshMePop.html

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. (Please choose all that apply)

Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply) innovative

risk taker

proactive

creative

change agent

persuasive

team builder

competitive

opportunist

visionary

9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?

10. What is your philosophy of fund development?

11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)

12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?

13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?

14. 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.)?

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives?

16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?

APPENDIX E

PARTICIPANT RESPONSES

Displaying 1 of 17 respondents

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)

IP Address: 129.71.198.254

Custom Value: emptyResponse Started: Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:20:24 PM

1. 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 for Eng 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativepersuasiveteam buildercompetitive9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 them do that.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)President Director of Public Relations Director of Alumni Affairs Deans12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? Major source of scholarships13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? Create projects around which donors can be attracted14. 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.)? Moves management15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? Few; I came from the corporate world. Now have ability to tap spiritual/philosophical motivation to give

16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?$500,00017. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? Not sure

Browse Responses Displaying 2 of 17 respondents


Custom Value: emptyIP Address: 68.62.173.167

Response Started: Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:50:10 PM

1. 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 all that apply) No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?No Response10. What is your philosophy of fund development? No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)No Response12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? No Response13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? No Response14. 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.)? No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? No Response

16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? No Response




Response Started: Fri, Apr 24, 2009 12:01:11 PM

1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 3000Graduate students - 100

Combined 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 Brown Limited, 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 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.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement Director of Development Annual Fund Coordinator Development officer, schools and programs Develompent Officer(2) Alumni Director Assistant Alumni Director12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? It has become an institutional priority, especially in the wake of diminishing

state resources for higher education.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? 1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potential donor's giving patterns 3. Determining whether the donor has an interest in supporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural partner to make introductions, if necessary.14. 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.)? 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 university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? Less authority to make personnel decisions/changes that will benefit the institution. Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure that employees are meeting annual fundraising goals.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?Approxmately $8 million.17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 1991.




Response Started: Fri, Apr 24, 2009 12:01:11 PM

1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 3000Graduate students - 100

Combined 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 Brown Limited, 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 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.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement Director of Development Annual Fund Coordinator Development officer, schools and programs Develompent Officer(2) Alumni Director Assistant Alumni Director12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? It has become an institutional priority, especially in the wake of diminishing

state resources for higher education.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? 1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potential donor's giving patterns 3. Determining whether the donor has an interest in supporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural partner to make introductions, if necessary.14. 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.)? 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 university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? Less authority to make personnel decisions/changes that will benefit the institution. Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure that employees are meeting annual fundraising goals.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?Approxmately $8 million.17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 1991.




Response Started: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 10:23:20 AM





Response Started: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 11:36:49 AM

1. 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 all that apply) innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildervisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?30+ years in marketing and communications work in development communications10. What is your philosophy of fund development? it is all about relationship development and being a matchmaker between donor and program/university11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual 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 match should be made between donor interests and institutional priorities/initiatives13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? engage them with the students and programs, involve them in the development of programs14. 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.)? expansion of advisory councils to all colleges--requires staffing for volunteer management

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? lead by consensus and cooperation spanning areas that are not in direct control rather than top down corporate mode16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?$8.5 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 2003





1. In which state is your institution located?PA2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 1,973Graduate students - 551

Combined 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitivevisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)All12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? Directly impacts.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? Board and volunteer relationships. Donor research Alumni, parents and friends14. 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.)? none

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/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 private philanthropic sources?$6 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? currently.





1. In which state is your institution located?Louisiana2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 4,754Graduate students - 407

Combined 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 for College 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 all that apply) No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?Lauded as “someone who can elevate the academic environment, grow research opportunities, raise philanthropic dollars, and represent the campus to external constituencies,” Dr. Judson has been credited with improving campus finances, diversity, retention and graduation rates, fundraising efforts and sponsored research 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 low expectations others may have of us."11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual 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 private philanthropists? Build university programs that that encourage confidence among external funders14. 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.)? With funding from Title III, the institution published a master development

plan that identifies initiatives to increase organizational capacity. Among them is space to house the University Advancement, Alumni Affairs and "all functions associated with expanding the institutions funding base."15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/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 private philanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? Currently




Response Started: Fri, May 1, 2009 1:07:55 PM

1. In which state is your institution located?Texas2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 6250

Graduate 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 all that apply) innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam builderopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)President Vice Presidents Director of Development Grant Writer Prosopect Researcher 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 support which excludes endowments and capital campaign projects13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? Grant proposals Direct Mail Personal solicitation E-solicitation14. 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.)? Increasing staffing levels to accommodate an annual giving department and planned giving department

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? Only difference is I work for a non-profit. Aside from that, I'm responsible for revenue quotas & goals, deadlines, staffing etc...16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?15 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? We just completed our first CC in December 2008




Response Started: Sun, May 3, 2009 5:56:04 PM

1. In which state is your institution located?Mississippi2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 3,700

Graduate 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 all that apply) innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildervisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?formal as well as informal training10. What is your philosophy of fund development? Understanding the institutional mission and aligning institutional goals to the mission - in addition it is about relationship building11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual 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 private philanthropists? One-on-one cultivation and soliciation, direct mail, call center and class agent program.14. 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.)? Limited staffing, it takes money to raise

money,15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? I don't beleive there are any diefferences.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?in excess of 3 million17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 9 years ago




Response Started: Tue, May 5, 2009 9:37:33 PM

1. 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 4 years; 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 all that apply) proactivechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitive9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual 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 our activities benefit society.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? 1. Develop a personal relationship with them. 2. Educate them about the strengths of my University. 3. Work closely with them when submitting a proposal.14. 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.)? No Response

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? My perception: I must spent a great deal of time in having people "buy in" to the things that I want to do.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic 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.




Response Started: Tue, May 12, 2009 8:23:23 AM

1. 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, Owens Graduate School of Management, 2002; • Taxation Seminar, Crescendo Interactive, 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?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.10. What is your philosophy of fund development? My belief is that fund development's 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.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)Fund development is everyone in the organization's 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 (1); the assistant vice presidents (2) the foundation's 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 (13); the prospect researcher; the donor relations manager; and the associate director of Alumni Relations12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? Institutional initiatives drive philanthropy. We raise money to support the institutional initatives which ultimatley become the academic blueprint of our organization.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? 1. A signature event; 2. An annual campaign; 3. A major gift and planned giving program; 4. A corporate and foundation relations program; 5. A donor relations program.14. 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.)? Our strategies are successful, there are no new ones I would employ. If I had more resources (i.e., budget and personnel) I could raise more money.15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? None. As a leader, my responsibility is to galvanize and direct the creative and intellectual capacities of the staff to achieve our core purpose. This is the universal goal of leadership.16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic 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.




Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:33:45 AM

1. In which state is your institution located?Miwssissippi2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 7000

Graduate 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitiveopportunistvisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual 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 private philanthropists? research potential, establish relationship, ask14. 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.)?

hire more people to raise money15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? I am full service16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?$25m17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? In one now




Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 2:34:56 PM

1. 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 all that apply) No Response9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university advancement?No Response10. What is your philosophy of fund development? No Response11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)No Response12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? No Response13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? No Response14. 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.)? No Response15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? No Response




Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 3:30:31 PM

1. In which state is your institution located?North Carolina2. What is your institutional enrollment?Undergraduate students - 8,829

Graduate 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 and University 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 all that apply) innovativeproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitivevisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 every person in the development office working together to achieve your goals and objectives."11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)Development Operations (research, stewardship, alumni records, gift coordinators); Annual Giving Program; Major Gift Program; Corp. & Foundation Relations; University Relations; Planned Giving; Government Relations; Alumni Affairs12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? Private funding and investment income creates our University's margin of excellence.13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? Cultivation, engagement, use of events, addition to boards, publicity, create naming opportunities, planned or combination giving and stewardship.

14. 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.)? Build a better University Event program, create a Development Communication Director positions and other writers; more resources for corporate and foundation fundraising and more frontline fundraisers15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? Bureaucracy16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?Approximately $30M17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 2000-2007




Response Started: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 10:45:10 AM

1. 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?Bachelor's6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?More than 20 years expereince in corporate sales and marketing Certificate in Fundraising Management from the Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University 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 all that apply) innovativerisk takerproactivecreativechange agentpersuasiveteam buildercompetitivevisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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. Keep asking.11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)President and Board Deans and Department Chairs Director of Development Annual 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 private philanthropists? Constant outreach

14. 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.)? Unable to hire development officers because of financial constraints15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/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 private philanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 2002-2007




Response Started: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 8:09:40 AM

1. 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 all that apply) innovativeproactivechange agentteam buildervisionary9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and 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 have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual 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 university's highest priorities at a level far above what state funding supports13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists? Social Research Networking, referrrals Query Letters14. 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.)? Enhanced prospect research More face to face meetings outside of NC involving Chancellor and board members

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? No Response16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?No Response17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? 2003

APPENDIX F

LIST OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

United States & Virgin IslandsHistorically Black Colleges and Universities

Alabama

Four-Year PublicAlabama A&M UniversityAlabama State University

Four-Year PrivateConcordia College SelmaMiles CollegeOakwood UniversitySelma UniversityStillman CollegeTalladega CollegeTuskegee University

Two-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

Arkansas

Four-Year PublicUniversity of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

Four-Year PrivateArkansas Baptist CollegePhilander Smith College

Delaware

Four-Year PublicDelaware State University

District of Columbia

Four-Year PublicUniversity of the District of Columbia

http://www.udc.edu/

http://www.desu.edu/

http://www.philander.edu/

http://www.arkansasbaptist.edu/

http://www.uapb.edu/

http://www.trenholmtech.cc.al.us/

http://www.ls.cc.al.us/

http://www.dstc.cc.al.us/

http://www.gadsdenstate.edu/

http://www.sheltonstate.edu/

http://www.bscc.cc.al.us/

http://www.tuskegee.edu/

http://www.talladega.edu/

http://www.stillman.edu/

http://www.selmauniversity.org/

http://www.oakwood.edu/

http://www.miles.edu/

http://www.concordiaselma.edu/

http://www.alasu.edu/

http://www.aamu.edu/

Four-Year PrivateHoward University

Florida

Four-Year PublicFlorida A&M University

Four-Year PrivateBethune-Cookman CollegeEdward Waters CollegeFlorida Memorial University

Georgia

Four-Year PublicAlbany State UniversityFort Valley State UniversitySavannah State University

Four-Year PrivateClark Atlanta UniversityInterdenominational Theological CenterMorehouse CollegeMorehouse School of MedicineMorris Brown CollegePaine CollegeSpelman College

Kentucky

Four-Year PublicKentucky State University

Louisiana

Four-Year PublicGrambling State UniversitySouthern University A&M CollegeSouthern University at New Orleans

Four-Year PrivateDillard University of LouisianaXavier University

Two-Year PublicSouthern University at Shreveport

http://www.susla.edu/

http://www.xula.edu/

http://www.dillard.edu/

http://www.suno.edu/

http://www.subr.edu/

http://www.gram.edu/

http://www.kysu.edu/

http://www.spelman.edu/

http://www.paine.edu/

http://www.morrisbrown.edu/

http://www.msm.edu/

http://www.morehouse.edu/

http://www.itc.edu/

https://www.cau.edu/

http://www.savstate.edu/

http://www.fvsu.edu/

http://www.asurams.edu/index.php

http://www.fmuniv.edu/

http://www.ewc.edu/

http://www.bethune.cookman.edu/

http://www.famu.edu/

http://www.howard.edu/

Maryland

Four-Year PublicBowie State UniversityCoppin State CollegeMorgan State UniversityUniversity of Maryland Eastern Shore

Michigan

Two-Year PrivateLewis College of Business

Mississippi

Four-Year PublicAlcorn State UniversityJackson State UniversityMississippi Valley State University

Four-Year PrivateRust CollegeTougaloo College

Two-Year PublicCoahoma Community CollegeHinds Community College, Utica

Missouri

Four-Year PublicHarris-Stowe State UniversityLincoln University

North Carolina

Four-Year PublicElizabeth City State UniversityFayetteville State UniversityNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityNorth Carolina Central UniversityWinston-Salem State University

http://www.wssu.edu/

http://www.nccu.edu/

http://www.ncat.edu/

http://www.uncfsu.edu/

http://www.ecsu.edu/

http://www.lincolnu.edu/

http://www.hssu.edu/

http://www.hindscc.edu/

http://www.ccc.cc.ms.us/

http://www.tougaloo.edu/

http://www.rustcollege.edu/

http://www.mvsu.edu/

http://www.jsums.edu/

http://www.alcorn.edu/

http://www.lewiscollege.edu/

http://www.umes.edu/

http://www.morgan.edu/

http://www.coppin.edu/

http://www.bowiestate.edu/

Four-Year PrivateBarber-Scotia CollegeBennett CollegeJohnson C. Smith UniversityLivingstone CollegeShaw UniversitySt. Augustine's College

Ohio

Four-Year PublicCentral State University

Four-Year PrivateWilberforce University

Oklahoma

Four-Year PublicLangston University

Pennsylvania

Four-Year PublicCheyney University of PennsylvaniaLincoln University

South Carolina

Four-Year PublicSouth Carolina State University

Four-Year PrivateAllen UniversityBenedict CollegeClaflin UniversityMorris CollegeVoorhees College

Two-Year PublicDenmark Technical College

Two-Year PrivateClinton Junior College

http://www.clintonjuniorcollege.edu/

http://www.denmarktech.edu/

http://www.voorhees.edu/

http://www.morris.edu/default.aspx

http://www.claflin.edu/

http://www.benedict.edu/

http://www.allenuniversity.edu/

http://www.scsu.edu/

http://www.lincoln.edu/

http://www.cheyney.edu/

http://www.lunet.edu/

http://www.wilberforce.edu/

http://www.centralstate.edu/

http://www.st-aug.edu/

http://www.shawuniversity.edu/

http://www.livingstone.edu/

http://www.jcsu.edu/

http://www.bennett.edu/

http://www.b-sc.edu/

Tennessee

Four-Year PublicTennessee State University

Four-Year PrivateFisk UniversityKnoxville CollegeLane CollegeLemoyne-Owen CollegeMeharry Medical College

Texas

Four-Year PublicPrairie View A&M UniversityTexas Southern University

Four-Year PrivateHuston-Tillotson UniversityJarvis Christian CollegePaul Quinn CollegeSouthwestern Christian CollegeTexas CollegeWiley College

Two-Year PublicSt. Philip's College

Virginia

Four-Year PublicNorfolk State UniversityVirginia State University

Four-Year PrivateHampton UniversitySaint Paul's CollegeVirginia Union UniversityVirginia University of Lynchburg

West Virginia

Four-Year PublicBluefield State CollegeWest Virginia State University

http://www.wvstateu.edu/

http://www.bluefieldstate.edu/

http://www.vul.edu/

http://www.vuu.edu/

http://www.saintpauls.edu/

http://www.hamptonu.edu/

http://www.vsu.edu/

http://www.nsu.edu/

http://www.accd.edu/spc/

http://www.wileyc.edu/

http://www.texascollegeonline.net/

http://www.swcc.edu/

http://www.pqc.edu/

http://www.jarvis.edu/

http://www.htu.edu/

http://www.tsu.edu/

http://www.pvamu.edu/

http://www.mmc.edu/

http://www.loc.edu/

http://www.lanecollege.edu/

http://www.knoxvillecollege.edu/

http://www.fisk.edu/

http://www.tnstate.edu/

U.S. Virgin Islands

Four-Year PublicUniversity of the Virgin Islands

http://www.uvi.edu/

CURRICULUM VITAE FOR MONICA WILLIAMS

Monica G. Williams, M.A.Curriculum Vitae

May 2009

3310 Continental Drive (832) 498-8733 (C)Missouri City, Texas 77459

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

Twelve years cumulative experience in non-profit and educational philanthropy cultivation and fundraising, human resource management, grant and proposal development, social services and academia, emphasized through delivery of program administration and planning. Experience includes program development, management, proposal writing, budgeting, program evaluation, creation and implementation of strategic plan/policy and procedure manuals, public policy monitoring, and report writing.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

November 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 2006 Texas 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 2004 Texas 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 2002 Neighborhood 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 2001 Neighborhood 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 and their educators-Community advocate for Crime Victims Association-In-kind tutor for multiple community literacy programs-Co-chair, 2002 United Way Capital Campaign

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS

The Art and Science of Donor Development Certification – Advancement Resources The 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 PhilanthropyNonprofit 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.

AFFILIATIONS

Society 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’s historically black colleges and universities. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research 3(1).

Williams, 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. (2007). National implications: Examining motivational factors among employees in higher education. The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research Summer 2007.

Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). National focus on postmodernism in higher education. The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research Summer 2007.

EDUCATION

Prairie 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 University Leaders in Entrepreneurialism Through FundraisingGrade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0

Texas Southern University, College of Arts and Sciences, Houston, TexasM.A. in Communications

May 2002Grade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0

Texas Southern University, Houston, TexasB.A. with concentration in News Editorial Journalism/English August 1994Grade Point Average: 3.2 / 4.0

Willowridge High School, Missouri City, TexasDecember 1984Honors Graduate

Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member...

Education

Transcript of Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member...