 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PM.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES Mum on or More data duo.

ﬂ

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instituion
mm:

 

AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATIONS IN MICHIGAN
VOLUME I
By

Mary Frances Miller

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment Of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Education Administration

1997

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATIONS IN MICHIGAN

By

Mary Frances Miller

This analysis of public community college foundations in Michigan was
conducted to compare foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds
with those that received the least amount of external funds in Fiscal Year 1995. The
researcher sought to determine whether different characteristics were exhibited by the two
groups; and, if so, what those differing characteristics were.

An Initial Questionnaire and a Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument were
used to obtain responses from community college presidents, college board of trustees
Chairpersons, and foundation directors. A ﬁnal Questionnaire/Interview Instrument was
designed to determine the group reporting the largest amount of external funds and the
group reporting the least. Qualitative and quantitative data, including percentages, were
used to analyze nine variables.

Twenty one of the 28 public community colleges in Michigan sponsored
foundations in Fiscal Year 1995. Of the 21 colleges, 62% reported fund balances over

$1 million. Four of the six sample foundations held fund balances over $1 million. Of

Mary Frances Miller

the three foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, only one
garnered about $3 million; the other two garnered almost $666,000 to $750,000. Of the
foundations that received the least amount of external funds, all garnered less than
$550,000.

Personnel from foundations and colleges that received the greatest amount of
external funds reported that they believed the following factors were linked to their ability
to raise funds: utilizing a foundation annual and strategic plan; "raising friends" of the
college; promoting a positive college image; articulating the college mission to the
public; visibility of college personnel serving the community; active participation by the
president, college board of trustees, and foundation board of directors in fundraising
activities; the employment of a full-time foundation director; administrative, faculty, and
volunteer support for the foundation; community partnerships; and continuous

communication to college stakeholders.

Copyright by
Mary Frances Miller

1997

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to my large and loving family--
my mother and father,
for a lifetime of guidance and support,
and my brothers and sister--
John, Pat, Bob, Phil, and Sue
and their families.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I sincerely thank my Guidance Committee for their support,
encouragement, and input. I appreciate the time and effort each expended to assist with
this project: Dr. Marylee Davis, Dr. Louis Hekhuis, Dean James Rainey, JD, and
Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker.

I especially want to thank my major Professor and dissertation chairperson,

Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, who graciously agreed to continue as chairperson through
completion of the dissertation despite retirement from Michigan State University. This
study would not have been possible without his kind support, encouragement,
constructive comments, and the time be invested.

Dr. Louis Hekhuis, who also retired but remained on my committee, also deserves
special thanks for his input, assistance, and time.

Additionally, I extend a special thank you to Dr. Marylee Davis for planting the
seed of inspiration for this study while serving in her professorial role and for her input,
assistance, and time.

Another thank you is expressed to both Dean Rainey and Dr. Robert Poland for
their encouragement and support since my beginnning years as a student at Michigan

State University.

vi

A special thank you is extended to both Jo Colby, Graduate Student Affairs
Ofﬁce, College of Education, MSU, and Darleen Hartig, Secretary, Department of
Education Administration, MSU, for their diligence, patience, assistance, and caring
dispositions throughout the years.

I thank the kind professionals who piloted the Survey and provided feedback,
despite their hectic schedules; and I thank the community college personnel who
comprised the study sample and donated time: the presidents, foundation directors (and
Chairpersons), and board of trustee Chairpersons. My sincere appreciation is extended to
all. Additionally, a special tribute is extended to members of the Michigan Council on
Vocational Education (MCOVE) who served as advisors to the Council, particularly
Lewis B. Driskell, Sr., Owner and CEO, Union Printing Company, Flint, Michigan, for
his kindness, encouragement, and support.

I wish to remember my dear friend, the late Janice L. Pyle, former Secretary,
Michigan Department of Education, Community College Unit, who passed away October,
1995, for her many humorous and kind words of support, but most of all, for her
friendship.

A note of appreciation is extended to special friends at the Michigan Department
of Education, Lansing.

Lastly, I thank personal friends who consistently urged me to ﬁnish this project

including my car pool colleagues over the years.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... xv

LIST OF FIGURFS ................................................... xvi

CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ............................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................... 5
Statement of the Purpose ............................................... 5
Methodology ........................................................ 8
Need for Research .................................................... 9
Importance of the Study ................................................ 9
Deﬁnitions of Key Terms ............................................. 10
Limitations of the Study ............................................... l3
Delimitations of the Study ............................................. 13
Organization of the Study ............................................. 14

CHAPTER II, REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Declining Funding for Community Colleges ............................... (1:9
Rationale for Establishing Foundations Afﬁliated with
Community Colleges .............................................. 16
Studies Relating to Community College Foundations
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education .................. 22
Implications of the CASE Study ................................. 24
Keener and Ryan Research ......................................... 25
Implications of Keener and Ryan’s Studies ........................ 29
National Council for Resource Development Study ...................... 30
Implications of the NCRD Study ................................ 32
State of Washington Study .......................................... 33
Implications of the State of Washington Study ...................... 35
Community College Finance in Michigan ................................. (35)
Summary ....................................................... 39
CHAPTER III, RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Research Purpose .................................................... 41
Research Design ..................................................... 43

viii

Sample Selection .................................................... 43

Data Collection Instruments ............................................ 45
Data Collection Procedure ............................................. 47
Analytical Procedures ................................................ 49
Delimitations of the Research Method ................................... 51
Limitations of the Research Method ..................................... 52

CHAPTER IV, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

Introduction ........................................................ 53
Variable I: The Relationship of the College to Its Foundation .............. 5 6

1. Relationship of the College to the Foundation--Presence on the

College’s Organizational Chart, FY 1995 ....................... S6
2. Relationship of the College to the Foundation-~Formal Operating

Agreements .............................................. 57
3. College Foundations A, B, and C--Major Functions of the Sample

College Foundations ....................................... 58
4. College Foundations A, B, and C and X, Y, Z--Missions of the

Sample Community College Foundations ...................... 61
5. Relationship of the College to the Foundation-—Existence of

Community College Strategic Plans: Colleges A, B, C and

Colleges X, Y, Z .......................................... 62
5a. Relationship of the College to the Foundation--The Projection of

Institutional Needs in the Community College Strategic Plan for

Several Years ............................................ 63
5b. Relationship of the College to the Foundation--Incorporation of and

Reference to the Foundation Within the Community College

Strategic Plan ............................................ 64
6. Relationship of the College to Its Foundation--Foundation Plans--

Existence of a Written, College Foundation Annual Plan with

Projected Goals Prepared by the Foundation .................... 67
Projection of Fundraising Goals for Several Years Within the

College Foundation’s Annual Plan if a Written, Annual Plan

with Projected Goals Prepared by the Foundation Exists ........... 70
Responses to Who Approves the Foundation’s Annual Plan if It Is

Prepared for Approval ...................................... 72
Existence of a Written, Strategic Plan with Projected Goals

Developed by the Foundation ................................ 73

Relationship of the Board of Trustees to the Foundation as
Reported by the Foundation Directors, College Presidents,

and Board of Trustee Chairpersons ............................ 75
Responses to Who Paid for the Development Director/Development
Staff--College or Foundation ................................ 82

ix

10.

11a.

11b.

Relationship of the College to the Foundation—-Fundraising
Expenses--Responses to Who Pays for the Foundation

Fundraising Expenses--The College or the Foundation ............ 82
Responses to Whether or Not All External Funds Received by the
College Are Channeled Through the College’s Foundation ......... 83

Colleges A, B, and C, Extent of College Personnel Involvement

in Establishing Overall Administrative Policy for the Fundraising

Program--Foundation Director Responses ...................... 85
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Extent of College Personnel Involvement

in Establishing Overall Administrative Policy for the Fundraising

Program--Foundation Director Responses ...................... 87
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Establishing Overall

Administrative Policy For the Fundraising Program--College

President Responses ....................................... 89
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Establishing Overall

Administrative Policy for the Fundraising Program--College

President Responses ....................................... 91
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Establishing Overall

Administrative Policy for the Fundraising Program--College

Board of Trustee Responses ................................. 94
Colleges X, Y, and 2, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Establishing Overall

Administrative Policy for the Fundraising Program--College

Board of TrusteeResponses .................................. 95
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of College

Personnel Activity in Raising Funds for the Institution--

Foundation Director Responses .............................. 97
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Activity in Raising Funds for the Institution--

Foundation Director Responses ............................. 100
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Activity in Raising Funds for the Institution--

President Responses ...................................... 101
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Activity in Raising Funds for the Institution--

President Responses ...................................... 104
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of College

Personnel Activity in Rasing Funds for the Institution--College

Board of Trustees Chairperson Responses ..................... 107
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Activity in Raising Funds for the Institution--

College Board of Trustees Chairperson Responses .............. 108

11c. College Foundations A, B, C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent

Of College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating the Fundraising

Program--Foundation Director Responses ..................... 1 12
College Foundations X, Y, Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent

Of College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating the Fundraising

Program--Foundation Director Responses ..................... 114
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating the Fundraising

Program--College President Responses ....................... 116
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating the Fundraising

Program--College President Responses ....................... 119
Colleges A, B, and C, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating the Fundraising

Program--College Board of Trustee Chairperson Responses ....... 121
Colleges X, Y, and Z, Fundraising Program Policy--Extent of

College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating the Fundraising

Program--College Board of Trustee Chairperson Responses ....... 122
Variable H: The Personnel Composition of the Foundation Ofﬁce ......... 125
1. Development Ofﬁce Presence at the Community College, Fiscal
Year 1995 .............................................. 127
2. Foundation Ofﬁce-Chief Foundation Ofﬁcer Reporting
Responsibility ........................................... 128
3. Staff Assigned to Development: Titles, Salaries, Reporting
Responsibilities .......................................... 132
Variable III: The Type of Resources Available to the Foundation Ofﬁce that
Allow the Staff to Carry Out its Fundraising Role ....................... 140
1. Overall Community College Personnel from Sample Institutions ...... 141
2. The Foundation Ofﬁce Budget ................................. 143
3. Selection of Foundation Board of Directors ....................... 145
4. Relationship of the Foundation Board of Directors to the Foundation . . . 146

Variable IV: The Types of Fundraising Programs in Which the Foundation

Was Engaged ..................................................... 153
1. Reported Activities in Which Foundations Engaged ................ 153
2. Rank Ordered Programs by Type in Descending Order of Success
as Reported by Foundation Respondents ...................... 154
3. Description of Endowment Programs at Each College ............... 164

xi

Variable V: The Amount of Dollars Raised by the Foundation and the
Percentage Raised by Funding Source. (External Inﬂuences, Organizations that
Compete with the Community College Foundations, Are Included in

this Section.) ...................................................... 168
1. The Amount of Dollars Raised in FY 1995 by the College

Exclusive of the Foundations ............................... 168

2. The Amount of Dollars Raised in FY 1995 by the Foundation ........ 169

3. Percentage Raised by the Foundations in FY 1995 by Funding Source . . 170
4. External Inﬂuences--Organizations Listed by Respondents in the

College Geographic District that Compete for Funds ............. 174
Variable VI: Professional Organizations Reported by the Sample Respondents
to be the Most Helpful in Garnering Funds for their Foundations .......... 176
Variable VII: The Percentage of Foundation Monies Used to Support
Occupational Education Programs Offered by the Community College ..... 17 8
Variable VIII: The Reasons Attributed to the Success of the College’s
Foundation as Reported by the Sample Respondents .................... 182
1. College Foundation Proﬁles of Sample Participants ................ 185
2. Advice from Study Respondents to Prospective and N ewly-Formed
Foundations ............................................. 186

Variable IX: The Relationships, if any, Between the FY 1995 Foundation
Fund Balances and the FY 1995 External Funds Raised by
the Foundations. ................................................... 192

CHAPTER V, MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, SUMNIARY,
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH, AND REFLECTION . . . 209

Findings and Conclusions, Variable I ................................. 209
Institutional Information and the Relationship of the College to its

Foundation: Organizational Charts and Development/Foundation Ofﬁce

Personnel; Operating Agreements; Strategic Plans; and Fundraising

Program Policy ..................................................... 209
Findings and Conclusions, Variable II ................................ 225

The Personnel Composition of the Foundation Ofﬁce ...................... 225

xii

Findings and Conclusions, Variable III ................................ 229

The Type of Resources Available to the Foundation Ofﬁce that Allow the

Staff to Carry Out its Fundraising Role .......................... 229
Findings and Conclusions, Variable IV ................................ 231

The Types of Fundraising Programs in Which the Foundation Was Engaged . . . . 231
Findings and Conclusions, Variable V ................................. 232

The Amount of Dollars Raised by the Foundation and the Percentage
Raised by Funding Source; and External Inﬂuences, i.e., Organizations that

Compete with the Community College Foundations for Funds ............... 232
Findings and Conclusions, Variable VI ................................ 233
Professional Organizations Reported by the Sample Respondents to be the

Most Helpful in Garnering Funds for their Foundations ..................... 233
Findings and Conclusions, Variable VII ............................... 234

The Percentage of Foundation Monies Used to Support Occupational
Education Programs Offered by the Community College; and Percentage of
Total Dollars Raised by the Foundation Used for Purposes Other than

Vocational Programming ............................................. 234
Findings and Conclusions, Variable VHI .............................. 235
Factors to Which Repondents Attributed the Success of the
College’s Foundation ................................................ 235
Findings and Conclusions, Variable IX ................................ 236
The Relationship, if Any, Between the FY 1995 Foundation Fund Balances
and the FY 1995 External Funds Raised by the Foundations ................. 236
Summary ............................................................ 241
Number of Foundations in Michigan .................................... 241
Fund Balances ..................................................... 241
External Funds Raised ............................................... 242
Gifts Received by Size of Institution (Student Enrollment) .................. 242
Gifts Received by Size of Institution (Student Enrollment--Three-Year
Average-4994, 1995, and 1996 Fiscal Years) .......................... 242
Campus Locations of Foundations ...................................... 243

xiii

Small Versus Large When Raising External Gifts .......................... 243

Campus Locations of foundations When Raising Gifts ...................... 243
Institutional Operating Budgets ........................................ 244
Foundation Annual Budgets ........................................... 244
Extent of Participation of College Stakeholders in Establishing Overall
Administrative Policy for the Fundraising Program ..................... 244

Extent of College Personnel Involvement in Raising Funds for the Institution . . . 245
Extent of College Personnel Involvement in Evaluating Fundraising Program . . . 246

Factors Associated with Success ....................................... 247
Recommendations for Future Research .................................. 251
Reﬂections ........................................................ 252
REFERENCE MATERIALS ............................................. 257
APPENDICES ..................................................... 257
Appendix A Letter Requesting Completion of the Initial Survey ......... 257
Appendix B Initial Questionnaire Mailed to the 28 Public
Community Colleges ................................. 260
Appendix C Letter Requesting Questionnaire Input
Mailed to Pilot Colleges ............................... 263
Appendix D Congratulatory Letter Mailed to the Six Community
Colleges Comprising the Sample ........................ 266
Appendix E Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument ................. 269
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 291

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C (Greatest Amount of External
Gifts) with Colleges X, Y, and Z (Least Amount of External Funds)
in Terms of the Number of Staff Assigned to the Development and

Foundation Ofﬁces: Titles, Salaries, Reporting Responsibilities .........

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C (Greatest Amount of External
Funds) with Colleges X, Y, and Z (Least Amount of External Funds)

in Terms of the Number of Overall College Personnel .................

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C (Greatest Amount of External
Funds) with Colleges X, Y, and Z (Least Amount of External Funds)

in Terms of the Budget for the Foundation Ofﬁce .....................

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C (Greatest Amount of External
Funds) with Colleges X, Y, and Z (Least Amount of External Funds

in Terms of Foundation Proﬁles ..................................

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C, (Greatest Amount of External
Funds) with Colleges X, Y, and Z (Least Amount of External Funds)

in Terms of a Wish List as Reported by Study Respondents .............

A Comparison of External Funds Raised, Fund Balances, Foundation
Budgets, and Institutional Operating Budgets for Fiscal Year 1995 by
Large Foundations (A, B, C) and by Small Foundations (X, Y, Z) in
Descending Order of Amounts 0 External Funds Raised. Results from

Combined Initial and Final Surveys Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Data .........

A Comparison of Fund Balances, External Funds Raised, Foundation
Budgets, and Institutional Operating Budgets for Fiscal Year 1995 by
Large Foundations (A, B, C) and by Small Foundations (X, Y, Z) in
Descending Order of Foundation Fund Balances. Results from

Combined Initial and Final Surveys, Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Data ........

XV

Page

..... 133

..... 142

..... 144

..... 186

..... 190

..... 193

..... 194

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1

A Comparison of the 1995 Fiscal Year External Funds Raised (Total
Voluntary Gifts) to the 1995 Fiscal Year Foundation Fund Balances
and Foundation Budgets by Sample Foundation in Descending Order

of Amounts of External Funds Raised by Institution ...................

A Comparison of Fund Balances, External Funds Raised, Foundation
Budgets, and Institutional Operating Budgets for Fiscal Year 1995

in Descending Order of Foundation Fund Balances ...................

A Comparison of the 1995 Fiscal Year External Funds Raised
(Total Voluntary Gifts) to the 1995 Fiscal Year Foundation Fund
Balances and Foundation Budgets by Sample Foundations in

Descending Order of Fund Balances by Institutions ...................

A Comparison of the 1995 Fiscal Year External Funds Raised (Total
Voluntary Gifts) to the 1995 Fiscal Year Foundation Fund Balances
Foundation Budgets, and Institutional Operating Budgets by Sample

Foundations in Descending Order of Fund Balances ...................

A Comparison of External Funds Received in 1994, 1995, and

1996 by Size of Institution (Enrollment) ............................

A Comparison of a Three-Year Average of External Funds (Voluntary
Gifts) Received in the 1994, 1995, and 1996 Fiscal Years by Size

of Institution (Enrollment) .......................................

xvi

Page

..... 195

..... 196

..... 197

..... 198

..... 203

..... 206

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

W
W. The focus of this study was an examination of foundations

afﬁliated with public community colleges in Michigan that are used as a vehicle for
raising alternative sources of money in a period of declining resources. According to
Roueche (1996), support from traditional funding sources (local, state, and federal) will
continue to decline as a percentage of annual college operating budgets, while tuition and
fees continue to increase.

W911 According to the 1W
W (Foundation Center, 1996), a foundation is a nongovernmental,
nonproﬁt organization with its own funds (usually from a single source, either an
individual, family, or corporation) and a program managed by its own trustees and
directors. A foundation is established to maintain or aid educational, social, charitable, or
other activities serving the common welfare, primarily by making grants to other
nonproﬁt organizations (The Foundation Center, 1996).

W Community college
foundations have been designed to connect private resources with the growing needs of

comprehensive public two-year institutions (Adams, Keener, and McGee, 1994).

2
Robison stated that a nonproﬁt foundation is a primary method through which colleges
can obtain and distribute cash and other donations (Miller, 1994). Miller indicated that
college foundation personnel typically raise funds for student scholarships, faculty and
staff development, capital construction or equipment, and unrestricted operational use.

W. The purpose of a foundation, according to Kopecek
(1982-83), is to provide a mechanism by which a college can expand or improve its
services beyond the means provided for by public funds. Money donated to the
foundation is set aside for scholarships, sophisticated equipment, day care centers for
students' children, and other projects not provided for in the public budget.

Piland and Rees (1995) conducted a national survey in Spring 1994 to determine
how some of the more successful community college foundations gather and use their
funds. The authors found that funding of student scholarships from community college
foundations was by far the most popular goal of the respondents, who were member
colleges of the National Council for Resource Development.

WW5. The Internal Revenue Code and state law
form the basis for the establishment of a tax-exempt foundation (Johnson, 1982).
According to Johnson, section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code describes the most
common form of exempt organization. Johnson noted that “any foundation organized
and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientiﬁc, testing for public safety,
literary or educational purpose is eligible for tax-exempt status.” Johnson stated:

Section 501(c)(3) speciﬁcally requires . . . (1) no part of the net earnings of

the organization may inure to the beneﬁt of any private shareholder or

individual; (2) no substantial part of the organization's activities may consist

of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to inﬂuence legislation;

and (3) the organization may not participate or intervene in any political
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public ofﬁce.

3

A community college foundation will be considered to be organized for
exempt purposes only if its articles of organization (i.e., the trust instrument,
corporate charter, articles of association, or other written instrument by which
the organization is created: 1) limit its purpose to one or more purposes
speciﬁed in Section 501(c)(3); and 2) do not expressly empower the
organization to engage, except to an insubstantial extent, in activities which
do not further its exempt purposes. The purposes of the foundation, as stated
in the articles, may be as broad as, or more speciﬁc than, the purposes stated
in Section 501(c)(3). If the purposes are not limited by reference to Section
501(c)(3), the applicable Regulations indicate that the proposed activities
should be described in some detail. The powers of a foundation, as set forth
in the articles, may not include a power to engage in activities, other than as
an insubstantial part of the foundation activities, which are not in furtherance
of Section 501(c)(3) purposes.

. . . In addition to being organized exclusively for Section 501(c)(3) purposes,
a foundation must also be operated exclusively for such purposes. A
foundation will be regarded as operated exclusively for section 501(c)(3)
purposes, if it "engages primarily" in activities which accomplish its exempt
purposes; a foundation will not be so regarded, however, if "more than an
insubstantial part of its activities" is not in furtherance of such exempt
purposes. Unfortunately, however, there are very few guidelines deﬁning "an
insubstantial" part of an organization's activities. Neither the regulations nor
the Internal Revenue Service rulings have dealt extensively with this issue.
Therefore, this is an area of some risk.

. . . For a community college to qualify as a tax exempt organization, it must
afﬁrmatively apply for such status and claim the beneﬁt of tax exemption.
The foundation has the burden of proving that it falls clearly within the
meaning of the statute granting exemption from taxation.

It should be noted, however, that an Internal Revenue Service ruling or

determination letter as to tax exemption is effective as of the date the

foundation was formed if the foundation's purpose and activities satisfy the

exemption requirements from its beginning.

The Internal Revenue Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, Part 1, Sections 1.501
to 1.640, revised as of April 1, 1996, should be referenced to ensure adherence to

requirements of the law. Speciﬁcally, Section l.501(c)(3)-1, "Organizations organized and

4

operated for religious, charitable, scientiﬁc, testing for public safety, literary, or educational
purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals," deals with requirements
applicable to community college foundations.

In Michigan, the Nonproﬁt Corporation Act of 1982--Public Act 162, effective
January 1, 1983, and amended in 1990 as Public Act 39, effective March 29, 1990, addresses
requirements for foundations that can be established as nonproﬁt corporations--501(c)(3)s.
The Michigan Compiled Laws, Section 450.2212 (3), state:

A corporation incorporated for the purpose of receiving and administering
funds for perpetuation of the memory of persons, preservation of objects of
historical or natural interest, educational, charitable, or religious purposes, or
public welfare may use the name foundation.

IaxAdxantagchanundationsandDonors. The creation of a foundation offers an

advantage to both the donor and the institution. Because foundations can be
incorporated under state law so as to qualify for federal tax-exempt status, donors who
contribute to a foundation receive a tax deduction (Kopecek, 1980).

Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Section 206.260, titled "Income Tax Act of
1967" (Act 281 of 1967), state that:

A taxpayer may credit against the tax imposed by this act for the taxable year,
an amount, subject to the applicable limitations provided by this section,
equal to 50% of the aggregate amount of charitable contributions made by the
taxpayer during the year to any of the following:

. . . (h) the Michigan colleges foundation; . . . (k) A nonproﬁt corporation,
fund, foundation, trust, or association organized and operated exclusively for
the beneﬁt of institutions of higher learning located within this state. A tax
credit for a contribution described in this subdivision is permitted only if the
donee corporation, fund, foundation, trust, or association is controlled or
approved and reviewed by the governing board of the institution beneﬁting
from the charitable contribution. The nonproﬁt corporation, fund,
foundation, trust, or association shall provide copies of its annual
independently audited ﬁnancial statements to the auditor general of this state
and chairpersons of the senate and house appropriations committees.

Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Section 208.38c, titled "Contributions to
Community Foundations, Shelters for the Homeless, Food Kitchens, Food Banks, and
Certain Other Entities; Credits" allows (for the years 1989 through 1997) a credit (for a
taxpayer who does not claim a credit under section 261 of the Income Tax Act of 1967,
Act No. 281 of the Public Acts of 1967--section 206.261 of the Michigan
Compiled Laws) of 50% of the amount a taxpayer contributes during the taxable year to
an endowment fund of a community foundation (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated,

1996).

W
To the researcher’s knowledge, no analysis of public community college
foundations in Michigan had been conducted comparing foundations that received the
greatest amount of external funds with those that received the least amount of external
funds to determine whether the two groups exhibited different characteristics; and, if

differences did exist, what those characteristics were.

W

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to identify the characteristics and
activities of foundations within selected public community colleges in Michigan in Fiscal
Year (FY) 1995 that reported the greatest amount of external funds as opposed to those
that reported the least amount of external funds. Initially, the researcher had intended to
sort the 28 foundations (the study population) by external funds garnered in FY 1995.

However, practicing foundation directors advised her to choose a sample from the

6

population using the June 30, 1995, fund balance ﬁgures rather than external funds
received in FY 1995. The reasoning was that the fund balance provided a more accurate
picture of the overall ﬁnancial health of a foundation than did external funds received
during the ﬁscal year. The fund balance provided a point at which the researcher could
determine which foundations "had money in the bank" at a speciﬁc point in time. These
balances did not necessarily demonstrate foundation activity.

To demonstrate foundation activity, the Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument
was designed to elicit the group of foundations reporting the largest amount of external
funds and the group reporting the least. The six foundations selected for the sample were
subsequently compared by the amount of external funds garnered to determine whether
differences in activities existed between the group of foundations receiving the greatest
amount of external funds and the group of foundations receiving the least.

The foundation-selection process consisted of the following steps: The researcher
ﬁrst determined, by means of the initial questionnaire, which public (state-funded)
community colleges sponsored foundations. Second, of those community colleges
sponsoring foundations, she identiﬁed a total of six foundations--the three institutional
foundations with the largest fund balances at the end of FY 1995 (fund balance equals all
foundation assets) and the three with the smallest fund balances at the end of FY 1995.
Third, of those six foundations, she identiﬁed the three foundations garnering the
greatest amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) during the FY l995and the three
garnering the least amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) during the FY 1995.
Last, the three community college foundations agreeing to participate in the study and

reporting the greatest amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) garnered in

7

FY 1995 were compared with the three community college foundations agreeing to
participate in the study with the least amount of external funds garnered in FY 1995 (total
voluntary gifts) in terms of the following variables:

1. The relationship of the college to its foundation (Does a formal operating
agreement exist? Does a strategic plan exist?).

2. The personnel composition of the foundation ofﬁce (e.g., number of staff, role
of each staff person, salary range of staff, staff reporting responsibilities).

3. The types of resources available to the foundation ofﬁce that allow the staff to
carry out its fundraising role (adequate support staff, equipment, facilities).

4. The types of fundraising programs in which the college is engaged (e. g.,
annual giving campaigns, athletic campaigns, capital campaigns, endowments, planned
giving, alumni programs, volunteer programs).

5. The amount of dollars raised by the foundation and the percentage raised by
funding sources (e.g., alumni, corporations, investments, Special events).

6. Professional organizations reported by the respondents to be the most helpful
in garnering funds for their foundations.

7. The percentage of foundation monies used to support occupational education
programs offered by the community college.

8. The factors to which the respondents attributed the foundation’s success (e.g.,
an older or more established foundation, higher College enrollments, a full-time
individual assigned to external resource development, contributions from non-college-

afﬁliated individual donors, institution size, college image).

8

9. The relationship, if any, between the FY 1995 foundation fund balances and

the FY 1995 external funds raised by the foundations.

Methmlnlng!

The study population comprised the 28 public, state-funded community colleges
in Michigan. The sample included six foundations afﬁliated with public, state-funded
community colleges in Michigan--three of which reported the largest fund balances and
three the smallest fund balances as of June 30, 1995.

The researcher determined the sample by analyzing the results of the initial survey
mailed to each public community college president. Foundations were ranked in
descending order of fund balances reported by the foundation director of each public,
state-funded community college. The fund balance amount of all foundation assets as of
June, 1995, was the criterion upon which the six foundations were initially selected.
Once the foundations were selected, they were again ranked in descending order of
amount of external funds raised to determine which foundations garnered the greatest and
least amount of external funds. For purposes of this study, the larger foundations in terms
of external funds are denoted Foundations A, B, and C. The smaller foundations are
referred to as Foundations X, Y, and Z.

Personnel from sample institutions were sent congratulatory letters for their
foundation's selection as a sample site, inviting them to participate in the larger study.
The researcher later placed telephone calls to conﬁrm participation of personnel from the
selected institutions. Personnel representing ﬁve small institutions and one large

institution indicated they did not want to participate; consequently, personnel from the

9

next community college on the rank ordered list of fund balances, in descending order
from large to small, were contacted and asked to participate. Once the six institutions
were selected and personnel were sent letters conﬁrming their participation in the study,
the researcher placed a telephone call to personnel from the six sample institutions,
setting up campus interviews with the president, the foundation director, and the board of

trustee chairperson of each community college.

WW

Due to declining resources at Michigan's public community colleges, a need
existed to examine community college foundations. If some public community colleges
have experienced success in terms of the private resources they have garnered, others may
also be successful. It appears from a review of the literature that community colleges
need some direction regarding foundation "start-up." The researcher intended to provide
information to allow those public community colleges without foundations to realize that
they do have the wherewithal to establish a foundation and begin to seek private funding

more competitively.

Immrtanmﬂheﬁtndx

This study is important for a number of reasons. In reviewing the literature, it was
found that about three Michigan community colleges have provided data for national
studies; the studies cited did not specify or compare the characteristics of these college
foundations. The results of the present study--the ﬁrst to compare selected public

community college foundations--may be of assistance in effecting an increase in dollars

10

raised by institutions not aggressively seeking philanthropic funds to support their college
missions. Moreover, most Michigan community colleges have not been queried about the
characteristics and activities of their foundations. The results of this study may effect an
increase in dollars raised by each institution to support its college mission. The net result
may be greater returns to students and faculty through scholarships, improved facilities,

the securing of state of the art equipment, and funds for faculty professional development.

Deﬁnitinnanstcrms

The following terms are deﬁned in the context in which they are used in this
study.

WWW. Those activities related to maintaining and
cultivating relationships with alumni and other constituents who might have an interest in
the institution. Constituents include donors, governing board members, prospective
supporters, parents, foundations, corporations, church groups, and so on.

Annualgiying. The practice of soliciting funds on a yearly basis to supplement
annual budget dollars (funds to live by); annual giving includes funds and resources made
available to institutions by constituencies on a continuing basis.

CapitaLgiymg. Includes monies for buildings, equipment, endowments, and other
projects that do not consume all beneﬁts within a current ﬁscal year.

WW). One of Michigan's educational organizations
authorized under Public Act 331 of the Community College Act of 1966 that provides
instruction or training; a public two-year institution of higher education offering

instruction adapted in content, level, and schedule to the needs of the community in

11

which it is located. Offerings usually include a transfer curriculum (credits transferable
toward a bachelor's degree), occupational (or terminal) curriculums, general education,
and adult education.

W. Includes resources provided for institutional
use by business, industry, and private foundations.

W. The agency charged with planning and administering
fundraising programs and related activities at institutions of higher education.

W. Funds from gifts including money, securities, real estate, and
other investments of which the principal may not be expended. Term endowment funds
are funds of which, upon the passage of a stated period of time or a particular event, all or
part of the principal may be expended. Funds functioning as endowments (noncurrent
funds) are gifts (both restricted and unrestricted) that the board of administration
designates to be used as endowment funds. The restricted-funds income must be used for
the restricted purpose, and the unrestricted funds-income and principal can be used as
designated by the board or administration. The principal of restricted gifts can, by board
or administrative action, be used for the restricted purpose. Noncurrent funds are funds
that support the activities of the college or are ancillary to the college's central purpose.
The noncurrent—fund groupings includes student loan, endowment, plant, and agency.

MW). An organization, free from customary state
ﬁscal controls, that accepts and carries out special programs and ﬁnancial transactions as

a corporate entity related to, but legally independent of, the college.

12

Eundjzalange. The amount of money available in a speciﬁc account. The balance
is updated to reﬂect the result of transactions. The fund balance at the end of the year is
the total of the fund balance after all of the additions, deductions, and transfers described
in the statement for that fund group.

W. The practice of soliciting gifts and grants for schools,
colleges, and universities from interested individuals and organizations.

Majnngiying. Includes one-time gifts that may be either restricted or unrestricted
as to purpose from private philanthropic foundations or individuals, usually in amounts of
$1,000 or more. Objects of art and other in-kind gifts also fall into the major gifts
category. The major gift effort is geared toward top prospects from whom the Institution
hopes to receive its largest gifts.

Wm. Includes funds and resources made available to
institutions upon the death of the donor or his or her beneﬁciaries; deferred gifts are made
now but do not take effect until some time in the future. Funds are raised through
bequests, life-income trusts and annuities, life insurance, and gifts of real property.

W3. Hunter, Frances D. "Private Fund Raising by American
Association of State Colleges and Universities Member Institutions (University of
Mississippi, 1987); Apsey, Gary R., "Marketing Strategies by Higher Education for
Corporation Fund Raising" (Michigan State University, 1993). Wand
; 01.. 'u' '1‘ r-. {'u. own ' Ir 1 D " .n 0. -._H- nos-- '1'
W (AVA, 1992); "A Survey of Michigan Foundation
Philanthropy" (Council of Michigan Foundations, 1990); “Community College Data

13
Dictionary--1995-96,” Dganlsﬁnide (Michigan Department of Education, 1996);
WWW (Rowland, A. Westley, ed., 1986); Aﬂandtmk
Wm (Baker, George A. III, ed., 1994)

Ii 'II' ”2'. illi

The limitations of the study were inherent in the procedures, including the use of
two questionnaires and one-on-one interviews with the college presidents, chief
development Ofﬁcers, and the chairperson of the community college boards of trustees;
Further limitations were the integrity of the respondents, the willingness of the
respondents to complete both surveys, and, for those from selected sample sites,
attendance at interview sessions.

The study was delimited to those Michigan public (state-funded) community
colleges with established foundations. It was further delimited to three of the largest and
three of the smallest foundations afﬁliated with Michigan's public community colleges, in
terms of the foundations’ fund balances of all assets as of June 30, 1995. (The fund
balance provided a way for the researcher to determine which foundations "had money in
the bank" at a speciﬁc point in time; these balances did not necessarily demonstrate
foundation activity). To demonstrate foundation activity, the Final Questionnaire-
Interview Instrument was designed to elicit the group reporting the greatest amount of
external funds and the group reporting the least in FY 1995). Last, the study was
delimited to the three foundations reporting the greatest amount of external funds and the
three reporting the least amount of external funds from the rank-ordered list of

foundations with the highest and lowest fund balances.

l4
Quanizatinnnnhasrndx

Chapter I includes a background of the study as well as a statement of the
problem and purpose of the study, the need for and importance of the research, and
deﬁnitions of key terms. Limitations and delimitations of the study were also set forth.

Chapter 11 contains a review of literature pertinent to the study. Topics of interest
include declining funding for community colleges, a rationale for creating foundations
afﬁliated with community colleges, studies relating to community college foundations,
and background information regarding community college ﬁnancing in Michigan. The
research design and methodology are described in Chapter III. Results of the data
analysis are presented in Chapter IV. Analyses by percentages and comparative data are
presented in this chapter. Findings, conclusions, recommendations, a summary of the

study, suggestions for future research, and reﬂections are included in Chapter V.

CHAPTER H

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Dr'El'ﬂC 'lCll

In recent years community colleges have had to do more with less. Expenditures
and revenues are constantly in ﬂux, and community colleges are required to balance the
two Sides of the equation (Phillippe, 1995). According to Lorenzo and LeCroy (1994),
constraints on traditional revenue sources will remain through the balance of the decade.
Sanchez (1994) espoused the belief that community colleges are entangled in a long
period of "level" or declining revenues. He believed that the best community colleges can
hope for is "level" funding, but more likely they will be faced with declining revenues.

Federal and state subsidization of public higher education, in general, has declined
(Cohen, 1989). On the average, state support constitutes about one-third of college
budgets; federal, 4.6%; local, 12.5%; and tuition, 16.6% (American Association of
Community Colleges, 1995). Local funds contributing to community college revenues
are decreasing as a percentage of the total operating budgets of community colleges
(Lombardi, 1979; Wattenbarger and Heck, 1983; Wattenbarger and Mercer, 1985).
Voluntary support per student in two-year institutions, according to the Council for Aid to
Education (CAB, 1996), was approximately $38 (constant dollars) in 1976. In 1981,

voluntary support per student fell to a low of $35; it gradually increased to a high of $59

15

16

in 1990, just about where it is today. CAE expects that support per student at two-year
colleges will remain low. As a percentage of expenditures, CAE reports, voluntary
support has been slowly climbing and currently stands at 1.6 % of expenditures.

The National Association of College and University Business Ofﬁcers
(NACUBO, 1995) reported the results from a FY 1994 survey using a national sample.
The ﬁndings indicated that single-college districts with fewer than 1,000 students
reported the highest median revenues per student in almost all major categories including
tuition and fees; federal, state, and local appropriations; gifts, grants, and contracts
(federal, state, local, and private); and other sources of revenues. College districts with
10,000 or more students had the lowest median revenues per student in most categories.
Thus, it should be no surprise that surveys of community college leaders have identiﬁed
ﬁnance and the ﬁnancing of the community college mission as major concerns (Henry,

1984; Twombly, Moore, and Martorana, 1986).

Lilli“! in II' 1.1.5.“ mutiny-run Inn '5' new)
According to Dale Parnell, past president of the American Association of

Community and Junior Colleges, community, technical, and junior colleges face four new
challenges: recruitment of students, retention of students, renewal of faculty and staff,
and resource development (Parnell, 1986). Resource development is a long-term
investment, a bridge to the college community, a strong base of community friends in
inﬂuential places, and a means of obtaining the additional resources colleges need to
provide the services expected of them (Waters, 1993). Public community colleges are

challenged yearly to secure and attract additional resources to carry out their missions.

17
For the past decade, researchers like Breneman and Nelson, Garms, Wattenbarger, and
Lombardi have anticipated increasing difﬁculty in achieving adequate support for the
total mission of community colleges (W attenbarger and Mercer, 1985).

Some public community colleges have suffered budget cuts, resulting in
enrollment caps and the elimination of courses as state legislators limit spending on
higher education and focus on other priorities/concerns (Desoff, 1996). According to the
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC, 1995-96), cutbacks hit
community colleges hard in 1991. Between 1990 and 1992, appropriations dropped an
average of 6.9 percent, whereas expenditures increased 11.6 percent, creating a budget
shortfall at many colleges. The AACC stated that revenues still have not recovered to
their 1990 level, although most colleges have cut costs and balanced their budgets.

College physical plants are deteriorating; equipment needs to be upgraded
regularly; and many academic and student-service programs require additional funding.
David Pierce, Executive Director of the AACC, acknowledged that "public community
colleges are tied to the economic forces of their states. There is ebb and ﬂow, and there
may be years when they are not able to do all the purchasing and replacement they
planned to" (Dessoff, 1996).

Increasingly, these colleges are proactively using fundraising to augment funding
sources such as state revenues, local tax revenues, student fee revenues, and tuition
revenues. Piland and Rees (1995) stated:

It is imperative that community colleges develop alternate sources of funds

to supplement those received from governments if they are to avoid raising

tuition beyond the reach of most of their students . . . As competition

becomes more intense for the shrinking tax dollar, community colleges
must ﬁnd sources of funds beyond public funding to remain viable.

18

In 1996, the American AACC (1996) conducted the annual Finances and Funding
survey among its readers. The most striking ﬁndings from reader responses were that
"colleges' ﬁnancial situations are not improving;" and the readers’ belief that "tuition
increases should not be used as a primary source to solve budget

problems . . ."

The Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1996) concluded that "there is a
deﬁnite limit as to how much a college can charge students without adversely affecting
the very student market the community colleges propose to serve." Honeyman,
Williamson, and Wattenbarger (1988) conducted a survey to gather information
concerning the ﬁnancial issues affecting community colleges. They found that
community colleges reported problems such as chronic under-funding, inadequate faculty
salaries, limited state resources, capital outlay and construction needs, the need for
minority student support, and problems with the property tax and sales tax base used to
support operating expenses.

Robert H. McCabe (1996), Senior Fellow at the League for Innovation in the
Community College, commented on the value of community colleges and the need for
funding these institutions:

Not only do [community colleges] provide so many essential services, but

they do it very well, and at an exceptionally low cost. Without doubt, they

provide the most of any public service for each dollar of public funds. The
colleges have not, however, been effective in convincing the various publics

of their value and the need for priority funding. As a result, community

college support has become marginal at best, falling well behind funding for
universities and public schools.

19

Community colleges are undervalued, underappreciated, and underfunded. By
continued underfunding of community colleges, our nation is systematically
starving the institutions that have the most tocontribute to its most pressing
problems. They are, in fact, a "golden resource" in this time of economic
change. There is an extraordinary case for public support for community
colleges.

Because of this funding crisis, considerable evidence documents that
community colleges are on the verge of losing the ability to offer the quality
service that our nation requires. This is manifested in the oontinuedgrowth
in the number of part-time instructors, the lack of funds for up-to-date
equipment, the decline in student support personnel, the lack of adequate
salaries, and the elimination of important programs that are not considered
part of the core mission.

In most communities, funding per student has not pace with inﬂation.
Quality education requires reasonable funding. In many cases, community
college funding has slipped so drastically that they are on the brink of losing
the capacity to perform adequately.

Community colleges face staggering challenges. Funds allocated from the
federal government to the states will decrease.

Community colleges can be successful if they decide that increased funding
is an essential priority to which resources and time must be dedicated.
Improving funding has become an education necessity; thus, it is educational
priority. Opportunities to improve funding exist in three areas: state support,
private fundraising, and local initiates. Local public support is the foundation
of all three.

. . . The public, local government, and business interests must be involved.

Local legislators must be committed to a priority for community college

issues before they leave for the legislative session.

. . . There is no longer any reason for community colleges to step aside from

the raising of private contributions. A sufﬁcient number of community

colleges have gained experience, and at least modest success, in private fund

raising.

A spokesman for a new initiative called Project Reinvest, McCabe plans to bring
community college issues to the attention of local, state, and federal lawmakers, as well
as the general public. The goal of Project Invest is to convince the American public that
community colleges have been systematically underfunded, to the detriment of society

(Manzo, 1995).

20

Because of heavy demands on ﬁnancial resources, community colleges should
consider private sources of support to supplement their revenue base. This supplemental
support can be used for operating and capital needs. Private funds can meet the needs
that state dollars cannot ﬁnance.

The American Council on Education's W report indicated that
colleges and universities in America are "diversifying their revenue sources and are
generally becoming more entrepreneurial . . ." (AACC, 1996). ACE's Vice President for
Policy Analysis and Research stated that the environment has forced colleges to make
changes and that the most important environmental factor is the "ﬁnancial squeeze"
institutions are experiencing from decreased state funding and increased number of
students (AACC, 1996).

The Commission on the Future of Community Colleges (1988) recommended that
public ﬁnancing of community colleges be strengthened. The Commission urged that
business and industry assist with the start-up costs of technical programs in emerging and
fast-changing technologies. Further, the Commission advised that corporations,
foundations, and philanthropies should remove policies that restrict or prohibit giving to
community colleges.

Whereas four-year universities have received funds from private sources for
centuries, community colleges have lagged far behind (Piland and Rees, 1995). Four-year
colleges and universities, both public and private, have used fundraising foundations
since the turn of the century. Community college foundations report that their four-year
counterparts have received signiﬁcant amounts of money from alumni, corporations, and

other nontax sources (Angel and Gares, 1989). Piland and Rees (1995) stated that "gifts

21

of tens of millions of dollars to established four-year colleges and universities are
reported regularly in the press, but gifts of signiﬁcant size to community colleges are
conspicuous by their absence."

Nevertheless, community colleges are responding to shrinking ﬁnancial support
by establishing foundations of their own. The ﬁrst junior college foundations were
established by the ﬁrst decade of the twentieth century (Angel and Gares, 1989; Duffy,
1980; Sears, 1990). However, more than 80 percent of the currently operating
community college foundations were not established until the last 1960s (Hollingsworth,
1983). By 1986, the number of foundations associated with community colleges had
tripled, from 192 to 650 (Hollingsworth, 1983). A community college foundation
provides an alternative vehicle for the contribution of funds to support activities and
programs at the institution that are not adequately being funded through traditional
resources (Sharron, 1978), to raise funds for the improvement and maintenance of
programs and services, and to promote and facilitate corporate, alumni, and other private
funding (AACC, 1986).

Some community colleges have been successful in expanding their revenue base
through substantial increases in added sources of revenue generated through development
efforts and fundraising activities (Jenkins, 1984; Watkins, 1984). Nevertheless, many
community colleges that had established fundraising foundations allowed them to become
inactive or to exist in name only (Piland and Rees, 1995). However, many of these
foundations are now being re-activated. Moreover, new foundations are springing up on

campuses due to a need for additional funds.

22

According to Dr. Barbara Keener, Dean of Academic Affairs for Community
College Relations and University Ombudsman, University of Florida, in 1994, 160
community colleges reported raising $500,000 to $1 million or more--three times those
reporting the same type of success ﬁve years ago (Manzo, 1995). Dennis Verity,
Development Director, Santa Rosa Junior College, said that community colleges are
beginning to tap alumni, parents, and philanthropic community members (Manzo, 1995).
Dan Moriarty, President of Portland Community College, had this to say about
community college foundations (Moriarty, 1995):

While still representing only a fraction of the resources generated in the

public sector, and through program-based partnerships, foundations have had

spectacular success in some instances and show promise of helping our

colleges generate scholarship funds and other funds critical to the margin of
excellence we all seek.

W
The Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) contracted in April
1993 with Monalco, Inc., to conduct a survey of senior executives of institutionally
related foundations regarding the size of foundation assets, fund-raising results in terms
of dollars received, operating agreements and budgets, size of foundation budgets,
foundation Board selection and membership, and donor-record disclosure and
conﬁdentiality at 839 institutions. The survey had an 86% total response rate. Three
hundred seventy-nine foundations at two-year institutions responded (52.6% of the total
responses), and 342 four-year institutions responded (47.4%) (National Clearinghouse for

Institutionally-Related Foundations, July, 1994).

23

CASE's data analysis through June 1994 indicated the following about two- and
four-year foundations:

1. Almost all foundations engaged in private fundraising from individuals.

2. Almost all foundations raised funds from corporations.

3. Less than two-thirds of the two-year foundations (62.9%) raised funds from
grant-making foundations, versus three-quarters of four-year foundations.

4. Nearly one-third of two-year foundations (62.9%) raised funds from grant-
making foundations, versus three-quarters of four-year foundations.

5. Approximately 85% of all foundations managed assets; 78.9% of two-year
foundations managed assets versus 91.8% of four-year foundations.

6. Almost all foundations managed cash, cash equivalents, or securities.

7. A smaller percentage of two-year than four-year foundations managed other
assets like real estate, intellectual property, mineral rights, collectibles, businesses, and
equipment.

8. Two—ﬁfths of two-year foundations classiﬁed at least 50% of their assets as
endowments, versus three-ﬁfths of four-year foundations.

9. Almost 98% of foundations associated with two-year institutions had assets
under $10 million; 58.6% (222) had assets of less than $1 million, and 39.3% (149) had
assets between $1 million and $10 million.

10. A higher percentage of two-year foundations (17.6 %) than four-year
foundations (9.4%) received more than 50% unrestricted funds, and 46.2% of the two-
year foundations versus 62.9%of the four-year foundations had policies for allocating

unrestricted income.

24

11. Sixty percent of two—year foundations had operating agreements with their
institutions, versus 66% of four-year foundations.

12. Seventy-four percent of two-year foundations had budgets separate from their
parent institutions, whereas 24% did not have separate budgets.

13. Sixty-ﬁve percent of two-year foundations reported operating budgets under
$50,000 for fund raising and asset management.

14. Twenty six percent (107) of two-year foundations reported two to ﬁve paid,
professional staff working at least half time on foundation business; 45% (172) reported
one paid person, and 28% reported no paid person.

In summary, the two-year institution foundations reported in this national study
appear to ﬁt this composite: More than half have had assets of less than $1 million.
About 20% received more than 50% unrestricted funds; and slightly less than half of the
total sample of community colleges had policies for allocating unrestricted income. More
than half had operating agreements with their parent institutions. Three-quarters had
budgets separate from their parent institutions. More than half reported operating budgets
under $50,000. Almost half reported one paid person working at least half time on
foundation business. The majority of foundation board members had been chosen by
incumbent members of the foundation board.

WWW. Community college foundations appear to do
well in soliciting private funds from corporations and in soliciting government grants.
More community college foundation may want to consider establishing endowments,
garnering funds from grant-making foundations, and managing assets, in general.
Speciﬁcally, they should consider managing other assets like real estate, intellectual

property, mineral rights, collectibles, businesses, and equipment.

25

Because less than one-quarter of the foundations in the CASE study received
more than 50 percent unrestricted funds, more community college foundations may want
to explore raising money speciﬁcally for unrestricted use. Because less than half of the
foundations had policies related to unrestricted funds, foundations may want to weigh the
pros and cons of developing such policies.

More than half of the foundations in the study had assets of less than $1 million,
and about half of the foundations employed a half-time employee for foundation business.
Consequently, the study ﬁndings lead one to wonder whether a correlation exists between
employment of a foundation employee and the foundation fund balance. About two
thirds of the foundations had operating budgets under $50,000, which does not appear to
allow much money for personnel salaries. Therefore, a case could be made for a higher
foundation operating budget that can be used to employ persons who can conduct
activities to reach goals exceeding $1 million, or for the college, itself, to employ a
person. If research can show that a correlation does exist between the amount of funds
raised and employing a person who is responsible for foundation business, one might
conclude that more colleges should employ personnel to raise money. Because about
two-thirds of the foundations had operating agreements with their parent institutions,
more community college foundations might want to explore the beneﬁts of setting up
such an agreement. This additional link could be a factor in whether the college does hire
a person for foundation-related matters.

W. The criterion for participation in Keener and
Ryan’s study was that a community college must have reported to the CAB annually from
1986 to 1990. The ﬁve-year “giving” totals were added, and the “top ten” community

colleges were determined. No colleges in Michigan were surveyed.

26

As a result of this study, Keener and Ryan ( 1992) concluded that the mast
3mm educational fundraising community colleges, as a group, were breaking the
following "rules" that have often been cited in the research and in opinion-based
literature:

1. WM. Keener and Ryan stated this was not
true among the top ten institutions they surveyed. Whereas several colleges credited their
presidents with demonstrating a vision that supported their development ofﬁce and
ensuring that resources were available, they believed that the role of the president was
less crucial than commonly assumed. They noted, nevertheless, that several presidents
were credited with vision, and all were cited for making resources available. The
sampled institutions believed that the organization of the foundation board and the talents
of the chief fundraising ofﬁcers were equally important.

2. Sizeﬂgnnm. In two earlier studies in which be investigated the top ten
community colleges (1986 and 1988) Ryan reported that size was an important factor and
signiﬁcantly affected the colleges’ ability to raise money. Subsequently, three of the top
ten community colleges involved in a third study by Keener and Ryan (1992) were small
to mid-size, and four community colleges were located in smaller population areas.
Keener and Ryan reported that the CASE study in 1991 demonstrated that size and
population base had less to do with fundraising success than did institutional
commitment. In the September 5, 1995, issue of W3, Jeremiah

Ryan indicated that institutions with excellent local reputations fare well at fundraising.

27

3. Resgamhjmndamemal. Only one institution reported the kind of investment
in research typical of sophisticated fundraising colleges and often used by large four-year
colleges and universities. Ryan believed that community colleges could raise
substantially more if they invested in research.

4. W. The authors noted that the study
respondents reﬂected a lack of interest in the coordination of classic advancement
functions, and when these functions are present, they comprised mostly marketing
activities. The authors noted that the organization of the fundraising program for
community colleges seemed to be less important than the reputation of the college.

5. WWII.- According to the ten community colleges
that raised the most funds during ﬁscal years 1986 through 1990, local corporate support
was more important than alumni contacts, reported Keener and Ryan. The study
concluded that less than 3% of the giving among the top ten institutions garnering the
most funds represented alumni donations, whereas the remainder was donated by
business and industry. In 1995, Ryan reported that in FY 1994 almost 7% of the
voluntary support for public two-year colleges came from alumni (Cvancara, 1995).

Nevertheless, in the June 13, 1995, issue of the WW,
Ryan, former Vice President for Marketing, Planning, and Development at Harford
Community College in Bel Air, Maryland, was lauded for having received a
$1 million dollar donation through a charitable remainder unitrust, (of which only the
interest on the endowment will be used). Ryan commented then that alumni can be
community college's best development resource. He indicated that the million-dollar gift

was ample evidence that prospects--potential donors who have had experience with a

28

community college--are "out there." He indicated that these people, when properly
approached and motivated, most likely will donate to the college. The article reported
Ryan’s unwavering conﬁdence in alumni development possibilities.

Keener and Ryan reported that the top ten community colleges, in terms of dollars
raised, do adhere to the following successful tenets of successful fundraising:

1. law. Almost all of the colleges

reported making signiﬁcant ﬁnancial investments in people and ofﬁce support.

2. WM- Almost all of the ten colleges studied are

involved in planned giving efforts and several report considerable early success.
3. W. All ten colleges with endowments have sought
advice and guidance in addition to investing.
Keener and Ryan's study also included questions about:
1. Whether a development ofﬁce existed; and whether a formal operating
agreement existed between the college and the foundation.
2. The participation of key community college administrators in fundraising.
3. Whether an advancement division existed and, if it did, functions falling
under its auspices.
4. Whether the college or the foundation footed the bill for the
development director's salary and the development ofﬁce, and who paid for direct
fundraising expenses like hosting, printing, and mailings.
5. Whether an endowment existed and who managed it (college or

foundation)?

29

6. Who owned the endowment (college or foundation)?

7. Who selected the investment counsel (college or foundation)?

8. Whether an alumni program existed—-with questions regarding stafﬁng,
funding, and the amount of money the program raised.

9. Whether a planned giving program existed, how it was staffed; and
whether it had been successful?

10. If the college was successful, to what factors did personnel attribute
sustained success?
W. The results of the preceding studies

indicated that:

1. The role of the community college president may not be as crucial as
previously thought. It may be more productive to place more emphasis on hiring a good
fundraising professional as the point person.

2. The use of research and the presence of an established advancement ofﬁce,
did not seem to be crucial factors in fundraising success. However, the literature
demonstrated that, over time, alumni giving should not be underestimated.

3. Institutional commitment appeared to play a larger role in fundraising

success than size of the institution and student population.
4. The most successful community college foundations were those investing
in fundraising personnel and ofﬁce support.
5. Successful foundations were involved in planned-giving activities.
6. Successful foundations sought advice as to how to invest money to receive

the maximum beneﬁt.

30
W. The National Council

for Resource Development (NCRD, 1993), sought to determine the critical
characteristics, conditions, resource development strategies, and sources of gifts of
successful two-year college foundations. Of the 1,140 AACC members in 1993, nearly
half (550) of the institutions responded to the NCRD survey.

Responses were compared using $1 million as the dividing line between what the
researcher considered a large foundation and a small foundation. Large foundations were
deﬁned as those with assets in excess of $1 million and small foundations as those with
less then $1 million. Results were as follows:

1. The foundations with the greatest amount of external funds tended to be

more mature; thirty-two percent were founded between 1950 and 1969. Only 1% of the

foundations with the greatest amount of assets began after 1990; but 6% of the smaller
foundations began after 1990.

2. The colleges sponsoring foundations that raised the greatest amount of

external funds were more likely to have an individual responsible for external resource

development. Ninety percent of the community colleges reported having such a person.
Seventy-four percent of the colleges with smaller foundations also indicated they
employed such a person.

3. Thirty-eight percent of the foundations that received the greatest amount of

external funds ranked non-college-afﬁliated individual donors as their foremost source of
gifts, compared to only 28% of the smaller foundations. These foundations were more
likely to rank corporations as the greatest source of gifts than were their counterparts (29

% compared to 24%). Foundations that received the least amount of external gifts were

31

more likely to receive gifts from local business and industry than were the larger
Foundations. Both the larger and the smaller foundations ranked equipment as the
highest-valued, in-kind contribution. But the larger foundations ranked bequests and land
higher as an in-kind contribution than the smaller foundations.
4. The NCRD study found that size of the institution was not particularly
relevant to the fundraising ability of the college's foundation. Ten percent of
the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds were found at
colleges where the head-count enrollment was more than 20,000, whereas 27 percent of
the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds were found at colleges
with enrollments of less then 25.
5. Both the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds
and the least used similar fundraising strategies: personal solicitations, special events,
direct mail, and business and industry solicitations. The larger foundations appeared to
participate in numerous friend raising and fundraising activities to raise private funds.
However, the larger foundations relied more heavily on annual fund campaigns (60% of
the larger foundations, compared to 47% of the smaller foundations). More than half of
both the larger and the smaller foundation respondents indicated that the annual fund
campaigns were critical to the success of the resource development program. Fifty-eight
percent of the large foundations used private foundation proposals compared to 42% of
the smaller foundations. Forty percent of the larger foundations relied on endowments
(compared to 28 percent of the smaller foundations.
6. The following conditions were rated critical to the foundation's success and

ranked in the top ﬁve by more than 40% of respondents from both the larger and the

32

smaller foundation respondents: programs and causes that are people-oriented, which
lend themselves readily to resource and fund development; and an organized and deﬁned
planned effort at fundraising resource development, involving the president and
community.
7. More than 80% of the respondents from both the larger and the smaller
foundations ranked the following characteristics as critical to the success of the
foundation: "Active involvement of the college president and potential donors" and
"establishes strong public relations with the community.”
The NCRD concluded that the vast majority of their study respondents did have a
foundation and 30 percent of them had a net worth of more than $1 million. Well-
endowed colleges were more likely to have older foundations, higher enrollments, and an
individual who was assigned external resource development responsibilities. Whereas
both types of foundations ranked corporations high as a source of gifts, the larger
foundations were more likely to receive gifts from donors not afﬁliated with the college,
and the smaller foundations were more likely to rank local business/industry as a major
source.
1. It appeared that community colleges that employed a person
responsible for external resource development was able to garner more funds.

2. It appeared that the "older" foundations garnered more funds than those
initiated after 1990.

3. Size of institution did not appear to make a difference in the ability of the

foundation to raise funds.

33

4. The larger foundations participated in numerous friend raising and
fundraising events to raise funds, whereas smaller foundations participated in fewer such
events. It appeared that foundations sponsoring numerous, people-oriented activities
raised more funds that those sponsoring fewer activities.

5. Annual fund campaigns were critical to the foundations’ fundraising success.

6. Community college foundations need to respond more aggressively to private
foundation proposals and either establish endowments or create more of them.

7. It appeared that the most successful foundations had a planned fundraising
program that involved both the community college president and the community.

8. It appeared that involving the president and potential donors in fundraising
activities was critical to the success of the foundation.

9. Foundations must develop and carry out an in-depth public relations program

with the community.
W.

In 1992, all 32 State of Washington community and technical colleges were
contacted to obtain information on the characteristics and activities of the nonproﬁt
foundations (Kirk, 1992). The following conclusions were obtained:

1. A total of 25 foundations were established in the 32 colleges between 1963
and 1991.

2. Twenty of the colleges had a formal agreement with the foundation that

established the terms of their relationship.

34

3. Fourteen colleges reported that their foundations were engaged in annual
fundraising campaigns other than capital projects, with goals ranging from $20,000 to
$400,000.

4. Five colleges had established major capital projects with goals ranging from
$200,000 to $2.1 million.

5. Fourteen foundations solicited funds through personal contact and direct mail,
seven sought funds through personal contact only, six undertook phone campaigns, and
four used all three methods.

6. Seven foundations maintained planned-giving programs.

7. Auctions, endowment challenges, a wine-tasting festival and a summer

musical were among the most successful fundraising projects.

8. Fifty percent of donations came from individuals, 16% from businesses, and

14% from corporations.

9. Twenty-four foundations maintained student scholarship programs; 19 held
endowment funds.

10. Eight foundations used certiﬁcates of deposit, whereas 13 invested in
securities.

11. Ten foundations reported total assets in excess of $1 million.

12. Five of the colleges with foundations reported having alumni associations.

13. Twenty-three respondents indicated the college president served on the
foundation board.

In summary, the two-year institution foundations examined in this state study

appeared to ﬁt the following composite: A little more than three-quarters of the

35

foundations were established between 1963 and 1991. A little less than two-thirds had a
formal operating agreement with the parent institution. Less than half had sponsored
annual fundraising campaigns. About 85 percent had not sponsored major capital
projects. Less than half solicited funds through personal contact and direct mail. Less
than one-quarter of the foundations maintained planned-giving programs. Half of the
donations were contributed by individuals and about one-third of the donations were
contributed by business and corporations. Three-quarters of the foundations sponsored
scholarship programs for students; more than half of the foundations held endowment
funds. About one-quarter of the foundations used certiﬁcates of deposit, and less than
half invested in securities. About one third of the foundations reported assets in excess of
$1 million. Less than one-quarter of the foundations sponsored alumni associations.
Almost three-quarters of the foundations indicated that the college's president served on
the foundation board.
11" [15 El!!!‘ 51.

1. Those foundations without operating agreements may want to explore the
beneﬁts of such an agreement with their parent institution.

2. Foundations not engaging in annual fundraising campaigns may want to
consider establishing annual fundraising campaigns in order to garner more funds.

3. More foundations may want to explore the feasibility of a capital campaign in
order to garner more funds.

4. More personal and direct mail contacts need to be made.

5. More foundations need to explore the beneﬁts of planned-giving programs.

6. Because half of the donations were contributed by individuals, more of the

36

same should be planned; and because one-third of the donations were contributed by
businesses and corporations, more requests should be made of additional
companies/corporations. According to Keener and Ryan's research, the payoff for
foundations is funds contributed by business. Nevertheless, Ryan also acknowledged that
alumni associations (which 25 %t of the State of Washington's foundations sponsor),
should be continued because one never knows when that large gift, which might catapult
the foundation ahead, will arrive.

7. More foundations should establish endowments-~at the time of the study, only
half of the foundations did do so.

8. Community college foundations need to seek fundraising counsel regarding
how to invest their funds most appropriately--whether that be investing in certiﬁcates of

deposit or in securities, and so on.

[2 ii [211 E' i M'l'

Reyenne3. Community colleges are ﬁnanced through revenues from local and
state governments, student tuition, and fees (Commission on the Future of Community
Colleges, 1988). From 1945 to 1948, the legislatures of Arizona, Idaho, Michigan,
Nebraska, Utah, and Washington increased their ﬁnancial support for junior colleges
(Witt and Wattenbarger, 1994).

W. In 1964, the Michigan legislature passed Public Act 237, which
deﬁned the role of Michigan's community colleges. This law established college districts
as "charter units of government;" as such, they were given authority to issue bonds and

levy property taxes, if approved by a local election. The following year, state support for

37

junior colleges was raised to $275 per full-time-equivalent student. By the end of the
decade, Michigan had 29 community college districts serving more than 95,000 students
(Witt and Wattenbarger, 1994).

W. Governor John Engler's FY 1997 Budget recommended an
increase of 5% or $12.3 million for the state's 28 community colleges. Half of the
increase was allocated to the colleges as an across-the-board increase to keep pace with
inﬂation; the other half was allocated using the Gast-Mathieu formula.

51W. Historically, Michigan has
used funding formulas for the allocation of state support to community colleges. The
formula is the principal means of allocating state operating support to the 29 community
colleges (Abent and Rosine, 1994) The current community college funding formula, the
Gast-Mathieu Fairness in Funding Formula, was instituted by the Michigan legislature for
the FY 1984-85; the formula evolved as an improvement on previous, less-detailed
formulas (Senate Fiscal Agency, 1994).

The formula's purpose is to establish a level of state funding obligation. It does
not necessarily represent actual costs at particular institutions; but, rather, it uses average
cost calculations to determine state aid (Abent, 1991). A tax equalization factor
guarantees each college a minimum tax revenue, regardless of its ability to generate
property tax revenue.

WWW Nationally. community
college enrollments as of January 1996 were down for the third consecutive year. State

and federal ofﬁcials attributed the decline to a shrinking pool of traditionally college-age

students and to a stronger economy offering more jobs (WW3, 1996).

38

Kara Cvancara (1996) of the WW reported that another possible

explanation was that four-year institutions have accepted students comprising a pool from
which the community colleges typically draw enrollment by offering developmental and
basic skills programs. David Pierce, President of the American Association of
Community Colleges, stated that community colleges historically have noted a correlation
between enrollments and the health of the national economy (WW,
1996). In 1988, community, technical, and junior colleges enrolled about 43% of the
nation's undergraduates and 51% of all ﬁrst-time entering freshmen (Commission on the
Future of Community Colleges, 1988).

During the 1994-95 academic year, Michigan's public community colleges
enrolled 416,246 students, either part or full time, at one of the state’s 29 public two-year
colleges. (Michigan State Board of Education and Michigan State Board for Public
Community Colleges, 1996). The same year, community college students generated
70,205,447 contact hours of instruction. In 1994-95, community colleges expended
$657,368,736 in general funds. General fund revenue sources included the following

(Michigan State Board of Education, 1996):

General state aid: $241,336,729
Student tuition and fees $222,527,723
Local property taxes $217,511,020
Other sources of revenue 3 26,050,173

State aid per ﬁscal year equated student (FYES) in 1993-94 was $1,913, reﬂecting
a 38% increase over the past ten years (State Board of Education, 1995). The local tax

support per FYES given to Michigan community colleges has continued to increase--

39

demonstrating a 51% rise since 1985 (State Board of Education, February, 1995). Tuition
and fee revenue per FYES increased 45% over the decade--increasing from $996 to
$1,799 (State Board of Education, 1995).

All "other" revenues declined as a percentage of total general fund revenue--from
5.2% in 1989-90 to 3% in 1993-94.

Summary-

Higher education sources indicate that, even though private gifts have increased
slowly in the recent past, there is reason to believe that institutions will garner more funds
as time progresses, while creating diversiﬁed strategies for fundraising.

The Chmniclegﬂﬁghenﬁdnnaﬁgn reported in May 1996 that private gifts to
American Higher Education in FY1995 increased at the slowest rate in eight years.
Colleges received a total of $12.75 billion in the year ending June 30, 1995, just 3.2%
more than the $12.35 billion they raised the year before. The increase was actually only
0.3 percent when adjusted for the 3% rate of inﬂation (N icklin, 1996).

Nevertheless, Lorenzo and LeCroy reported that community colleges believe that
dramatic change is underway, and they are looking for ways to take the offensive in the
funding arena (Lorenzo and LeCroy, 1994). In addition, the Institute for Future Studies
cited four reasons for a renewed approach to fund development:

1. Community colleges are gaining experience--data indicate that they have the

capacity to succeed.

2. Public understanding of and regard for community colleges is growing,

resulting in the readiness of qualiﬁed givers to look at community colleges as worthy

recipients of major gifts.

4O

3. An increasing number of community college alumni are moving into jobs and
ﬁnancial positions enabling them to become major donors.
4. Community colleges are engaging in ventures that offer philanthropic appeal,

such as the performing arts centers, museums, and other auxiliary enterprises.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH, DESIGN, AND METHODOLOGY

The research design and methodology used in this study are discussed in this
Chapter. The research purpose is set forth and the research design is explained.
Participant/sample selection is discussed as is the research instrument. The data-
collection and data-analysis procedures are described, and limitations of the research

method are set forth.

W

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to identify the characteristics and
activities of foundations within selected public community colleges in Michigan in FY
1995 that reported the greatest amount of external funds as opposed to those reporting the
least amount of external funds.

The researcher ﬁrst determined, by means of the initial questionnaire, which
public (state-funded) community colleges sponsored foundations. Segnnd, of those
community colleges sponsoring foundations, she identiﬁed a total of six foundations--the
three institutional foundations with the largest fund balances (fund balance equals all
foundation assets) and the three foundations with the smallest fund balances. Third, of

those six foundations, the researcher identiﬁed the three foundations garnering the

41

42

greatest amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) during FY1995 and the three
garnering the least amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) during FY 1995. Last,
she compared the foundations with the greatest and least amount of external funds in
terms of the following variables:

1. The relationship of the college to its foundation (Does a formal operating
agreement exist? Does a strategic plan exist?).

2. The personnel composition of the foundation ofﬁce (e.g., number of staff, role
of each staff person, salary range of staff, staff reporting responsibilities).

3. The type of resources available to the foundation ofﬁce that allow the staff to
carry out its fundraising role (adequate support staff, equipment, facilities).

4. The types of fundraising programs in which the college is engaged (e.g.,
annual giving campaigns, athletic campaigns, capital campaigns, endowments, planned
giving, alumni programs, volunteer programs).

5. The amount of dollars raised by the foundation and the percentage raised by
funding sources (e.g., alumni, corporations, investments, special events).

6. Professional organizations reported by the sample respondents to be the most
helpful in garnering funds for their foundations.

7. The percentage of foundation monies used to support occupational education
programs offered by the community college.

8. The factors to which the respondents attributed the foundation’s success (e. g.,
an older or more established foundation, higher college enrollments, a full-time
individual assigned to external resource development, contributions from non-college-

affrliated individual donors, institution size, college image).

43

9. The relationships, if any, between the FY 1995 foundation fund balances and

the FY 1995 external funds raised by the foundations.

Researchﬂcsign

The research design consisted of two surveys (Appendices B and E) and six
campus visits. Both an Initial Survey and a Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument
were determined to be the best methods for data collection. The campus visit, during
which interviews were conducted with the college president, foundation director, and
board of trustees chairperson (hereafter referred to as board chairperson) was deemed the
appropriate method to obtain complete responses from the selected community college
foundations to increase the probability of eliciting accurate information because of the
physical presence of the researcher, to control the timeliness of the responses, and to
personally reassure the research subjects that conﬁdentiality of responses would be

strictly maintained.

Sampleselcsﬁsm
The study population comprised the public 28 community colleges in Michigan
that are state funded. (Beginning December 31, 1995, Highland Park Community
College was no longer state funded.) The sample included a total of six public (state-
funded) community college foundations in Michigan that reported the largest and smallest
fund balances as of June 30, 1995, and indicated their willingness to participate in the

study.

44

The researcher determined the sample by analyzing the results of the initial survey
mailed to each public community college president. First, the researcher determined
which public (state-funded) community colleges sponsored foundations. Second, of
those community colleges sponsoring foundations, she identiﬁed a total of six
foundations-~the three institutional foundations with the largest fund balances at the end
of FY 1995 and the three with the smallest fund balances at the end of FY 1995. Third,
of those six foundations, she identiﬁed the three foundations garnering the greatest
amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) during the 1995 FY and the three
garnering the least amount of external funds (total voluntary gifts) during the 1995 FY.
Last, those three community college foundations agreeing to participate in the study and
reporting the mates; amount of external funds garnered in FY 1995 (total voluntary
gifts) and those three community college foundations agreeing to participate in the study
and reporting theJeast amount of external funds garnered in FY 1995 (total voluntary
gifts) were compared.

Three non-sarnple public community colleges were then randomly chosen by
category--large fund-balance foundations and small fund-balance-foundations«and
invited to pilot test the ﬁnal Questionnaire/Interview Instrument.

Selected sample institutions were sent congratulatory letters for having been
selected as sample sites, inviting them to participate in the larger study. The researcher
subsequently placed telephone calls to conﬁrm participation by the selected institutions.
Six institutions indicated at that juncture they did not want to participate in the study, so
the next community college on the rank-ordered list of fund balances for each community

college (depending upon which grouping-large or small colleges--needed another sample

45

site), in descending order from large to small, was contacted and asked to participate.
Once the six institutions were chosen and sent letters conﬁrming their participation in the
study, the researcher placed a telephone call to each, asking the foundation director or
president's ofﬁce to set up campus interviews with the president, the foundation director,

and the board of trustees chairperson of each community college.

mm

The Initial Questionnaire was mailed to the presidents of the 28 state-funded
community colleges in Michigan to elicit information that provided the basis for selecting
the sample. Respondents were asked whether a foundation existed at their community
college. Only those colleges reporting a foundation in existence were considered for the
study.

In addition, information was requested about the name, location, and enrollment
of the institution. Respondents were also asked to provide information regarding the
annual foundation budget, total voluntary gifts, the institutional operating budget, and the
fund balance at the end of the last ﬁscal year.

The initial survey was adapted from one that Hunter (1987) used in her doctoral
research at the University of Mississippi.

The second and Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument developed for the study
included items devised by the researcher to provide information with which to answer the

research questions, as well as items adapted from previous research:

46

1. Parts of a survey developed by Hunter (1987) were adapted for this study.
While reviewing the literature, the researcher discovered that Hunter's study was one of
the ﬁrst addressing community college foundations.

2. Results of studies conducted by Barbara J. Keener, Dean of Academic Affairs
for Community Relations, University of Florida; and Jeremiah Ryan, President of Quincy
University, Quincy, Massachusetts, and formerly Vice President of Marketing, Planning,
and Development, Harford Community College, Bel-Air, Maryland; Vice President for
Institutional Advancement, Monroe Community College, Rochester, New York; and
research fellow for the AACC.

The researcher was particularly interested in Keener and Ryan's studies, which
suggested that the president's role is not as crucial as previously thought; that
coordination of classic advancement activities with fundraising activities does not appear
to make much difference in the amount of funds raised; that institutional commitment is
more important than institutional size; and that corporate support, rather than alumni
giving, is the base of support. The researcher was interested in gathering the opinions of
Michigan's community college presidents, board of trustees chairpersons, and foundation
directors regarding the above-mentioned conclusions arrived at by Keener and Ryan.

The researcher incorporated questions similar to the ones used in Keener and
Ryan's studies:

1. Whether a development ofﬁce existed. Whether a formal operating

agreement existed between the college and the foundation.

2. The participation of key community college administrators in fundraising.

47

3. Whether an advancement division existed, and, if it did, functions falling
under its auspices.

4. Whether the college or the foundation footed the bill for the development
director's salary and the development ofﬁce, and who paid for direct fundraising expenses
like hosting, printing, and mailings.

5. Whether an endowment existed and who managed it (college or foundation).

6. Who owned the endowment (college or foundation)?

7. Who selected the investment counsel (college or foundation)?

8. Whether an alumni program existed--with questions regarding stafﬁng,
funding, and the amount of money the program raised.

9. Whether a Planned-giving program existed, and how it was staffed.

10. To what factors did personnel attribute a foundation's ability to garner more

than $1 million in gifts?

WW
An Initial Questionnaire was devised and mailed to the presidents of the 28
state-funded community colleges in Michigan. Presidents were asked to forward the one-
page survey, including a cover sheet, to the foundation director at the college. If no
foundation existed, the president was asked to forward the survey to the person
responsible for receipt of external funds at the college.
The purpose of the initial survey was to determine which community colleges

sponsored foundations and the amount of the fund balance of all assets of the foundation.

48

With that information, the researcher was able to rank order the colleges in descending
order of assets at a particular point in time-June 30, 1995--to determine the six
foundations comprising the study sample.

The initial survey was mailed on January 31, 1996, to all public community
colleges in Michigan, with a requested return date of February 7, 1996. Responses were
obtained from all colleges by February 29, 1996, either through the actual survey return or
following a telephone call to the college president or foundation director of the
community college. Telephone calls were placed on February 9 and 12, 1996, reminding
those who had not returned their questionnaire to do so. Additional calls were made
February 15, 27, and 28, 1996. Consequently, a 100% response rate was secured for the
Initial Survey, affording the researcher information about which colleges sponsored
foundations and the size of each foundation's fund balance.

The researcher devised a list enumerating the fund balance of the total assets for
each foundation that was reported to exist. Three foundations reporting the highest
foundation fund balances were chosen at the high end, and three foundations reporting the
lowest foundation fund balances were chosen at the low end to comprise the sample.

Next, the researcher randomly selected three community colleges that were not a
part of the sample to participate in a pilot test. Telephone calls were made to three
institutions, requesting that the foundation director pilot test (critique) the questionnaire
and return the corrected instrument to the researcher within one week. A follow-up letter
and the draft questionnaire were mailed to these institutions.

After the pilot test, the sample community college personnel were telephoned,

congratulated on theirselection as sample participants, and asked to schedule a date for

49

the interviews with the college president, foundation director, and board of trustees
chairperson. Six community colleges indicated either during or after the initial telephone
call that they did not wish to participate; colleges that declined included one large
community college foundation and ﬁve of the smaller community college foundations. A
letter conﬁrming the selection of those colleges agreeing to participate was mailed to the
college president following the telephone calls; a copy of the questionnaire was enclosed
with the letter to enable the college president and foundation director time to ponder the
type of questions that would be asked. The ﬁnal Questionnaire/Interview Instrument also
was mailed just prior to the interview. The researcher subsequently met on the
community college campuses with all of the community college presidents, all foundation
directors, and the three board of trustees chairpersons comprising the sample. The
researcher recorded the questionnaire answers both manually and on tape. Conﬁdentiality

of responses was assured.

Analyﬁcalkmsdum

The researcher compared the three institutional foundations agreeing to participate
in the study and reporting the greatest amount of external funds raised as of June 30,
1995, with the three institutional foundations agreeing to participate in the study and
reporting the least amount of external funds raised as of June 30, 1995, by using
percentages. In addition, in cases where percentages could not be computed, the data
were presented by using descriptive statements, in terms of the following:

1. The relationship of the college to its foundation (Does a formal operating

agreement exist? Does a strategic plan exist?)

50

2. The personnel composition of the foundation ofﬁce (e. g., number of staff, role
of each staff person, salary range of staff, staff reporting responsibilities).

3. The types of resources available to the foundation ofﬁce that allow the staff to
carry out its fundraising role (adequate support staff, equipment, facilities).

4. The types of fundraising programs in which the college is engaged (e.g.,
annual giving campaigns, athletic campaigns, capital campaigns, endowments, planned
giving, alumni programs, volunteer programs).

5. The amount of dollars raised by the foundation and the percentage raised by
funding sources (e.g., alumni, corporations, investments, special events).

6. Professional organizations reported by the respondents to be the most helpful
in garnering funds for their foundations.

7. The percentage of foundation monies used to support occupational education
programs offered by the community college.

8. The factors to which the respondents attributed to the success of the college's
foundation (e.g., an older or more established foundation, higher college enrollments, a
full-time individual assigned to external resource development, contributions from non-
college-afﬁliated individual donors, institution size, college image).

9. The relationships, if any, between the FY 1995 foundation fund balances and
the FY 1995 external funds raised by the foundations.

The second and Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument included the following
twelve sections. The chief development ofﬁcer was asked to respond to all sections. The
college president and the chairperson of the college board of trustees were asked to

respond to all sections except Part I, Institutional Information.

51

1. Institutional Information.

2. External Inﬂuences.

3. Management Practices.

4. Foundation Characteristics.

5. Relationship of the College to the Foundation.

6. Resources Available to the Foundation Ofﬁce.

7. Types of Resource Development Programs the Foundation Sponsors.

8. Percentage of Dollars Raised by the Foundation, divided by Various Funding
Sources for the Period July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995.

9. Percentage of Total Dollars Raised by the Foundation for the Period July 1,
1994, through June 30, 1995, by the Foundation and Spent for Vocational Programming.

10. Professional Organization Afﬁliations.

11. Major Reasons for the Sustained Success of the Foundation's Fundraising
Program.

12. A "Wish List" for Future Spending.

DI' 'lll [II R IMIII
The study was delimited to the three largest and the three smallest foundations, in
terms of the size of the fund balance as of June 30, 1995. Only those foundations

afﬁliated with Michigan's public community colleges were included in the study.

52
1' ill' [II B IMII I

The limitations of the study were inherent in the procedures, including the use of
two questionnaires: the initial questionnaire mailed to the community college presidents;
and the Final Questionnaire/Interview Instrument mailed to the foundation directors or
college presidents (college presidents received the instrument if no foundation director
was employed at the institution); the one-on-one interview with the college president,
chief development ofﬁcer, and the chairperson of the community college board; the
integrity of the respondents; and the willingness of the subjects to participate in and
attend interview sessions.

The questionnaire! interview instrument was designed with multiple-choice,
forced-answer, and open-ended questions. Some questions on the questionnaire were
designed to elicit nonquantiﬁable responses. Therefore, the responses were compiled and
categorized by large and small foundations (based on the dollar amount of the funds
received as of June 30, 1995). For the sake of anonymity, the large foundations were
identiﬁed as Colleges A, B, and C; the small foundations were identiﬁed as Colleges X,

Y, and Z.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Intrmlnctinn

Presented in this chapter are nine variables researched from FY 1995 data
obtained from personnel employed in the 28 public community colleges in Michigan,
including a discussion of each. In analyzing each variable, the three colleges associated
with foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds are labeled as
College A, College B, and College C. The three colleges associated with foundations that
received the least amount of external funds are labeled as College X, College Y, and
College Z. Colleges ABC and XYZ will be compared as separate groups to determine
whether differences exist between the two. In addition, the three foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds are labeled Foundation A, Foundation B,
and Foundation C. The three foundations that received the least amount of external funds
are labeled Foundation X, Foundation Y, and Foundation Z. Foundations ABC and XYZ
will be compared as separate groups to determine whether differences exist between the
two.

The colleges and foundation were compared with regard to the following

variables:

53

54

1. The relationship of the college to its foundation (Does a formal operating
agreement exist? Does a strategic plan exist?).

2. The personnel composition of the foundation ofﬁce (e. g., number of staff, role
of each staff person, salary range of staff, staff reporting responsibilities).

3. The types of resources available to the foundation ofﬁce that allow the staff to
carry out its fundraising role (adequate support staff, equipment, facilities).

4. The types of fundraising programs in which the community college is engaged
(e.g., annual giving campaigns, athletic campaigns, capital campaigns, endowments,
planned/deferred giving, alunmi programs, and volunteer programs).

5. The amount of dollars raised by the foundation and the percentage raised by
funding sources (e.g., alumni, corporations, investments, special events). External
inﬂuences-organizations that compete with the community college foundation for funds
are included in this section.

6. Professional organizations reported by the sample respondents to be the most
helpful in garnering funds for the community college foundation.

7. The percentage of foundation monies used to support occupational education
programs offered by the community college.

8. The factors to which the respondents attributed the success of each community
college foundation (e.g., an older/more established foundation, higher college
enrollments, a full-time individual assigned to external resource development,
contributions from non-college afﬁliated individual donors, institution size, college

image, and so on).

55

9. The relationships, if any, between the FY 1995) foundation fund balances and

the FY 1995 external funds raised by the foundation.

Variable I: The Relationship of the College to its Foundation (Does a Formal

Operating Agreement Exist? Does a Strategic Plan Exist?)

This section includes the following topics reported from questions posed in the

Questionnaire/Interview Instrument.

1. Inclusion of the college foundations on the public community college
organization charts
2. Formal Operating Agreements between the college and the foundation

3.

4.

5.

Major functions of the sample college foundations
Missions of the sample community college foundations

Community college Strategic P1ans--existence of a community college

Strategic Plan

a.

6.

The projection of institutional needs in the community college Strategic Plan
for several years

Incorporation of and reference to the foundation within the community college
Strategic Plan

Foundation Plans--Existence of a written college foundation Annualﬂan with

projected goals prepared by the foundation

a.

Projection of fundraising goals for several years within the college
foundation's Annual Plan, if such a plan exists
Response to who approves the foundation's Annual Plan if it is prepared for

approval

56
c. Existence of a written Strategigﬂan with projected goals developed by the
foundation
7. Relationship of the board of trustees to the foundation
8. Responses to who pays for the development director/development staff--
college or foundation
9. Responses to who pays for the foundation mndnaisingexnemgsnthe college or
foundation
10. Responses to whether or not all external funds received by the college are
channeled through the college's foundation
11. Fundraising program policy
a. Extent of college personnel involvement in establishing overall administrative
policy for the fundraising program
b. Extent of college personnel activity in raising funds for the institution

c. Extent of college personnel involvement in evaluating the fundraising

program.
1. :'.5!..lllli I' i"'li’il|?ii.‘t'1~.'i'lll' t '
WW5.

W. Only one of the foundations from those receiving the
greatest amount of external funds--College Foundation B--was included on the college's
organizational chart.

W. Only one of the foundations from those receiving the least

amount of external funds-—College Foundation X--was included on its community college

57

organizational charts. On College X's organizational chart, the foundation was located
within the Planning/Monitoring workgroup composed of the president, vice president,
ﬁnance/budget ofﬁcer, and bank, articulation, and institutional research personnel.
II‘I'I ' i‘ .'.'I I I.II...II :3 LII . «or 'I ‘ II t'
College's W. Only one of the college foundations from each
group--those garnering the greatest amount of external gifts and those garnering the
1east--appeared on the community college's organizational chart. The community college
presidents, in responding to the survey, indicated that foundations were governed by their

respective foundation boards; consequently, their presence was generally not shown as a

part of the college operation.

 

W. All three of the foundations that received the greatest
amount of external funds had developed a formal agreement with their respective
colleges; most of these agreements were termed the Foundation Bylaws. Moreover,
Foundations A, B, and C were able to produce the Foundation Articles of Incorporation
because a legal agreement was necessary to establish each foundation as a nonproﬁt
corporation--a 501(c)(3) organization previously discussed in the Introduction to this
dissertation. College B President indicated that a more speciﬁc formal agreement would
be helpful in forestalling misunderstandings and in establishing the nature of the
relationship between the college and the foundation. He believed that, "the proprietary

demeanor of the staff could be eliminated with a clear operating agreement."

58

W. All of the foundations that received the least amount of

external funds did have a formal operating agreement (Bylaws) with their colleges.

 

Agreemenm. All six foundations studied not only developed foundation Bylaws but were

able to produce Articles of Incorporation. The only differences among the colleges

appeared to be the Speciﬁcity of the language in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.

The College B Foundation Bylaws did not appear to be as speciﬁc as most.

3.

Sample-

I III:III :- --U:I {II III I .l' IIIIIII 'I l'

Il'ﬁ'EEl'E:

l.

2.

3.

Serve as community ambassador for the community college.
"Raise friends" for the community college.

Raise funds to assist in supporting the mission of the community college

through annual/capital campaigns.

4. Guide fundraising decision making and manage the funds raised.

5. Demonstrate leadership in donating to the college.
W:

1. Develop associations with individuals/organizations.
2. Support and service the institution.

3. Solicit contribution support for the community college.
4. Manage investments.

5. Plan donor-recognition events.

59

Ihemajmﬁrnctinnsnflicundationmre:

1. Fundraise to provide scholarships to students.

2. Contact the community for donations (friend raising).

3. Institute endowments for the future (persons leaving money to the college in
their wills).

4. Publicize the college.

5. Promote a positive image of the college.

WW:

1. Promote, establish, conduct, maintain, and operate charitable, educational, and
scientiﬁc activities in conjunction with the community college.

2. Solicit and receive, by gift, bequest, devise, purchase, lease, or otherwise,
money, securities, and all other forms of personal, real, and mixed property and interest;
also own, hold, manage, improve, repair, assign, give, and administer, transfer, and
dispose of the aforementioned. The foundation, as long as it exists, serves as an internal
grant provider for faculty and staff.

3. Borrow money; issue notes, bonds, debentures, and other forms of obligations
to secure the same by mortgage, pledge, and so on.

4. Apply for patents, copyrights, and trademarks; receive, hold, manage, transfer
or encumber the same.

5. Make, execute, and deliver receipts, contracts, conveyances, assignments,

encumbrances, and other documents necessary to the conduct of business.

60

6. Exercise all powers and perform duties necessary for the business of the
corporation.

Ihemarmﬁrnctrmmfﬁoundatmnﬂere:

1. Award scholarships to students, faculty, and staff members of the college.

2. Maintain and develop the facilities and services of the community college for
broader educational opportunities and service.

3. Provide funding for Special projects like the creation of a sculpture depicting a
traditional and a nontraditional college-age student.

4. Provide funding for nationally and internationally prominent speakers to
elevate learning in the community, including a visiting-artist program.

5. Provide funding for grants awarded to various departments of the community
college.

Ihamajnnﬁmctionmfﬁaundaﬁnnlme:

1. Obtain money, in a lawful manner in order to provide the community college
with the broadest range of ﬁnancial support.

2. Provide ﬁnancial assistance to students of all ages and circumstances.

3. Support professional and personal growth activities of faculty and staff.

4. Encourage innovative programs that beneﬁt the college and community.

5. Engage in any other activities appropriate to the mission of the foundation.

.l‘l‘I' :‘quI I IIIIII :3 -II. “U... I 1'40! I '.
Major thematic functions of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds were raising friends for the community college, raising funds to support the

college's mission, and promoting a positive college image. Major themes of the

61

foundations that received the least amount of external funds were raising monies to
support the college's mission and providing funding to students and for special
faculty/staff projects/activities. All foundations, those that received the greatest amount
of external gifts and those that received the least amount of external gifts, were engaged
in the primary function of supporting the community and assisting with fulﬁlling their
community college missions.

4. WWW
Foundations

IhemissigngﬂEnundaﬁgnA was to serve as the fundraising arm of the college,
supporting its mission and the students who attend the college. An additonal mission was
to secure broad-based ﬁnancial resources, manage those resources, and use the earnings
for the maximum advantage of the college. According to the Bylaws of College A, the
foundation assisted in an educational and charitable manner to accomplish the
educational purposes of the institution and to augment the facilities in a manner that may
be designated, directed, or desired by the board of trustees of the institution.

W was to provide funding to enhance educational

opportunities at the college and to leverage external resources.

Ihgmissinnnfﬁqundatinnﬂ was to raise money for the college.

i“' III,:II , nu ,‘II I 1' :III‘ IIIII i. I

W was to support the comprehensive mission of the

college by providing the additional resources necessary to ensure success. The

foundation enhanced the college's image within the community, broadened its base of

62

support, communicated to the public its base of support and its responsiveness to local
needs, and, through fundraising efforts, provided the college with a measure of excellence
for its educational programs and services.

W was to raise money for the college and to provide
ﬁnancial assistance to the students. The foundation awarded scholarships and grants to
students, faculty, and staff members of the college and maintained and developed the
facilities and services of the community college for broader educational opportunities and
service. Its primary purposes were to see that the mission was carried out through various
charitable, educational, literary, and scientiﬁc activities, and to supplement college funds.

W to provide educational enrichment to the
citizens of the community college district.

WW Again, the missions
of the foundations promoted the theme of raising additional funds for the community
college to serve the needs of the students and community while assisting with fulﬁlling
the community college's mission.

5. (WIN III .1' I .I I' III; 'II-- .‘I .‘l ' I IIIII I'
W.

W All sample college
respondents, including the foundation directors, college presidents, and college board of
trustees chairpersons were asked if their community college had developed a strategic

plan. All reported that their college had developed a strategic plan.

63
D' ‘('l' :’1’.‘l 0102.00 :3 III . I" .' 'I .‘ I II. ‘- ’ II --
W. College A personnel explained that their strategic plan included 12
indicators of success to evaluate/gauge the college’s progress toward its goals. College X

reported using a multiyear plan with "institutional ends."

Sawmmmmmmmmmmjmm

I O O O .
III. III: \k'at, I I‘ III,II,_I \ I"' =_.'u II I ": 3:...

W. Foundation directors, college presidents, and
college board of trustees respondents were asked whether institutional needs were
projected in the college's strategic plan for several years. All respondents reported
afﬁrmatively--institutional needs were projected in the college’s Strategic Plan for several
years. As a group the four foundation directors reported that institutional needs were
projected in the college's strategic plan for several years. Likewise, the six college
presidents as a group reported that institutional needs were projected in the college's
strategic plan. Four college board of trustees (three interviews and one written response)
also reported that institutional needs are projected in the college's strategic plan for
several years.

.l‘l‘t ' :1. ‘.‘I I II- II ;= -II . "'1‘ 'eI'. II I I ' II-
WWW. Whereas all respondents reported
that institutional needs were projected in the college's Strategic Plan for several years, two
college presidents elaborated upon their responses. College A president explained that
the six-year strategic plan was updated each year through an annual report to show those

needs that had/had not been met. College X president indicated that the institutional

needs were projected in the plan in a broad sense.

 

\"l'|\1".l'h.|'.5.!l|Aiii' IIIII II t."‘ :.'u :I
Foundation directors, college presidents, and college board of trustees respondents
were asked whether the community college Strategic Plan referenced the foundation.
WWW-Of the three foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds, two (Foundations A and B) reported that their
foundations were not mentioned in the college's Strategic Plan.

A third foundation director represented in the group of foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds reported that, although the foundation was not
speciﬁcally mentioned in the Strategic Plan, wording regarding the "vehicle providing
resources" was discussed. Therefore, the researcher categorized this response as "yes"--
i.e., the foundation was mentioned in the Strategic Plan.

W. The only foundation director representing
one of the foundations receiving the least amount of funds--College X--(two of the three
college foundations within this group did not employ a foundation director) did not know
whether the foundation was mentioned in the college's Strategic Plan.

'1 'I‘I' I III II .r‘ 0|~-- I II. II t‘ ‘I‘I‘ I,I' IIIII l|

Two of the three college foundation directors from the foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds reported that their respective foundations were not
speciﬁcally referenced in their community college Strategic Plans. The third director
indicated that the foundation was referenced, but not in speciﬁc terms. The only

foundation director (employed half-time) who represented the group of foundations

65

receiving the least amount of external gifts did not know whether the foundation was
referenced in the college's Strategic Plan. In summary, the majority of foundation
directors who participated in this study reported that their college foundations were not
speciﬁcally referenced in their community college Strategic Plans.

W13. One of the presidents from the group
of community colleges with foundations that received the greatest amount of external
gifts reported that the foundation was subtly mentioned in College C's Strategic Plan. The
other two presidents from community colleges with foundations receiving the greatest
amount of external gifts reported that their foundation was not mentioned in their
community college Strategic Plan. College C president established eightnbjmm
related to the institutional goal to, "Enhance the Financial Stability of the College," found
in the College's Strategic Plan. The summary of Accomplishments for that year listed
progress toward attainment of each of those speciﬁc foundation objectives.

WW3. All presidents within this group reported that
their respective foundations were not referenced in the community college's Strategic
Plan.

- -H- m" .1 . h- r. __ . .._H :- -H .. ..
WW. Of the three presidents with foundations that
received the greatest amount of external gifts, two indicated their foundations were not
referenced in the college Strategic Plan. All three presidents with foundations that

received the least amount of external gifts indicated that their foundations were not

66

referenced in the college's Strategic Plan. In summary, the majority of college
foundations were not referenced in the college's Strategic Plan, according to the
community college presidents who participated in this study.

Wanna. The College A
chairperson representing a college sponsoring one of the foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds reported she did not know whether the foundation was
mentioned in the college's Strategic Plan. The college board chairperson from
Colleges B and C did not participate in this study.

W. The Chairperson from
College X reported that the foundation was generally alluded to, but not speciﬁcally
mentioned, in the strategic plan; the researcher categorized this response as a "no." The
chairperson from College Y reported that the foundation was not mentioned in the
college's Strategic Plan. The College Z chairperson reported he did not know whether
the foundation was mentioned in the college's Strategic Plan.

D' ’l'l .‘ i't.‘.'I I :3 Ii' . I in I I l ” .JI-__II.‘I.II --
W In summary. of the four
board chairpersons responding to the Questionnaire/Interview Instrument, two (one from
a foundation receiving the greatest amount of external funds and one from a foundation
receiving the least amount of funds) did not know whether their college foundations were
referenced in their respective colleges’ strategic plans. The remaining board

chairpersons (both representing colleges with foundations receiving the least amount of

67

funds) reported that their foundations were not speciﬁcally mentioned in the Strategic
Plan. Insgnclnsign, two board chairpersons did not know whether their foundations were
referenced in the community college’s Strategic Plan and two indicated their foundations
were not referenced in the Strategic Plan.

. J t . I a A
'. . A‘ ' “' '1 4“ ‘.A'

A H ., =1 0.. .... ,HHH H,

I a: -- 01.2.1.1} II. I u- 0'1. -_II =I-.IrI I I
Chairperson. Of the three colleges whose foundations received the greatest amount of
external gifts, all foundation directors (n=3), all college presidents (n=3), and the only
board of trustee chairperson (n=1) participating from this group reported that their college
foundations had developed a written annual plan with projected goals that the foundation
prepared.

Wm. Of the three colleges whose
foundations received the least amount of external gifts, only Foundation X employed a
foundation director. He reported that his foundation had developed a written annual plan
with projected goals that the foundation prepared; however, the director indicated that
these goals were solely fundraising goals.

I' --.- I JO. I. I‘ -, I.-- ,_ -. -I ._ . .I,-. I I I...”
W Although all participating
foundation directors reported the existence of a written foundation Annual Plan, the

director of Foundation X reported that the written goals were only fundraising goals.

68
W3. As reported above, all of these presidents

reported their college had developed a written annual plan with projected goals that the
foundation prepared.

W13. Of the three colleges whose foundations
received the least amount of external gifts, the president from College X reported that the
foundation did not have a written plan but did discuss an unwritten, informal annual plan
with an annual goal of at least $100,000 per year. The other two college presidents
reported that their foundations had not developed a written, annual plan with projected
goals that the foundation prepared.

. T. .- m" ..‘ . ‘_....l_ . .... 1‘ “W .
O .‘e.."'._1 .Q..A...‘...A-. .L "Oqf'l .I' 0102.00.
While all three college presidents with foundations receiving the greatest amount of
external gifts reported that a written annual plan was prepared by the foundation, two
presidents from the foundations receiving the least amount of external gifts reported that
such a plan was not prepared. The third president reported that an unwritten annual plan
with informal goals was discussed and used.
WWW As reported above. the
only Chairperson (College A) participating from this group of foundations reported that

her college foundation had developed a written annual plan with projected goals that the

foundation prepared.

69

W The board chairperson from

College X indicated that written goals had been established for the director for several
years. The College Y board Chairperson did not respond. The chairperson from
College Z could not recall whether a written annual plan with projected goals had been
prepared by the foundation.

. __'_ m“ {s . :h . . l -- h.” H __ . W .- .‘

A h.‘ . . “L“ H. a. L. 3.. .. .5 an“ . J-

Ennndaﬁgn. The only chairperson from the ABC group reported that a written annual
plan existed. One board chairperson from the X, Y, Z group indicated a written plan was
developed. One of the other two trustee could not recall whether a plan existed, and the
other did not respond.

I' ~I..- :-,~;. I—I- ;: .II, III... ..'..,*..I.

III.‘I I IIII.II;II-_.’-I..II'1I"I II iu‘I-I'II I'

Foundatign. All three foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds
reported that a written annual plan existed. Of the foundations receiving the least amount
of external gifts, two out of three persons reporting from College X reported that written
fundraising goals were set; the third person reporting from College X indicated that goals
were established, but they were unwritten. Thus, the researcher concluded that, in spite of
one participant's reporting that a plan existed in unwritten form, College X did have an
annual plan; therefore, College X was considered to have a plan for this study's research
purposes. Colleges Y and Z basically reported that a written annual plan with projected

goals that the foundation prepared did not exist.

I IIIIII III = H :1 I' '1 :II ’ =..I .‘II im a In L“... in'I: III
W. (Only Colleges A, B, C, and X are discussed below because
Colleges Y and Z had not developed an annual plan.)

Wars. Foundation directors from Colleges A and
B reported that goals were projected for several years within the Annual Plan. The
foundation directors fromCollege C reported that goals were not projected for several
years within the Annual Plan.

Callagaxzﬁanndaﬂanmraatar. (Colleges Y and Z did not employ a foundation
director.) The foundation director from College X reported that goals were projected for
three to ﬁve years within the Annual Plan.

fr“ .- . H. .H r“ w“, .._A .H . H . '.. .1 .
WWW. Of the three foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds, two of the three foundation directors
reporting that an Annual Plan existed also indicated that goals were projected for several
years within that Annual Plan. Of the three foundations that received the least amount of
external funds, the only foundation director employed reported that goals were projected
for several years. In summary, three out of four foundation directors reported that goals
were projected for several years within their Annual Plans.

Wants. Two of the presidents indicated that
goals were projected for several years; the third president reported that goals were not

projected for several years.

7 1

W. Of the foundations that received the least amount of funds,
only College X reported an Annual Plan. The president of College X reported that goals
were not projected for several years in the informal, unwritten Annual Plan.

..._U. . ”.3“.-. “.33” (H's... “ .
WW. Of the three colleges that received
the greatest amount of external funds, two of the three presidents whose foundations had
developed Annual Plans reported that goals were projected for several years in those
plans. Of the three colleges that received the least amount of external funds, only one had
an annual plan; the president of that college indicated that goals were not established for
several years within the Annual Plan--a contradiction to the foundation director's
response.

WWW. Of the colleges with foundations
that received the greatest amount of external gifts, the College A board chairperson, the
only chairperson from the College ABC group who participated in this study, was not
certain whether the Annual Plan contained goals projected for several years.

WW3. Of the colleges with foundations
that received the least amount of external gifts, only College X reported an Annual Plan;
and, consequently, it was the only college able to answer the question regarding whether
goals were projected for several years within the foundation's Annual Plan. The board
chairperson from College X reported that goals for the foundation director’s performance

were only projected for several years, a contradiction to the president's response that goals

were not projected for several years.

72

fr“- h. . . L h.” H -_ .3 .H . “1.... h .
W The only chairperson
participating in this study from the College ABC group was not certain whether goals
were projected for several years in the foundation's Annual Plan. Of Colleges XYZ--only
one chairperson could respond because respondents from Colleges Y and Z reported that
no Annual Plan had been developed. The chairperson from College X reported that
goals were projected for several years in the foundation's Annual Plan, but they were
related to only the foundation director's performance.

6b.

 

W. All three of these colleges reported that their foundation Annual
Plan was prepared for approval, and all reported it was approved by the foundation board
of directors; however, College C indicated that only the budget was prepared for approval
by the foundation board of directors.

CallagasXYZ. Of the three colleges, College X reported that its Annual Plan was
prepared for the approval of the foundation board of directors, and College Y reported
that it was prepared for the approval of the executive committee of the foundation board
of directors. College Z did not have an Annual Plan.

W- Personnel from two of the three
foundations receiving the greatest amount of external gifts reported that their Annual

Plans were prepared for the approval of the foundation board of directors; personnel from

73

one of the three foundations indicated that only the budget was prepared for approval.
Personnel from those foundations receiving the least amount of external gifts reported

that their Annual Plans were also prepared for approval by the foundation board of

directors.
6c. .I.'I'I :A.'I :59 ’2I.‘IIHII'.'u.I 1L: h"II.'-.I

WWW. Only one foundation

director (College A) from the ABC Colleges foundations and one foundation director
(College X) from the XYZ Colleges reported that their foundation had developed a
written strategic plan with projected goals that the foundation directors prepared. Board
of trustees chairpersons from Colleges B and C did not participate in the study.

W. The president of College
A was the only president from the ABC to report that his college’s foundation had
developed a written, strategic plan with projected goals that the foundation directors
prepared. No president from Colleges XYZ reported the existence of a similar plan that
the foundation directors had prepared.

I ;.: .II I . -- I -I-:I._II .. ..'...,-..I.

The chairperson from College A and the chairperson from College Z--reported that they

did not know whether the foundations had developed a written, strategic plan.

74
I‘I- -.- I .3: -- ._-- ' ._I mud-I I ,I- III. 'II.--
Resmndants Only one foundation director and one college president from the same
college (College A) reported that their foundation board of directors had developed a
strategic plan with goals they prepared. The board chairperson was not certain whether
the foundation board of directors had developed a strategic plan.

D' -I-I- I. -- '._I'eI-I..r-II i' I I'I..|"I‘I
Rasaandants. The foundation director from College X reported that the foundation had
developed a strategic plan whereas the president and board of trustees chairperson
reported that no foundation strategic plan existed. The presidents from Colleges Y and Z
reported that no strategic plan existed. The board of trustees chairperson from College Y
reported that no strategic plan existed, and the board of trustees chairperson from College
Z reported that he did not know whether a strategic plan existed.

WWW. Of the
foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, one out of three
foundation directors and presidents reported that their foundation had developed a
Strategic Plan; the board of trustees chairperson did not know whether such a plan had
been developed. Of the foundations that received the least amount of external gifts, three
presidents reported that a Strategic Plan had not been deveIOped. The only foundation

director and a board of trustees chairperson reported that a Strategic Plan had been

developed. Another board of trustees chairperson did now know whether a plan had been

75

devised. In summary, it appeared that the majority of college foundations did not have a
strategic plan. Foundation directors, presidents, and board of trustees chairpersons
seemed to disagree on this topic; and, in general, board of trustees chairpersons did not
seem to be all that aware of the types of plans their own foundations had developed.

7. :‘5ill'l u- Ln: H l a. n n- In; 'I.: bung... ,l
.u‘ inunulutm ""'dl“-:~"|. Louimut n a' “sum”.

m" ..‘ .Iw. . “in.” . _‘ . . :~ .1.” ... . r h! . . '1
mm. According to community college foundation directors, community
college boards of trustees did communicate with their afﬁliated foundations by virtue of
trustee representation on the foundation board. The majority of sample community
college foundation directors appeared to view the relationship of the board of trustees as
advisory and supportive. Foundation directors indicated that the board of trustees
approved only that portion of the college budget allocated to the foundation, e.g., staff
salaries. Foundation matters, they stated, were handled by the foundation board of
directors. Financial reports were generated and presented for information and receipt to
the college board of trustees by the foundation director, foundation chairperson, or, in
those cases where no foundation director was employed, by the community college
president.
I ,z -- I II... rm, I :- I,II -- :- .II II I I- :I. I I

W. The foundation director of Foundation A reported that three

college trustees served as voting members of the foundation board of directors. College

76

trustees served on committees for all fundraising campaigns and assisted with cultivation,
prospect identiﬁcation, and solicitation. The board of trustees approved general
parameters/policy within which the foundation operated.

The foundation director of Foundation B reported that two college trustees were
appointed to the foundation board. The foundation submitted quarterly progress reports
to the college board of trustees. The college trustees annually approved the Resource
Development Budget (under whose auspices the foundation fell), reviewed foundation
reports, and approved continued operating support for the foundation. (Personnel salaries
were paid by the college.)

The foundation director for College C reported that the college board of trustees
authorized the foundation's incorporation in the 1960s. The board of trustees, in general,
received information about foundation activities, audit reports, and so on.

o I 1-- ru- H '1‘. o {' HI ' ' 1' 1..l .0 o O‘ h-. o 0
W. The foundation director of College X reported that the
relationship of the College board of trustees to the foundation was advisory. In addition,
a supportive relationship-one that promoted the mission of the college foundation and
advanced the objectives of the foundation in the community through communication and
support--was adopted.

No foundation director was employed by College Y. The community college
president functioned as the foundation director, with assistance from the volunteer
foundation board. Likewise, no foundation director was employed by College Z. The
community college president functioned as the foundation director with assistance from

the volunteer foundation board.

77

I' ‘t':‘ O I: In 0 I 'J'q'l" I..The
chief difference appeared to be the approval or receipt of foundation budgets/activities. If
the college assumed payment of, for example, salaries or other activities, the item was
approved rather than received by the board of trustees at a formal college meeting. If the
salaries/activities were paid by the foundation, the report of such was presented to the
board as an information item. Other items like progress toward goals were also received
by the board of trustees from the foundation board of directors. Foundation directors
seemed to agree that the board of trustees served an advisory and supportive function with
respect to the foundation board of directors. In addition, a communication link existed
between the two bodies, with the membership of trustees on the foundation boards of the
majority of sample colleges.

OHIO I.\ o "‘ '41‘ 0‘. i' In ‘ ’ i‘ «H ID. I‘ :0. no I

Won. Like the foundation directors, the community college presidents
indicated that community college boards of trustees did communicate with their
foundations by virtue of trustee representation on the foundation board. The presidents
clearly described and emphasized the division between the foundation and the community
college. Due to the status of the community college foundation as a non-proﬁt 501(c)(3)
organization, the foundation board of directors--not the college board of trustees--
managed the foundation business. Because the foundation existed to serve speciﬁc needs
of the college, foundation personnel did present information to the college board of
trustees either during formal meetings, in the case of the larger community colleges, or
over informal dinners, in the case of some of the smaller colleges. Information generally

was received by the college board of trustees when it pertained to foundation action;

78
when action pertained to college policy, the board approved the matter when presented by
the foundation. It appeared that community college boards of trustees, in any event, were
informed of foundation affairs due to trustee representation on the foundation board of
directors.

Of“ ;3 -- um I; o r‘ "I 1‘ am .' ' 1‘ In 00 o r
Won. The president of College A reported that the college
board of trustees was generally uninvolved with the foundation except that three of the
board members were foundation board members and, thus, took action on major
initiatives undertaken by the foundation.

The president of College B reported that the relationship between the board of
trustees and the foundation was not nurtured by the foundation Board CEOs. The
president reported that the board of trustees would never be more than generally involved
in the foundation's business. The board of trustees and the foundation board had the same
mission—-they both existed to serve the college, he stated. (The reader should note that
the College B Bylaws did not include the president of this college as an ex-ofﬁcio
member of the foundation as did the Bylaws of foundations in the sample.)

The president of College C reported that the college foundation was a non-proﬁt
501(c)(3) organization. The college board of trustees cannot direct the foundation, he
explained. If the board of trustees directed the foundation, the foundation would
essentially be part of the same organization and not a separate 501(c)(3) non-proﬁt
organization.

I. - can It 0.11"":'000":‘40|l0 o 1'

W. The President of College X reported that the

79

community college board of trustees acted in an advisory capacity to the foundation. The
College board of trustees was a policy-making entity solely for the community college,
the president indicated.

The president of College Y reported that the foundation board of directors
transacted all business of the foundation; however, if a matter could not be reconciled or
determined, the board of trustees of the community college arbitrated the issue and
decided the matter. The College Y board of trustees received reports--they did not
approve the reports. A member of the board of trustees was a member of the foundation
board of directors, and a member of the foundation board of directors was also a member
of the college board of trustees.

The community college president of College Z reported that one member of the
college board of trustees served as an ex-ofﬁcio member of the foundation board. The
foundation board presented information to the board of trustees regarding primarily gift
progress.

W. The presidents
of Colleges A, B, and C reported that the board of trustees’ relationship to the foundation,
while advisory in nature, involved approval of college-related issues only. The separate
nature of the 501(c)(3) nonproﬁt foundation status was evident in the researcher's
discussions with these presidents. The foundation Articles of Incorporation for all
colleges were the link between the college and the foundation because the Articles
described the purpose of the foundation’s existence, which was generally to serve the
needs of the community college and the community it served. All of the foundation

boards presented information to the college board of trustees, as a rule, for their

80

information. Of the foundations at Colleges X, Y, and 2, one anomaly appeared to be a
smaller college's subjection of an unresolved issue to the scrutiny of the college board of
trustees for resolution when the issue could not be resolved by the foundation board of
directors.

IIIII II I =IIII I l. ‘r I-II.'I~II i' IrII - ' i- ._ II II I
W. W~Aﬂ four board
chairpersons who were interviewed generally believed that the board had little
involvement in the business of the foundation. Board members supported fundraising
activities through participation and donations. However, the policy of the foundation was
set by the foundation board of directors with no meddling by the body of the board of
trustees as a whole. Again, because the foundation existed to serve the college, reports
were prepared by the foundation board of directors including the number and amounts of
gifts garnered by the foundation and presented to the board of trustees for their review of
the foundation progress and ﬁnancial health. One board of trustee chairperson reported
that the college could exert legal control should the foundation mismange monies.
Foundation Articles of Incorporation set forth the legal conditions upon which the
foundation functioned and, as such, the foundation was legally bound to these conditions,
the chairperson explained.

I a: =--I._ I I I " lelh'l~0| 1‘ IrII ‘ ' 1‘ . II II I U‘
W. The board chairperson from College A reported that
she believed the board possessed authority over the foundation in that the trustees could
legally hold the foundation responsible for decisions regarding how external gifts were

handled. She indicated that the board of trustees accepted and approved foundation audit

81

reports. (The reader should note that foundation personnel salaries at College A were
paid by the college).

The board chairpersons from Colleges B and C were unavailable for comment.
However, the foundation board of directors chairperson reported that although some
members of the college board of trustees members had attended fundraising events, they
were generally uninvolved in foundation business except for afﬁliation on the foundation
Board of Directors.

- - . -. O - .- . .. I O .
I I . “I.I II l I._ |IA II \ III ' \ . II I II I

W. The board Chairperson from College X reported
that the trustees approved the roster of foundation directors. The relationship of the board
of trustees to the foundation was a perfunctory one as a member of the college board of
trustees was also a member of the foundation board of directors.

The board of trustees chairperson from College Y reported that a "hands off"
policy was followed after the board of trustees selected one of its members to serve on the
college foundation board.

The college board chairperson from College Z reported that the board of trustees
had a good relationship to the foundation, but it was one of little involvement. The
budget, ﬁnance reports, and activities suggested to raise money were discussed and
shared over an informal dinner on a quarterly basis, he reported.

I' -I-I- I--- I: ._II I"‘ .O.--I ---:I.I I I
W. Little difference existed between the responses of the board chairpersons
from Colleges A, B, and C and those from Colleges X, Y, and Z. In general, the board of

trustees was minimally involved in foundation business, with the exception of approving

82

college budget items and any noncompliance issues relating to the foundation Articles of
Incorporation. The chairpersons and foundation ofﬁcers of colleges (which also had the

lowest enrollments) appeared to be more informal in their decision making than the

boards of trustees of Colleges A, B, and C.

 

W. College A’s development/foundation director and staff
were paid by the college. College B’s Director of Resource Development (under whose
auspices the foundation operates) and staff were paid by the college. College C’s Dean of
Marketing/Development and staff were paid by the college.

W. College X’s half-time foundation director and staff were
paid by the foundation. Colleges Y and Z employed no foundation directors. The
community college president and the volunteer foundation board of directors carried out
the college's fundraising role.

WWW. Of the three foundations at
Colleges A, B, and C, all salaries for the development/foundation directors and staff were
paid by the colleges. Of the three foundations at Colleges X, Y, and Z, salaries for the
foundation director and staff at College X were paid by the foundation. Colleges Y and Z
did not employ a development/foundation director.

9. 2': II I II I' I I I' III.=III--QII :_ I' .I.'I

{aIrIIx-Icn IlII': I I‘ IrII=III€lII =. l' .IIr‘I.'v.~--.I' I'-I"I

IhILEQundaﬁnnI

83

W. Fundraising expenses of hosting events/activities, printing,
and mailing for the foundations at Colleges A and B and were paid with community
college revenues. Similar expenses for the foundation at College C were paid by the
foundation.

W. The foundations at Colleges X and Y paid for fundraising
expenses using the foundation budget. The foundation at College Z used both college and
foundation monies for fundraising expenses, depending on the nature of the activity.

'I'I‘I; :‘\."I I III II I: III IIIIII I --. IIIIII

Wm. Two out of three colleges afﬁliated with foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external gifts paid for foundation expenses. In contrast, two out of
three foundations receiving the least amount of external gifts paid for their own
fundraising expenses from their foundation budgets.
10. {mIrII .I A‘I‘ I‘ I \I I .I'IIII I’l II {' ° III ,I I' I a"

W.

W. The foundation directors from
Colleges B and C reported that not all of the external funds received by their colleges
were channeled through the college's foundation.

W. The presidents from colleges A, B, and
C reported that not alllof the external funds received by the college were channeled
through the college's foundation.

W The board of trustees
chairperson at College A stated he did not know whether all external funds received by

the college were channeled through the college's foundation.

84

W The foundation director from

College X reported that all external funds received by the college were channeled through
the college's foundation.

W. The presidents of Colleges X and Z reported
that not all external funds received by the college were channeled through the college's
foundation. The president of College Y reported that all funds except general fund
monies were channeled through the college's foundation.

W The board of trustees
chairperson from College X reported that all monies were channeled through the
foundation. The chairperson from College Z was not certain whether all funds were
channeled through the foundation. The chairperson from College Y did not respond to
this question.

WWW. Two of the foundation directors
from Colleges A, B, and C reported that not all external funds were channeled through the
foundation. On the other hand, the half-time foundation director at College X--the only
director employed by the colleges in this group--reported that all funds were channeled
through the foundation.

The three presidents from Colleges A, B, and C reported that not all funds were
channeled through the foundation. Likewise, the three presidents from Colleges X, Y,
and Z indicated that not all funds were channeled through the foundation.

The board chairperson from College A did not know whether all funds were
channeled through the foundation, nor did one of the board chairpersons from the

foundations receiving the least amount of external gifts. One chairperson from the latter

85

group reported that all funds were channeled through the foundation, and the third did not

respond.

11a. WWW

.3.|l|.'.'5 IIIII :"I I I‘ II=_”-I"dt'r=.II-

W.

W. The foundation director at College A
reported the following:

1. The president was generally involved in establishing overall administrative
policy for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very uninvolved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer (See chief development ofﬁcer.)

6. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

Wags. The foundation director at College B
reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer (See chief development ofﬁcer.)

6. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

86

Wags. The foundation director at College C
reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer (See chief advancement ofﬁcer.)

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer was very involved.

6. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

WNW Among the
college foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, responses to how
involved college personnel were in establishing the overall administrative policy for the
fundraising program were as follows: ErgsidgnIs: Two foundation directors reported that
the president was very involved, and one reported that the president was generally
involved. Bgardgfjjmstggs: Two foundation directors reported that the board of
trustees was generally uninvolved, and one reported that the board was generally

involved. W: Two foundation directors reported that the

foundation board was generally involved, and one reported that the foundation board was
very uninvolved. Chigﬁnglglgpmgmﬂfﬁggr: Two foundation directors reported that the
chief development ofﬁcer was very involved. The third foundation director responded to
the category of chief advancement ofﬁcer and reported that person to be very involved.
College faculty marks ranged from very uninvolved, to generally uninvolved, to generally

involved.

87

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the foundation
directors generally believed that the community college presidents were very involved in
establishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising program; that the college
board of trustees were generally uninvolved; that the foundation board of directors were
generally involved; that the chief development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcers were
very involved; that the college faculty were generally involved to very uninvolved; and

that the "other" category did not apply.

Ila. (cont'd) WWW
. ‘1“ ..l...: “j”. 1.... . V '.:H_'.a.u.:.'_
WW.

Wags. The foundation director reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer (See chief development ofﬁcer.)

6. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

7. Other: The alumni association was generally involved

W. A foundation director was not
employed at College Y.

88

Wags A foundation director was not
employed at College Z.

I I III ..I'I.OI.['I. I‘III:-- IIII-II {'IIII'
WWW. Of those college foundations that received
the least amount of external funds, responses to how involved college personnel were in
establishing the overall administrative policy for the fundraising program were listed
above.

I ; : III ._II I , Cali-”OI I'- I :- II. ---
Diffgrgnggs. The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that both groups of
foundation directors (those receiving the greatest amount of external funds--A, B, C-- and
those receiving the least amount of external gifts--X (the only foundation director
employed within the College X, Y, Z group), believed that the college presidents were
very involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising program.
Whereas the foundation directors from Colleges A, B, and C believed that the board of
trustees were generally uninvolved, the foundation director from College X, representing
the foundations that received the least amount of external gifts, believed that the board of
trustees was generally involved. Both the ABC group and the Foundation X Director
believed that the chief development (foundation director)/advancement ofﬁcers were very
involved. Whereas the ABC group labeled the faculty generally involved to very
uninvolved, the Foundation X Director believed the faculty were generally uninvolved--
all respondents appeared to believe the faculty were not involved in establishing overall

administrative policy for the fundraising program. While the ABC group did not respond

89

to the "Other" category, the Foundation X Director reporting "other" included the alumni
association. The alumni association at College X served as "friend raisers" who strove to

enhance the image of both the college and the foundation.

118. (cont'd) WWW

. C O C C. . .
I"' 'I~JII‘ II 'II'I I ..it It'. 'I= é'Jtt‘lli!‘ I I

 

Wags. The president of College A reported the

following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very uninvolved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer was very involved (same person/position as
above)

6. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

7. Other: Volunteers were generally involved.

W. The president of College B reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

90

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer-~none employed.

6. The college faculty were generally involved.

7. Other: Staff were very involved (Included were administrators, management
staff, and other staff). The College B President stated that any foundation ignoring its
employees was shortchanging itself because, among the staff, were many eager "doers."

W. The president of College C reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer (same person/position as below.)

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer was very involved.

6. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

I ; : ._II O'CI"'O:'|10O"' IIII.II I t. I.” - . Of
those foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, responses to how
involved College personnel were in establishing the overall administrative policy for the
fundraising program were as follows: Preaidgnta: All presidents reported that the
president was very involved and one reported that the president was generally involved.
W: Two presidents reported that the board of trustees was generally
uninvolved and one reported that the board was generally involved. Egnndatignﬁoaadgf

Djrggtgrs: Two presidents reported that the foundation board was generally involved, and

91

one reported that the foundation director board was very uninvolved. Chigﬂlgxglgpmgm
(EgundaﬁgmlAdmggmgmgfﬂggx: All presidents reported that the chief development
(foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very involved. Two presidents reported that the
college faculty was generally uninvolved; the third president reported general
involvement.

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the ABC group of
college presidents generally believed that the community college presidents were very
involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising program; that
the college board of trustees was generally uninvolved; that the foundation board of
directors was generally involved; that the chief development (foundation)/advancement
ofﬁcers were very involved; that the college faculty were generally uninvolved; and that
"others" referred to volunteers who were generally involved and to staff who were very

involved.

118- (cont'd) WWW

. C .
I'I"'..,III' II 'II'I I ,,3_|,|l'.'{ ;I_III‘1¢=I"I I I'

W.

W. The president of College X reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was very uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

92

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer--none employed.
6. The college faculty were very uninvolved.
7. Other: alumni association were generally involved.
I I '-'III‘I‘I {‘ III' 'I'.‘("" I I l‘h'l'ﬂ t‘
following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer--n/a--none employed.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer--none employed.

6. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

7. Other: students were generally involved.

Wm. The president of College Z reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer--none employed.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer--none employed.

6. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

93

. . . . . ' - I. . I- .
0 ‘ I ‘..' 0. ‘ 0 I \ 0x0. -- ""1‘ 0 s I"! 0"

Of those college foundations that received the least amount of external gifts,
responses to how involved college personnel were in establishing the overall
administrative policy for the fundraising program were as follows: Ergaidgma: All
presidents reported that the president was very involved. W: Presidents
reported that the board of trustees was not very involved. WW:
Presidents reported that the foundation board of directors were involved. Chjgﬁ
Dgldgpmgmﬁgundaﬁgmmdyanggmgnmfﬁggr: The president of the college that
employed a foundation director reported that the chief development
(foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very involved. Presidents reported that the college
faculty were generally uninvolved.

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the college presidents
generally believed that the community college presidents were very involved in estab-
lishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising program; that the college board of
trustees was not very involved; that the foundation board of directors was involved; that
the only chief development (foundation director)/advancement ofﬁcer employed was
very involved; that the college faculty was generally uninvolved; and that the "other"
referred to volunteers who were generally involved and to staff who were very involved.

I I ,II. II I : .II .II I I II. 'II , .II ".I- I-I

. O O I I. O O
I'IrII° I ‘ III‘ II ‘II'I I II II'O‘It 60"! I. ‘ I I

W. Presidents from both groups, ABC and XYZ,

believed that the community college president was very involved. Both believed that

94

their board of trustees was not very involved but that the foundation board of directors
was generally involved. Both believed that the development (foundation)/advancement
directors were very involved but that the faculty were generally uninvolved. Both
believed that staff were very involved and that volunteers were generally involved.

113- (cont'd) WWW

. O O O O O O O
D D I l I I I
I ' IxJII I I II I I ..-_,I II' . 3, IIIII =I ' I I .I'

 

W. The board chairperson from

College A reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors were very uninvolved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer (see chief development ofﬁcer.)

6. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

W. The board

chairperson from College B did not participate in the study.

W. The board

chairperson from College C did not participate in the study.

W The chairperson from

College A was the only one participating in the study from the ABC group. That

individual’s responses are listed above.

95

Ila. (cont'd)_Cnﬂeges_X._YI_and.Z.Eundraising£mgmm£QlimExtgnmf
I ""'I~.III' I I 'II‘II ..tI tl'.'3 IIIIHI, 1"! 0."
Q II-¢,‘II' Qumran-- I it: II I. '3) H. .x..\" (“.Irltr'u

Wigwam. The board chairperson
from College X reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer was very involved.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer (see chief development ofﬁcer.)

6. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

W. The board
chairperson from College Y reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in establishing overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer--none employed.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer—-none employed.

6. The college faculty was generally uninvolved.

W. The board
chairperson from College Z reported the following:

96

1. The president was generally involved in establishing overall administrative
policy for the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was very involved.

3. The foundation board of directors--The chairperson stated he did not know
how involved this group was in establishing overall administrative policy.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer--none employed.

5. The chief advancement ofﬁcer--none employed.

6. The college faculty was generally uninvolved.

I I -..II I ‘°'=I-..II I. " .JI-IIr IIi' IIII‘--
Wags. Of those college foundations that received the least amount of
external gifts, responses to how involved college personnel were in establishing the
overall administrative policy for the fundraising program were as follows: Ergsjdgms:
Two of three board of trustees chairpersons believed the president was very involved.
Bgardgfjmatgga: Two of the three chairpersons reported that the board of trustees were
very involved. W: Chairpersons reported that the board of
directors were very to generally involved. ChigLDgxglgpmgm
(EgyndatignMAdxanggmmtﬂfﬁggr: Not applicable because Colleges Y and Z did not
employ foundation directors. Two of the three board chairpersons reported that the
college faculty were generally uninvolved.

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses (Foundation A and
Foundations XYZ) that the college board of trustees chairpersons generally believed that

the community college presidents were very involved in establishing overall

97

administrative policy for the fundraising program and that the college board of trustees
was generally uninvolved. The board chairperson from College A reported that the
foundation board of directors was very uninvolved in setting overall administrative policy
for the fundraising program; but the XYZ group believed the foundation directors were
involved. Both groups believed that the Chief development (foundation)/Advancement
ofﬁcers employed were very involved and that the college faculty were uninvolved in this
issue.

I' -I-I- :-I.-,-I OVIOI II I: .II I I'I.0l I :I. I I I
UIXIIA-IIII :- OAOI‘ I ’-I.III- II 'II-I 'I ._I ° III 0 ' ._ ‘01.] I. '
WWW. Chairpersons from both groups, ABC and XYZ,
believed that the community college presidents were very involved. Both believed that
the board of trustees was not very involved. The ABC group believed that the foundation
board of directors was very involved whereas the XYZ group believed the foundation
board was generally involved. Both believed that the development
(foundation)/advancement directors were very involved and that the faculty were
generally uninvolved. Likewise, both believed that staff were very involved and that

volunteers were generally involved.

11b. WWW

'IIJII' I III {I I' {III I I' I II I'IIu ll.) II | I‘ I
Responses.
W. The foundation director at College A

reported the following:

active.

active.

98

. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

The board of trustees was generally active.
The foundation board of directors was very active.

The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer) was very

The college faculty were generally inactive.

Other: Volunteers were very active.

W395. The foundation director at College B

reported the following:

1.

2.

5.

6.

The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

The board of trustees was generally inactive.

. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation/advancement ofﬁcer) was very

The college faculty were generally active.

Fundraising volunteers were very inactive.

W. The foundation director at College C
reported the following:

1.

2.

The president was very involved in raising funds for the institution.
The board of trustees was generally inactive.
The foundation board of directors was generally active.

The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation/advancement ofﬁcer) was very

99
5. The college faculty were generally inactive.
6. Fundraising volunteers were generally active.
I a 3 III 01.9 II I u I {' IiII ‘ —- .HHI‘ I i' an ' --

.-I I I '~ III- a ' "I :III II I I- I ' .I.I Amongthe
college foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, responses to the
level of college personnel activity in raising funds for the Institution were as follows:
Bresidents: all foundation directors reported that the president was very active. Boardgf
Tm: Two foundation directors reported that the board of trustees was generally
inactive and one reported that the board was generally active. WW
Directors: Foundation directors reported that the foundation board was generally active
to very active. W: All foundation
directors reported that the chief development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very
active. Foundation directors reported that the college faculty were generally active to
generally inactive. One foundation director reported that volunteers were very active in
raising funds for the institution.

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the foundation
directors generally believed that the community college presidents were very involved in
raising funds for the community college; that the college board of trustees was generally
inactive (however, one foundation director stated the trustees were generally active); that
the foundation board of directors was generally active to very active; that the chief
development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcers were very active; that the college faculty
were generally active to generally inactive; and that the volunteers were very active in

raising funds for the institution.

100

11b- (cont'd) WW

I II-"‘I~.III' I III I1: I' II. I I' I IIII--I_II=..II

W.

W. The foundation director at College X
reported the following:

1. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally active.

3. The foundation board of directors was very active

4. The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation director)/advancement ofﬁcer was
very active.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally inactive

The foundation director reported that the alumni association, while generally
inactive, planned to become more visible as additional members were recruited and the
group gained visibility in the community.

7. Other: Generally Inactive

W523 No foundation director was

employed by College Foundation Y.

W. No foundation director was employed

by College Foundation 2.
I I -.II III-..II'LI :‘h‘l'“,"||1‘.:.h."
Responses from the only foundation director employed in the XYZ group are listed

above. The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the foundation

101

directors generally believed that the community college presidents were very active in
raising funds for the institution; that the college board of trustees was generally active to
generally inactive; that the foundation board of directors was very active to generally
active; that the chief development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcers were very active;
that the college faculty were generally inactive (one director reported generally active);
and that fundraising volunteers were very active to very inactive, depending on the
college foundation.
I' 'l'!' 3' .‘.‘I I III II a: ..II I II..II I l‘ OI I.II.__II

It"!‘-. I II.-_IIDt‘r I III .I'. u I III-.IIDI' I i' IIII‘
t-I. t... ._ U. . . _ ”r ‘ .. . :1. .V H '1'. m" '.‘
College. The foundation director from Foundation X, one of the foundations that
received the least amount of external gifts, reported that the board of trustees was
generally active, whereas two of the three foundation directors from foundations that
received the least amount of external gifts reported that their boards of trustees were
generally inactive. In additon, the fundraising volunteers were reported to be less active
than those of the ABC group--those foundations that received the greatest amount of

external gifts.

11b. (cont'd) WW

0. 0 I
I "‘ "IMIII‘ I It It; I' _II I I' II! IIIu'I‘. "I {'J'IHA'.

W. The president of College A reported the
following:
1. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally inactive.

102

The foundation board of directors was generally inactive.

The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very

The college faculty were generally inactive.

Fundraising volunteers were very active.

W323 The president of College B

reported the following:

1.

2.

7.

The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.
The board of trustees was generally inactive.
The foundation board of directors was generally inactive.

The chief development (foundation)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was very

The college faculty were generally active.
Fundraising volunteers were generally inactive.

Other: Staff/community members who secured funding for community

college projects were generally active. Occasionally the community informed the

foundation board of directors or the college board of trustees of speciﬁc funding sources

that could be garnered for community college use.

The president of College B reported that he envisioned for the future a cadre of

college retirees and alumni who would volunteer to raise funds for the community

college.

W. The president of College C

reported the following:

103

1. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally inactive.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

4. The chief development (foundation)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was very
active.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally active.

:- I,” - -- ,-I I I - III‘ I '° 'I :.' I. II I .I- I 'I II.
Among the college foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts,
responses to the extent of college personnel activity in raising funds for the institution
were as follows: W: All presidents reported that the president was very

active. MW: All presidents reported that the board of trustees was generally
inactive. WW3: Presidents reported that the foundation Board

was generally active to generally inactive. W

W: All presidents reported that the chief development

(foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very active. Presidents reported that the college
faculty were generally active to generally inactive. The presidents each provided different
responses regarding volunteer activity; reports ranged from volunteers being very active
to generally inactive in raising funds for the institution.

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the ABC College
Presidents generally believed that the presidents were very involved in raising funds for

the community college; that the college board of trustees were generally inactive--

104

however, one president stated the trustees were generally active; that the foundation board
of directors was generally active to very active; that the chief development
(foundation)/advancement ofﬁcers were very active; that the college faculty were

generally active to generally inactive; and that volunteers were very active in raising

funds for the institution.
11b. (cont'd) WW
I "'.‘!~I||l' 4 II 'I {.IHI' II I l' I 'I .'"'.'|.K'-:~"l
Ream.

W525. The President of College X reported the

following:

1. The president was generally active in raising funds for the Institution.

2. The board of trustees was very inactive.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

4. The chief development (foundation)/Advancement ofﬁcer was very active.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally active.

7. Other: Generally Inactive.

W. The president of College Y
reported the following:

1. The president was very active in raising funds for the Institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally inactive.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

4. The chief development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer: None employed.

105

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally inactive.

7. Other: Students were generally active.

Wm. The president of College
Z reported the following:

1. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally active.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

4. The chief development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer-~none was
employed.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally active.

I . II. III’I‘I {‘IIII'u N||2§0 {'I.II‘--.-I I
W The researcher
concluded from the preceding responses that the presidents generally believed the
following about the extent of college personnel activity in raising funds for their
institutions. They, themselves, as community college presidents, were generally active to
very active in raising funds for the institution; the college board of trustees was generally
active to very inactive; the foundation board of directors was generally active; the chief
development (foundation director))ladvancement ofﬁcer was very active (only College

President X responded to this questions since College Foundation Y and Z did not

106

employ a foundation director); the college faculty was generally inactive; fundraising
volunteers were generally active to generally inactive, depending upon the college

foundation.

1‘ MI ' -- .‘I I I "‘ Lh'lt' I ' 'I'I {II° II I .I‘ IIIII .II

College presidents from the ABC Colleges reported themselves to have been very
active in raising funds for their institutions. The president of College X reported that he
was generally active in raising funds for his institution, whereas the presidents of
Colleges Y and Z reported that they were very active. Therefore, it appeared that the
ABC group Presidents--the group whose foundations received the greatest amount of
external funds--were more active than the XYZ group Presidents--the group receiving the
least amount of external funds. As a total group, however, the presidents appeared to be
very active in raising funds for their community colleges.

Regarding the board of trustees, two out of three presidents from the ABC College
group, reported that their board of trustees was generally inactive in raising funds for the
institution. The College X President reported that his board was very inactive in raising
funds, while the College Y President reported that his board was generally inactive, and
the College Z President reported his board was generally active. It appeared, therefore,
that Colleges ABC as a board of trustees group and Colleges XYZ as a board of trustees
group were both inactive in raising funds for their institutions.

It appeared that the foundation board of directors from the ABC group were

inactive as compared to the XYZ group, which the college presidents reported to be

107

generally active. This ﬁnding led the researcher to conclude that the foundation board of
directors representing the foundations that received the least amount of external funds
were more active in fundraising than those representing the foundations that received the
greatest amount of external funds.

College faculty from the ABC group appeared to be active to inactive, whereas
faculty from the XYZ group were reported to be generally inactive. Thus, it appeared that
the ABC faculty group was more active than the XYZ group.

Regarding fundraising volunteers, those at Colleges A, B, and C were very active
to generally inactive. The presidents of Colleges X and Z Presidents reported that their
volunteers were generally active, whereas the president of College Y reported that his
volunteers were generally inactive. In general, the two respondents whose colleges
sponsored alumni associations reported their volunteers to be more active than did

respondents whose colleges sponsored no alumni association.

11b. (cont'd) WW
I '-I" .'I\Jll' I .HII I {WW II I I' I .1!'|“:0,! II a J“.
W.

W. The board chairperson

from College A reported the following:
1. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.
2. The board of trustees was generally active.
3. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

4. The chief development (foundation)/advancement) ofﬁcer was very active.

108

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.
6. Fundraising volunteers were manna.

W. The board chairperson from

College B did not participate in the study.

Was. The board

chairperson from College C did not participate in the study.
I I 3 III I "‘II-,II l, 'I.I|[.IIOI:‘ IIII‘,

Summary-The responses from the only chairperson from the ABC group who

participated in this study are listed above.

11b. (cont'd) WW
I .'I~JI|' I I I {.III' II I I' III III-'IIivl I sue»:
WW.

W523. The board chairperson

from College X reported the following:

1. The president was generally active in raising funds for the institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally active.

3. The foundation board of directors were generally active.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very
active.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally inactive.

W. The board chairperson

from College Y reported the following:

109

H

. The president was very active in raising funds for the institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally inactive.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally active.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer--none
employed.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally inactive.

Was. The board chairperson
from College Z reported the following:

1. The president was very active in raising funds for the Institution.

2. The board of trustees was generally inactive.

3. The foundation board of directors--the chairperson stated he did not know
how active the board was in fundraising matters.

4. The chief development ofﬁcer (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer-~none
employed.

5. The college faculty were generally inactive.

6. Fundraising volunteers--the chairperson stated he did not know how active
volunteers were in fundraising matters.

I I -_.II I 'I‘IIIII l "OJII..II;I~II{' IIII‘--
Wanna; The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the
college board of trustees generally believed that the community college presidents were
very active in raising funds for the institution; that the college board of trustees was

generally inactive (two out of three reported this); that the foundation board of directors

110

was generally active (two of the three chairpersons reported them to be generally active in
raising funds); that the chief development (foundation director)/advancement ofﬁcers
were very active; that the college faculty were generally inactive; and that fundraising
volunteers were generally inactive.

.l'l’l' I'II‘I'I I "'51!‘ I I «.I' III-I l
.1...“an m. .__ ... , , ..MH- .3 -- - :3 P ”1 . .._
mm. The only board chairperson reporting that the college president was
generally active in fundraising was the one responding from College X--both the
chairperson and the president reported the same answer. The respondent from the ABC
group stated the president was very active in fundraising for the institution. In
conclusion, two of the chairpersons from the XYZ group reported that the college
presidents were very actively engaged in fundraising. As a whole, chairpersons from both
the ABC group and the XYZ group reported that their college presidents were active
fundraisers; an exception was one college chairperson from the XYZ group who reported
that the president had been generally active.

Two board chairpersons categorized the boards of trustees-~themselves--as
generally active in fundraising, and two categorized themselves as generally inactive.
The only board chairperson from the ABC group--the colleges whose foundations
garnered the greatest amount of external funds--reported that she was generally active in
raising funds for the institution. The board chairperson from College X, whose
foundation ranked fourth largest in terms of the amount of external funds raised, also

categorized himself as generally active in raising funds for his institution. Two of the

111

three chairpersons from colleges whose foundations received the least amount of external
funds categorized themselves as having been generally inactive with respect to raising
funds for their institution

In conclusion, of the four chairpersons who participated in this study, the one
representing a college whose foundation received the greatest amount of external funds
characterized herself as generally active. In contrast, the chairpersons from the two
colleges that received the least amount of external funds saw themselves as generally
inactive.

Regarding the foundation board of directors, the board of trustees chairperson
from the ABC group ranked that group as generally active in raising funds for the
institution. Likewise, two of the chairpersons from the XYZ group also ranked the
foundation board of directors as active participants in raising funds for the institution,
whereas the third did not know how active the foundation board was.

Regarding the college faculty, the chairperson from the ABC group ranked the
faculty as generally inactive in raising funds for the institution, and two of three
chairpersons from the XYZ group also ranked the faculty as generally inactive. The third
chairperson from the XYZ group ranked the faculty as generally active in raising funds.
In summary, one trustee from each group--those receiving the greatest amount of external
funds and those receiving the least amount of external funds--ranked the faculty as
generally active. Therefore, it appeared that, as a whole, faculty from both the ABC and
the XYZ groups were generally inactive in raising funds for their respective community

colleges.

112

The only board chairperson participating in this study from the ABC group
reported that the foundation's fundraising volunteers were very active in raising funds for
the institution, and one chairperson from the XYZ group reported that the volunteers were
generally inactive. The College Z board chairperson did not know how active the
volunteers were. Therefore, with only two responses from each group, the ABC group,
whose foundations garnered the greatest amount of external funds appeared to have
volunteers who were more active than those from the XYZ group, which received the

least amount of external funds.

11c. WWW
"III,III‘ I I 'II‘II 1. 7.l' l'a.|'1|'.“'4?|l| IIJJI
Wm.

Was. The foundation director at College A

reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

6. Fundraising Volunteers were very active.

W. The foundation director at College B
reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

113

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were very uninvolved.

Was. The foundation director at

College C reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally involved.
:‘IAII'HI I 'II'I I I ""‘IIIIU‘I -. {.3‘1' III-,l‘aI‘JIH
Among those college foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts,
responses to the involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising program
were as follows: W: All three foundation directors reported that their
Presidents were very active. W: Two of three foundation directors

reported that the board of trustees was generally involved; the third reported general

uninvolvement. EnundaﬁnnﬁnardnfDiantnrs: Two of three foundation directors

114
reported that their foundation boards were generally involved; the third (College A)
reported the board was very involved in evaluation. W

W: All three foundation directors reported that the chief

development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcer was very active. Two of three foundation
directors reported that the cnllegnfanulty were very uninvolved in evaluating the
fundraising program; the third reported that the faculty were generally uninvolved. The
foundation directors each provided different responses regarding volunteer activity;
reports ranged from xnlnntars being very involved in evaluating the fundraising program
to their being very uninvolved. College C personnel reported their fundraising volunteers
were generally involved.

The researcher concluded from the above-mentioned responses that the foundation
directors generally believed that the community college presidents were very involved in
evaluating the fundraising program; that the college board of trustees was generally
involved; that the foundation board of directors was generally involved; that the chief
development (foundation)/advancement ofﬁcers were very involved in evaluation; that
the college faculty were uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program; and that the
fundraising evaluation by volunteers appeared to have occurred at two colleges but not at
the third, demonstrating involvement in evaluation by volunteers associated with

foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds.

lle (cont'd) WW
I "'.'I\Jll' II 'H'l I 3.?!"1‘ IIIJI' BIUIIIInIIIJIII

Directors.

115

Was. The foundation director at College X
reported the following:

1. The president was generally involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development (foundation director)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was
very involved.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers did not evaluate the fundraising program.

Wm No foundation director was

employed at College Y.

W. No foundation director was employed
at College Z.

WWW-Responses from
the College X Foundation Director, the only foundation director employed from the XYZ
Foundation group, are listed above.

I' -I-I- :- ,g-I I I I .II III I , I II. II D}, I
{‘IIII‘uI I 'H'I I I.‘-"'IIIII'I -. -,l' l' II,III'¢IuIII
Responses of foundation directors from Colleges ABC regarding the extent of
involvement of the president differed from the response of the foundation director from
College X, the only foundation director representing the foundations receiving the least
amount of external funds. The College X foundation director reported that the president

was generally involved in evaluating the fundraising program, whereas the ABC

116

foundation directors reported that their presidents were very involved in evaluation. The
College X foundation director also reported that the board of trustees was generally
involved in evaluating the fundraising program--the same response as that provided by
two of the three foundation directors associated with the foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds. Regarding college faculty, the College X foundation
director responded like those foundation directors whose colleges received the greatest
amount of external funds--reporting that the faculty were generally uninvolved in
evaluation. In conclusion, it appeared that not much difference existed between the two
groups regarding the involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising

program, with only one foundation director reporting from the XYZ group.

He (cont'd)C2112325_A.BI_and_C..Eundmsin&£mgmm£oh2LExtenLof
I"' "rIIII‘ I I '01'1.l 5. =II' I-,:1.III:.I"¢IuI:II- I'v"
W.

CollegeAEoundatiomﬂollegeEresidents The president of College A reported

the following:
1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.
2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.
3. The foundation board of directors was generally uninvolved.
4. The chief development (foundation)/chief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.
5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally involved in evaluation.

117

W. The president of College B reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were very uninvolved.

Was. The president of College C
reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer was generally
involved.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally involved.

I I : .II I II- M :- IrII - -- IIIIII I :- I... - --
II -II-I I ._... '- III- 'I -. I I- II. ' II .1022”. Ofthose

college foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, responses to the
involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising program were as follows:

W: All college presidents reported that they were very involved in

118
evaluating the fundraising program. Wm: Two of three presidents
reported that the board of trustees was generally involved; the third reported general
involvement. WW: Two of three foundation directors reported
that their foundation boards were generally involved; the third (College A) reported that
the board was generally uninvolved in evaluation. CW
W: All three presidents reported that the chief
development (foundation)ladvancement ofﬁcer was very involved in evaluating the
fundraising program. Two of the three presidents reported that the college faculty were
generally uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program; the third president reported
that the faculty were very uninvolved. Two of the three presidents reported that
volunteers were generally involved in evaluating the fundraising program; the third
reported that the volunteers were very uninvolved.

The researcher concluded from the preceding responses that the college presidents
believed that they, themselves, were very involved in evaluating the fundraising program;
that the college board of trustees was generally uninvolved; that the foundation board of
directors was generally involved; that the chief development (foundation
director)/advancement ofﬁcers were very involved in evaluation; and that the college
faculty were generally uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program. Fundraising
evaluation by volunteers appeared to have occurred at two colleges but not at the third; at
those two colleges, involvement in evaluation of the fundraising program by volunteers

was categorized by respondents as general involvement.

119

1ch (cont'd) Wm
I-- '-..,III- II ‘H'l I :2II' I' II¢:°°I° ’ 1’45." I
[residents

W. The president of College X reported the

following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was very uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were very uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising
program.

Wm. The president of College Y reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer-mo foundation
director was employed at College Y.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers and students were generally uninvolved.

120

W. The president of College 2 reported the
following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer-mo foundation
director was employed at College Z.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally involved.

I I III I‘I'I {‘mI‘ -- .IIIIIto {‘IiIIi‘uI‘

II ’N'I I I - -'- III- 'I .. I‘ I- II. ' I- :IIuIII. Ofthose
college foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, responses to the
involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising program were as follows:
W: All threepresidents reported that they were very involved in
evaluating the fundraising program. Wm: Two of the three presidents
reported that the board of trustees was generally uninvolved to very uninvolved; the third
reported general involvement. W: Two of the three college
presidents reported that their foundation boards were very involved; the third (College A)
reported that the board was generally involved in evaluation. Women:
W: The only president whose college employed a
foundation director reported the chief development (foundation director)/advancement

ofﬁcer was very involved. Two of three presidents reported that the college fagulﬂ were

generally uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program; the third reported that the

121

faculty were very uninvolved. Two of the presidents reported that their volunteers were
basically uninvolved; the president of College Z reported that their fundraising volunteers
were generally involved.

The researcher concluded from the above-mentioned responses that the
community college presidents generally believed that they were very involved in
evaluating the fundraising program; that the college board of trustees was generally
uninvolved; that the foundation board of directors was very to generally involved; that the
chief development (foundation)ladvancement ofﬁcers were very involved in evaluation;
that the college faculty were uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program; and that
fundraising volunteers were generally uninvolved in evaluating the program.

D' - -. ,- :1, -,-. I .I. 'I. g : ..I ..I I II, I. , u- I-.
:‘lﬂt'ul I 'll‘l I I '-"'I.III-'I I .I- I' ,IItzI-thIII
The only difference between the ABC foundations, those receiving the greatest amount of
external funds, and the XYZ Foundations, those receiving the least amount of external
funds, as reported by the college presidents, was that the volunteers for the ABC
Foundations appeared to have been somewhat more involved in evaluating the

fundraising program than were those for the XYZ group.

116- (cont'd) WW
I ‘-I""I~.III' II ‘II‘I I = .wa‘ﬂnrt I'qutrII I
W

W. The college board of

trustees chairperson from College A reported the following:

122

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was generally involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were very uninvolved.

6. Fundraising volunteers were generally involved.

Wm. The college board of
trustees chairperson from College B did not participate in the study.

29W. The
college board of trustees chairperson from College C did not participate in the study.

I I 3 III I "'3IIII I IIIIzIIIIi‘IiII'u
""qu :‘IAOI'niO ‘0'! I I '~"'I\III'I I II' I'

Eundmisjngﬁmgmm. Among the college foundations that received the greatest amount
of external funds, only College A’s board chairperson participated in the study. Her
responses are listed above.

1ch (cont'd) WWW

0‘“ “MIII' II ‘II'I I :JUI' I'QIIII'HIuriIInI

W. The board of trustees
chairperson from College X reported the following:

123

l. The president was generally involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally involved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The Chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer was very
involved.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. No fundraising volunteers participated in foundation activities.

99W. The chairperson from
College Y reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors was very involved.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer--no foundation
director was employed.

5. The college faculty were generally uninvolved.

6. No fundraising volunteers participated in foundation activities.

I I II. ,'I. I :I. I I I OJIIIIzIIII :- I.II -. The

college board of trustees chairperson reported the following:

1. The president was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

2. The board of trustees was generally uninvolved.

3. The foundation board of directors--did not know extent of involvement.

4. The chief development (foundation)lchief advancement ofﬁcer--no foundation

director was employed.

124

5. The college faculty was very uninvolved
6. No fundraising volunteers participated in foundation activities.

I . .II I “':OI.O I '1‘ IIIIr‘IIII .IIIOI‘O
:‘lJl'ui I ‘II‘I I I "‘“IIIII‘ °I I. -_|'_l‘ .II_II'3IIu:II
Among the college foundations that received the least amount of external funds,
responses to the involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising program
were as follows: W: Two of the three board of trustees chairpersons
reported that their presidents were very involved in evaluating the fundraising program;
the third reported that the college president was generally involved in evaluating the
program. Wages: Two of the three board chairpersons reported that they, as
trustees, were generally not involved in evaluating the fundraising program; the third
reported that his board of trustees was generally involved. W
Directors: Two of the three board of trustees chairpersons reported that their foundation
boards were very involved; the third indicated he did not know the extent of their
involvement. W: The only
foundation director in the XYZ group was the half-time-employed director from College
X; the board chairperson from College X reported that the college’s foundation director
was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program. Two of the three board of
trustee chairpersons reported that the college factual were generally not involved in
evaluating the fundraising program; the third reported that the faculty were very
uninvolved. Eundmisinglnlumm: Two of the three board chairpersons reported n/a
for the volunteer category, and one reported not knowing the extent of fundraising

volunteer involvement.

125

The researcher concluded from the above-mentioned responses that the board of
trustees chairpersons from Colleges XYZ believed that the college presidents, for the
most part, were very involved in evaluating the fundraising program; that the college
board of trustees was generally uninvolved; that the foundation board of directors was
very involved in evaluating the fundraising program; that the only foundation director
from the XYZ group was very involved in evaluation; that the college faculty were
generally uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program; and that no volunteers
evaluated the program because two trustees reported n/a, and the third indicated he did
not know whether the volunteers evaluated the program.

|' 'l‘I' ='II“I I"' a: «..I' I": I I'°'=I-.II
I IIIII‘IIIII‘ IIII'--I I '0'. I I "
W. Although only one chairperson from Colleges ABC participated in
this study, that individual’s responses were compared with those from the three board of
trustees chairpersons from the XYZ group. The ABC respondent reported that her Imam
m was generally involved in evaluation, whereas respondents from the XYZ
group reported general uninvolvement by the board of trustees in evaluation. The ABC

board of trustees chairperson reported that the W was generally

involved in evaluation, whereas the XYZ board of trustees chairpersons reported that

their foundation board of directors were very involved in evaluation.

 

This section includes a discussion of the following topics reported from questions

posed in the Questionnaire/Interview Instrument:

126

1. Advancement Ofﬁce Presence at the Community College, FY 1995

2. Development Ofﬁce Presence at the Community College, FY 1995

3. Foundation Ofﬁce, Chief Foundation Ofﬁcer Reporting Responsibility

4. Number of Staff Assigned to the Foundation

5. Number of Annual Giving, Capital Giving, Planned/Deferred Giving, Prospect
Research Staff, Other Staff

MW

Institutional advancement staff are responsible for external/internal
communications, government and public relations, development (fundraising), and
alumni relations. Therefore, the researcher asked personnel from the sample community
colleges whether an advancement ofﬁce existed at their institutions. The purpose of
asking this question was to determine whether separate advancement and foundation
ofﬁces existed at these colleges.

W: Personnel from foundations A and C reported that their
institutions had an advancement ofﬁce that assumed responsibility for foundation
activities. The advancement ofﬁce was the institutional "umbrella" under which the
foundation operated for these two community college foundations.

The title of the advancement ofﬁcer from College A was College Relations
Director and Foundations Director; the title of the advancement ofﬁcer from College C
was Dean of Marketing and Development. (College C previously termed itself an
Advancement Ofﬁce, but subsequently changed that title to the Marketing and

Development Ofﬁce.) Both directors reported to the college president.

127

Advancement activities in which College A was involved included: public
relations, marketing, grants development, college foundation activities, alumni relations,
and special events. Advancement activities in which College C was involved included:
development, media relations, public relations, and college foundation activities.

W: Personnel from foundations X, Y, and Z indicated that the
foundation ofﬁce was the only ofﬁce located on the college campus used to solicit
private, external funds. No overarching advancement ofﬁce existed.

I' -I-.- :-I.--I I I: I II. II u-.- .III I I -; :II.

III III I I I III.II ‘I. 9.... I I ‘. ‘II- III --.I II 'II‘I

Only two of the foundations receiving the greatest amount of external gifts
reported the presence of an advancement ofﬁce linked to the college foundation.
None of the foundations receiving the least amount of external gifts reported the presence
of an advancement ofﬁce at its institution.

WWW

As stated above, one of the functions of the education administration ﬁeld of
college advancement is development--also termed fundraising. Sample institution
personnel were asked whether a development ofﬁce existed at their respective community
colleges.

MW: Personnel from foundations A, B, and C each reported the

presence of a development ofﬁce at their respective community colleges. The

128

development ofﬁce for foundations A and C fell under the auspices of the advancement
ofﬁce. The development ofﬁce for Foundation B--called Resource Development--
represented the institutional "umbrella" under which the foundation operated.
W: Personnel from foundations X, Y, and Z indicated that the
foundation ofﬁce was the only ofﬁce located on the college campus used to solicit
private, external funds. N o overarching advancement ofﬁce existed.
VII-:1,“ I -I-; : ._II I .I‘..‘I. ..I I ..I
W. The foundations receiving the greatest
amount of external funds operated under a development ofﬁce at their respective
community colleges whereas the foundations receiving the least amount of external funds
did not enjoy the resources afforded by a development ofﬁce at their respective
community colleges because no development ofﬁce existed. The latter worked
independently and essentially carried out the development function through their

respective foundation ofﬁces.

 

Below is a comparison of selected Michigan public community college foundations for
FY 1995 in terms of chief foundation ofﬁcer reporting responsibility. W
The College A foundation director, who also assumed the role of development
director, reported to the community college president. (The foundation board of directors
was composed of 30 members--a membership from 7 to 40 members was provided by the

foundation Bylaws.)

129

The College B foundation manager reported to the Executive Director of
Workforce and Resource Development, who, in turn, reported to the community college
president. (The number of board of directors for the College B foundation was unlimited-
-all those voted in by the board were afforded membership).

The College C Dean of Marketing and Development, formerly the Director of
Institutional Advancement, was responsible for foundation management and reported to
the president. (The Board of Governors [Directors] consisted of 24 members; ex-ofﬁcio
members were the college president, the chairperson of the board of trustees, and a staff

member designated by the college president).

 

Remnsibjﬁm. Some foundation directors reported to both a college administrator and
the foundation directors. Among the three foundations that received the greatest amount
of external funds, two foundation ofﬁcers reported to the college president, and one
reported to the Director of Resource Development and Workforce Development.

The College A foundation included three incumbent members of the executive
committee of the college board of trustees on its foundation board of directors
membership roster. The College C foundation also included the board of trustees
chairperson as an ex-ofﬁcio member on its foundation board of directors. In contrast,
College B foundation, in its Bylaws, did not speciﬁcally include a member of the college

board of trustees as a member of its foundation board of directors.

130

The foundation director of College X reported to the college president and the 21-
member volunteer foundation board of directors. Moreover, the foundation director
responded to the college board of trustees, alumni association, and various publics.

The president of College Y was the chief executive ofﬁcer of the foundation and,
as such, was directly involved in foundation activities. The president apprized the board
of trustees of foundation activity and reported to both the foundation board of directors, (a
body of 9 to 15 members) and the college board of trustees. The volunteer board of
directors of the college foundation assumed all responsibility for the affairs of the
foundation. Matters that they could not reconcile were referred to the board of trustees
for arbitration and decision.

The president of College Z was the ofﬁcial secretary of the l3-member volunteer
foundation board of directors and, as such, was involved in foundation activities. The
president apprised the board of trustees of foundation activity and reported to both the
foundation board of directors and the college board of trustees. One member of the
college board of trustees served as an ex-ofﬁcio member of the foundation board of
directors.

.IIIIJII I "‘I III I III..II-- I‘ I O.-_OI. ‘ {‘IIIII-
W. The College X foundation director reported to both the college president
and the foundation board of directors. Because foundations Y and Z did not employ a
foundation director, the presidents of these colleges assumed fundraising roles in addition

to their normal workload. They worked directly with the volunteer foundation board of

131

directors and reported foundation activity to both the foundation board of directors and
the college board of trustees.

College Y employed no foundation director; thus, the volunteer foundation board
of directors appeared to be the chief fundraising decision makers. The college president
served as secretary of the foundation board of directors. College Z employed no
foundation director. Again, the volunteer foundation board of directors appeared to be
central to fundraising decision making; however, the college president was the chief
executive ofﬁcer of the foundation. Consequently, he appeared to be more actively
engaged in fundraising activities than was the President of College Y who served as
secretary of the foundation afﬁliated with her college.

The foundations from Colleges X, Y, and Z included a member of the college
board of trustees on their foundation board of directors membership roster.

.l‘t‘I‘ =‘II“I I IIIII é: III I IIIII I -.II -- l'
W. Among the foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds, all chief foundation ofﬁcers--personnel who assumed a
broad development role reported to the community college presidents. Among the
foundations receiving the least amount of external funds, the only foundation director
employed (on a part-time basis at College X) reported to both the college president and
the foundation board of directors (the college did not employ a development director or a
chief foundation ofﬁcer--only a part-time foundation director). The other two college

chief ofﬁcials, in their fundraising roles, reported to both the college board of trustees and

132

the foundation board of directors. As presidents of their colleges, they answered to the
college board of trustees; as foundation members, they reported to the foundation board
of directors.

Because Colleges Y and Z employed no foundation directors, their presidents
appeared to be more directly involved in foundation activity than the presidents of those
community colleges employing foundation directors.

.II I ..Ul'u' .I |' 'IIII'I ' ° ==I:. {'IIIII' {III-.II 'I ' II

Table 1 indicates the number of staff assigned to the development/foundation
ofﬁces, as well as their titles, salaries, and reporting responsibilities.

WWW As shown in
Table 1, titles for staff with responsibility for managing the community college
foundation were Foundation Director, Foundation Manager, and Dean of Marketing and
Development.

Aside from the foundation director, Foundations A, B, and C employed staff like
administrative and data entry secretaries, a publications director, and a graphics
technician. However, no additional staff members were hired for annual giving, capital

giving, planned/deferred giving, or prospect research.

133

Table 1

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C (Greatest Amount of External Funds)
with Colleges X, Y, and Z (Least Amount of External Funds) in
Terms of the Number of Staff Assigned to the Development and
Foundation Offices: Titles, Salaries, Reporting Responsibilities

 

 

 

 

No additional staff was assigned
to annual giving, capital giving,
planned/deferred giving, or
prospect research.

 

 

 

Paid by
Which:
College (C)
or
College Staff Title Salary Reports to Foundation (F)
A llexelnnmentandﬁoundaﬂnn
Ofﬁce
1. Foundation Director and $59,000 President
College Relations Director 24,900 F.D. C
2. Administrative Secretary 9,600 F.D. C
3. Data Entry Secretary C

 

 

134

 

 

 

 

Table l (cont’d).
Paid by
Which:
College (C)
or
College Staff Title Salary Reports to Foundation (F)
B Dexelnnmentﬂfﬁce
1. Director, Resource $70,000 College
Development and Chancellor
Workforce Development C
2. Grant Writer $13/hr Resource C
Development
Director
B Foundation Ofﬁce
1. Foundation Manager $40,000 Resource C
Development
Director
2. Administrative Specialist $36,000 F.D. C
No additional staff was assigned
to annual giving, capital giving,
planned/deferred giving, or
prospect research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

 

 

 

 

Table l (cont’d).
Paid by
Which:
College (C)
or
College Staff Title Salary Reports to Foundation (F)
C Wu
Ofﬁce
1. Dean of Marketing
Development (MID);
responsible for foundation $80,000 President C
2. Coordinator $20,000
3. Classiﬁed staff, part time $15,000 Dean of MID C
Dean of MID C
Other Development Office staff:
(not foundation staff)
1. Publications Director $39,000 F.D. C
2. Graphics Technician (part $12,480 F.D. C
time)
No additional staff was assigned
to annual giving, capital giving,
planned/deferred giving, or
prospect research.
X Foundationﬂfﬁce
1. Foundation Director, $28,600 President + F
part time F.B.*
(responsible for all
fundraising activities
2. Administrative Secretary $22,500 F.D. F
3. Work Study student (10 $ 2,500 F.D. F
hours/week) through

 

academic year

(Administrative Secretary was
assigned to annual giving,
planned/deferred giving, and
prospect research clerical
activities. No staff was assigned
to capital giving).

 

 

 

 

 

136

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

Paid by
Which:
College (C)
or
College Staff Title Salary Reports to Foundation (F)

 

Y The Foundation Ofﬁce was F.B.*
located in the college President's
ofﬁce per the foundation
Bylaws; the college President
was the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer
of the foundation. No staff was
hired beyond the President; a
volunteer board of directors
assumed foundation activities as
set forth in the foundation
Bylaws.

An Administrative Assistant to $35,000 College C
the President assisted with President
foundation activities as an "add
on" to her regular job
responsibilities.

*F.D. = Foundation Director
F.B. = Foundation Board of
Directors

 

Z The Foundation Ofﬁce was part MA MA NZA
of the President's Ofﬁce. No
staff was designated for or paid
by the foundation. (The
President's secretary assumed
some foundation clerical work
for no additional pay). A
volunteer foundation board of
directors assumed foundation
activities as set forth in the
foundation Bylaws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*F.D. = Foundation Director; F .B. = Foundation Board of Directors

1 37
W. The titles for staff

from Colleges X, Y, and Z with responsibility for managing the community college
foundation were foundation director and college president (see Table 1). At two of these
colleges not employing a foundation director, the college president assumed tasks for
which a foundation director would have been paid had resources permitted. Foundation
X also employed, aside from the half-time foundation director, staff like an administrative
secretary to perform clerical duties for annual giving, planned/deferred giving, and
prospect research; in addition, a work-study student was employed, but only 10 hours per
week throughout the academic year. In contrast, foundations Y and Z_employed no one
for the foundation--foundation secretarial duties were assumed by the clerical staff who
were already employed.

0' -I-.. :-,;-I O"‘ I : ._II I.I.I. ..I I-I- , ..I
W. The foundations that received the
greatest amount of money employed at least one person to oversee/manage the
foundation-~titles varied; supplementary staff were also employed, but none was assigned
to annual, capital, or planned giving activities, nor was anyone assigned to prospect
research. Two of the three foundations that received the least money employed no
foundation directors and no supplementary staff. However, one of the XYZ foundations
did employ a half-time foundation director and one administrative secretary who handled
the clerical work for annual giving, planned/deferred giving, and prospect research. No
additional staff members were hired for annual giving, capital giving, planned/deferred

giving, or prospect research.

138

WWW. As indicated in
Table 1, all three of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds
paid for staff from the College Budget. One of these foundations transferred a prescribed
amount to the college’s general fund budget to offset operational costs. Salaries for the
development/foundation director ranged from $40,000 to $80,000 per year.
Supplementary staff salaries ranged from $9,600 to $39,000 per year.

WWW. As indicated in
Table 1, two of the foundations (from College Y and Z) receiving the least amount of
money did not employ staff to direct the foundation; a volunteer board directed the
foundation's activities, with input from the college presidents. One of the foundations
(from College X) paid for staff from foundation monies. A half-time director was paid
$28,600, and supplementary staff salaries ranged from $2,500 for a work-study student to
$22,500 for a secretary.

I“ -I-.- :-I,-;. I I : ._II I..I._I. ..I I , ..I
W. The foundations that received the greatest amount of money
employed full-time and supplementary staff whereas those that received the least amount
of money employed either a part-time director with supplementary staff or no director. If
the part-time director's salary were doubled, the person would have received the lowest
salary of any of the foundation/development directors. Thus, it appears that the
foundations commanding the greatest amount of external funds paid higher staff wages.

I I : .II .I I uI-I ID- -IIII-I .II I- I III'°II
WW. Table 1 also indicates that the three colleges afﬁliated with

foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds all employed additional

139

staff aside from the foundation director. The three staff persons associated with the
foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds (Foundations A, B and
C), who assumed the role of development director, as mentioned in the preceding text,
reported directly to the community college president. The foundation director associated
with College A performed the duties of both a development and foundation director, held
the title of Director of College Relations and Foundation Director, and reported directly
to and worked closely with the college president. Because the development ofﬁce is the
umbrella under which the foundation operates, the foundation director from College B
reported to a higher-level development staff person whose title was Director of Resource
Development and Workforce Development. The foundation director associated with
College C performed the duties of both a development and foundation director, held the
title of Dean of Marketing and Development, and reported directly to and worked closely
with the college president.

I , ._II . I 'II-I Ill- -IIII-I .III- I.II...II.
WW. Among the three foundations receiving the least amount of
external gifts, the only foundation director employed reported to the community college
president. The other two foundations--Y and Z--were managed by a volunteer foundation
board of directors, in conjunction with input from and activity carried out by_the college
president.

I' II-.- :-I.-;. I I : .II I II..II ._II I I ..I
I .I. I. -- .. I -.-I I D; -IIII-I .II ,I- I II.,II :-I.II_II
Resmnsihﬂities. Among the foundations that received the greatest amount of external

funds, one foundation director reported to a higher-level staff person who assumed the

140

role of development director. The other two foundation directors assumed the role not
only of foundation director but also of community college development director. Both
reported to the community college president. Among the foundations that received the
least amount of external funds, one foundation director reported directly to the president.
Because the other two colleges did not employ a foundation director, the presidents of
those colleges assisted with the foundation duties and reported, as fundraisers, to their
foundation board of directors and, as college presidents, to their college board of trustees.
=I=II . III I.-. I :-.I a I =._’=.I . .I I- I III-.II mi .

g 0 O a.
I: I II' I.‘ .=.I I .= a 0 IL? I' II‘ IIIII =.' IIIII .=_,I

Resources available to the foundation ofﬁce consist of both human and ﬁscal
resources. The number of full- and part-time administrators and faculty can be a factor in
the amount of money garnered by an institution. In addition, other factors like the
number of personnel serving on the foundation board of directors and the budget
allocated to the foundation ofﬁce allowing the employment of supplemental staff could
inﬂuence the amount of gifts raised. Equipment and facilities also play a part in the ease
with which college foundation staff can conduct fundraising activities.

This section includes a discussion of numbers of community college personnel at
sample institutions; foundation ofﬁce budgets; selection of foundation board of directors;
Relationship of the foundation board of directors to the foundation; and equipment,

software, and facilities available to community college foundation ofﬁces.

141
Q "C II C" E III 5 II I'lli

W. The community
colleges afﬁliated with the three foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds (Colleges A, B, and C) employed from 42 to 65 full-time administrators

(see Table 2).

W. The community
colleges afﬁliated with the three foundations receiving the least amount of external funds
(Colleges X, Y, and Z) employed from 8 to 18 full-time administrators (see Table 2).

..'_‘_._ h. . . ; = 1“ a . m" '.‘ . —_ .u.
IIIIIIIIIIIII I I III I’II IIIII I\ I."';IIII IIII.
Colleges A, B, and C employed fewer than 65 full-time administrators, whereas Colleges
X, Y, and Z, afﬁliated with foundations receiving the least amount of external funds,
employed fewer than 18.

In summary, the colleges afﬁliated with the foundations that received the greatest
amount of external funds employed up to three times more full-time administrators than
those colleges afﬁliated with foundations that received the least amount of external funds.
The range for the full-time college administrators associated with the foundations that
received the greatest amount of money was 23, double that of the colleges that received

the least amount of external funds with a range of 10.

142

Table 2

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C
(Greatest Amount of External Funds)
with Colleges X, Y, and Z
(Least Amount of External Funds)
in Terms of the Number of Overall College Personnel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

College Number of
Administrators Faculty

Bull Bart Eull Bart
A 65 -- 96 125
B 42 -- 279 562
C 42 -- l 10 200
X 18 -- 150 165
Y 14 -- 32 60
Z 8 - 38 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWW Table 2 also shows that

community colleges afﬁliated with foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds (Colleges A, B, and C) employed from 96 to 279 full-time faculty, a range
of 183; and from 125 to 562 part-time faculty, a range of 437.
WWW. Community colleges
afﬁliated with foundations that received the least amount of external funds (Colleges X,
Y, and Z) employed from 32 to 150 full-time faculty--a range of 118 and from 55 to 165

part-time faculty--a range of 110.

143

DI‘ ‘l‘ II'II'm I I 3 III II IIIII II I ,-._II
’,‘-M"- , ‘ ._.. g -I- . 4. Hi 0|!" .g g -I- --I0 ',_'..
mm. The range for Colleges A, B, and C for full-time faculty was 183 compared
to a range of 118 for Colleges X, Y, and Z. The range for Colleges A, B, and C for part-
time faculty was 437 compared to a range of 110 for Colleges X, Y, and Z. The range, or
dispersion, for the colleges associated with the foundations that received the greatest
amount of money was larger than the range, or dispersion, for the foundations that
received the least amount of money for both full- and part-time faculty. However, the
range dispersion between Colleges A, B, C and Colleges X, Y, Z was greater when part-
time faculty was compared.

W

W. As indicated in Table 3,
annual foundation budgets for the college foundations that received the greatest amount
of external funds (Colleges A, B, and C) ranged from $244,000 to $995,000--a difference
of $751,000.

WWW. As indicated in Table 3,
annual foundation budgets for the colleges sponsoring foundations that received the least
amount of external funds ranged from $12,000 to $150,000--a difference of $138,000.

I' -~.- why. I I I .II I II..,III -: II- ..I
WW3. It appears that, although the difference

for the foundations that received the greatest amount of money was ﬁve times greater

144
than the difference for the foundations that received the least amount of money, those
receiving the greatest amount of money did command larger foundation ofﬁce budgets--
over $240,000 as compared to budgets under $150,000 for the foundations receiving the

least amount of money.

Table 3

A Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C
(Greatest Amount of External Funds)
with Colleges X, Y, and Z
(Least Amount of External Funds)
in Terms of the Budget for the foundation Office

 

Annual Development/foundation
Office Budget
FY 1995

 

College Amount

 

$502,000
$244,000
$995,000
$150,000
$ 12,000
$27,500

 

 

 

 

 

N~<><OW>

 

 

 

 

145
SII' [E II. B I“). I

mum-New members of the foundation board of directors were selected by
foundation board of directors holding ofﬁce at the time with approval by the college
board of trustees. The foundation board of directors chairperson annually appointed a
nominating committee, which recommended candidates for election to the board of
directors of the foundation. The nominating committee was also responsible for
recommending nominees for election to the ofﬁces of the foundation--the board
chairperson, ﬁrst and second vice chairpersons, secretary, and treasurer.

CgueggBuNew members of the foundation board of directors were nominated
throuh recommendations from the nominating committee of the foundation board and
from recommendations from college and community leaders. Two members of the
college board of trustees served on the foundation board and were selected by the board
of trustees, at large.

ColleganNew members of the foundation board of directors were appointed by
the foundation board.

I I l'.-,.0l I: IIIIII “_'III I II..II=I.II
Directors. Foundation Board of Directors were selected by the foundation board of
directors at Colleges ABC. Only at College A were members of the foundation board of
directors approved by the college board of trustees.

WuNew members of the foundation board of directors were selected by a
nominating committee composed of the foundation board and the college board of

trustees. Foundation board members could not serve more than two three-year terms.

146

mum-"New members of the foundation board of directors were selected by
foundation board members who elected the new members/directors.

Calm-New members of the foundation board of directors were nominated by
a board of directors nominating committee and voted into ofﬁce by the directors for a
three-year term.

I I,II._I. , III... -- fIII I II.I.:I.II
Directors. Foundation board members were selected by the foundation board of directors
at Colleges Y and Z. However, College X established a policy whereby the foundation
board of directors were selected by a nominating committee composed of both college

board of trustees and foundation board members.

 

mum-According to the foundation’s bylaws, the property, affairs, and
business of the foundation were managed and controlled by its board of directors. The
foundation funded only those projects approved by the college’s board of trustees. The
relationship of the foundation board of directors was advisory in nature to the foundation
director. The foundation board of directors did not evaluate the director.

cum-She relationship of the foundation board of directors to the
foundation was one of providing expertise and exerting inﬂuence to enhance fundraising
activities.

mane relationship of the foundation board of directors to the foundation
involved approving college-related matters, receiving information on foundation-related

matters, and participating in foundation activities. The foundation board of directors

147

approved the budget, received the ﬁnancial reports, and participated in fundraising.
Committees included the nominating committee, ﬁnance committee, activities committee,
and various ad hoc committees such as membership and scholarship application review.

I III II I 3 II.II-.I-{‘ -..II II I .l’ I III .II 3h. I I DI‘. III
mm. Of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds,
only Foundation A submitted its activities/projects to the college board of trustees for
approval. In this case, the college board of trustees demonstrated superintending control
over expenditures of substantial monies. The relationship of the foundation board of
directors to the foundation included establishing policy for the foundation as it related to
charitable activities beneﬁting the college; providing advice regarding the budget,
investments, and future board members; exerting inﬂuence regarding college "friend
raising" and donor solicitations; and participating at foundation functions.

WuThe relationship of the foundation board of directors to the foundation
was one of policy-making. The foundation promoted, established, conducted,
maintained, and operated charitable, educational, and scientiﬁc activities in conjunction
with the community college. The foundation distributed funds to the community college.
The foundation directors acted as the principal, independent contractor, or as agent,
executor, administrator, trustee, or other ﬁduciary, subject to applicable conditions,
limitations, and trust provisions.

The foundation board of directors demonstrated its relationship to the foundation
by participating in the following activities:

1. Attending four meetings each year.

148

2. Supporting the foundation through annual giving and meeting/event
participation, and attending special meetings called by the college president/foundation
director.

3. Communicating the foundation mission and relationship to the College, to
peers, and to the community at large.

4. Identifying and cultivating prospective donors.

5. Providing the foundation director with information about prospective donors.

6. Assisting the foundation president, college president, and foundation director
with cultivating and soliciting donors.

ﬂannel-3m relationship of the foundation board of directors to the foundation
was one of transacting all business of the foundation and determining policies, ﬁscal
matters, employment and other foundation personnel policies. In general, the foundation
board of directors assumed all responsibility for the guidance of the affairs of the
foundation, including the investment of its monies. However, the board of trustees of the
college had superintending control over the acquisition and disposition of properties and
over any substantial expenditure of funds made by the board of directors, unless any of
the foregoing was contrary to any governing instrument accompanying a gift.

The president of the community college served as the secretary/treasurer of the
foundation board of directors. Additionally, one member of the college board of trustees
was a foundation board of directors member. The board of directors transacted all
business of the foundation and determined policies, ﬁscal matters, employment, and other
foundation personnel policies. In general, the foundation board of directors assumed all

responsibility for guiding the foundation’s business, including investment of its monies.

149
WnThe foundation, as a non-proﬁt corporation, administered, managed,
used, and distributed tax-deductible gifts for the beneﬁt of the college and its community.

0 .- I O - 0 . O
I III. II I IIIIII \ 1.0.00.1 I III II-IIII I '. III

W. The relationship of the foundation board of directors to college
foundations XYZ, like that of Foundations ABC, appeared to be one of transacting all
business of the foundation and determining policies, ﬁscal matters, employment, and
other foundation personnel policies.

II'I'I' 3‘II"I I_II-.,II I: IIII --{'I.II III I‘ I III_II

WWII. When the foundations that received the greatest
amount of external funds were compared with those that received the least amount of
external funds, it appeared that the relationship between the foundation board of directors
and the college foundation for the ABC foundations was similar to that of the XYZ
foundations. Both the foundation Bylaws and the foundation Articles of Incorporation
described the relationship in detail. It appeared that the relationship of the foundation
board of directors to foundation-related personnel was less formal in foundations that
received the least amount of external funds--generally the foundations associated with
community colleges enrolling fewer students.

. . ”q.” H J ..W. .“Ur .1” .... i . {r .
Wquuipmentuthe foundation had access to computers, laser
printers, copiers, a fax machine-I-any equipment within the institution; software used was

Raiser's Edge (by BlackBaud). Facilities--the college provided space to the foundation

ofﬁce staff. Foundation personnel reported that it was important for any person

150

connected with fundraising to visit the campus for meetings and to feel comfortable using
their community facility. Other resources--foundation board of directors and campaign
and special event personnel served as volunteers.

WnEquipmentuall staff used computers. The foundation used two
pentium processors--one was a laptop; computers were connected to a Local Area
Network (LAN). Standard ofﬁce equipment like a copy machine and fax were available,
as were the College Graphic Services Department and print shop. Software used
included: Raiser's Edge, WordPerfect, WordPerfect Presentations, Quadra Pro, E-mail,
and Internet access. (Staff paid by the college's resource development ofﬁce developed
constituent histories and were responsible for geographic and prospect research.)
Facilities-~the college provided the foundation ofﬁce with adequate ofﬁce space free of
charge. Other resources--all college service departments were available to the foundation
such as purchasing, ﬁnancial services, graphic services, and so on. Other resources were
volunteers such as foundation board of directors and those assisting with campaigns and
specia events. Foundation co-chairs for fundraising campaigns and retired staff and
alumni were solicited for fundraising activity assistance. (The college sponsored a
retirement club through which volunteers were recruited for the foundation.)

Wquuipmentuequipment used was part of the standard college
equipment, such as computers, copiers, fax, and so on. Software--the foundation ofﬁce
used Colleague from Datatel. Facilities--the Public Relations Ofﬁce housed the
foundation. Other resources-—volunteers were solicited for various fundraising activities.
(The foundation director was a former Chamber of Commerce President familiar with the

community.)

151

...1.” H ""4" ,. .mw .“H_ ‘H .... a . ..- .
WW. It appeared that the foundations that received
the largest amount of external gifts had access to varied equipment and software. Two
ABC Foundations used Raiser's Edge software. Facilities were provided by the colleges.
All foundations solicited volunteers for special events/activities.

3 II-OO o r'.0ll’l OILIJ' 1.. -_ 940' 0 0“" It
CollegeEQundaticnﬂfﬁces.

Wquuipmentuthe foundation enjoyed access to all technology
available through the college. The foundation's equipment consisted of a PC Network,
laser printer, and typewriter; software used was "Raiser's Edge for Windows" by
Blackbaud. Facilities--the foundation used the college's facilities for various fundraising
activities. Theater, health and ﬁtness, and dining facilities were available for use by the
foundation. Other resources, volunteers--College X employed a half-time foundation
director, who needed volunteers but did not have the time to train them. Recruiting
volunteers had not been a priority at the time this study was conducted.

Wquuipmentuthe president of the community college, who served
as the foundation director, used equipment provided by the college. Software--no special
software was used. Facilities--the president and foundation board of directors used the
college facility. Other resources, volunteers--the foundation board of directors served as
the volunteers for the foundation; no other volunteers were used.

WnEquipmentuthe foundation board of directors enjoyed access to
the college equipment; no special software had been purchased for this foundation, the

smallest in the study's sample. (When the researcher visited the college, foundation

152

Bylaws previously developed were being updated and amended; previous Bylaws were
developed in July, 1972, fall, 1992, and August, 1996.) Facilities-mo physical foundation
ofﬁce existed. The volunteer board of directors met in the college facility. Other
resources--none.

010-,0' . "lht'-.. III‘I Imw «I. ; ..I- o
W. It appeared that only the foundation director
employed from the XYZ group had access to special software, whereas the two college
presidents (Colleges Y and 2) who assumed responsibility for foundation activities in
conjunction with their volunteer foundation board of directors used no special software or
equipment--only that provided by the college in general. All used the community college
facilities for foundation meetings and some activities. None of the XYZ foundations
solicited volunteers aside from the foundation board of directors due, in general, to time
constraints.

D'Eﬂ E E l . EEC lX]:Z--E . S E 1
Facilities Available to Community College Boundatign Offices. Foundations that
received the largest amounts of external funds had access to more specialized equipment
and software. In addition, the ABC Foundations solicited volunteers for activities and
events, whereas the XYZ group did not have time to solicit volunteers beyond those

nominated as members of the foundation board of directors.

II'K' 1010 Ht I'di'JII titlt In!”
W

R IH|°'II'MII'IE Il' E 1'

Foundation A Fund raising and friend raising.

Foundation B Fund raising, prospect research, and donor recognition.

Foundation C The college advancement ofﬁce included development, media
Relations, public relations, and the foundation activities.

Foundation X Public relations/marketing; publications/graphics;
grants/contracts; research/planning; alumni association advisor;
foundation director assisted with the community college
associates--a membership group that met semi-annually for
updates about college programs/activities. The community
college associates served as marketers/boundary spanners for
the community college.

Foundation Y Public relations/marketing; publications/graphics (every two
years); people-to—people campaign--5 to 15 persons were
contacted.

Foundation Z Friend and fundraising.

W. Listed below are types of fundraising programs

that foundations associated with community colleges might sponsor. Respondents were

asked to rank order each type from 1 to 12, according to how successful the respondent

believed each type had been in helping the foundation garner funds for his/her community

college (1 = most successful, 12 = least successful). Choices were as follows:

A. Annual Giving--ﬁrst type

B. Capital Campaigns--second type

C. Deferred/Planned Giving--third type

154

D. Alumni-~fourth type
1. How staffed
2. How funded
3. Raised how much money
E. Donor Clubs--ﬁfth Type
F. Athletic C1ubs--sixth Type
G. Endowment--seventh Type
1. Who manages
2. Who owns
3. Investment counsel: Y/N
4. Used by college or foundation or both?
5. Who selects? College/foundation
H. Volunteer ngram--eighth Type
I. Mail Solicitation--ninth Type
J. Telemarketing--tenth Type
K. Special Eventsueleventh Type

L. Investments--twelfth Type

 

Wm. Note that the respondents might not have

reported on all 12 programs because they did not sponsor all 12; thus, only those reported

are listed below.

155

Foundation A

1. WW. These programs were friendly as
fundraisers; they involved volunteers who had a connection or a potential connection to
the college. Approximately 1,000 volunteers assisted with annual activities like a college
barbecue, a golf outing, and a holiday program held with the assistance of a local retail
store.

2. W. This program, managed by the ﬁnance committee of the
foundation, was very successful. Success was based on the responsible management of
funds by four local bank trust ofﬁcers and evaluated by the foundation ofﬁce on a
quarterly basis. The foundation averaged about seven points above prime rate. In 1995,
the foundation generated about $1 to $2 million in interest from investments.

3. Capitalﬁampaigns. The success of the capital campaign program was due to
the community's direct response, through large contributions, to a community-identiﬁed
need. Needs were identiﬁed as a result of studies conducted by both the college and
thecommunity. Funds for endowments were raised through this program. The college
sponsored a multitude of endowments awarded to different types of programs like nursing
and biology. Endowments under $15,000 were not named; those over $15,000 were.

4. Annualﬁmnaﬁamnman.

5. Wm. Through this type of giving program, two major
gifts in the early 1980s were contributed to the college, causing the evolution of the
community college foundation. College personnel indicated that the college needed to
initiate a signiﬁcant educational program/process to inform the public about the beneﬁts

of planned giving and the signiﬁcance it holds for students struggling to earn a two-year

156

degree. (This major category accepted cash amounts over $5,000.) Funds for
endowments were raised through this program.

6. Alumniﬁjy'mg. The alumni ofﬁce was staffed with one full-time equivalent
(FI'E) person and funded with general fund monies. College staff reported that they
receive more time, energy, and effort than money from the alums; they are very willing to
work, but none had come forth indicating they had earned their ﬁrst million dollars in
wages.

7. DireetMaiLSelieitatien. Once a year, an attempt was made to solicit donors
through the mail during the annual giving campaign. According to college personnel, this
program was not highly successful.

8. Telemarketing was no longer used by the foundation to raise funds.

9. The community college sponsored no athletic campaigns.

Foundation B

1. WW (Capital Campaign). The college's goal for the capital
campaign was $8 million; in the second year of the ﬁve-year capital campaign, the
foundation had raised $4 million in cash, pledges, and in-kind and consigned gifts.
foundation personnel attributed success to the establishment of corporate training
partnerships.

2. Annualﬁymgﬁmgmm. Foundation personnel reported that success was
based on sustaining donor conﬁdence.

3. Endewmems. Foundation personnel reported that the foundation's assets were

increased by about $65,000 in FY 1995.

157

4. Denerﬂluhs. The foundation established its gift club program in 1990.
Signiﬁcant donor recognition played a major role in its the gift club success.

5. Inxestments. Annual earnings were approximately 7.5%. The foundation's
assets were invested in certiﬁcates of deposits, equities, government securities, mutual
funds, and a cash management account at Merrill Lynch. The stocks comprised mostly
utilities; buys/sells were recommended to the foundation's ﬁnance committee by a Merrill
Lynch broker.

6. We. Three annual solicitations generated about 19% of
cash support from individuals.

7. Speeialﬁyems. The foundation supported two special events: (a) the annual
college golf outing, the proceeds from which increased the unrestricted scholarship
endowment fund by $57,000 from 1992 to 1995; and (b) the culinary classic, the intention
of which was to raise funds for the Culinary Arts Program. The culinary classic event did
not make a proﬁt the ﬁrst year it was held--1995.

8. Alumniﬂixing. The alumni program was reactivated in 1994/95; it was
staffed by college personnel, and program operation was funded through the college
budget. In 1993-94, the program raised about $2,000. In 1994-95, it raised $1,140. In
1995, the program raised $1,000 in dues and $2,205 in gifts. A newsletter was circulated
to 4,000 members. The college attempted to cultivate 500,000 former students; addresses
were available for 120,000 former students. A thorough solicitation cost the foundation

$20,000 to mail.

158

9. Idemarkeﬁng. The foundation conducted two telemarketing campaigns in
1991 and 1992. Both campaigns met their expenses; however, some contributors were
still responding to direct mail solicitations at the time of this study.

10. DefenedlElannedﬁjxing. In 1995, the foundation ofﬁce began to lay the
groundwork for a deferred/planned giving program.

Foundation C

l. Annualﬁiyingﬁregram. This program generated about $550,000.

The program was successful due to solicitation of a variety of persons/groups.
Direct mail solicitation was part of the annual giving campaign.

2. Wm. At the end of FY 1995 the foundation
endowment was $3.7 million.

3. SeeeiaLExents. Some of the special events in which the foundation engaged
were: ice cream socials, 30th anniversary celebration of the college, a fun run, the annual
golf outing, antique car shows, band concerts, "Celebrity Square," special-recognition
events, and a foundation newsletter.

4. W. Volunteers participated in special events.
Some directors of the foundation board, community college staff, and community
members were solicited and participated in foundation fundraising activities.

5. IhelnxestmenLEregram. The Investment Program for FY 1995 consisted of
3% cash investments, 51% equities (stock), and 46% ﬁxed income. The ﬁnance

committee of the foundation board was responsible for the investment decisions.

159
6. Wu. The foundation received occasional gifts.

foundation personnel, like those from other foundations in the sample, expressed the
opinion that this program required attention and development. It appeared to be an area
of opportunity for persons to donate to the college as they planned their wills.

7. DeneLCluhs. Although the foundation did sponsor donor clubs, foundation
personnel reported these clubs were not very successful.

8. W. This foundation did not conduct capital campaigns.

9. Alumniﬁixinglimgmm. This foundationdid not sponsor an alumni program.

10. Athleﬁegampaigns. This foundation did not sponsor athletic campaigns.

11. Ielemarkeﬁngﬁegmm. This foundation did not sponsor a telemarketing
program.

W. In reviewing the top three
fundraising programs for foundations ABC, it appeared that special events, annual giving
campaigns, and capital campaigns took precedence over others. Participants from
Colleges ABC reported that they planned to spend more time in the area of
deferred/planned giving; they designated this program as the future activity that would
build their fund balances. Respondents reported that telemarketing campaigns were not
successful like other programs, and they planned to exclude this activity in the future. No
athletic campaigns were sponsored by the foundations; such campaigns were designated

college activities.

160

Foundation X

1. Annualﬁigingﬂegrem. The annual giving program was targeted for meeting
the foundation’s operating expenses, building the foundation’s investment portfolio, and
retaining and promoting donor gifts.

2. W. The donor club program was directly related to the annual
giving program. Donor clubs received recognition in publications and through special
attendance at recognition and other functions.

3. W. This program was addressed regularly and
was targeted at the community college's alumni and mature "friends."

4. W. Building the foundation's endowment was crucial to
the long-terrn growth of the foundation. It offered stability and was achieved through
planned gifts and revenues exceeding expenses on an annual basis.

5. Alumnihegram. The alumni program was staffed by 1.5 FTE staff. The
foundation executive director was employed half time. A foundation administrative
assistant was employed on a full-time basis.

The Alumni Ofﬁce was funded on an annual budget of $4,000 provided through
College operating funds. In 1993-94, the Alumni Ofﬁce raised $2,000. In 1994-95, the
Ofﬁce raised no monies. In 1995-96, the Ofﬁce raised about $1,000.

6. WWW. Direct mail solicitations were folded into
the annual giving campaign program.

7. SW. Various special event programs were sponsored by
the foundation to heighten awareness of the foundation and the college mission and

needs.

161

8. W. Investments build the foundation endowment and help
with meeting the needs of the foundation's operating budget. Funds were invested among
three bank trust areas. The endowment was split between two banks. Some certiﬁcates of
deposit were invested with a third bank.

9. W. The foundation developed a volunteer base through the
alumni association and foundation directors.

10. W. Foundation X was not involved in a capital campaign at
the time of the study.

11. Ielemarketingﬁmgmm. The foundation director was not fond of this type of
fundraising program and did not foresee conducting such a program in the near future.

12. AthlenLCempaigns. Athletic Campaigns were not conducted at College X.

Foundation Y

1. Investmentsi‘regmm. Fifty percent of the money was invested in bonds, and
the other half was invested in mutual funds.

2. EndomenLngram.

3. Annualﬁixing.

4. W. The foundation associated with College Y sponsored
an annual "breakfast" in two cities, an annual golf outing, a speaker's program, and a
visiting-artist program.

5. W.

7. Ielemarkeﬁngfmgram. The foundation did not sponsor capital campaigns, a

deferred/planned giving program, an alumni giving program, or athletic campaigns.

162

Foundation Z

1. W. The college invested in money-market funds

2. AnnumﬁixinaEmaram

3. EQundatinnEndmment

4. DireetMaiLSelleitatien. In December, solicitations were mailed to hundreds
of community members and will continue to be mailed annually.

5. W. Special events sponsored by the foundation were sock hops,
raising friends, and "Death by Chocolate." The foundation did not sponsor capital
campaigns, an alumni program, a donor club, athletic campaigns, or telemarketing
activities; however, the foundation was considering the implementation of a
deferred/planned giving program.

W In
reviewing the top three fundraising programs for Foundations XYZ, it appeared that
annual giving campaigns, investments, and building the endowment program took
precedence over others. Among the group of foundations receiving the least amount of
external gifts, personnel from foundation X, at the top of that list in garnering funds,
ranked deferred/planned giving as third; the president of College Z reported that he
planned to consider implementing a deferred/planned giving program.

I OIL-.015: -l' . I .l‘t’l ‘--—{.I.OJI‘ '.I Bun.” .
Among the foundations that garnered the greatest amount of external gifts, special events,
annual giving campaigns, and capital campaigns ranked highest. For those foundations

that garnered the least amount of external gifts, annual giving campaigns, investments,

163

and the endowment program were ranked highest. Major recurring themes between the
ABC Foundations and the XYZ Foundations were that a deferred/planned giving program
was important and that telemarketing did not prove to be very successful.

WWW. Respondents were
asked to describe the endowment programs that both their college and foundation
sponsored. This type of program was ranked high by the community collegess garnering
the least amount of money.

WW.

1. W5? The college managed the endowments.
A college ﬁnance ofﬁcer worked with the foundation ﬁnance committee to manage the
foundation investments.

2. W? The college owned the endowment.

3. WM? Yes, investment counsel was used via the

ﬁnancial experts who were members of the foundation's ﬁnance committee. The
foundation money was invested with trust ofﬁcers in various banks; the committee
evaluated the efforts of the banks.

4. WWW?
Investment counsel was used by both the community college and the foundation. Bank
trust departments provided some investment assistance.

5. WWW. Generally, the

foundation board of directors selected the investment counsel.

164

W.

1. WhQMmagedjheEndewmenm? The college and the foundation each had
their own endowments that were individually owned and managed.

2. We? The college owned its endowments; the
foundation owned its endowments.

3. W? No investment counsel was used; however,
the ﬁnance committee of the foundation was exploring the possibility of hiring a money
manager.

4. WW? Investment

Counsel was not used by either the college or the foundation.

5. W. The ﬁnance
committee of the foundation board of directors would select the investment counsel for
the foundation if they decided to consult with an investment counselor.

WW.

1. We? The foundation ﬁnance committee managed
the endowment.

2. We? The foundation owned the endowment

3. W? The foundation used investment counsel. A
broker worked with the ﬁnance committee. Initially, the foundation ﬁnance committee
chose a brokerage ﬁrm. The ﬁrm was evaluated, and the committee decided to continue
with the services of that ﬁrm.

4. WWW? Investment

counsel was used speciﬁcally by the foundation.

165

5. Wanna. The ﬁnance
committee of the foundation board of directors selected the investment counsel.

WW3. Among the foundations
that received the greatest amount of external funds, endowments were managed by the
college at College A, by both the college and foundation at College B, and by the
foundation at College C.

College A owned the endowment. CellegeB owned its own Endowment and
College B mundanen owned its own Endowment; College C foundation owned the only
Endowment.

Investment counsel was used by Colleges A and C. At College A, investment
counsel was used by both the college and the foundation. At College C, investment
counsel was used by only the foundation.

At both Colleges A and C, the foundation board of directors selected the
investment counsel. It appeared that the ﬁnance committee assumed responsibility for
selection.

W.

1. W? The foundation managed the endowment.

2. W? The foundation owned the endowment.

3. W: Investment counsel was used by the foundation.

4. A... I‘ II'I II‘ 'II .I' I---I III.,III “1'7
Investment counsel was used only by the foundation.

5. W. The ﬁnance

committee of the foundation board of directors selected the investment counsel.

166
W.
1. W? The foundation managed the endowment.
2. W? The foundation owned the endowment.
3. WM? An investment counselor from Chicago was

consulted.

4. WW? Investment

Counsel was used by the foundation.

5. W. The foundation
selected the investment counsel.

WW.

1. W? The foundation (treasurer) managed the

Endowment.

2. Whemnedjheﬁndewmem? The foundation owned the endowment.

3. WW? Investment counsel was not used.

4. W? Investment counsel was not used.

5. W. The ﬁnance
committee of the foundation would select investment counsel if used.

WWW Among the three
foundations that received the least amount of external funds, endowments were managed
by their foundations, and all three foundations owned these endowments.

Two of three foundations used investment counsel and the counsel was sought and
used by the foundation. Lastly, the two foundations whose personnel used investment
counsel selected that counsel through the ﬁnance committees of their respective

foundation board of directors.

167
D. ‘I‘I‘ 3' .‘zI I II- II ;3 .II . -- III. "'1 Eva." .
Among the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, endowments
were managed by both the college and the foundation, depending on the foundation. Of
the college foundations that received the least amount of external funds, endowments
were managed by only the foundations.

Of the college foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds,
endowments were owned by both the college and the foundation, again depending on the
foundation. The three college foundations that received the least amount of external
funds all owned the endowments.

Among the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds,
investment counsel was used by both Colleges A and C. At College A investment
counsel was used by both the college and the foundation, whereas at College C, counsel
was used only by the foundation. Of the three foundations that received the least amount
of external funds, two of three foundations used investment counsel only for the
foundation.

Among the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds,
investment counsel was selected by the ﬁnance committee of the foundation board of
directors. Of the three foundations that received the least amount of external funds,

investment counsel was also selected by the ﬁnance committee of the foundation board of

directors.

 

‘l.?":,5...'-1'0 NH“ , ... ; A”, ”MW,“ ...A,,”..‘
ME? 'I. I .-II.. Ii '3 - ' O .1.‘,.. I. III-r - .I I-
C 'CllEl'EIlll'l°S'.)

This section includes the amount of dollars raised in FY 1995 by each foundation
and the percentage raised by funding source (e.g., alumni, corporations, investments,
special events). It should be noted that most of the community colleges did not track all
categories listed as funding sources. Those used by each college are designated; those not
tracked were assigned a "0." Variable V also includes a list of external inﬂuences
identiﬁed by participants as competitors seeking the same community monies that
community college foundations seek.

'I';III.I I'UAtzﬁitﬂlgI.$ ) . ,- .-.- . ..~'.
Foundations.
Total gifts raised by each College-dollar amount:

College A $ 200,000 (Approx.)

College B -0—

College C *Varies from year to year--speciﬁc amount not reported
College X -0-

College Y 35,000

College 2 0

*Small amounts of money were raised by the Athletic Department, Women's Resource
Center, and Student Activities Division.

169

I‘ -l-.- :-,-,-. I--- .-,: ”...-I I I , 1.... I
W. Of those colleges whose foundations received the greatest
amount of external funds, two reported having raised additional money for the college
beyond that raised by the foundation. Of those colleges whose foundations received the
least amount of external funds, only one reported likewise.

In conclusion, three of the six community colleges studied, raised funds through
various activities like athletic and academic program events in addition to the money
raised by the foundation. Two of these colleges represented the group whose foundations

received the greatest amount of external funds, and one represented the group whose

foundations received the least amount of external funds.

 

. The college
foundations were ranked ordered by the amount of external dollars raised in FY 1995.

Amounts reported by participants are listed below:

College A Foundation $2,372,000
College B Foundation 785,156
College C Foundation 558,527
College X Foundation 543,787
College Y Foundation 72,500
College Z Foundation 33,160

Differences Between WWW
W5. As shown above, college foundations ABC raised from
approximately $560,000 to $2.4 million. College foundations XYZ raised from

approximately $33,200 to $544,000.

170

' ’I.="{.='-1II I' IIIAIII I3 ')' I III- I
“W In order to establish new

fundraising goals, foundation personnel analyze the various sources from which their
funds emanate. Percentages of money raised from various funding sources reported by

study participants are listed below:

A. Alumni 3%
B. Corporate, outright donation 10%
C. Corporate, match donation 1%
D. Faculty/staff 1%
E. Non-College Afﬁliated Donors 80%
F. Professional Organizations 5%
G. Special Events Same as "E" above
H. Friends Same as "E" above
A. Alumni .001%
B. Corporate, outright donation 45%
C. Corporate, match donation .002%
D. Faculty/staff 12%
E. Grants from private foundations (nationwide) .002%
F. Grants from local private foundations 5%
G. Grants from State Government Reported by the

Grants Division of the
Resource Development
Ofﬁce of the college.

171

H. Grants from Federal Government

1. Investments

J. Non-College Afﬁliated Donors
K. Professional Organizations

L. Special Events

M. Other (Identify)

Reported by the
Grants Division of the
Resource Development
Ofﬁce of the college. H.

2%

27%
2%
6%

1% (Retirees)

[III E “.02 13'” 1131].:

A. Alumni

B. Faculty/staff

C. Grants from State Government
D. Investments

P1

Non-College Afﬁliated Donors
F. Special Events*

G. Friends

Very small amount
6% (Campus Campaign)

(College function only)

54%

14%

26%

Same entity as E above

*Special events include: Madrigal dinners, a winter getaway, mardi gras,
carnival and circus, fall and spring craft shows, golf tournament, culinary extravaganza,
staff recognition luncheon, holiday reception, anniversary celebrations, and building

dedications.

.
.D I- - ,.
. ." .U .3 """"‘ '3

I UII‘ {I'I U" I." I I' .

The top three categories of funding sources for foundation A were non-college-afﬁliated

donors, outright corporate donations, and professional organizations. The top three

categories of funding sources for Foundation B were outright corporate donations, non-

college-afﬁliated donors, and faculty/staff. The top three categories of funding sources

172

for foundation C were investments, special events, and non-college afﬁliated donors. In
conclusion, the two foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts both
reported outright corporate donations and non-college afﬁliated donors among their top

three funding sources. Foundation C also reported non-college afﬁliated donors among

its top three funding sources.

A. Alumni 19%
B. Corporate, outright donation 21%
C. Corporate, match donation 7%
D. Faculty/staff 7%
E. Grants from public foundations (nationwide) See Other (below)
F. Grants from private foundations (nationwide) See Other (below)
G. Grants from private foundations See Other (below)
H. Grants from local public foundations See Other (below)
1. Grants from State Government College Function
J. Grants from Federal Government See Other (below)
K. Investments 33% (of grand total)*
L. Non-College-Afﬁliated Donors 21%
M. Special Events 10%
N. Friends Same as L
O. Other (Identify)

Estates 15%

All Grants (public, private) 10%

*All percentages other than Investments were based on gifts alone.

173
W1

A. Corporate, outright donation 80%
B. Faculty/staff 2%
C. Grants from State Government College Function
D. Investments Certiﬁcates of Deposit Only

for 1995
E. Non-College-Afﬁliated Donors 3%
F. Friends 15%

*College Y did hold special events including breakfasts and a golf outing for

which no donations were requested and no money was raised.

C II Z' E B . l E l E ll . :
A. Corporate, match donation 3%
B. Faculty/staff 2%
C. Grants from private Foundations (nationwide) 10%
D. Grants from State Government College Function
E. Investments 20% (Interest)
F. Special Events* 15%
G. Current Students 5% (Memorials)
Q. Friends 25%
R. Other (Identify)* 20% (One—time donations)

*Sale of Property donated to Foundation
I 00-..0I . .IIIIII“" ‘I -.°‘I UOI' :1. 'AI III -_II I.

The top three categories of funding sources for college Foundation X were investments,

outright corporate donations, and alumni. The top three categories for college Foundation

174

Y were outright corporate donations, friends, and non-college afﬁliated donors. The top
three categories for Foundation Z were friends, a one-time donation of property, and
investments. Of the three foundations receiving the least amount of external funds, two
reported outright corporate donations and categories suggesting friends of the college
such as labeled friends, alumni, and non-college-afﬁliated donors.

D' ’1‘! ‘ 3' .'.‘I I II. II I: 0H0: '.I I .71....“ . I
W. Those foundations that received the greatest
amount of external gifts reported that their key funding sources were outright corporate
donations and non-college-afﬁliated donors. Those foundations that received the least
amount of external gifts reported that their key funding sources were outright corporate
donations and friends of the college.

:I; I: Ii ‘I '.-H.I‘3I,3l.ll ' ac I {auIII'I I I‘ .I a"
mutt-I l' I I: 'Hh'." {III II II~III=.' I H.390!

It was common knowledge that various local organizations such as nonproﬁt
organizations and other colleges and universities had competed for funds. The researcher
asked the community college and foundation personnel participating in the study to
identify organizations in their local areas that had competed with their foundation for
funding. Competing organizations are listed below, but they are not speciﬁcally named to
protect the identity of the sample institutions:

W. Local hospital, local community foundation, local arts

center, United Way, private and public schools.

175

W. Community/civic orchestras, arts council; groups serving

the handicapped; educational organizations serving troubled adolescents, persons with
addictions, hospitality groups; other colleges and universities in the surrounding
community college environs; public and private schools, and so on.

W. All four-year colleges, charitable organizations, public

and private schools, service organizations, YMCA, symphonies, auctions.

W. Four year colleges/universities, especially the University
of Michigan and Michigan State University; community foundations; all colleges; United
Way, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Rotary Foundation, Girl
Scout Council, American Red Cross, Hospice, Aware Shelter, Inter-Faith Shelter, all
churches; private schools; and other colleges located outside of the city.

W. All community foundations in the K-12 school districts,
eight public school foundations, churches, Special Olympics, all charitable organizations.

W. Every service organization, Rotary, Kiwanis, health
drives (Arthritis, Cancer, Heart, and so on.)

I ;: -|' . .IIII.I--O III .. II "I I i: OJIVI. 'I .I'
. 1_A..m...".h my” . I“ ' .... f". . H‘ .H ).

Clearly, much competition for the community college foundation has surfaced in the past.
Therefore, community college foundation personnel must clearly articulate to the public
their needs in order to garner the funds needed to supplement the community college's

budget in an effort to fulﬁll its mission.

 

{amII'I II; I'Ul. ha I 5UI‘II' II I I‘ I II=III
Community college foundation directors were asked to indicate those professional
organizations they found helpful. The following list was provided to respondents as
possible choices:
A. National Council on Resource Development (NCRD)
B. Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE)
C National Society of Fundraising Executives (NSFRE)

D. National Association of College and University Business ofﬁcers
(NACUBO)

E. Other (specify)

This section includes, by foundation, a list of professional organizations the
respondents found to be most helpful in dealing with everyday foundation matters.

CellegeALQundaﬁen: The National Council on Resource Development
(NCRD)--an afﬁliate of AACC.

W: National Council on Resource Development (NCRD--
membership); Council for the Advancement of and Support of Education (CASE--
subscription); National Society of Fundraising Executives (N SFRE--seminars, luncheons,
networking, ideas); Michigan Nonproﬁt Association; National Council for Marketing and
Public Relations; Accounting Aid Society.

Madam. Afﬁliations in no professional organizations.

W: The National Council on Resource Development
(NCRD) provided legislative alerts. The Council for the Advancement of and Support of

Education (CASE) provided helpful journal articles; the National Society of Fundraising

177

Executives (NSFRE) provided helpful journal articles. Service organizations that offered
opportunities to network, like the local Rotary Club, were avenues through which
fundraisers can professionally grow.

Wen: No foundation director was employed by this institution;
the individual responsible for garnering external funds reported it was difﬁcult for him to
attend nationally afﬁliated professional organizations. The college belonged to no
national professional fundraising organizations.

W: Although College Z employed no foundation director,
the college belonged to the National Council for the Advancement of and Support of
Education (CASE) and the National Association of College and University Business

Ofﬁcers (NACUBO).

- . . D . - ' O o
I - I II.,II ;- ._II . IIII,-| I II-, .J.‘.. .- II

W. In summary, personnel from two of the three
foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds belonged to at least four
professional organizations related to foundation business. Likewise, personnel from two
of the three foundations that received the least amount of external funds belonged to at
least two professional organizations they found helpful in dealing with foundation
matters.

I'I-n- .,- -. . ...f.. ;: ... , In. . - ... I -._I . II
WWW. It appeared that the foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external gifts were afﬁliated with more professional organizations than

the foundations receiving the least amount of external funds for FY 1995.

 

Personnel from Colleges A and C reported that the percentage of total foundation
dollars raised by their foundations and used for vocational programming was very small.
Percentages are as follows:

W. Less than 1% was used for vocational programming.

The money was used for equipment. Of the approximately $12 million raised by the
foundation, $45,000 to $55,000 was used for equipment. (Most foundation money was
spent for student scholarships.)

WM. Seventy-three percent (nonrestrictive monies) was used
for vocational programming.

W. One and one-half percent was used for vocational
programming. About $40,000 worth of equipment grants were distributed to faculty from
the foundation, based on individual requests—-some in occupational programs, some in
others. No consistent pattern existed from year to year. The grant requests were ranked
on a college-wide basis, depending on the nature and value of the project. (The college
may supplement the foundation's grant amount with monies from the community college's
budget in order to fund the entire requested amount if the entire amount is not funded by

the foundation.) Most foundation money was expended on student scholarships.

. ..l.. 6: ....l‘“.-‘..‘I.-. . '.'.M- -. . ..A.'

 

- . Of those
foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, College B expended the
most money--73%--on occupational education programs. Colleges A and C expended

less than 2% on such programs.

W. 31.5% was spent on occupational education programs.

W. 25% was spent on occupational education programs.

W. 10% was spent on occupational education programs.

01.2.! I -- "II-.Iu" 'I.e"0 ..I'-I.OI\10|‘ ‘1' 0 001.!

WWW Of those
foundations that received the least amount of external funds, College X expended the
most money--32%--on occupational education programs. Colleges Y and Z spent less
than 26% on such programs.

D' ‘l’I' 3' .'.'I I II...II I: .II . I--"I.'I.-." I III. II
UOI‘ ‘.I I IIII 01 I-II-_ .I .IIRII'." 0I".II 1' IIIII II
College. Of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, only one
spent approximately three-fourths of its foundation monies on occupational education
programs. Of the foundations that received the least amount of external funds, two
foundations spent less than one-third of their foundation monies on occupational
education programs, whereas the third foundation spent slightly more than one-third of its
monies on such programs.

.‘t’lo“0 I-_ DI .III‘JI _I‘ I II..II.,II ‘I I iIIrI'

cheuhanleeatienalﬁggmmming. Community college personnel reported that a larger

180

percentage of total foundation dollars raised by their foundations was spent for purposes
other than vocational programming. The percentage of total dollars raised and used for
purposes aside from vocational programming are listed below:

CellegeEQundeﬁmA. Ninety-nine percent was used for purposes other than
vocational programming. Dollars were used for endowed, restricted; endowed,
unrestricted; nonendowed, unrestricted and restricted (minimum amount for an
endowment was $15,000--most endowments were used for scholarships).

W. Twenty-seven percent was used for purposes other than
vocational programming. Money raised was used for nonvocational academic programs,
classroom materials and equipment, scholarships and student emergency funds, special
projects and programs, child care centers, ﬁne arts, extra-curricular programs, campus
improvements, library support, and endowments. Equipment loaned to the college was
not claimed as foundation assets, but it amounted to about $3 million in FY 1995.

Cellegeﬂundaﬁenﬁ. Seventy-ﬁve percent was used for purposes other than
vocational programming.

W. Twenty-one and one-third percent was used for purposes
other than vocational programming. Other money was used for foundation operating
expenses, transfers to the college for department and special program use, and scholarship
endowments.

W. Seventy-ﬁve percent was used for purposes other than

vocational programming.

181

W. Fifty percent was used for purposes other than vocational

programming. Other money was used for student scholarships, the foreign student

exchange program, a miscellaneous loan program, writing program awards, a performing

artist series, and the youth theater.

 

foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, two--those at Colleges A
and C--reported spending more than 75% on purposes other than vocational

programming; the third reported spending slightly more than 25% of its funds on "other"

purposes.

 

foundations that received the least amount of external funds, one--at College Y reported
spending 75% of the total dollars raised by the foundation on purposes other than
vocational programming. College Z spent about 50% on "other" purposes, and
College X expended 21% on "other" purposes.

D' "I ' ='I.‘;I I I'-. II I: -I' . -- '( 'I.«." I I..D1I-I.
3... ‘.I I I' I I'.«. II II. ‘I I a IDAD' .Jt‘ I.I I. .. D". 'erIuIIIII.‘
Of those foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, two reported
spending more than 75% on purposes other than vocational programming. Of those

foundations that received the least amount of external funds, only one reported spending

182

75 % on "other" purposes. Therefore, those colleges that received the greatest amount of
external funds spent more foundation dollars for purposes other than vocational

programming than did the foundations that received the least amount of external funds.

3'31".'°3JO~'A‘1I:‘-:~h'l0'|,é!ﬂ,|.'-1‘l' {..I I'
' .
W.

CellegeEenndetienA. According to personnel from College A, the foundation’s
success was based on the involvement and sense of ownership by the public in the
community college and its activities; a giving community that is unique; community
image, based on student success; accountability; ﬁduciary responsibility; trustee
leadership; CEO leadership; and community relationships. Also mentioned were
participation by the president and foundation board and board of trustees in foundation
activities; management commitment to stafﬁng; and well articulated needs.

CollegeEQundatienB. According to personnel from College B, the foundation’s
success was based on business/community partnerships and the college’s image--
increasing and reinforcing donors’ trust and conﬁdence that the college was effectively
addressing the needs of both the students and the community. Public trust/conﬁdence
was earned not only by meeting but by surpassing the community's expectations.

CellegeEQundatienﬂ. According to personnel from College C, the foundation’s
success was based on the perseverance of the President, Dean of Marketing and
Development, and some volunteers who had helped raise signiﬁcant funds through
special events and programs. Respondents said that foundation and college personnel

must be visible in the community and have contacts; people must know who the

183

foundation personnel are and believe in the college's mission and programs. Establishing
relationships with community organizations like the Rotary Club, Chambers of
Commerce, and so on, is crucial to the foundation’s success.

I a: .Hﬂe‘ -.II~ I1II1°I.III'I.;IIII -I - I
Lhe_QQllege_Eo_ungletiens. Personnel from Colleges ABC, the foundations that received
the greatest amount of external funds, cite the following as key reasons for their
foundation's success: CEO and Trustee leadership; participation by the CEO, foundation
board, and board of trustees in foundation activities; community visibility; community
image; meeting the needs of the students and community; and business/community
partnerships.

Cellegex. According to personnel from College X, the success of the foundation
was based on a well-established organization--its stability and longevity as a leader within
the community. The college had been a viable, interactive part of the community, and the
community had remained supportive. The foundation had received a wealth of support
ﬁnancially and through recommendations from volunteer boards of directors throughout
the course of its existence. Securing $40,000 to $80,000 estates boosted the fund balance
of the foundation. Diversity of personnel, the college's image, and involvement of key
administrators within the service areas of the community all contributed to the
foundation's success. Institution reputation was a major sales factor. Employing a
foundation director who was active in the community, rather than an adjunct professional,

also contributed to the foundation's ability to raise funds.

184

Cellegel. According to personnel from College Y, the success of the foundation
was based on people—to-people contact, the reputation of the college, and training
conducted by the college to serve and develop skilled employees for business and
industry.

CellegeZ. According to personnel from College Z, the success of the foundation
was based on raising friends-—with friends come fundsuand providing a vehicle through
which community members could donate gifts when they were ready. According to the
board of trustees chairperson, the community college president had excellent rapport with
the community and the K-12 school district.

I . "Net ._ I DA‘IIt’h‘I". é!!! ‘I 0' I
Eeundenenjsﬁneeees. Personnel from Colleges XYZ, the foundations that received the
least amount of external funds, cited the following as key to their foundation’s success:
Employment of a foundation director who was active in the community, longevity as a
leader in the community, involvement of key administrators, college personnel diversity,
institution image, training provided by the college to meet the needs of business and
industry within the community, and people-to-people contact to raise friends.

D' “I' 3‘."I I'-' a: .II. -..DI~DA‘OU:‘DIDU"I
WW. Respondents from both groups of
foundations discussed the college's image/reputation, activity of chief college
administrators, community relationships, and visibility. However, only the XYZ group
discussed the importance of a well-established organization whose personnel exhibited
leadership and the employment of a foundation director who was active in the

community, as opposed to hiring an adjunct staff person.

185

W The literature contains

discussions regarding whether a college's receipt of funds can be attributed to the age of
the foundation, the type of geographic setting (rural or urban), or the size of the
institution. Therefore, respondents were asked to provide a proﬁle of their respective
community colleges. As indicated in Table 4, the oldest foundation, the one at

College C, began in 1966. Three other foundations began in the 19705, and two began in
the 19808.

Of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, two were
situated in an urban setting. Of those foundations that received the least amount of
external gifts, two were situated in rural settings.

Among the foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, student
enrollments ranged from 4,000 students to 26,144 students. Among those that received
the least amount of external gifts, student enrollments ranged from 1,314 students to

7,750 students.

186

Table 4

Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C
(Greatest Amount of External Funds)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with Colleges X, Y, and Z
(Least Amount of External Funds
in Terms of Foundation Proﬁles
Year Rural
Foundation or
College Began Urban Enrollment
A 1981 Rural 4,000
B 1979 Urban 26,144
C 1966 Urban 10,057
X 1983 Urban 7 ,7 50
Y 1979 Rural 1,347
2 1972 Rural 1,314

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eonndaﬂens. To provide some assistance to community colleges considering the
formation of a foundation, college and foundation personnel submitted the following

advice:

187

CollegeA.

1. Recruit and involve community leaders, benefactors, and philanthropists.

2. Articulate the beneﬁts of your community college’s academic and other
programs.

3. Make every effort to develop the capability to bridge the gap between the rich
and the poor in your community. Approach the community and identify a solid core of
leaders and volunteers to assist with bridging that gap.

4. Use a solid community core to raise friends, enhance the image of the
community college, and raise funds for the needs of the college.

CellegeB. Community colleges considering instituting a foundation should know
that the existence of a foundation can provide an opportunity for businesses to grant
equipment and technology, thus affording those businesses the beneﬁt of a donation. The
impetus for creating a foundation can be based solely on this rationale.

Cellege_C. Because most foundations do not have the luxury of a great deal of
time, foundation personnel must learn where to spend the hours that will garner the
amount of money needed to meet the college's needs. College personnel recommended
that fundraising neophytes study the "pyramid of giving" and determine which type of
contacts the foundation ofﬁce must solicit in order to achieve its annual and long-range
goals. All personnel associated with fundraising for the college must be able to articulate
the need for the speciﬁc amount of money desired. Conduct an educational campaign for
the community so they are aware that the community college can be included in their

wills with a deferred estate gift to the college.

188

Begin to fundraise with your own organization; start with the internal staff. Leads
can and will emanate from campus employees. Choose someone who enjoys respect
from campus colleagues to direct the foundation ofﬁce; the person should have a high
energy level and like people. Get the public involved in your activities. Be sure to
secure the commitment of the college president. Secure corporate buy-in by assisting
business/industry with their training needs, e. g., build a technology center and you will
most likely secure sizable funds from corporate America.

CellegeX. Join the local "mover/shaker" community organizations like the
Rotary Club, United Way, and other service organizations Every other month invite
fundraisers from every community organization for a round-table foundation discussion
in a partnership setting to express their views on fundraising. Invite speakers to discuss
topics such as causes that companies/corporations are supporting. If your foundation and
three other organizations have similar or the same ideas, collaborate.

Discuss the successes of each organization's capital campaigns and annual giving
program, and the "how to's" of implementing and sustaining these programs. Develop a
habit of lunching regularly with fundraising professionals to network and share ideas.
Educate your foundation board of directors so they understand that fundraising is a time-
honored process--seeds need to be planted and prospects cultivated to allow the growth
and bloom of philanthropic gifts.

Publicize your college's mission and goals. People must be aware of college
activities in order to participate in them. College needs must be articulated to the
community in order for residents to realize that needs exist. Educate the public that the

community college foundation is the vehicle through which that can occur.

189

The community identiﬁes with the college through its president. The president
must be active and visible.

The delineation between policy and administration must be clear. The foundation
board of directors must be independent in order to be effective. The college board of
trustees cannot direct the foundation board of directors. Highly respected and
knowledgeable members of the community should be selected as member of the
foundation board of directors.

CellegeX. Smaller colleges should consider securing funds from community
foundations while holding the college's funds in reserve. Place the invested money in a
bank whose personnel you know.

People with money have accumulated wealth because of their own skills. They
will donate money if you can convince them they can be helpful to the institution. Rarely
will people with money donate time. Most people who have money are busy people.
Always go to the busy people. Remember that people give to people they like

Major donor periods are October, November, December, May, and June.
Organize solicitations around these giving periods.

Subscribe to the publications and attend the professional conferences of the
Council for the Advancement of and Support of Education (CASE). For beginners, this is
an especially helpful professional organization. Lastly as one college president advised,
"Get, give, or get off."

Cellegel. Educate the community regarding how their investment in the college

is being returned to the community in terms of the skilled professional graduates

employed in the community such as nurses, emergency medical technicians, ﬁremen, auto

190

mechanics, and so on. Remind them that goods and services and quality of life are

intermingled with the community.

Table 5 contains responses to the question, "How Would You Spend Additional

Resources?" Included are responses from foundation directors, presidents, and college

board of trustees chairpersons, providing clues to their beliefs about what makes a

foundation successful. It appeared that they believed the factors listed in the table would

help them achieve their foundations’ fundraising goals if the human and ﬁscal resources

were available.

Comparison of Colleges A, B, and C

Table 5

(Greatest Amount of External Funds)
with Colleges X, Y, and Z

(Least Amount of External Funds)
in Terms of a Wish List
as Reported by Study Respondents

Responses to "How Would You Spend Additional Resources?"

 

 

 

 

 

college's investment in
technology to broaden
program offerings with the
net result of enhancing
student access.

 

Foundation Board of Trustees
College Director President Chairperson
A Employ Increase scholarship Employ additional
additional endowments; invest more foundation staff and
foundation staff in human resource develop new programs
development; strengthen based on college needs.

 

 

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 (cont’d).
Foundation Board of Trustees
College Director President Chairperson
B Employ a full- Provided same response as Board Chairperson
time Resource that given by the unavailable for
Development Foundation Director. interview.
Director; allocate
additional
staff/resources for
planned giving
and prospect
research
programs.
C Hire a person to Distribute more Board Chairperson
solicit major gifts scholarships. unavailable for
and further interview
develop a
deferred gifts
program. Build a
facility for
corporate training
X A larger staff to Hire a full-time Hire a full-time
manage all foundation Director. foundation Director.
aspects of
prospect
research and
fundraising.
Y No foundation Hire a full-time Hire a full-time
Director foundation Director. foundation Director.
Z No Foundation Hiring a part-time The college Board
Director Foundation Director; Chairperson said he
a "ﬂashier" prospectus believed the college
and annual report. had enough monies to
operate with the

 

 

 

recently passed
millage.

 

 

Eundﬁalanees Fund balances are compared in Tables 6 and 7 and in Figures 1, 2, 3,
and 4.

Examining the sample by dividing it into two groups--one group with the largest
fund balances and one group with the smallest fund balances-shows that the three
community college foundations reporting the largest fund balances as of
June 30, 1995, (Figure 7) reported fund balance amounts of $14.1 million, $3.7 million,
and $3.1 million. The mean of the three foundations reporting the largest fund balance
was $6,966,667. The three community college foundations reporting the smallest fund
balances as of June 30, 1995, (Figure 7) reported fund balance amounts of $1.2 million,
$488,379, and $191,000. The mean of the three foundations reporting the smallest fund
balances was $626,460.

In summary, the mean of the three sample foundations with the largest fund
balances was over $6 million, compared to just over $600,000 for the three foundations
with the smallest fund balances--a wide variance between the two types of foundations,

large and small.

193

Table 6

Comparison of External Funds Raised, Fund Balances, Foundation Budgets, and
Institutional Operating Budgets for Fy 1995 by Large Foundations (A, B, C)
and by Small Foundations (X, Y, Z)
in Descending Order of Amounts of External Funds Raised

Results from Combined Initial and Final Surveys

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Data
Large External Funds Institutional
Foundations Raised by Fund Foundation Operating
(Greatest External Foundation Balance Budget Budget
Funds)* FY 1995 FY 1995 FY 1995 FY 1995
FOUNDATION A $2,931,000 $14,100,383 $211,000 $19,919,000
FOUNDATION B 785,000 488,000 89,000 98,276,000
FOUNDATION C 677,000 3,700,000 200,000 35,000,000
Small External Funds Institutional
Foundations Raised by Fund Foundation Operating
(Least External Foundation Balance Budget FY Budget
Funds)* FY 1995 FY 1995 1995 FY 1995
FOUNDATION X $544,000 $3,100,000 $400,000 $21,000,000
FOUNDATION Y 92,000 1,201,373 95,000 6,500,000
FOUNDATION Z 39,000 191,000 30,000 9,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

*Foundations listed in order of descending amounts of external funds raised.

 

194

Table 7

A Comparison of Fund Balances, External Funds Raised, Foundation

Budgets, and Institutional Operating Budgets
for FY 1995 by Large Foundations (A, B, C)

and by Small Foundations (X, Y, Z)
in Descending Order of Foundation Fund Balances

Results from Combined Initial and Final Surveys

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY 1995 Data
External Funds Institutional
Large Fund Raised by Fund Foundation Operating
Balance Foundation Balance Budget Budget
Foundations)* FY 1995 FY 1995 FY 1995 FY 1995
FOUNDATION A $2,931,000 $14,100,383 $211,000 $19,919,000
FOUNDATION B 677,000 3,700,000 200,000 35,000,000
FOUNDATION C 544,000 3,100,000 400,000 21,000,000
External Funds Institutional
Small Fund Raised by Fund Foundation Operating
Balance Foundation Balance FY Budget FY Budget
Foundations)* FY 1995 1995 1995 FY 1995
FOUNDATION X $92,000 $1,201,373 $95,000 $ 6,500,000
FOUNDATION Y 785,000 488,379 89,000 98,276,000
FOUNDATION Z 39,000 191,000 30,000 9,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

*Foundations listed in order of descending Fund Balances.

 

195

16,000,000

 

14,100,000

14,000,000

 

 

12,000,000

 

 

10,000,000

 

 

 

 

8,000,000

 

 

6,000,000

,000
3,700,000

4,000,000 4

 

 

3,100,000

2.

2,000,000 -

78000

488,
9.

677 000
’ 1, 00,000

 

 

211,
92
95,1
39,

191,
30,

 

 

 

 

0.

er

 

 

A B C X Y Z
A = Largest, Z = Smalbst Foundation in Descending Order of External ﬁnals

l Extemal Funds
El Fund Balances
I Foundation Budget

A Comparison of the 1995 Fiscal Year Extemal Funds Raised
(Total Vohmtary Gifts)
to the 1995 Fiscal Year Foundation Fund Bahnces and Foundation Budgets

by Sarrpb Foundation in Descending Order of WW
Raised by Institution.

Biased

196

 

16,000,000

14,100,000

 

14,000,000 -

12,000,000 -

 

 

10,000,000 -

8,000,000 -

 

 

6,000,000 -

’30,II

         

4,000,000 -

 

 

    

    

ll
,4

     

  

. 3,700,000

I: [000
HO

34100000

(3 |5u,000

2

2,000,000 -

400000

 

 

01

.< '78.,000

A

X
N

A = Largest, Z = Smallest Foundations in Descending Order of Fund Balances by
Institution.

Fund Bahnces
El Extemal Funds Raised
I Foundat'nn Budget

 

A Comparison of the 1995 Fiscal Year External Funds Raised (Total Voluntary Gifts)
to the 1995 Fiscal Year Foundation Fund Balances and Foundation Budgets
by Sample Foundations in Descending Order ofﬁundﬂaﬂees by Institutions.

Heme;

 

197

98,276,000

100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000 -

 

 

,000

 

 

 

 

31;,

 

 

 

 

19,919,000

21,000,000

   
   

.000

 

1‘ ,100,,383

 

    

6,500,000

[55.5%

B C X

10,000,000 -

 

1,211,373

48
78
I-< 92,III

 

 

 

A = Largest, Z = Smallest Foundations in Order of Descending Fund Balances (rounded
off).

I Fund Balance
El Extemal Funds Ra'sed
I Instiutional Operating Budget

A Comparison of the 1995 Fiscal Year External Funds Raised (Total Voluntary Gifts)
to the 1995 Fiscal Year Foundation Fund Bahnces and Institutional
Operating Budgets by Sample Foundations
in W of amounts of external funds raised by Institution.

Emu

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

     
   

      
   

     

 

     

§~
Ft.
100,000,000 213
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000 é
40,000,000 § .3: g
Q o: 8
30,000,000 ‘ . o
§ 3; Ft" 3 §
ZODWDW _ #0 E z m ‘1. A
r: 2 [:% 5e. 2 §
10,000,000- NJ, 00%. _
0i " ' F' 0‘9”
A B c x Y z

A = largest, Z = Smallest Institutions in Order of Descending Rind Balances.

I Fund Balance
E] Extemal Funds Ra'sed
I Institutional Operating Budget

A Conpar'son of Fund Balances, Extemal Funds Raised,
and Instiutional Operating Budgets
for Fiscal Year 1995 in Deseengling Order of Foundation 13mm

EMA

199

The data show that the fund balances of the sample institutions varied from
$14 million reported at the high end to $191,000 at the low end, a range of $13,809,000
for the six foundations studied. The mean or average fund balance for the sample was
$3,779,896.50. If fund balance is one indicator of the ﬁnancial health of a foundation, a
$3 million average balance appeared to indicate a healthy status for the sample as a
whole. When the researcher examined the June 30, 1995, fund balance ﬁgures
(Tables 6 and 7, and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4) for the three community college foundations
reporting the greatest ammmmmm in FY 1995, she ranked the
fund balances associated with the foundations receiving the most funds (high to low) as
$14.1 million, $488,000, and $3.7 million, respectively. The mean fund balance for the
foundations reporting the greatest amount of funds received in 1995 was $6,096,000. It
appeared that this was a healthy fund balance average for those foundations garnering the
most money. It meant that these foundations, on average, had about $6 million worth of
assets.

When the researcher examined the June 30, 1995, fund balance ﬁgures
(Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4) for the three community college foundations
reporting the least amounts of external funds received in FY 1995, she ranked the
fund balances associated with the foundations receiving the least funds (high to low) as
$3.1 million, $1.2 million, and $191,000, respectively. The mean fund balance for those
foundations reporting the least amount of funds received was $1,497,000--still over
$1,000,000 worth of assets.

It appeared from the data (Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4) that, of the

three foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds, the second largest

200

foundation (in terms of funds received) most likely spent the money it raised;
consequently, that foundation had a smaller fund balance. The other two foundations
receiving the greatest amount of external funds (the largest and third largest) reported
over $1 million in reserve (their fund balance). Of the three foundations receiving the
least amount of external funds, two still reported over $1 million in reserve (their fund
balance).

In summary, of the group of foundations receiving the greatest amount of funds,
two of three reported fund balances over $1 million; and of the group of foundations
receiving the least amount of funds, two of three reported fund balances over $1 million.
Thus, four of the six sample foundations reported fund balances over $1 million--money
that can be invested or used to further the mission of the parent institution.

2 \I ' 500. .II 3. ..I: III :' . I 1‘1...‘_HOIIIl’.ItShOUId
be noted that, of the smaller foundations (ranked by descending order of fund balances)
represented in the study's population of 28 community colleges, whose personnel both
responded to the initial survey and reported a foundation in existence, eight reported
fund balances below $1 million; also, of the larger foundations (ranked by descending
order of fund balances) responding to the initial survey and reporting a foundation in
existence, W. In summary, these data showed
that, of the 21 community colleges sponsoring foundations, 62 percent reported fund
balances over $1 million. Therefore, slightly less than two-thirds of the community
colleges sponsoring foundations did have assets of over $1 million.

W. The three largest community

college foundations (ranked by amount of external gifts raised in FY 1995) reported gifts

201

received (Table 6) in the approximate amounts of $2.9 million, $785,000, and $677,000,
respectively; the mean for the largest foundations was $1,454,000. The three smallest
community college foundations (ranked by amount of external gifts raised in FY 1995)
received gifts in the approximate amounts of $544,000, $92,000, and $39,000,
respectively; the mean for the smallest foundations was $225,000. The range for the
sample was $2,861,000—-$2.9 million at the high end and $39,000 at the low end.

In summary, these data show that only one of the six sample foundations garnered
over $1 million in FY 1995. The mean for the group of three sample foundations
garnering the most monies was $1.4 million, while the mean for the group of three
foundations garnering the least was $225,000. On average, a substantial
difference--$1,175,000--existed in amounts of funds raised between the groups of large
and small foundations in FY 1995.

E | IE I [G'ﬂl R i 111 EXHQSI Si [I III I'
(Enmjlmenﬂ. EigureEixe shows a comparison of the reported external funds received in
FY 1995 by size of institution. From large to small institutions, the amounts were:
$785,000 (urban campus), $677,000 (rural campus serving urban and rural students),
$544,000 (urban campus), $2.9 million (urban campus serving urban and rural students),
$39,000 (rural campus), and $92,000 (rural campus).

The mean amount of gifts received in 1995 by the larger (enrollment) institutional
foundations was $668,667. (Of the three larger institutions, two were located on urban

campuses and one was located on a rural campus.)

202

The mean amount of gifts received in 1995 by the smaller (enrollment)
institutional foundations was $1,010,333. One of the smaller institutions (based on
enrollment) was able to garner almost $3 million. (Of the three smaller institutions, two
were located on rural campuses, and one was located on an urban campus.)

The data for FY 1995 might lead one to conclude that size of the institution
sponsoring the foundation did not make a difference in the amounts of funds garnered in
FY 1995 because the smaller institutional foundations were able to raise, on average,
slightly more than $1 million and the larger institutional foundations, on average, raised
only about $669,000. When the mean was calculated, it appeared that, for FY 1995,
foundations sponsored by public community colleges in Michigan with lower student
enrollments were not at a disadvantage when compared to those with higher enrollments
in raising funds for the institution. However, one college from the group of colleges with
the fewest students enrolled garnered the greatest amount of external funds in the study
sample, raising the average for the group of foundations associated with lower-enrollment
colleges above that of the larger-enrolled colleges. Aside from this small “outlier”
college which consistently outperformed the three largest colleges, the three sample
foundations associated with the colleges enjoying larger enrollments appeared to garner
greater amounts of external gifts, on the whole, than those associated with colleges that
enrolled fewer students.

The three small institutions that garnered, on average, more than $1 million
represented two rural campuses and one urban campus. Of these small colleges, the one

with the urban campus sponsored the foundation that outperformed the three sample

203

[.93 1,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3,000,000 . .
7
2,500,000
é
2,000,000 i:
1,500,000 §
2 g i
1,000,000 @H §§

        

 

 

 

 

_, o I\
Q 3 g‘thf
"‘ In
500,000— ,_
§§ 333%
0‘ 'i "‘9“ [CE-E2
A c Y z

A = Largest, Z = Smalbst Conmrn'ty Colbges in Order of Descend'mg Fmollment
(1994 External Funds Received for Foundation Y Were Unavailabh).

I 1994
El 1995
I 1996

A Conparison of External Funds Received
in 1994, 1995, and 1996

W (Enrollment)

Eiamzé

204

colleges with high enrollments garnered $2.9 million in FY 1995. This demonstrated that
small colleges with foundations can make an impact. The two rural campuses garnered
$92,000 and $39,000, respectively.

The larger-enrollment colleges associated with foundations that garnered, on
average, $669,000 represented two urban campuses and one rural campus. The urban
campuses raised 785,000 and 544,000, whereas the rural one raised $677,000.

In summary, rural foundation campuses raised $677,000, 92,000, and 39,000
compared to the urban which raised 785,000, $544,000, and $2.9 million. It appeared,
therefore, that for FY 1995, two of the foundations situated on rural campuses in
Michigan were impeded in their ability to raise money compared to the foundations
situated on urban campuses due to geographic location.

Figure 5 shows a comparison of the reported external funds received in:

FY 1994, FY 1995, and FY 1996 by size of institution (enrollment). From large to small
institutions, the amounts were: Foundation A, $631,000 (1994), $785,000 (1995), and
680,000 (1996); Foundation B, $431,000 (1994), $677,000 (1995), and $559,000 (1996);
Foundation C, $904,000 (1994), $544,000 (1995), and $355,000 (1996); Foundation X,
$1,029,000 (1994), $ 2,931,000 (1995), and $1,711,000; Foundation Y, (no data available
for 1994), $39,000 (1995), and $33,000 (1996); and Foundation Z, $79,701 (1994),
$92,465 (1995), and $73,000 (1996).

Foundation A raised a total of $2,096,000 from 1994 to 1996; Foundation B
raised $1,667,000; Foundation C raised $1,803,000; Foundation X raised $5,671,000;

Foundation Y raised $72,000 in two years; and Foundation Z raised $245,166. In

205
summary, from these numbers, one can observe that, over a span of three years, three of
the largest institutions raised more than $1 million. One of the smallest institutions raised
more than $5 million, whereas two of the smallest raised less than $250,000.
ullk"‘1$'€"' ',|'.3_.'I i. {21‘ ‘—.II I III
Figure 6 presents a comparison of a three-year average of external funds (voluntary gifts)
received in FY 1994, 1995, and 1996 by size of institution. The researcher examined the
three-year average of external funds received by the foundations to determine which
foundations, by size (enrollment), raised the most money over an expanded period of time
and whether size appeared to make a difference in the amount of money received. The
three-year average (Figure 5) of external funds garnered by the sample foundations as
reported by sample respondents, in FY 1994, 1995, and 1996, in descending order of size
of institution, were: $699,000 (urban campus), $556,000 (urban campus), $601,000
(rural campus serving urban and rural students), $1.89 million (urban campus serving
urban and rural), $36,000-~two year average (rural campus), and $81,722 (rural campus).
The three largest institutions had a mean--or three-year average of gifts received--
amounting to $618,667, whereas two of the smallest institutions had a mean amounting to
$985,861 (the two-year average of $36,000 was not used in this computation).
For this study sample, these averages suggested that the size of institution within

which the community college foundation was located may have made a difference in the

ability of the college to raise external funds. Although the smaller-enrollment institutions

had a larger mean than the larger-enrollment institutions for the three-year

206

2,000,000

 

1,8 90,000

 

 

1 ,800,000

1,600,000

 

 

1,400,000

 

 

 

 

1,200,000

1 ,000,000

 

 

800,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A B C W Y Z
A = Largest, Z = Snnlbst Commmity Colhges in Order of Descending
Enrolment. (Foundation Y represents a two-year average; one-year average
data was not available).

lExtermlFunds

A Conparison of a 'Ihree- Year Average
of External Funds (Vohrntary Gills)
Received in the 1994, 1995, and 1996 Fiscal Years
by Size of Inst'mtion (Frrrollnent)

Em

207

period, the reader must consider the consistent performance of the outlier foundation
within the group of colleges with small enrollments in surpassing the foundations
afﬁliated with those colleges enrolling a greater number of students. This suggested that
foundations associated with smaller enrollment colleges can garner large amounts of
external gifts. However, on the whole, the colleges with larger enrollments did raise more
money than the colleges with smaller enrollments.

W. The foundation annual budgets for FY 1995 are
compared in Tables 6 and 7 and in Figures 1 and 2. The three foundations reporting the
highest fund balances (Table 6) also reported annual foundation budgets of approximately
$211,000, $200,000, and $400,000. The mean of these foundation annual budgets
(highest fund balance group) was $270,333. The three foundations reporting the lowest
fund balances reported annual foundation budgets of approximately $95,000, $89,000,
and $30,000. The mean of these foundations’ annual budgets (smallest fund balance
group) was $71,333. From these data, one can observe that personnel, affiliated with
the foundations that had the largest fund balances, budgeted, on average, $199,000
more per year--almost four times more than personnel affiliated with the
foundations having the smallest fund balances.

The three foundations reporting the greatest amounts of gifts received in
FY 1995 (Table 2) also reported annual foundation budgets of approximately $211,000,
$89,000, and $200,000-~a mean of $166,667. The three foundations reporting the least
amounts of gifts received in FY 1995 also reported annual foundation budgets of
approximately $400,000, $95 ,000, and $30,000--a mean of $175,000. From these data,

one can observe that personnel afﬁliated with foundations receiving the most money in

208

FY 1995 budgeted, on average, $8,333 less--about 5% less ($8,333 divided by
$175 ,000)--on their foundation Annual Budgets than personnel afﬁliated with
foundations receiving the least money.

WM Institutional budgets (Tables 6 and 7
and Figures 3 and 4) were identiﬁed for each foundation in descending order of external
funds raised in FY 1995. The three foundations reporting the greatest amount of funds
also reported institutional operating budgets amounting to approximately $20 million,
$98 million, and $35 million. (It should be noted that the community college receiving
the $98 million had more than one campus). The mean was $51 million.

The three foundations reporting the least amount of funds also reported
institutional operating budgets amounting to approximately $21 million, $6.5 million, and
$9 million. The mean was $12.17 million.

From the above data, one can observe that those foundations garnering the
greatest amounts of external funds, on average, were afﬁliated with institutions that had
larger operating budgets. Those foundations garnering less external funds, on average,

were afﬁliated with institutions that had smaller operating budgets.

AN ANALYSIS OF SELECIED
PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATIONS IN MICHIGAN
VOLUME II
By

Mary Frances Miller

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Education Administration

1997

CHAPTER V
MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, SUMNIARY,

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH, AND REFLECTION

The writer’s purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics and activities
of foundations within selected public community colleges in Michigan.

The ﬁndings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the nine variables
researched in this study are presented in the following pages.

0 o o o .
Ill'Js {Uii'ul [ II‘Z QIUHJ Ili'! .‘\'5!||l,|| l'

|_"' 0, lt|.!|l'.l'i_l..?!'|1 til. :H h' 'I'H'I" “.1. M
Di "‘m.HI".t.'3..I';'4u‘-l'u‘u,’ ixu ..3_|°1_I'nt'¢5‘it‘

WW. Of the foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds, only one appeared on the community college's organizational chart.
Likewise, only one of the foundations that received the least amount of external funds
appeared on the community college's organizational chart.

Conclusion. In their discussions of foundations, Cohen and Brawer (1991)
indicated that because foundations are legally and organizationally independent of the
college, they are able to promote the well being of the college without the statutory limits

placed on the college's governing board and staff. Since only four of the six sample

209

210
institutions included the foundation on their college organizational charts, it
appeared that the college and foundation administration may have excluded foundations
from their organization charts intentionally to foster the nonproﬁt corporation objectives,
affording foundations greater ﬂexibility and independence in raising funds for the parent
institution.

:- .... .. . .- 001' . ... ‘u—- u... 01.; ._'.- .gu -..-.,
The entire sample of foundations had developed both Articles of Incorporation and
foundation Bylaws. These documents set forth the relationship between the foundation
and the community college. The only difference among the colleges appeared to be the
speciﬁcity of the language in those documents.

Conclusion. Formal operating agreements existed in all community colleges and
foundations, setting forth the parameters of the relationship of the college to the
foundation. However, some agreements were more speciﬁc than others, and it appeared
that some college and foundation staff were more satisﬁed with speciﬁc rather than
evasive language. For those community colleges that had instituted foundations, the ﬁrst
step was to develop Articles of Incorporation--the legal basis upon which the foundation
operated. College bylaws were developed soon thereafter. In Michigan, all foundations
sponsored by public community colleges did have Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
suggesting the importance of these documents to the establishment and continuation of

foundation activities.

211

Reoommendation. When establishing a foundation, foundation staff/directors
should secure the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws from existing foundations to glean
a comprehensive purview before devising initial documents.

MajoLEunoﬁonLoﬂhoSamnloQollegoEoundaﬁons. All foundations in the
sample group were engaged in the primary function of supporting the community and
assisting with the fulﬁllment of their college missions. Major functions of the
foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds were raising friends,
raising funds, and promoting a positive college image. Major functions of the
foundations that received the least amount of external funds were raising monies to
support the college's mission and providing funding for student scholarships and loans as
well as faculty/staff projects and activities.

Conclus'um. Those foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds were very concerned with raising friends and promoting a positive image in
addition to articulating the need to raise funds; this well-articulated concern may have led
to receipt of larger gifts. However, the foundations that received the least amount of
external gifts, however, also articulated throughout the interviews the need to raise
friends for the college and promote a positive image, but they speciﬁcally reported their
major function as assisting students and staff. It appeared, therefore, that the foundations
that received the least amount of external gifts simply might not have possessed the
resources to reach out to their constituents to the degree that the ABC Foundations did to
garner more funds.

W. All respondents reported that

their colleges had developed a strategic plan.

212

Conolnsion. It appeared that public community colleges believed in the need to
plan ahead and evaluate progress in order to achieve their institutional objectives. Thus,
all of the sample colleges had instituted strategic plans in order to meet the needs of their
communities and demonstrate ﬁscal accountability.

at; .u . o' ... rm- ' .u- mu ...; o .._-~ ’ ... All
respondents reported that institutional needs were projected in the community college
Strategic Plan.

Condnsion. In order to plan, a college must articulate its needs. Therefore, needs
are included in community college Strategic Plans.

..m ._'u . L” V1... , .- . “q -.. ‘_-H J. m" .‘ .
W. Of the group that received the greatest amount of external gifts, only one
foundation director reported that the foundation was mentioned in the College's strategic
plan. Other references to the foundation were indirectly included in the college's strategic
plan, according to both the foundation directors and presidents.

Discrepancies between the foundation directors and college presidents regarding
this issue surfaced in their responses. Moreover, two of the four board of trustees
chairpersons responding reported they did not know whether the foundation was
referenced in the community college’s Strategic Plan.

Qonﬂnsion. It appeared that colleges did not reference their foundations in the
community college Strategic Plans in order to afford foundations the autonomy associated
with the 501(c)(3) nonproﬁt organization status, thus freeing them of institutional "red

tape." A broad reference to the foundation was sometimes articulated in the college

Strategic Plans under the college's ﬁnancial goals.

213

Responses to this issue indicated discrepancies among the board of trustees
chairpersons, presidents, and foundation directors, leading the researcher to conclude that
both college and foundation information needs to be shared and exchanged more
frequently among administrative personnel and between the college administration and
the board of trustees. If a foundation exists to serve the college by augmenting sources of
funding, all should be aware of the parameters of the relationship between the college and
the foundation and be able to articulate that relationship to the public.

Reoommendation. If projecting fundraising goals is a prerequisite to securing
certain levels of funding, stakeholders need to be involved in making team decisions.
Thus, ensuring participation in fundraising goals by the college president and members of
the board of trustee representatives would appear to be important. Likewise, frequent
presentations by both the foundation director and key foundation board members to the
college board of trustees to reinforce the foundation's plan and progress would seem
prudent.

h.) .n . “1.... h . _-! -... . ... .- . . ”I. ...
AnnualﬂanﬂﬂanAnnnalﬂanoxistod). Of the three foundations that received the
greatest amount of external gifts, two of the three foundation directors reporting that an
Annual Plan existed also reported that goals were projected for several years within that
plan. College presidents’ responses conﬁrmed this was the case.

Of the foundations that received the least amount of external gifts, only one
foundation representative reported having developed an Annual Plan. However, the
president contradicted the foundation director's response by reporting that goals‘ for

several years were not established within that Annual Plan.

2 14

Of the board of trustees chairpersons responding, one from the ABC Colleges
reported uncertainty regarding goal projection for several years in the foundation's Annual
Plan. The board chairperson respondent from the XYZ group reported that goals were
projected for several years--but only relative to the foundation director's performance.

Conolusion. The foundation directors may have established goals for several
years within the foundation's Annual Plan. However, it appeared that persons other than
the foundation director either did not realize that such a process had occurred or did not
retain the information once they were informed.

W. The foundation director must continually inform college
stakeholders of foundation progress. In addition, including stakeholders in the decision-
making process may generate renewed interest in and receptivity to the information.

"o ‘o -_ r '1'! ... ‘° ’ 2| .1 30‘ u h. '1‘ ‘HM u U‘
Eounglation. It appeared that the majority of college foundations did not have a strategic
plan. Foundation directors, presidents, and board of trustees chairpersons seemed to
disagree on the topic. The board of trustees did not appear to be aware of the type of
plans their respective foundations had developed.

Conclusion. The majority of college foundations had not devised a strategic plan.
Presidents and boards of trustees were not aware of plans the foundation developed.
Communication regarding foundation plans appeared to be lacking.

Reoommendation. Foundation boards of directors should consider drafting

strategic plans as they predict the amount of money their institutions will need to fulﬁll

215

their missions within the next three to ﬁve years. Frequent presentations by foundation
staff to college administration and the board of trustees are necessary in order for them to
articulate to the public how the needs of the college will be met.

i‘ 1_.... o 17:... c o r " o o' o In.“ .. {‘mu‘n I 1'

. ... .. .r . . a- C", ... :o. . . I. hurt“.
Foundation directors appeared to agree that the board of trustees served an advisory and
supportive function with respect to the foundation board of directors. Attendance on the
foundation board of directors by members from the college board of trustees provided a
communication link between the two bodies.

Presidents reported on the communication of foundation items to the college
board of trustees. They reported that information was generally received by the college
board of trustees when it pertained to foundation action; when action pertained to college
policy, such as budget issues, the college board of trustees voted to approve or disapprove
the item. An anomaly appeared to exist in that one college president from the XYZ group
reported that any unresolved foundation issue was presented for resolution to the college
board of trustees.

All college board of trustees chairpersons reported that the college board had little
involvement in the business of the foundation.

In summary, the foundation directors believed the board of trustees served both an
advisory and a supportive role to the foundation board. Presidents believed the
relationship was akin to item acceptance/approval. They reported a relationship
characterized by board of trustees approval of foundation-related collegial policy issues

and acceptance of information items. Board of trustees chairpersons reported minimal

216

involvement of the board in foundation business with the exception of approving college
budget items and making decisions on noncompliance issues related to the foundation
Articles of Incorporation.

Conclusion. The researcher concluded that, although the foundation directors
may have desired the advice and support of the board of trustees, reality suggested
otherwise. It appeared that the board of trustees' major role was receiving reports by the
foundation and that the majority of board of trustees chairpersons in the sample were not
aware of foundation speciﬁcs even though some board members participated as members
of the foundation board.

Recommendation. The foundation directors and foundation board of directors
need to make a concerted effort to regularly present general and speciﬁc information to
the college board of trustees. However, because the foundation board does have
nonproﬁt-organization status, the researcher attributed the college board of trustees' lack
of attention to foundation detail to the foundation's independence and autonomy granted
under federal law 501(c)(3). This means the foundation directors will need to work
harder to ensure their message does not fall on deaf ears.

WWW Two out of the
three ABC Colleges paid for foundation expenses, whereas two out of the three XYZ
Colleges did not. XYZ Foundations paid for their own fundraising expenses from their

respective foundation budgets.

2 17

Conclusion. Those foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds
appeared to enjoy ﬁnancial support from their parent institutions. In contrast, those
foundations receiving the least amount of external funds did not enjoy such ﬁnancial
support.

Rocommondaiion. By continually updating the college administration and
publicizing the success stories, foundations stand a better chance of securing funding
from parent institutions. Thus, the researcher recommends, as stated above, regular
progress reports to the community college president, the college board of trustees, and the
general public--including informational items in newspapers/newsletters.

{'uu‘ tilt-r 0 U a .‘u- u i'.."00 .t' o '°'I'r‘
WM. Two of the three foundation directors from
the ABC foundations reported that not all external funds were channeled through the
foundation. One foundation director from the XYZ group reported that all funds were
channeled through the foundation. All responding presidents, on the other hand, reported
that not all funds received by the college were channeled through the foundation. Two
board of trustees chairpersons, one from the ABC group and one from the XYZ group,
reported they did not know whether all funds were channeled through the foundation.
One board of trustees chairperson from the XYZ group reported that all funds were
channeled through the foundation; and one board of trustees chairperson did not respond.

Conclusion. In conclusion, it appeared that discrepancies existed among the
foundation directors and board of trustees chairpersons regarding receipt of funds by the
college. However, all presidents appeared to agree that not all funds received by the

college were channeled to the foundation.

218

Rocommondation. The researcher recommends that foundation directors confer
with the college president and college budget ofﬁcer to determine where funds are routed
upon receipt by the institution. The ﬁndings should be presented to the college board of
directors for their information. The foundation board of directors should be
knowledgeable of the total college budget, especially when preparing the foundation
strategic plan.

”— . ... a“ m . __ ._’ . . . . -"I' . ... ....

O. I C O. O O
0‘! at". I-_ I 0 .t' ...! I‘UO'otl" o it. ”Dr 0

WW. Both groups of foundation
directors, those receiving the greatest amount of external gifts (n=3) and those receiving
the least amount of external gifts (n=1), believed that the college presidents were very
involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising program.

Whereas the ABC College Foundation Directors believed that the board of
trustees were generally uninvolved, the only Foundation Director from the XYZ group
believed the board of trustees was generally involved. Both the ABC Foundation
Directors and the only Foundation Director from the XYZ group reported the chief
development (foundation)ladvancement ofﬁcers were very involved in establishing
overall administrative policy for the fundraising program.

Both groups of foundation director respondents appeared to believe that the
faculty were not involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising
program. Regarding the "other" category, only one foundation director reported that the
alumni association was generally involved in establishing overall administrative policy

for the fundraising program.

219

Both the ABC and XYZ Presidents reported that the community college
presidents were very involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the
fundraising program. It appeared that both groups believed that their board of
trustees were not very involved; that the foundation board of directors were generally
involved; that the development (foundation)ladvancement directors were very involved;
that faculty were generally uninvolved; that staff (at one college) were very involved; and,
ﬁnally, that volunteers were generally involved in establishing overall administrative
policy for the fundraising program.

Both the ABC and XYZ Board of Trustees Chairpersons reported that the
community college presidents were very involved in establishing overall administrative
policy for the fundraising program. Both groups believed that they, as a group of board of
trustees, were not very involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the
fundraising program. The ABC Board of Trustees Chairpersons reported that the
foundation board of directors were very involved, whereas the XYZ Board of Trustees
Chairpersons reported that the foundation board of directors were generally involved.
Both the ABC and the XYZ groups reported that the development
(foundation)ladvancement directors were very involved. It appeared that both groups
believed that the faculty were generally uninvolved in establishing overall administrative
policy for the fundraising program. Last, it appeared that both groups believed that staff
were very involved and that foundation volunteers were generally involved.

Conclusion. Foundation directors, college presidents, and board of trustees
chairpersons generally agreed that the president was very involved in establishing overall

administrative policy for the fundraising program; that the college board of trustees was

220

not involved; that the foundation board of directors was involved; that the
advancement/development/foundation director was very involved; that faculty were not
involved; and, ﬁnally, that "others" like some staff and alumni were somewhat involved.
Reoommonoation. The researcher recommends that foundation directors reach
out to faculty, soliciting input from interested parties who could prove to be very
accommodating and helpful in revising or reﬁning overall administrative policy for the

fundraising programs.

.. . .- u... .; .,----- o ...... r- . ,- .-. ... :.._ . .
Imsteesﬁhaimrsonllesmnses. EQundmioangLResponses: It appeared that
foundation directors generally believed that the community college presidents were very
active in raising funds for the institution; that the college board of trustees activity ranged
from very active to generally active; that the chief development
(foundation)ladvancement ofﬁcers were very active; that, on average, the college faculty
were generally inactive in raising funds; and that fundraising volunteer activity ranged
from very active to very inactive.

WI College presidents, on average, reported
themselves as very active in raising funds for their institutions. It appeared that the ABC
College Presidents were more active than the XYZ College Presidents. However, as a
combined group, the college presidents appeared to be very active in raising funds for
their community colleges.

It appeared from the presidents’ responses that the board of trustees from both

Colleges ABC and XYZ were inactive in raising funds for their institutions. According to

221

to the presidents’ responses, the foundation board of directors representing the
foundations that received the least amount of external funds appeared to have been more
active in fundraising than the foundation board of directors representing the foundations
that received the greatest amount of external funds.

It also appeared from the presidents’ responses that college faculty of the ABC
group was more active in fundraising than the XYZ faculty. In general, two president
whose community colleges sponsored alumni associations reported their volunteers to be
more active than did the presidents of colleges with no alumni association.

BoardoflmstoosChaimonﬁosmnsos: Of the four board chairpersons who
participated in this study, those representing colleges whose foundations received the
greatest amount of external funds ranked themselves as generally active in fundraising.
In contrast, board chairpersons from colleges that received the least amount of external
funds ranked themselves generally inactive.

All but one board chairperson ranked the foundation board of directors as active
participants in raising funds for the institution. The chairperson who did not rank the
board of directors as active participants in raising funds for the institution reported he did
not know how active the foundation board was.

It appeared from the board chairpersons’ responses that faculty from both the
ABC and the XYZ groups were generally inactive in raising funds for their respective
community colleges.

Conclusion. The foundation board of directors, college presidents, and college
board of trustees chairpersons generally agreed that the president was active in raising

funds for the institution; that the board of trustees was, on the whole, inactive in raising

222

funds for the institution; and that the foundation board was generally active in raising
funds. However, those foundation board members at the foundations receiving the least
amount of funds appeared to be more active than those at foundations receiving the
greatest amount of external funds, according to the college presidents. The three
respondent groups also generally agreed that the development (foundation) advancement
directors were very active in raising funds for the institution and that faculty were not
active, although college presidents reported faculty to be more active in fundraising at the
ABC Colleges than at the XYZ Colleges. On the whole, volunteers appeared to be
somewhat active at some institutions and inactive at others. Moreover, presidents
reported that volunteers in general were more active at colleges that sponsored alumni
associations.

The activity of the board of directors at the foundations that received the least
amount of external funds may be attributed to the necessity of working harder to garner
additional monies due to having less money to begin with. Respondents’ comments also
indicated that alumni participation could conceivably spark volunteer participation from
the general public as people become immersed in the excitement of the activities
sponsored by the foundations.

Recommendation. At least two members of the college board of trustees should
serve as members of the foundation board of directors. Foundation directors need to be
creative in involving the board of trustees in fundraising activities/functions. Creative
activities that are exciting need to be promoted and may spark interest on the part of
previously uninvolved trustees and volunteers. Faculty should be extended formal and

informal invitations to assist with foundation work.

223

Whereas foundation directors believed that members of the board of trustees were
active in fundraising, presidents and college board of trustees chairpersons reported they
were inactive. Because all but one of the chairpersons in this study labeled themselves as
inactive in fundraising, the researcher labeled that group inactive.

., ...... ......MH.. ._‘,“ .. ..., “amﬂnu
...: .. I". 'i‘t't.1llit3_ut (-312 u. ...-...” tam... .'-.~.

EoundaiionDirectoLResoonses: From the responses reported by the foundation
directors, it appeared that not much difference existed between the ABC and XYZ groups
regarding the involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising program.
Foundation directors reported, on average, that the president was very involved
in evaluating the fundraising program. Foundation directors, on average, also reported
that the board of trustees was generally involved in evaluating the fundraising program.
Last, it was reported that the faculty were generally uninvolved in evaluation.

CollegoEresioentResmnses: College presidents reported that they believed they
were very involved in evaluating the fundraising program; that the college board of
trustees was generally uninvolved; that the foundation board of directors was generally
involved; that the chief development (foundation)ladvancement ofﬁcers were very
involved in evaluation; that the college faculty were generally uninvolved in evaluating
the fundraising program; and that fundraising volunteers were generally involved in
evaluating the fundraising program. However, evaluation by volunteers occurred at only
two colleges--Colleges A and C.

The only difference between the ABC Foundations, the foundations that received

the greatest amount of external funds, and the XYZ foundations, those that received the

224

least amount of external funds, as reported by the college presidents, was that the
volunteers for the ABC Foundations appeared to have been somewhat more involved than
the volunteers for the XYZ group.

W. The researcher concluded from the
Board chairpersons' responses that the community college presidents were very involved
in evaluating the fundraising program; that the board chairpersons believed they were
generally uninvolved in evaluating the fundraising program; that the foundation board of
directors, on average, were very involved in evaluating the fundraising program; and that
no volunteers evaluated the program (two chairpersons reported n/a and the third reported
he did not know whether volunteers evaluated the program).

The board chairperson from the foundation receiving the greatest amount of
external funds reported that the board of trustees at her college was generally involved in
evaluation, whereas respondents from the foundations receiving the least amount of
external funds reported general uninvolvement in fundraising evaluation. The ABC
Board of Trustees Chairperson also reported that the foundation board of directors were
generally involved in evaluation, as compared to the chairpersons from the XYZ group,
who reported that their foundation board of directors was very involved in evaluation.
Again, the foundation boards of directors from the foundations that received the least
amount of external funds may have been working harder to evaluate their efforts because
they needed more contacts and activities to increase their fund balances.

Conclusion. In analyzing the foundation directors’ responses to the extent of
involvement of college personnel in evaluating the fundraising program, it appeared that

not much difference existed in the involvement of personnel between the ABC group and

225

the XYZ group. The major difference the presidents indicated was that volunteers
appeared to have been more involved in the XYZ group than in the ABC group. The
board of trustees chairpersons reported major differences of general involvement in the
ABC group and uninvolvement of trustees in evaluation in the XYZ group, as well as
general involvement of the foundation board of directors in the ABC group relative to
fundraising program evaluation compared to no involvement in the XYZ group.

”we =.=_..- -- w ...m- In 'J.~”!|I' w Hun. om-

BresencooﬁAdxancementﬁfﬁcc. Only two of the college foundations receiving
the greatest amount of external gifts reported the presence of an advancement ofﬁce
linked to the college foundation. None of the college foundations receiving the least
amount of external gifts reported the presence of an advancement ofﬁce at its institution.

Conclusion. Those foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds
did report an advancement ofﬁce. However, ofﬁce personnel paid from the college
budget were responsible for many activities aside from foundation functions.

WW.

Only the foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds operated
under a development ofﬁce at their respective community colleges whereas the
foundations receiving the least amount of external funds did not enjoy the resources
afforded by a development ofﬁce because no development ofﬁce existed at their colleges.
Foundations falling under the auspices of a development ofﬁce worked independently and

essentially carried out the development function through their foundation ofﬁces.

226

Conclusion. The foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds
were the only ones whose parent institutions employed a development director. However,
at two community colleges, the development director was also considered the foundation
director.

ChieLEounoauoanﬁceLReoortingResmnsibility. Of the foundations receiving
the greatest amount of external funds, all chief foundation ofﬁcers, i.e., personnel who
assumed a broad development role reported to the community college presidents. Of the
foundations receiving the least amount of external funds, the only foundation director
employed (on a half-time basis), reported to both the college president and the foundation
board of directors. The two college presidents who assumed responsibility for foundation
matters reported to both the college board of trustees and the foundation board of
directors. As presidents of their colleges, they reported to the college board of trustees; as
foundation members, they reported to the foundation board of directors. The presidents
whose colleges did not employ a foundation director appeared to have been more directly
involved in foundation activities than presidents of community colleges employing
foundation directors.

Conclusion. Advancement, development, and foundation directors were
employed by the colleges whose foundations received the greatest amount of
external gifts; the majority of them reported to the college president. Foundation
representatives at the colleges whose foundations received the least amount of external
funds appeared to have less time to devote to raising funds for the community college.

5 E“. 111 l ’1'] E . B 1.1.. .The

foundations that received the greatest amount of money employed at least one person to

227

manage the foundation; their titles varied. Supplementary staff were also employed, but
none was assigned to annual, capital, planned-giving activities, or to prospect research.

Staff reporting responsibilities varied. Individuals with broader responsibilities
reported to the college president whereas those with less responsibility reported to a
superior other than the president. Only one foundation director responded that she
reported to both the college president and the foundation board. Two of the three
foundations that received the least money employed no foundation directors and no
supplementary staff.

One of the three foundations receiving the least amount of external gifts, however,
did employ a half-time foundation director and one administrative secretary who provided
clerical support for the annual giving program, the planned/deferred giving program, and
prospect research. The director's title was foundation director. No additional staff,
however, were hired for annual giving, capital giving, or planned/deferred giving
activities or prospect research.

Conclusion. None of the foundations appeared to enjoy the luxury of additional
staff; in fact, the broader the job title, the more responsibilities the person assumed. The
foundations that received the least amount of external gifts employed minimal staff;
secretaries and presidents were expected to add to their workload the management and
secretarial support of foundation activities

Salaries. All three of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds paid for staff from the college budget. Salaries for the development foundation
directors ranged from $40,000 to $80,000. Supplementary staff salaries ranged from

$9,600 to $39,000 per year. Two of the foundations that received the least amount of

228

money did not employ staff to direct the foundation. A volunteer foundation board of
directors managed the foundation's activities, with input from the college presidents. A
half-time foundation director was paid $28,600, and supplementary staff salaries ranged
from $2,500 for a work-study student to $22,500 for a secretary.

Conclusion. The broader the job title, the higher the wages, and the more
responsibility the employee assumed. A great deal of foundation business was carried out
through employees adding duties to their current workloads and through the goodness of
the volunteers--in particular the foundation board of directors. A half-time employee
from a foundation that received the least amount of external gifts cannot be expected to
garner the same amount of money as a director who devotes full time to fundraising
matters.

Recommendation. Community colleges should consider hiring a full-time person
who can bring in supplementary funds; that person could be paid from foundation monies
if the opportunities for receiving funds appeared to be lucrative. A starting salary of
$75,000 is reasonable, given the time the director must invest to attend fundraising
functions both during the day and in the evening. The college would be better off hiring a
director than not attempting fundraising because more funds are certainly better than
none. If the community college does not proactively seek the funds, another organization
will secure the contributions the college might have garnered. Imagination, creativity,
enthusiasm, and interest of college staff and the college board of trustees can start a
college on its way to developing a foundation and providing additional monies to help the

college fulﬁll its mission.

229
“w :=a'll--Iu'hv.'-.~u {an a; ==t'n.n' turn.
0 - ., on" u; o "Mir "- o no, ....- u .r .n . The
colleges afﬁliated with the foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds employed up to three times more full-time administrators than the colleges
afﬁliated with foundations that received the least amount of external funds.

Conclusion. Foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts
enjoyed more college administrative support than foundations that received the least
amount of external gifts.

EIilLandRanﬂimejaculty. Community colleges afﬁliated with foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds employed from 96 to 279 full-time faculty
and from 125 to 562 part-time faculty. Those afﬁliated with foundations that received the
least amount of external funds employed from 32 to 150 full-time faculty. The range for
both full and part-time faculty employed with the colleges associated with the foundations
that received the greatest amount of money was larger than that for the foundations that
received the least amount of money. The range suggested that the greater-enrolled
colleges most likely had more money to hire staff, which varied according to enrollment.

Conclusion. The community colleges with the greatest amount of external funds
employed more full- and part—time faculty than did the colleges with foundations that
received the least amount of extenal funds.

Eoundationﬂfﬂcejudget. The foundations that received the greatest amount of
money commanded larger foundation ofﬁce budgets--over $240,000 compared to budgets

under $150,000 for the foundations that received the least amount of external gifts.

230
Selecﬁonofﬁoundationﬁoatdofﬂirectors. Those foundations that received the

greatest amount of external funds were selected by the foundation board of directors; two
out of three foundation board of directors from foundations that received the least amount
of external gifts themselves selected new directors. The third foundation's new directors
were selected by a nominating committee composed of college trustees and foundation
board members.

Conclusion. In general, new members of the foundation board of directors were

selected by the foundation board of directors.

 

foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds, the relationship of the
foundation board of directors to the foundation appeared to be similar to that of the
foundations that received the least amount of external funds. That relationship was one
wherein the foundation directors transacted all business of the foundation and determined
policies, ﬁscal matters, employment, and other foundation personnel policies.

Conclusion. The relationship of the foundation board of directors to the
foundations appeared to be similar for all of the foundations in the sample.

. out-.01 . .Wu‘t u - .-"_'- -- n 'u. Itappeared
that the foundations that received the largest amounts of external funds had access to
more specialized equipment and software.

loluntm. The foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds
solicited volunteers for activities and events. On the other hand, the foundations that
received the least amount of external funds did not have time to solicit volunteers beyond

those nominated as members of the foundation board of directors.

23 1
Conclusion. The foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts

solicited more volunteers simply because more staff existed to reach out to the

community to ask for help.

 

RemneiActiyitiesinﬂhichfoundationEngaged For those foundations that

garnered the greatest amount of external gifts, special events, annual giving campaigns,
and capital campaigns ranked highest. For those foundations that garnered the least
amount of external gifts, annual giving campaigns, investments, and the endowment
program were ranked highest. Major recurring themes between the ABC Foundations
and the XYZ Foundations were that a deferred/planned giving program was important
and that telemarketing did not prove to be very successful.

Conclusion. Deferred/planned giving programs should be expanded;
telemarketing efforts should be assigned a low priority or relinquished altogether. Those
activities ranked high by the study respondents should be continued and reﬁned to
produce maximum results.

Endowmentﬂogmms. Of the college foundations that received the greatest
amount of external gifts, endowments were managed by both the college and the
foundation, depending on the foundation. Of the college foundations that received the
least amount of external funds, endowments were managed by only the foundations.

Of the college foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds,

endowments were owned by both the college and/or the foundation.

232

Conclusion. Foundations whose personnel raised the greatest amount of external
gifts were associated with parent institutions that had their own endowments that were
managed by the college personnel from these foundations had also established their own
endowments that the foundation staff managed. The foundations that received the least
amount of external gifts were not associated with colleges that had instituted and

managed their own endowments.

O O 0 . . .
Ht' :uH' "It éIIl u t litJmur—ut n- titltttttto
D O
I I \ at: Mt I II t u ti n
O O .
.'3'." 't H .H'A"Al| t‘ Hun I la" '10,? t| . ..~
. D. . _ - - o -
M an... 0 ’0 -_I~ \! o :3 " I J o - , . .

Foundation. Of those colleges whose foundation personnel received the greatest amount
of external funds, staff from two reported having raised money for the college beyond that
raised by the foundation. Of those colleges whose foundation personnel received the least
amount of external funds, only one reported likewise.

Conclusion. Personnel from three of the six community colleges in the study
sample raised funds, exclusive of the foundation, through various activities like athletic
and academic program events.

W. College
foundation whose personnel that received the greatest amount of external funds, raised
from approximately $560,000 to $2.4 million in FY 1995. College foundation personnel
that received the least amount of external gifts raised from approximately $33,200 to

$544,000.

233

Conclusion. Foundation personnel who received the greatest amount of external
funds raised up to almost $2.5 million in FY 1995, whereas those that received the least

raised up to only $544,000.

“t w {...-a . l‘ on...” 't a " . .Hl' o1. Personnel
from foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts reported that key
funding sources were outright corporate donations and non-college afﬁliated donors.
Personnel from foundations that received the least amount of external gifts reported that
key funding sources were outright corporate donations and friends of the college.

Conclusion. Those foundations receiving the greatest amount of external funds
reported corporate donations as key funding sources, as did the foundations receiving the
least amount of external funds.

0 t ._ u '-.- . :- mm. ‘ _.- . ~m ... ' .‘ ...
CommtejonﬁundszConclusion, Keen competition existed between the community
college foundation and numerous civic and community organizations--public and
private-~in the college's operating area. To stay aﬂoat, community college foundation

personnel must clearly articulate their needs to the public in order to garner the funds

needed to supplement the college's budget in an effort to fulﬁll its mission.

 

latituu't. 0|“ I'UOA .‘ot I :uu'ut' 1' I .t' tri!!tu.It
appeared that personnel from the foundations that received the greatest amount of
external gifts were afﬁliated with a greater number of professional organizations than the

personnel from foundations receiving the least amount of external funds for FY 1995.

 

III'I I II I H"! II 0| a'. I IIIIII I
I . I I _
I I I I I I iI g. , .iI I I I I I I I I .iI I 1 1mm.“
0
mheuhanlosamnﬂkrngramming.

Of the six sample institutions, only personnel from one spent more than 75% of its
foundation monies on occupational education prograrns--one of the foundations that
received the greatest amount of external gifts. Of those foundation personnel who
received the least amount of external gifts, all spent about one third of the foundation
monies on occupational education programs.

Conclusion. It appeared that the majority of foundations spent one third or less of
their foundation receipts on occupational education programs. Of those foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds, two reported spending more than 75% on
purposes other than vocational programming. Of those foundations that received the least
amount of external funds, only one reported spending 75 % on other purposes.

Conclusion. Those colleges that received the greatest amount of external gifts
expended more foundation dollars for purposes other than vocational programming than
did the foundations that received the least amount of external funds. It appeared that the
colleges whose foundations garnered the greatest amount of external funds received
sufﬁcient monies from local, state, and federal sources, as well as additional resources
from area businesses, like consigned equipment, to upgrade their vocational progams.
Consequently, monies from the foundations, used to bring the community together and
meet community needs, were expended by two foundations on a child care center, a

training center used by area businesses, and a museum.

 

Both personnel from the foundations that received the greatest amount of external
gifts and those that received the least discussed the importance of the following: (a) the
college's image/reputation; (b) the activity of chief college administrators; (c) community
relationships; and (d) visibility of foundation personnel. Only personnel from those
foundations that reported the least amount of external gifts discussed the importance of:
(a) a well-established organization that has exhibited leadership and (b) employment of a
foundation director who was active in the community as opposed to hiring an adjunct
staff person.

RioﬁlcsofConegoEoundationsintheﬁamnle. Of the foundations that received
the greatest amount of external funds, the oldest, Foundation C, began in 1966. Of the
six sample foundations, three began in the 1970s and two began in the 19805.

Of those foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, two were
situated in an urban setting and one in a rural setting; of those foundations that received
the least amount of external gifts, two were situated in a rural setting and one in an urban
setting.

Of those foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts, student
enrollments ranged from 4,000 students to 26,144 students. Of those foundations that
received the least amount of external gifts, student enrollments ranged from 1,314

students to 7,750 students.

 

Eund_B_alances. The mean of the sample foundations with the largest fund

balances was over $6 million, compared to just over $600,000 for the three foundations
with the smaller fund balances--a wide variance between the ABC and XYZ Foundations.
The mean fund balance for the sample was almost $4 million.

Conclusion. If fund balance is one indicator of the ﬁnancial health of a
foundation, a $4 million average balance appeared to indicate healthy status for the
sample as a whole. Those foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds, on average, had about $6 million worth of assets. Those foundations that received
the least amount of funds, on average, had about $1.5 million worth of assets--money that
can be used or invested to further the mission of the parent institution (some of the
monies included in the fund balances may already have been invested).

A wide disparity existed between the assets of the foundations that received the
greatest amount of external funds and those that received the least. Nevertheless, two of
the three foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts reported fund
balances over $1 million ($14.1 milllion and $3.7 million). Moreover, two of the three
foundations that received the least also reported fund balances over $1 million ($3.1
million and $1.2 million). However, the foundations that received the greatest amount of

external gifts appeared to have, in general, fund balances larger than the foundations that

237

received the least amount of external gifts. Therefore, it appeared that the foundations
that received the greatest amount of external gifts had more assets than the foundations
that received the least.

Initial survey results for this study obtained from the 28 public community
colleges in Michigan indicated that slightly less than two-thirds of the 21 community
colleges sponsoring foundations had fund balances, or assets, over $1 million.

WW Only one of six sample
foundations garnered more than $1 million in FY 1995. The mean for the group that
received the most monies was $1.4 million, whereas the mean for the group of three
foundations that received the least was $225,000.

Conclusion. On average, a substantial difference—-$1,175,000--existed in the
amount of funds raised between the foundations that received the greatest amount of
external gifts and those that received the least amount of external gifts.

WWW At ﬁrst glance. it
appeared that, with the exception of one foundation sponsored by a college with a low
enrollment, the size of the foundation's parent institution did not make a difference in the
amount of funds garnered in FY 1995. The foundations afﬁliated with the smaller
institutions were able to raise, on average, slightly more than $1 million; this, however,
was attributed to one of the foundation’s raising close to $3 million, thus raising the
average of the foundations afﬁliated with the low-enrollment colleges. The foundations

afﬁliated with the larger institutions, on average, raised only about $669,000. Excluding

238

the “outlier” foundation, afﬁliated with the group of three lower-enrollment colleges, that
raised almost $3 million in 1995, the higher-enrollment colleges raised more external
funds than the lower-enrollment.

In addition, over a span of three years (1994, 1995, and 1996), three foundations
sponsored by the largest institutions each raised a total of more than $1 million. One of
the foundations sponsored by the smaller institutions raised a total of more than
$5 million, whereas two of the foundations sponsored by the smallest institutions each
raised under $250,000 for the three-year period.

Condusion. For FY 1995, it appeared that, with the exception of one of the
lower-enrollment colleges, size of the foundation's parent institution did make a
difference in the amount of funds garnered.

-II._ 'I {t ' -I 'I a " I .I ..II I I .III . For
FY 1995, it appeared that two of the three foundations situated on rural campuses were
impeded in their ability to raise money because of geographic location, based on the
amount of external funds they received. Personnel from one of the rural campuses held
third place in raising external funds in FY 1995 among the six sample foundations.
Urban campus foundation personnel earned ﬁrst, second, and fourth places in raising
external funds for FY 1995, based on the amount of external funds they received.

EoundationAnnualBudget. Personnel at foundations having the largest fund
balances budgeted, on average, $199,000 more per year for their foundation business--

almost four times more than personnel at foundations having the smallest fund balances.

239

Condusion. Those foundations with larger balances in FY 1995 budgeted four
times more for foundation business than did those with meager fund balances. Put
another way, the foundations with the most money “in the bank” allocated more for
foundation activities than did those with the least money.

In addition, personnel at foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds in FY 1995 budgeted, on average, $8,333 less for their foundations-~about
5% less on their foundation Annual Budgets--than personnel afﬁliated with foundations
that received the least amount of external gifts.

ConcJusion. Those foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts
in FY 1995 budgeted 5% less than foundations receiving the least amount of external
funds. The researcher concluded that foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds did not have to budget as much as those foundations that received the least
amount of external funds because their respective colleges assumed payment for
foundation staff salaries.

Iotaljnstitun'onalﬂmmtingﬂudgets. Those foundations garnering the greatest
amount of external funds, on average, were afﬁliated with institutions that had larger
operating budgets. Conversely, the foundations that received the least amount of external
funds, on average, were afﬁliated with institutions that had smaller operating budgets.

Conclusion. The foundations that received the greatest amount of external gifts
were sponsored by parent institutions that had larger operating budgets than the
foundations that received the least amount of external gifts.

H 3.1.7.... ..H . r . I" 3....1...1,..._ .

Image. It appeared that those colleges whose administrators, faculty and staff, board of

240

trustees, and foundation board of directors took steps to promote a positive college image
and raise friends for the institution--accompanied by action to reach those goals-~were the
colleges that sponsored the foundations that raised the greatest amount of external funds.

ConclusroanstmmormfaﬁollegeAlummAsmatm The research ﬁndings
indicated that the colleges with an alumni association experienced more volunteer
assistance than those with no such association.

Conclusion,_Adniinistr_atiue_and_Eac_ult)LS_uooon. Foundations that received the
greatest amount of external funds enjoyed more college administrative and faculty
support than did their counterparts receiving the least amount of external funds.

WWW Foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds subscribed to and participated in a greater
number of professional organizations than did their counterparts receiving the least
amount of external funds.

W. In FY 1995, it appeared that the
foundations whose personnel received the greatest amount of external gifts, in general,
were associated with colleges that enjoyed larger student enrollments. However, of all
the colleges comprising the study sample, one of the smaller-enrollment colleges
sponsored a foundation that garnered the greatest amount of external funds. Thus, when
an average of the foundations associated with colleges that enrolled the fewest students
(X, Y, and 2) was calculated, that foundation raised the average of the colleges with the

lowest enrollments to a number above the average for those foundations associated with

241

colleges enrolling the greatest numbert of students. Without that "outlier," for the sample
studied, the researcher could have stated unequivocally that the colleges with the largest
enrollments had garnered the greatest amount of external gifts.

yolunteenlnuoluement. Volunteer involvement in college and foundations
activities appeared to make a difference in the amount of funds a foundation was able to
garner.

Summary

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to identify the characteristics and
activities of foundations within selected public community colleges in Michigan in
FY 1995. Below are highlighted summaries and conclusions related to the study.

N I [E ll' . “.1. .

In FY 1995, of the 28 public community colleges in Michigan, twenty one
sponsored foundations.

Eundﬁalances.

1. Of the 21 public community colleges in Michigan sponsoring foundations,
slightly less than two thirds--62 %--reported fund balances over $1 million.

2. Two of the three sample foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds also had the largest fund balances--balances for both foundations were
over $3 million.

3. Two of the three foundations that received the least amount of external funds

had fund balances over $1 million.

242

4. Four of the six sample foundations held fund balances over $1million; three
held fund balances over $3 million.

WW.

5. For FY 1995, of the foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds, only one foundation garnered almost $3 million; the other two garnered close to
$666,666 and $750,000.

6. For FY 1995, of the foundations that received the least amount of external
funds, all garnered less than $550,000.

7. The mean for the foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds was $1,464,000; the mean for the foundations that received the least amount of
external funds was $225,000.

8. The range for the amounts of external gifts received by the sample foundations
was from approximately $2.9 million at the high end to $39,000 at the low end.

WW).

9. The mean amount of gifts received in 1995 by the three foundations sponsored
by the institutions with the most students enrolled was $668,667.

10. The mean amount of gifts received in 1995 by the three foundations sponsored
by the institutions with the fewest students enrolled was $1,010,333.
i. :a- '—.I I ' -I I ' 'II II-I I I ll'l """l'u'
11. The three foundations sponsored by the institutions with the most students

enrolled had a three-year average of gifts received amounting to $618,667.

243

12. Two foundations sponsored by the institutions with the fewest students
enrolled had a three-year average Of gifts received amounting to $985,861(only two of
three foundations were included in the computation because ﬁgures for only two years
were available for one community college). Again, the outlier foundation appeared to
raise the average for the group of colleges with the smaller student populations.

13. Of the three larger institutions based on student enrollment, two were located
on urban campuses and one was located on a rural campus.

14. Of the three smaller institutions based on student enrollment, two were located
on rural campuses and one was located on an urban campus.

S III! I 350 R" El lG'ﬂl.

15. For FY 1995, foundations sponsored by the community colleges with larger
enrollments raised, on average, only about $669,000.

16. For FY 1995, foundations sponsored by the lesser enrolled
community colleges raised, on average, slightly more than $1million.

C I l' [E I l' MI] E i' Giﬂl.

17. In FY 1995, two out of three of the larger institutions, based on student
enrollment, were located on urban campuses and garnered, on average, only about
$669,000.

18. In FY 1995, two out of three of the smaller-size institutions, based on student
enrollment, were located on rural campuses and garnered, on average, slightly more than

$1 million.

244

19. The mean Operating Budget for the foundations that received the greatest
amount of external funds was $51 million. The mean for the foundations that received
the least amount of external gifts was $12.17 million.

WM.

20. Personnel afﬁliated with foundations holding the largest fund balances
budgeted, on average, about $200,000 more a year, almost four times more than
personnel afﬁliated with foundations holding the smallest fund balances.

21. Personnel afﬁliated with foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds budgeted, on average, about $8,000 less (5%) for their foundation Annual
Budgets than personnel afﬁliated with foundations receiving the least amount of external
funds.

22. It appears that those foundations with the most money in the bank (fund
balances) allocated more for foundation activities than those foundations with the least
money. The researcher concluded that foundations that received the greatest amount of
external funds did not have to budget as much as those that received the least amount of
external funds because their respective colleges assumed payment for foundation staff

salaries.

23. All study respondents reported that the community college president was very
involved in establishing overall administrative policy for the fundraising program. The

majority of respondents reported that the members of the board of trustees were not very

245
involved in establishing policy. The foundations garnering the least amount of external
funds reported greater involvement of the foundation board of directors than did the
foundations garnering the greatest amount of external funds. All respondents reported that
the advancement/development/foundation ofﬁcers were very involved in establishing
overall administrative policy for the fundraising program. The majority of respondents
reported that the faculty were not involved in setting fundraising policy. Three college
presidents reported that different persons were involved in establishing overall
administrative policy: one college president reported that the college staff was very
involved; another president reported that the alumni association was generally involved;
and a third reported that college students were generally involved in establishing overall
administrative policy for the fundraising program.
.1'I I I a" " JII' I I "H'l °I 1:. I' :1 II I I' I .I .II.

24. All respondents reported that the college president was very active in raising
funds for the college. The majority of the college/foundation respondents that
received the greatest amount of external funds and those that received the least
reported that members of their college board of trustees were generally inactive in raising
funds for the community college. The majority of respondents from the foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds and those that received the least reported
that their foundation board of directors were generally active in raising funds for the
institution. All respondents whose foundations employed a foundation director reported
that the director was very involved in raising funds for the institution. All but one

respondent reported college faculty were inactive in raising funds for the institution. The

majority of foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds reported their

246

fundraising volunteers were active in raising funds for their respective colleges. Half of
the respondents representing foundations that received the least amount of external funds
reported that volunteers were generally active, and half reported that volunteers were

inactive.

25 . Respondents from foundations that received the greatest amount of external
gifts reported that the community college president was very involved in evaluating the
fundraising program. All but two respondents from foundations/colleges that
received the least amount of external funds reported that their president was very
involved in evaluation; the two dissenters reported their president was generally involved.
The majority of respondents from colleges/foundations representing foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds reported that members of their board of
trustees were generally involved in evaluating the fundraising program, while the
respondents representing the foundations that received the least amount of external funds
were divided in their responses between general involvement and general uninvolvement.
The majority of respondents representing those foundations that received the greatest
amount of external funds reported their foundation board of directors was generally
involved, whereas the majority of respondents representing foundations that received the
least amount of external funds reported that their foundation board of directors was very
involved. All but one respondent reported that the advancementldevelopment/foundation
director was very involved in evaluating the fundraising program; the dissenter reported

the director was generally involved in evaluation. The majority of all respondents

247

reported that college faculty were generally uninvolved to very uninvolved in evaluating
the fundraising program. The majority of respondents representing foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds reported their volunteers were generally
involved in evaluating the fundraising program, whereas the majority of respondents
representing foundations that received the least amount of external funds reported their
volunteers were not involved in evaluating the fundraising program.

1. The foundation's association with a college that had developed a strategic plan
incorporating college and community needs was a factor exhibited by the foundations
garnering the greatest amount of external funds.

2. Use of a foundation annual and strategic plan with goals projected for several
years was a factor exhibited by the foundations garnering the greatest amount of external
funds.

3. Development of college Bylaws including speciﬁc language outlining the
relationship of the college to the foundation, including the president's relationship with
the foundation board of directors, was a factor exhibited by the foundations garnering the
greatest amount of external funds.

4. Raising friends of the college and promoting a positive college image was a
factor exhibited by the foundations garnering the greatest amount of external funds. It
appeared that those colleges whose administrators, faculty and staff, board of trustees,
and foundation board of directors took steps to promote a positive college image and raise
friends for the institution--accompanied by action to reach those goals--were the colleges

that sponsored foundations that raised the greatest amount of external funds.

248

5. Continual communication to the college staff and its publics was a factor
exhibited by the foundations garnering the greatest amount of external funds. Regular
communication regarding progress toward foundation goals by foundation and college
personnel to both the board of trustees and the general public demonstrating how the
foundation was helping the community college fulﬁll its college mission and goals was
listed as a factor related to the success of a foundation.

6. Institution of a college alumni association was a factor exhibited by the
foundations garnering the greatest amount of external funds. The research ﬁndings
indicated that colleges with an alumni association experienced more volunteer assistance
than colleges with no alumni association.

7. Participation in fundraising activities by the president and the board of trustees
was a factor exhibited by personnel from the foundations that garnered the greatest
amount of external funds. President and board of trustees fundraising activity was more
pronounced within the group of foundations that received the greatest amount of external
funds.

8. The employment of an advancement, development, and/or foundation director
at the community college that sponsors a foundation was a factor exhibited by the
foundations that garnered the greatest amount of external funds. Advancement,
development, and foundation directors were employed at colleges sponsoring foundations

that received the greatest amount of external funds.

249

9. Payment assumption of foundation personnel salaries by the college rather
than by the foundation was a factor exhibited by the foundations that garnered the greatest
amount of external funds. Colleges that sponsored foundations that received the greatest
amount of external funds paid for foundation personnel from the institutional budget.

10. The employment of at least one full-time person to manage the foundation was
a factor exhibited by the foundations that garnered the greatest amount of external funds.
Foundations that received the largest gifts employed at least one person to manage the
foundation. Foundation director salaries ranged in FY 1995 from $40,000 to $80,000 per
year.

11. Administrative and faculty support was a factor exhibited by the colleges
sponsoring foundations that garnered the greatest amount of external funds. Foundations
that received the greatest amount of external funds enjoyed more college administrative
and faculty support than did their counterparts.

12. Foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds enjoyed
access to specialized equipment and software.

13. Foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds concentrated
on special events, annual giving campaigns, investments, and endowment programs. The
need to develop more fully a deferred/planned giving program was articulated by
foundation personnel associated with foundations that received both the greatest and the
least amount of external funds.

14. Key funding sources were reported as outright corporate donations, non-
college-afﬁliated donors, and friends of the college by foundations that received the

greatest amount of external funds.

250

15. Foundations that received the greatest amount of external funds subscribed to
and participated in a greater number of professional organizations than did their
counterparts.

16. Spending foundation monies on student scholarships and community needs
was a factor exhibited by all foundations. Most foundation monies were spent for
purposes other than vocational education programming because local, state, and federal
funds were designated for vocational education programs. Projects that provided a better
quality of life for the community were undertaken by most foundations, e. g., a training
center for business/industry, a child care center, a museum, and student scholarships. It
appeared that foundations augmented those activities for which the community college
had no monies.

17. Volunteer involvement in college and foundation activities appeared to make a
difference in the amount of funds a foundation was able to garner.

18. The majority of foundations sought investment counsel in order to determine
where best to invest monies entrusted to the foundation.

19. President, foundation board of directors, and board of trustee participation in
foundation activities as well as rapport, visibility, and leadership in the community were
factors exhibited by foundations that garnered the greatest amount of external gifts.

20. Business/community partnerships, people-to-people contact, and raising

friends were factors listed by respondents as essential to raising funds for the foundation.

251

21. College image, institution reputation, and surpassing the community's
expectations were listed by respondents as factors associated with a successful
foundation. Reinforcing donor trust and conﬁdence that the college is effectively
addressing student and community needs was also mentioned.

22. Perseverance of the president, advancement Idevelopment/foundation ofﬁcers,
and volunteers who have helped raise signiﬁcant dollars through special event programs
was listed by respondents as a factor associated with a successful foundation.

23. The provision of a vehicle through which community members can donate
gifts when they are ready was a factor listed by respondents as a factor associated with a
successful foundation.

24. Diversity of college personnel, according to the study respondents, was a
factor they believed helped them raise funds for the institution.

25. A well-organized foundation that demonstrates leadership in the community is

another factor respondents believed helped them raise funds for the institution.

WW
Another researcher might want to consider conducting research by using external
funds as the base, rather than analyzing fund balances ﬁrst. The researcher could choose
institutions with the greatest and those with the least amount of external funds from the
population of Michigan public community colleges.
In addition, a three- or four-year longitudinal study of a larger sample of
foundations that received the greatest and the least amounts of external funds might

provide more speciﬁc and pointed information to further determine the characteristics

252

that allow foundation personnel to garner large amounts of gifts for their foundations.
Moreover, the researcher recommends that size and geographic location be studied using
a larger sample size.
Reﬂections

It is apparent that a team effort is necessary in attempting to raise funds for the
community college foundation. Continual communication is necessary among
community college foundation personnel and college administrators and staff as well as
among the foundation personnel and the college president and college board of trustees.
Additionally, foundation personnel and volunteers must communicate regularly with the
community college publics.

While evaluating responses from the college presidents, college board of trustees
chairpersons, and foundation directors, it became obvious that many stakeholders do not
know what transpires within the conﬁnes of the nonproﬁt corporation that exists on their
community college campuses. Foundation directors must consider additional avenues
through which the mission, goals, and progress of the foundation can be articulated to the
public, college staff, and college board of trustees. The researcher believes that messages
conveyed will help to garner both human and ﬁnancial support for the foundation.

However, this message cannot be conveyed if a foundation director is not
employed to raise funds for the community college. Although the foundations that
received the greatest amount of external funds in this study were not required to budget
staff salaries because the college assumed payment, colleges desiring to create a
foundation should consider hiring a foundation director who can raise monies for both

his/her salary and the needs of the college. Building an economic base may take time, but

253

the beneﬁts that accrue from a foundation director’s publicizing the unique programs
Offered by the community college to the public would help to project a positive image for
the college that is needed to secure donations. Some people are unaware of the variety of
opportunities within their college district, and the foundation director's message may be
the medium through which they become better informed.

Foundation directors work around the clock; consequently, they should receive a
salary commensurate with the amount of activity expended. A beginning salary, in

FY 1997, from $75,000 to $90,000 is not unreasonable for a director who may eventually
garner millions of dollars for the community college. Community college administrators
need to compare community college foundation directors’ salaries with the salaries
cormnanded by four-year university foundation directors to ascertain an equitable and
competitive amount.

Competition is keen in the fundraising world. Most organizations and educational
institutions are looking for monies to further their causes. The bottom line for
community colleges without foundations is that if they expect to meet the needs of their
students and publics, they must jump on the fundraising bandwagon and begin to take a
few risks. Convening a volunteer board of directors from the community is a ﬁrst step to
developing a foundation. Articles of Incorporation must be devised, followed by
Foundation Bylaws. A full-time foundation director should be hired. From the
researcher's observation, a part—time foundation director is really a full-time director with
a part-time salary. Both an annual and a strategic plan need to be devised, with
fundraising goals established for each year and updated annually. Foundation personnel

should visit successful foundations to glean ideas about prospect research and types of

254

fundraising programs to implement initially. Developing an alumni association is work,
but it may prove to be very beneﬁcial as time progresses. Creative ideas to develop an
alumni association, folded in with other topics requiring community input, can be gleaned
from community focus groups the college could sponsor. The literature has indicated
instances in which one large gift from an alumnus has put a foundation "on the map."
None of this can be accomplished, however, without the support of a community
college president who is committed to raising funds for his/her institution. Those
colleges that received the least amount of foundation funds in FY 1995 did not employ a
foundation director; the college presidents were expected to assume foundation activity
duties along with their other presidential responsibilities. Is it any wonder that they could
not garner the same amount of funds as those foundations that employed a director?
Equally important is support from the college board of trustees because trustees are
positioned to represent the needs of the community. What better way for trustees to
demonstrate their desire to serve their constituents than to assist with raising funds for the
college they represent in order to meet the community's needs! College board of trustee
support for their own institutional foundations in FY 1995 was lukewarm, at best.
Creative ideas to involve college trustees must be considered by the college president,
foundation director, foundation board of directors, college faculty and staff, and
volunteers. Faculty and staff should be invited to participate in every conceivable
foundation activity. As one college president reported, talent is wasted when faculty and

staff are not asked for their input or included in strategic planning.

255

For those community colleges without a foundation, a strategic plan including
ﬁscal needs must be discussed by the community college president and the college board
of trustees to determine how the college can take steps to increase its assets.

Community colleges that are contemplating developing a foundation should
consider the advice provided by the study respondents:

1. Recruit and involve highly respected and knowledgeable community leaders,
benefactors, philanthropists.

2. Articulate to the public the beneﬁts of your community college programs.
Remind them that goods and services and quality of life are intermingled within the
community. Explain how their tax investment is being returned to the community in
terms of the skilled, professional graduates employed in the community.

3. Identify a solid core of community leaders and volunteers to assist with
bridging the gap between rich and poor in the community.

4. Learn to spend the hours that will garner the amount of money needed to meet
the college's needs.

5. Determine which types of contacts you must solicit in order to achieve the
foundation's annual and long-range goals.

6. Conduct educational campaigns for the community regarding alternative
giving programs.

7. Begin fundraising efforts within your own community college. Leads will
emanate from your own staff.

8. Join local community service organizations to gain visibility and learn more

about community needs.

256
9. Invite fundraisers at regularly scheduled intervals from every community
organization for round table discussions in a partnership setting to express
fundraising views. Discuss the successes of various fundraising programs and the "how

I"

to s of implementing and sustaining such programs.
10. Do not allow the college board of trustees to direct the foundation board of

directors; the foundation board of directors must be independent in order to be

effective.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

The following letter requesting completion of the Initial Survey was mailed to
Michigan's public 28 community colleges to ﬁrst determine which of the 28 community
colleges sponsored their own college foundation and, second, to rank the foundations in
terms of the fund balance of all assets for FY 1995 in order to select the study sample.

257

MICHIGAN

 

COUNCIL ON
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

P.O. Box 30008
608 West Allegan
Fourth Floor Hannah Building

Lansing,Mlchigan48909

 

(517) 373.6407

 

CHAIR:

Lewis B. Driskell
PIesident a CEO
Union Printing
Hint

VICE CHAIR:

P. Robert Vanderson

President

Jacobson Heating and Cooling Company. Inc.
Grand Rapids

Mark Alexander

I I . . 've I . ‘

Michigan State Al‘L-CIO Human Resources
Development. Inc.

Lansing

Calhoun Area Technology Center
Battle Creek

James Dittmer
Owner

Sunniside Fruit Farm
Ludington

Patricia Hall

Dean of Occupational Studies
Lake Michigan College
Benton Harbor

Joyce Hawkins

Associate Professor
College of Technology
Ferris Sta: University
Big Rapids

Charles McCallurn
President

Venture Catalyst Network
East taming

Ron Morley

Administrative Assistant/Director
Clare~Gladwin lSD

Clare

Shirlee Musick

Director

Counseling and Career-Technical Education
Femdale Schools

Ferndale

Gerald Ojibway
Professor/Counselor
Northern Michigan University
Marquette

Ozie Smith

Owner

Blockout Pest Control
Grand Rapids

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mary F. Miller

 

January 31, 1996

Dear College President:

Due to the decrease in state and federal support of higher
education, community colleges are becoming more dependent on
private funding. Few formal research studies have been conducted
regarding community college resource development. Because
community colleges seem to garner far fewer funds than four-year
institutions, it behooves the community college community to
study the art of resource development.

For that reason, as the Michigan Council on Vocational Education
Director, and a Ph.D candidate, I am conducting a study of
selected public community colleges in Michigan. The purpose of
the study is to survey selected institutions to determine fundraising
practices, determine which ones are most successful, and
determine the percentage of foundation monies that are used to
fund occupational education curricular programs offered by
selected community colleges.

To determine the study sample, I need your help. Would you
please forward the enclosed, brief "Questionnaire" to your
college's foundation director for completion and mailing no later
than February 7, 1996; should your college not have a
foundation ofﬁce, please forward the questionnaire to the person
responsible for receipt of external funds by your Institution. It
will take the respondent approximately 20 minutes to complete the
enclosed Questionnaire.

While participation in this study is voluntary, the researcher will
be hindered by a lack of feedback necessary for selecting the
appropriate sample institutions if you do not return the survey. By
completing and returning the enclosed survey, you indicate your
voluntary agreement and free consent to participate. You may
choose not to participate at all and may refuse to answer certain

258

Community College President
Page 2
January 31, 1996

questions or discontinue the study at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts. Please
contact Mary Miller at (517) 335-0438 if you have any questions or concerns about
participation in this study.

A stamped envelope is addressed for the prompt return and convenience of your development
ofﬁcer. Be assured that responses will be kept in strict conﬁdence.

In exchange for the time in completing the questionnaire, I will be happy to share the results
of the study ﬁndings with you once the data is analyzed. Please indicate on the
"Questionnaire Instructions" sheet your interest in receiving the summary research results.

Thank you for your assistance with this project!

Sincerely,

Mary F. Miller

Executive Director
and PhD. Candidate
(Michigan State University)

(*Letter adapted with permission from Frances Downing Hunter, December, 1995)

259

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

The following Initial Questionnaire was mailed to the 28 public community college
presidents in Michigan, requesting that the college foundation director or the person
responsible for the receipt of external funds by the institution complete it.

The returns resulted in selection of the sample. Of those institutions agreeing to
participate in the study, the three public community colleges in Michigan with the largest
foundations, in terms of the fund balance of all assets for the FY 1995 (ending
June 30, 1995), were selected as half of the sample; and, likewise, of those institutions
agreeing to participate in the study, the three with the smallest fund balance of all assets as
of June 30, 1995, were selected as the complement.

260

APPENDIX B
INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE REQUESTING COMPLETION
BY THE FOUNDATION DIRECTOR
QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS*
for all Michigan Public Community Colleges

(The accompanying questionnaire is intended to be completed by the community
college foundation director; if no foundation exists at the college, the questionnaire
should be completed by the person who is responsible for receipt of external funds
by the college.)
Note: It should take you approximately 20 minutes to complete this Questionnaire.

1. Please send an organizational chart for your institution when you mail your completed
questionnaire.

2. Please complete the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed and addressed
stamped envelope by February 7, 1996.

3. Should you wish to elaborate, please do so on the back of this page.
4. Please indicate your desire to receive a summary of the Study's ﬁndings:

Yes NO

QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETED BY:

NAME

 

TITLE

 

TELEPHONE: Area Code:( )

 

DATE

 

*(Questionnaire Instructions were adapted with permission from Frances Downing Hunter,
December, 1995).

261

‘I\ I. l: 0 I; '1. “leis .:

INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE TO ALL 28 COMIVIUNITY COLLEGES

(Michigan Public Community College Development Ofﬁces
or
Person Responsible for Receipt of External Funds)

Institutional Information

1.

2.

Name of Institution

Location of Institution

. Enrollment (Fall, 1995)

(Use Unduplicated Headcount: The total number of different students
enrolled in at least one course delivered as of the count data, and within an
academic year).

_; No_

This institution has a Foundation: Yes
Annual Foundation Budget (Dollar amount)

Total Voluntary Gifts (Dollar amount) Received in:

1993-94 3 -._
1994-95 $
1995-96 $ _

Total institutional Operating Budget (Dollar amount):

 

Total fund balance as the end of the last ﬁscal year:

 

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

262

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

The following letter was mailed to three public community colleges in Michigan
not selected as sample sites for the purpose of pilot testing the questionnaire instrument.
The researcher requested that the community college foundation director employed at
each college critique the questionnaire that was intended for use during on-campus
interviews at each of the six institutions comprising the study sample.

263

 

MICHIGAN

       
  

      

 

M

COUNCIL ON 333 +-
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION , I ' Z 'N
Po. Box 30003 is; ..
608 West Allegan ‘12:: :60
Fourth Floor Hannah Building ‘
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-6407

mm. March 7, 1996

It‘ll: E. Driskell

President R. CEO

Wm" Dear Community College Foundation Director:

VICE CHAIR:

3.5%? “mm" Subject: Pilot Survey Changes--One Week Turnaround Response

Jacobson Heating and Cooling Company. inc.

Grand Rapids

Mark Alexander

Administrative Assistant

Michigan State AFL-CIO Human Resources
Development. 1m.

Lansing

Felix Chow

Director

Calhoun Area Technology Center
Battle Creek

James Diurner
Owner

Sunniside Fruit Farrn
Ludington

Patricia Hail

Dean of Occupational Studies
Lake Michigan College
Benton Harbor

Joyce Hawkins

Associate Professor
College of Technology
Ferris Stan: University
Big Rapids

Diaries McCallurn
President

Venture Catalyst Network
East Lansing

Ron Morley

Administrative Assistant/Director
Clare-Gladwin lSD

Clare

Shirlee Musick

Director

Counseling and Career-Technical Education
Femdale Schools

Ferndale

Gerald Ojibway
Professor/Counselor
Northern Michigan University
Marquette

mic Smith

Owner

Blockout Pest Control
Grand Rapids

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mary Miller

 

Needed.

Thank you for the return of your responses to the survey recently
mailed you to determine the sample institutions that will be
selected for the study of public community college foundations in
Michigan.

While you have not been chosen as one of the selected institutions
that will be analyzed for the study, I am requesting that you assist
with pilot testing the instrument which will be mailed shortly to the
study sample and eventually will be used in an interview setting.
The pilot test results will enable me to revise the enclosed
questionnaire to assure that it is concise, clear, encompassing, and
complete.

Your corrections and comments on the questionnaire format,
question clarity, and topics represented will enable those colleges
participating in the study to ultimately provide more accurate and
targeted responses. By completing and returning the enclosed
questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate.

While participation in this study is voluntary, the researcher will be
hindered by a lack of feedback necessary for perfecting the
interview instrument. By completing/correcting/revising and
returning the enclosed survey, you indicate your voluntary
agreement and free consent to participate. You may choose not to
participate at all and may refuse to answer certain questions or
discontinue the study at any time without penalty or loss of
beneﬁts. Please contact Mary Miller at (517) 335-0438 if you have
any questions or concerns about participation in this study.

264

Community College Foundation Director
Page Two
March 7, 1996

A stamped envelope is addressed for your convenience; would you please return your
feedback regarding the questionnaire so that it is postmarked by March 15. Research
cannot begin until I have received your responses and revised the questionnaire.

Please feel free to complete the questionnaire if that process will help you to indicate changes
you feel should be made. You may edit the questions and directions by inserting additional
wording or extracting information; additionally, if you think the format needs to be changed,
please so indicate by providing examples. Be assured that comments will be kept in strict
conﬁdence.

I will be happy to provide you with a copy of the ﬁnal study results. Please indicate your
interest when you return the questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided.

”lid. I I I_ .IIlIa=II=_. .=..I'.'IIII .‘enII' I'I 3.x lll?.t‘
Please be sure to return the questionnaire by March 15.

Sincerely,
Mary F. Miller

Executive Director

and Ph.D. Candidate
(Michigan State University)

265

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D
CONGRATULATIONS LETTER TO THE INSTITUTIONS
COMPRISING THE STUDY SAMPLE
The following letter, subsequent to pilot testing, was mailed to the institutions

comprising the sample, informing them that:

1. Their institution was selected as one of the six sample institutions
comprising the study.

2. A copy of the questionnaire to be used during the interview was enclosed for
their prior review.

266

 

MICHIGAN
COUNCIL ON ’23"
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION }

P.O. Box 30008
608 West Allegan
Fourth Floor Hannah Building

 

Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-6407

 

CHAIR:

Lewis E. Driskell
President a CEO
Union Printing
Flint

VICE CHAIR:

P. Robert Vanderaon
President

Jacobson Heating and Cooling Company. inc.

Grand Rapids

Mark Alexander

Administrative Assistant

Michigan State AI‘L-CIO Human Resources
Development. inc.

[arising

Felix Chow

Director

Calhoun Area Technology Center
Battle Creek

James Diurner
Owner

Sunniside Fruit Farm
Ludington

Patricia Hall

Dean of Occupational Studies
Lake Michigan College
Benton Harbor

Joyce Hawkins
Associate Professor
College of Technology
Ferris Stat University
Big Rapids

Charles McCallurn
Piesident

Venture Catalyst Network
East Lansing

Ron Morley

Administrative Assistant/Director
Clare-Gladwin ISD

Clare

Shirlee Musick

Director

Counseling and Career-Technical Education
Femdale Schools

Femdale

Gerald Ojibway
ProfessorlCounselor
Northern Michigan University
Marquette

Ode Smith

Owner

Blackout Pest Control
Grand Rapids

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mary F. Miller

 

March 7, 1996

Dear Community College President:

SUBJECT: SELECTION OF YOUR IN STITUTUION
FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FOUNDATION STUDY--INTERVIEW
DATES NEEDED

Once again, thank you for the return of your response to the survey
recently mailed you to determine the sample institutions selected
for the study of public community college foundations in Michigan.
I am pleased that your institution has been chosen as one of the
six institutions comprising the study sample.

This research is being conducted to complete the requirements for
my doctoral dissertation. The dissertation is designed to determine
the characteristics of foundations afﬁliated with the public
community colleges in Michigan that garner the greatest amount
of external funds and those that garner the least amount. Your help
and that of your chief development ofﬁcer and chairperson of the
community college board of trustees is kindly solicited (via separate
interviews with all) for the provision of statistical information
regarding the characteristics of your college's foundation.

The study, when completed, will contribute to bridging the gap in
the knowledge database on factors contributing to the success
(deﬁned in terms of amount of external funds garnered) of public
community college foundations in Michigan.

Your participation, and that of your development ofﬁcer and board
of trustees chairperson, though voluntary, will be appreciated. The
length of each of the three, separate interviews will be
approximately 60 minutes. The enclosed Questionnaire/Interview
instrument will be used to obtain relevant data during a
structured/taped interview wherein I will ask for responses to each

267

Community College President
Page Two
March 7, 1996

of the questions and record responses provided by each of the three interviewees. Your
college foundation director is asked to review the entire Questionnaire, and you and
the board of trustees chairperson are asked to review the Questionnaire, beginning with
Part II, prior to the actual interview. Conﬁdentiality will be maintained. Institutional
information will be coded to maintain conﬁdentiality; neither you nor the institution
will be identiﬁed in the research.

Since other phases of this study cannot be completed until the analysis of the interview data
is completed, it would be most appreciated if you would accommodate this interview by
April 15, 1996. I will telephone you soon to schedule a date. Would you please review your
schedule to determine date availability for you, your foundation director, and board of
trustees chairperson. Could we arrange one date when I could interview all of you on the
same day.

Please contact Mary Miller at (517) 335-0438 if you have questions or concerns about
participation in this Study.

Sincerely,

Mary F. Miller
Ph.D. Candidate
and Executive Director
Michigan Council on Vocational Education

268

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

QUESTIONNAIRE/INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

The following questionnaire was used during the interview. The foundation
director, only, was asked to respond to “Institutional Information,” Part I of the
questionnaire. The foundation director, college president, and board of trustees
chairperson were asked to complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

269

APPENDIX E

QUESTIONNAIRE/INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE

(TO BE COIVIPLETED BY SELECTED INSTITUTIONS CHOSEN FROM
RESULTS OF THE INITIAL SURVEY
MAILED TO ALL 28 COMMUNITY COLLEGES)

Chief Development Ofﬁcer responds to all Sections; College President and
Chairperson of the College Board of Trustees begin with Part 11.

(PLEASE ATTACH A FLOWCHART OF BOTH YOUR COLLEGE--AND
ADVANCEMENT, DEVELOPMENT, OR FOUNDATION OFFICE-whichever

applies to your situation).

270

10.

Institutional Information

. Name of Institution

 

Location of Institution

 

Title of Respondent

Does your College have an Advancement Ofﬁce?
(Note that the Advancement Office includes: Development, Governmental Affairs,
Alumni Affairs, Media Relations, and Public Relations)

Yes_ No_
*"(Please indicate year Advancement Office was instituted: 19_

If you answered yes to number 4, please circle the following activities in which the
Advancement Office is engaged.

Public Relations/Marketing
Publication/Graphics
Grants/Contracts
Research/Planning
Government Relations
Admissions

g. Other (Please identify and list)

”PP-997i”

 

If your College has an Advancement Ofﬁce, to whom does your Advancement Ofﬁce
report?

 

If your College does not have an Advancement Ofﬁce, does your College have a
Development Office? Yes_ No_
”*(Please indicate year Development Ofﬁce was instituted: l9_

If yes, to whom does the Chief Development Officer report?

 

Does your College have a Foundation? Yes_ No_
*“(Please indicate year Foundation began: l9_

If yes, to whom does your Chief Foundation Ofﬁcer report?

 

271

11. If you answered yes to number 9, please circle the following activities in which the
Foundation is engaged.

Public Relations/Marketing
Publication/Graphics
Grants/Contracts
Research/Planning
Government Relations
Admissions

Other (Please identify and list)

tonne-99's»

 

 

 

12. Is the College's service area rural or urban?

 

13. Enrollment (Fall, 1995)

 

(Use unduplicated headcount: the total number of different students enrolled in at
least one course delivered as of the count date and within an academic year).

14. Staff Size (Fall, 1995):
14-A. Number of Administrators
14-B. Number of Full-time Faculty
14—C. Number of Part-time Faculty

14-D. Number of Staff Assigned To nexelooment

#wNI—E
4“»er

Staff Report to (Title of Administrator)

 

272

14-E. Number of Staff Assigned To the Foundation

 

AwN—IE
PPPI‘E

Staff Report to: ( Title of Administrator)

 

14-F. Number of Annual Giving Staff

 

Amid—IE
“PNEE

Staff Report to (Title of Administrator):

 

14-G. Number of Capital Giving Staff

#WNHE
4“»er

Staff Report to (Title of Administrator):

 

14-H. Number of Planned or Deferred Giving Staff

 

«bum—IE
#PNEE

Staff Report to (Title of administrator):

 

273

14-I. Number of Prospect Research Staff

even-E

AP’Nfg PWNT‘E

Staff Report to ( Title of administrator):

 

14-J. Number of Other Staff

PPNE‘E

Staff Report to ( Title of Administrator):

 

 

 

 

15. Total Institutional Operating Budget (Dollar amount) $
(July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995)

16. Annual Development Ofﬁce Budget (Dollar amount) $
(July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995)

17. Total Gifts raised by the College (Dollar amount) $
(July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995)

18. Dollar amount of money raised by the Foundation $
(July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995)

19. Percentage of total Eonndatjon money raised which was provided for occupational

education programs offered by the Community College» like
Instructor Inservice, curriculum research, etc. %

20. Percentage of total Foundation money raised which was provided
for othet activities offered by the Community College. _%

Please identify for what purpose the "other" money was used.

 

** *Ilﬂll********************III*IIHIIIIHIUII*****************************************

274

COLLEGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES CHAIRPERSON
BEGIN HERE
CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/FOUNDATION DIRECTOR
CONTINUE HERE

18**********************#****************#*********************************

II. External Inﬂuences

List the organizations in your College geographic district that compete for funds
(include Private Foundations).

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

111. Management Practices
III-A. Has the College developed a Strategic Plan?

Yes No

III-B. If yes, is the Foundation mentioned in the College's Strategic Plan?
(Please specify the sections referring to the Foundation) and staple a copy of those
sections to this sheet.

III-C. Are institutional needs projected in the College's Strategic Plan for several
years?

Yes_ No_ Number of Years

 

III-D. Is a written, annual Plan, with projected goals, prepared by the Foundation?

Yes_ No

III-E. Is a written, strategic Plan, with projected goals, prepared by the Foundation?

Yes No

275

III-F. If yes to D, within the Foundation‘s Annual Plan, are fundraising goals
projected for several years?

Yes_ No_ Number of Years
III-G. Is the Foundation's Annual Plan prepared for approval?
Yes_ No

For whose approval?

 

By whom?

 

III-H. How involved is each of the following in ostahlishingthcoyocall

administratixepnlicx for the fundraising program: (After-_nlac'mgameck
W)

H- 1. President (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved
In this space, please describe the role of the Community College President, indicating if the
President's role is crucial to the institution's success in garnering large amounts of money for the
institution.

H-2. Board of Trustees (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved
In this space, please describe the role of the Community College Board of Trustees indicating if the
trustees' role is crucial to the institution's success in garnering large amounts of money for the
institution. Describe the organization of the local Community College Board.

H-3. Foundation Board of Directors (Please check only one)

_Very involved
_Generally Involved
_Generally Uninvolved
_Very uninvolved

_ The College has no Foundation Board of Directors

In this space, please describe the role of the Community College Foundation Board of Directors
indicating if the Foundation Board of Directors' role is crucial to the institution's success in
garnering large amounts of money for the institution.

276

H-4. Chief Development Ofﬁcer (Development Director; (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

_Very uninvolved

_The College has no Chief Development Ofﬁcer or Development Director;
however, (Title) is responsible for receipt of external

funds).

In this space, please describe the role of the Community College Chief Development Ofﬁcer
indicating if the Chief Development Officer's role is crucial to the institution's success in garnering
large amounts of money for the institution.

H-S. Chief Advancement Officer (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

_Very uninvolved

The College has no Chief Advancement Ofﬁcer
In this space, please describe the role of the Community College Chief Advancement Officer,
indicating if the Advancement Officer's role is crucial to the institution's success in garnering large
amounts of money for the institution.

H-6. College Faculty (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved
In this space, please describe the role of the Community College Faculty, indicating if the Faculty‘s
role is crucial to the institution's success in garnering large amounts of money for the institution.

H-7. Other

(Please identify who:
_Very involved
_Generally Involved
_Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved
In this space, please describe the role of "Other" persons, indicating if "Other's" role is crucial to
the institution's success in garnering large amounts of money for the institution.

 

277

ttt*tit****tt*********tt##t***t*****************##****#**********t**¥***

I. How active in fundraising are the following Wit];
I l . l l . H II ):

I-1. President (Please check only one)
Very active

Generally active

Generally Inactive

Very inactive

I-2. Board of Trustees (Please check only one)
_Very active

_Generally active

_Generally Inactive

_Very inactive

I-3. Foundation Board of Directors (Please check only one)
_Very active

_Generally active

_Generally Inactive

_Very inactive

_The College has no Foundation Board of Directors

14. Chief Development Officer/Development Director (Please check only one)
_Very active

_Generally active

_Generally inactive

_Very inactive

_The College has no Chief Development Ofﬁcer or Development Director
(Title) is responsible for receipt of external funds)

 

I-S. Chief Advancement Officer (Please check only one)
_Very active

_Generally active

_Generally Inactive

_Very inactive

_The College has no Chief Advancement Ofﬁcer

I-6. College Faculty (Please check only one)
_Very active

_Generally active

_Generally Inactive

_Very inactive

278

I-7. Fundraising Volunteers (Please check only one)
_Very active

_Generally active

_Generally Inactive

_Very inactive

I-8. Other (Please check only one)
(Please identify who:
_Very active
_Generally active
_Generally Inactive
_Very inactive

 

*********#***t**#******#***********************************************

J. How involved are the following in mm your fund raising program?
(After placing a check where appropriate, you may comment below.

‘—I

- 1. President (Please check only one)
Very involved

Generally Involved

Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved

H

-2. Board of Trustees (Please check only one)
Very involved

Generally Involved

Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved

'—

-3. Foundation Board of Directors (Please check only one)
Very involved

Generally Involved

Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved

The College has no Foundation Board of Directors

J -4. Chief Development Ofﬁcer/Development Director (Please check only one)
Very involved

Generally Involved

Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved

The College has no Chief Development Ofﬁcer (Development Director)

279

J-S. Chief Advancement Ofﬁcer (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

_Very uninvolved

_The College has no Chief Advancement Ofﬁcer

J-6. College Faculty (Please check only one)
_Very involved

_Generally Involved

_Generally Uninvolved

_Very uninvolved

he

-7. Fundraising Volunteers (Please check only one)
Very involved

Generally Involved

Generally Uninvolved

Very uninvolved

J -8. Other (Please check only one)
Please identify who:
_ Very involved
_Generally Involved
_Generme Uninvolved
Very uninvolved

 

**#*tiit****titttttititt***#1*t*#********tttt*tti******************#**

K. Identify the importance of the following criteria in evaluating your fundraising
program by checking the one that applies.

K-l. Total funds raised
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

K-2. Percentage of Increase in Funds
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

280

K-3. Number of Contributors
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

K-4. Number of Volunteer Workers
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

K-S. Size of Institution
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

K-6. Image (Reputation) of Institution
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

K-7 Please indicate on what you believe image or reputation is based:

 

 

 

 

 

 

K-8. Institutional Commitment
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

K-9. Other (Please specify)
Very Important
Generally Important
Generally Unimportant
Very unimportant

IV. Foundation Characteristics:

281

. How long has your Foundation been in existence? years

. What is the mission of the Foundation?

Please use opposite side for additional space

List ﬁve major functions of the Foundation

. Are all external funds received by your College channeled through the

College’s Foundation?

. If your institution has a Foundation Board of Directors, how are they selected?

What is the relationship of the Foundation Board of Directors to the
Foundation?

****#****************t#*****t***************************************

“When

V-A.

V-B.

Does a formal operating agreement exist between the College and the
Foundation? Please explain.

What is the relationship of the College Board of Trustees to the
Foundation?

282

V-C. Does the Community College, from its college budget, or does the
Foundation, from its Foundation Budget, spend money on the following
(Please circle EITHER the Community College OR the Foundation).

1. Development Director is paid by: (Please circle one:) College OR
Foundation

2. Development Ofﬁce Staff, etc., is paid by: Please circle one:)
College OR Foundation

3. Direct Fund Raising Expenses: Hosting, printing, mailing is paid by:
(Please circle one:) College OREQundmiQn

********************************************************************

VI. WW

VI-A. To what types of equipment do you have access?

 

 

 

VI-B. What software does the Foundation Ofﬁce use?

 

 

 

VI-C. What types of facilities do you use to carry out your resource development
role?

 

 

VI-D. Does your Foundation engage volunteers? Please circle: Yes No

Please explain:

 

 

VI-E. Other resources available to you:

 

 

 

****ttttt##ttt*******#******tt*********#******$**********************

283

VII. What types of resource development programs does the Foundation sponsor?
1. Please Rank Order each type according to how successful each type has been
relative to garnering funds for the institution (1, most successful; 12, least

successful; you will note that 12 types of resource development practices are
outlined below.

2. Please provide a reason for why each type of program is successful or
unsuccessful.

VII-A. (Rank Order):_Annual Giving (EIRSIL’IXPE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

VII-B (Rank Order): _Capital Campaign W

Reason:

 

 

 

 

284

VII-C. (Rank Order): _Deferredl Planned Giving WE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

VII-D. (Rank Order):_Alumni Giving W

Reason: (Please include information on how the alumni ofﬁce is staffed; how it is
funded; and how much money the alumni program raises)

The Alumni Office is staffed with _ professionals and clericals;
titles are:

The Alumni Ofﬁce is funded via:

The Alumni Program raised $ in 1993-94;
$ in 1994-95; and 5 so far in 1995-96.
VII-E. (Rank Order): _Donor Clubs W

Reason:

 

 

 

 

VII-F. (Rank Order): _Athletic Campaigns (SW

Reason:

 

 

 

 

285

VH-G. (Rank Order): _Endowment (SEXENIHIXEE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

1. Who manages the Endowment: (Please circle one) College or
Boundation?

2. Who own the Endowment: (Please circle one) College or
Foundation?

3. Is investment counsel used: Y_ N_ (Please explain how).

3a. Investment Counsel is used by: (Please circle one) :

the Callus; theEQundation; or Both

4. If yes, who selects counsel? (Please circle one)

9521128: or Boundation?
VII-H. (Rank Order): _Volunteer Program (EIGHIHJXBE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

VII-I. (Rank Order): _Direct Mail Solicitations (MW

Reason:

 

 

 

 

286

VII-J. (Rank Order): _Telemarketing (IENIIL'EXEE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

VII-K. (Rank Order):_Special Events (ELEXEMZHIXBE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

VII-L. (Rank Order):_lnvestments WE)

Reason:

 

 

 

 

(Please comment on how the Foundation invests its funds. How are the investments
managed? In what types of investments does your Foundation place its money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

287

VIII. Percentage of Dollars Raised by various funding sources for the period
July 1, 1994-June 30, 1995. You may also comment on the period from
July 1, 1995 to the present (April, 1996).

Please write in the total amount of dollars raised by your Foundation:

$

 

From that total, please indicate thempmximatepereemage raised from each of the
following funding sources.

luxuk; n inc: ”iii-auxin g: 'u,=uuo,'i inwu
If another Office within your Institution, aside from the Foundation Office, is
designated with responsibility for any activity below, please indicate the name of the
Ofﬁce.

1. __ Alumni

2. _ Corporate, Outright Donations

3. _ Corporate Match Donations

4. __ Faculty/staff

5. _ Grants from Public Foundations (nationwide)
6. _ Grants from Private Foundations (nationwide)
7. __ Grants from Local Prime Foundations

8. __ Grants from Local Public Foundations

9. _ Grants from State Government
10. __ Grants from Federal Government
1 1. _ Investments
12. _ Non-College-Afﬁliated Donors
13. _ Parents
14. _ Professional Organization
15. _ Special Events
16. __ Current Students

288

17.

Friends

18. Other (Please Identify)

***********II!************************************************************

IX. Please indicate the percentage of total dollars raised (for the period July 1, 1994, to
June 30, 1995) by your Foundation and spent for vocational programming
(instructor inservice, curriculum development, curriculum research. You may also
indicate funds raised from July 1, 1995 to the presentuApril, 1996).

$

(Total dollars raised by the Foundation)

 

 

% (Percentage used for vocational programming)

% (Percentage used for purposes other than vocational programming--

 

please list these "other" activities/purposes.

*****#******ttt*******ttt****#*******#**¥##****¢*****#**********#*****

X. Professional Organization Afﬁliation

1. What professional organizations do you ﬁnd helpful?

a.

b.

National Council on Resource Development (NCRD)

Council for the Advancement of and Support of Education (CASE)

National Society of Fundraising Executives (N SFRE)

National Association of College and University Business Ofﬁcers (NACUBO)

Other (Please specify)

289

sstssseestsssseesseesesstsestsseesetssesssesssetssesssssetsseseseeesesss
XI. What are the major reasons for the sustained success of your fund raising program?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**************II:*******III*************************************************

XII. If you were able to allocate Mhuman and ﬁscal resources to the fund raising
program, how would you spend the resources?

 

 

 

 

THE END

Ihankmu so much for your time in completing
the responses to the above Questionnaire items.

290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abent, R. (1991). WWW, Lansing: Senate Fiscal
Agency.

Abent, R. and G. Rosine. (1994, October). Current issues with Michigan
community college funding formula (presentation, Michigan
Community College Association Board of Director), Lansing, Michigan.

Adams, K., B. Keener, and E. A. McGee (1994, August/September). Going public
with private fundraising. W65, No. 1, 39-42.

Alfred, R. L. and Carter, P. L. (1995, April). Beyond the horizon:
Transforming community colleges to compete for the future (paper presented
at the AACC Annual Conference), Minneapolis, Minnesota.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1995, May). AACC
membership proﬁle. WW3. Z, No. 11, 11.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1995, November). Colleges
turn increasingly to corporate partnership for fund raising. $7;anan

WINCH 10

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, D. Angel and

M. DeVault, eds. (1991). W
Washington, DC: The Community College Press.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1995-1996). NatienaL
W Washington DC The

Community College Press.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1996, August)

Trendsetters. W,8,No. 16,1.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1986, October/November).
What can community colleges do to increase private giving? W,
51, No. 2, 34.

291

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1993, May). Working
together--new monograph explores ideas for community college collaboration

to strengthen economic development. Cemmuuityﬂellegel‘lmes 5, No. 10,
11.

Angel, D. and M. DeVault. (1991, August/September). Managing McLean:

Proactive planning WW 62
No. 1, 26- 29.

Angel, D. and V. D. Gares. (1981). Proﬁles of nine community colleges with successful

foundations CommuninLandluninLQollegelournal 22 No 3 7- 8 Cited by
L. S. Miller (G. A. Baker, III, J. Dudziak, and P. Tyler, eds.) (1994).

Community college resource development. Foundations and fund raising. A

handbooknnjhmmmunitxcnllegeinAmerica Westport CT: Greenwood

Press.

Angel, D. And V. D. Gares. (1989). The community college foundation today: History
and characteristics. Cited by J. L. Cantanzaro and A. D. Amold, eds. Alternative

Funding Sources WWW No 68 5- 20

Apsey, G. R. (1993). WWW
raising. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

. Approval of state board for community colleges' funding: Recommendations for
FY 1995-96. (1995, February 8). Lansing: State Board of Education.

Baker, G. A, J. Dudziak, andP. Tyler, eds. (1994). Ahendbeekgnjhemmmum

WWW Connecticut:
Greenwood Press).

Beckes,I ..(1982) Gifts and bequests for the two-year college foundation. The
eemmuulmeellegefeuudetleu. Washington, DC: National Council for

Resource Development).

Bender, L. W. and J. E. Edwards. (1988, February/March). Planned and deferred
giving: An untapped resource for community colleges. AAQLCJeumel, 53,
No. 4, 22-24.

Blong, J. and B. Bennett. (1991, August/September). Empty wells: Resource

development In tough times WWW
Lemuel, 62. No. 1, 30-33.

Bock, D. E. (1990, April/May). An urgent imperative for trustee development.
AACLQIonmaL 69, No. 5, 4347.

292

Bock, D. E. and W. R. Sullins. (1987, Winter). The search for alternative sources
of funding. Community colleges and private fund raising.

Commumﬂnllegeﬁeﬁmlﬁ. No 313-20

Bourque, M. P. (1995). On the fault line: President Clinton salutes community
colleges Communitxﬂnllegeloumal 65 No 6 39

Brumbach, M. and E. A. McGee. (1995, August/September). Leveraged

investments: Corporations + community colleges. W
51, No. 7, 22- 27.

Cohen, A. M., ed. (1989, Winter). Alternative funding sources--editors' notes, Nu

W, No. 68 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc.,l

Cohen, A. M. (1993). Trends and issues in community college ﬁnance.

Cemmumtygellegeﬁeyleﬂ, 29, No. 4, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,
70- 75.

Cohen, A. M. and J. Lombardi. (1979). Can the community colleges survive
success? Cheuge, ll, No. 8, 24-27.

Cohen, A. M, J. C. Palmer, and K. D. Zwemer. (1986) MW
WSW San Francisco:

J ossey-Bass Inc.

__(.1995) NH. ._‘ t-..1-. °° 0 t.- .0-‘o. 0 ‘°" 3 "‘
meugueupe. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University
Business Ofﬁcers.

(1996). Contributions to community foundations, shelters for the homeless,
food kitchens, food banks, and certain other entities; credits. Mielugeu

WW (1996 Cumulative Annual

Pocket Part). St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. (1988). B_uildjug_eemmuulties_;_A_
W. Washington, DC. American Association of

Community and Junior Colleges.

Conrad, L., B. Davis, E. Duffy and J. Whitehead. (1986, October/November). What can
community colleges do to increase private giving? W
InnioLCollegelQumal 51. No. 2, 34- 37.

293

(1996). Contributions to communitygfoundations, shelters for the homeless,
food kitchens, food banks, and certain other entities; credits. Mlehlgeu

compiledJamsannmatoSseoﬂoanBo St. Paul: West Publishing
Company.

Council for Aid to Education. (1996). Voluntary support of education, 1995. New
York: Council for Aid to Education.

Cvancara, K. (1996, November). By the numbers--enrollment: Recent growth and

the coming onslaught. Cemmuulmgellegellmes, 8, No. 21, 1 and 12.

Deegan, W. and D. Tillery and Associates (1985). W
eemmuuimeellege. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Dessoff, A. L. (1996, October). Private lessons. Ieehuiquee. Alexandria, VA:
American Vocational Association.

. (1992, November 3). Donating to Colleges: Looking at the Community College
Share of the Pie. We, 51,, No. 21, 8.

Dougherty, K. J. (1994). W. Albany: State University of New
York Press.

Dove, K. E. (1982). Cited by Westley Rowland, ed. (1986). Changing strategies for

meeting campaign goals. Heudhmkmedxeueemem, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.

Duffy. E- F. (1979). _Exaluatimﬁteriafonoommunitmollogofoundations

Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida. Cited by
L. S. Miller (George A. Baker, III, Judy Dudziak, and Petty Tyler, eds.) (1994).
Community college resource development. Foundations and fund raising. A

handbookonihesnmmuninmollogoiuAmerica Westpert CT Greenwood

Press.

Eaton. J. S. (1994). WWW San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Edwards, J. E. and A. B. Tueller. (1991, August/September). Planned giving: The
future of fund raising. AACLQLeumel 82, No. 1, 40-43.

Friedstein, H. G. and G. J. Ryan. (1990/January, 1989/December).

Entrepreneurs are people too CommunitxJeshnioalmﬂunioLCollego
Journal. on. 48-49

294

Fountain. B E andT A Tollefson (1989) WWW:
W. Washington, DC: American Association of

Community and Junior Colleges.

e e e e
.' ‘U. .1 '. ... .x .. .l .

commumucollogofoundanonmrfomianoe (1994) Washington, DC

National Council for Resource Development.

Graham, S. and D. Anderson. (1995, Summer). Sources of ﬁnancing.
CommumhLCollegoReidm. 13. No 1. 50- 56

__.122§_G.uidsJoJJS_£oundationSJheu_truSooS_ofﬁoers.and_donors (1996).

New York: Foundation Center.

Henderson, Jr., L. N. (1982). Cited byJ. L. Wattenbarger and N. J. Vader( 1986
Spring). Adjusting to decreased revenues at community colleges 1n 1985.

W 13., No.4. Raleigh: North Carolina State
University, 21.

Hendley, V. and B. Reinhard. (1991, December 31). Development leaders see
community linkages as key to strengthening two-year college funding. The

CommunitxlochnioaLandJunioLCollegoIimes. 3. No. 25, 11.
Henry.E H _(1988. Summer) Ihorelanxoxaluoandnmoortanooofmcemodheneﬁts.

eie._n .._. 011111; e

Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.

Hollingsworth, P. (1983). Cited byL. S. Miller. (1994) Community college resource

development. Foundations and fund raising. Aheudheekeumeeemmuuim
collogoinAmerioa

Honeyman, D. M. L. Williamson, and J. L. Wattenbarger. (1991). _Cemmuuitxeellege
W Washington DC-

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Hunter. F D (1987) W
W. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Mississippi.

. Impact Statement. (1995, September 26). Lansing: Michigan Department of
Education.

..(1996) The Income Tax Act of 1967 (Act 281 of 1967). (1967). Mlelugeu

compiledlauarmotatodosrstionlﬂozm St Paul: West Publishing
Company.

295

Institute for Future Studies. Lorenzo, A. and N. LeCroy. (1994). W

 

W. Warren, MI: Macomb (Community College) Press.

Institute for Future Studies. Lorenzo, A. and W. J. Banach. (1994) Ms.

W Warren. MI Maoornb
(Community College) Press.

Jacobson, R. L. (1994, March). Two-year colleges campaign for alumni dollars. Ihe
ChroniclootliiaheLEducation. i9 (30) A27 (2)

Jenkins, J. (1984). More dollars from private sector--future funding trend.

CommuniuLandJunioLCollegoloumalﬂﬁ No.5,2425.

Johnson, R. P. and W. H. Sharron, Jr., ed. (1982 ). The community college foundation
and the internal revenue service: Establishing and maintaining exempt

organization status. Iheeemmuuiﬂeellegefeuudetleu. Washington, DC:

National Council for Resource Development, 153-154.

Keener, B. J., G. J. Ryan, and N. J. Smith (1991, August). Paying attention pays off:

How to market resource development. WW
Collogolournal 62, No. 1, 34- 39.

Kirk, H. P. (1992). Community and technical college foundations: The results of a
survey of Washington state’s community and technical college foundations.
ED349063; CHN: JC92451, 1-44.

Kopecek, R J. (1980). The alumni--an untapped reservoir of support. Cited by

B. Luskin andI. K. Warren. (1985, June). W
W
StrengtheningﬁnancialManagoment.3Q.75.

Kopecek, R. J. (1982-83). An idea whose time has come: Not for proﬁt foundations
for public community colleges, W. 16, No. 3, 14.

Loessin, B. A. M. A. Duronio andG. L. Borton. (1986, Fall).
Measuring sources of private funding. WW
Research. 51. 55-68

Lombardi, J. (1979). Proposition 13: Is the worst over for community colleges?

W, 6, No. 4, 7-14. Cited by J. Wattenbarger and

N. Vader. (1986, Spring). Adjusting to decreased revenues at community

colleges 1n 1985. W13, No. 4, 21.

296

Lorenzo A L and N A IeCroy (1994) Aframmorkfonfundamentalohangejnjhe.
WWW Warren. MI: The

Institute for Future Studies (Macomb Community College).

Luskin, B. J. andI. K. Warren. (1985, June). Strategies for generating new ﬁnancial
resources. '

Management, No. 50, 73-85.

McCabe, R. H. (1996, April/May). Strengthening ﬁnancial resources is an
educational priority. CemmunityﬂellegeLeumel, 66, No. 5,25.

Manzo, K. K. (1995, September 25). Comprehensive fundraising programs
breathe new life into community college coffers: Institutions focusing more

on development. Communithollegoﬂoek. 8. 11.

Manzo, K. K. (1995, December 18). Project reinvest to blow trumpet for
country's community colleges. Cemmnuimgellegeﬂeek, 8, 9.

Marinoni. Ann (1992) AocesnhrhtynfsommunﬂxooﬂegosmMrohrgaoA

Oll'eI'IO ._‘-1004010 tum-.0111 e‘lt't 0 _u or.

Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

__. Markotrngandﬁexolopmentfouommuniﬂsolloges Washington. DC:
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, 1989.

Martorana, S. Z., K. M. Moore, and S. B. Twombly (1985). Today's academic leaders:
A national study of administrators in community and junior colleges.
University Park, PA: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Penn State
University.

McKinney, T. H., and D. A. Davis. (1988). Patterns of funding in vocational
education. AAQLQLemuelﬂ, No. 5, 44-47.

Mercer, J. (1994, July). A bigger piece of the pie. IheﬁhmnielsLQLHigheu
Education. 4.0. No. 45. A19 (2)-

Mercer, J. (1996, January 12). Footing the bill for fund raising. IhLChmeISLQf.
WM. 42. No 18. A29- 32

. Michigan community colleges, activities classiﬁcation structure (ACS). (1996).
W, Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education and
Michigan State Board for Public Community Colleges, 35.

. Michigan community colleges: Amendment to the 1994-95 data book, updated

ﬁgures for year-end program and non-program enrollments. (1996). Lansing:
Michigan SBE and Michigan State Board for Public Community Colleges.

297

. Michigan department of education trends in fall enrollment at post-secondary
institutions. (1996). Lansing: Michigan SBE and Michigan State Board for
Public Community Colleges.

. Michigan education report. (1990, May-June). Lansing: State Board of
Education.

Miller, L. S., G. ABaker, III, J. Dudziak, andP. Tyler, eds. (1994). Community
college resource development: Foundations and fund raising. “enamel;
111 11111.1 1 '°‘ 1.111-' 1.1u11 1111111.“ 111,

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Mooney. C. (1991). Ihooommunicatioustrategiosandihoroloenaounentof.
sdoctodoollegoaniunmersrmﬂmdrarsers Doctoral dissertation. Michigan

State University.

Moriarty, D. G. (1995). Bridging the gap, WM. 66, No.7,
7.

National Clearinghouse for Institutionally—Related Foundation. (1994, July). Database
survey results: Work in progress. Washington, DC: Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education. (June 12, 1996, fax to researcher from
E. B. Wentworth, Director, Government Relations, CASE).

Neiheiscl. 8- R. (1994). W New York:
Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

N icklin, J. L. (1996, May). Small growth in gifts to colleges. W
Education, _42, No. 38, A25-26.

Nicklin, J. L. (1996, February 16). Year of the bull. Wm
Edueetion $1.2, No. 23, A32, A35.

. The nonproﬁt corporation act of 1982 (Public Act 162). (1982). Michigan
compiled laws, annotated; section 450.2212 (3). St. Paul: West Publishing
Company.

Palmer, J. and D. Zwemer. (1985). Sources and information. Financial management at

the community college WWW--
StrengtheningEinancialManagement. No 50.117.

Parnell, D. (1986, October 26). Shaping the environment. Paper presented at the
Biennial Conference of the North Carolina Community College System.

298

. Partners in economic development: Community college strategies for
collaboration. (1993). Washington, DC: American Association of Community
Colleges.

Phillippe, K. (1995, January 24). AACC celebrates 75 years of service. Qeumlunlm
CollegoIimos. Z. No 1. 5.

__(,1996 January 4). College enrollments drop again, ACE survey shows.
MW. 21, No 1,7.

Piland, W. E. and B. G. Rees. (1995, Spring). Community college foundations and

fundraising: A national view AmencanAssmauonofCommunnSColloge
ImSoeLQuarterlx 9-12

Ratcliff, J. L., ed. (1989). Ashereedeneneemmuuimeelleges. Needham
Heights: Ginn Press.

Reinhard, B. (1994, May 17). Cleaning up campaigns. CASE proposes standards for
educational fundraising. WW.6.N0. 10,14.

. Report on the state board for public community colleges. (1995, December).
Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education.

.Rezsults Finances and funding 1n community colleges. (1996, February/March).
CommuniuLCollegoloumal. 66, No. 4, 40

Robertson, A. J. (1982). The role of the community college foundation. The
gemmuuMEgefeundenen. Washington, DC: National Council for

Resource Development.

Roueche, J. E. (1996, April/May). Leadership challenges for 2000, Qermuun'mL
Collegelournal. 66. No. 5. 12.

Ryan, G. J. (1989). WWW
junieneelleges (monograph series, 1, No. 2). Washington, DC. American

Association of Community Colleges.

Ryan, G. J. (1989, Winter). The community college foundation today: Reasons for
success WM. 68. 15- 27

Ryan, G. J. (1989, Winter). Companies that match to junior or community colleges.

W. 68. 111- 120

Ryan, G. J. (1994, April/May). Book review, developing an effective major gift.
Communnxﬁollegoloumal. 6.4. 58

299

Ryan, G. J. (1989, Winter). A guide to key resources. MW
CommuniutColloges. 68. 85- 110.

Ryan, G. J. (1993, February). Shed a little light. Emma, 12, No. 2, 40.

Sanchez, A. (1994, July). Trends as opportunities. CemmunigLQellegellmee, 6,
No. 14, 2.

Scott, R. W. (1991, August/September). Harvard got the 1vy and I got the itch.
mmmmommmma 62. No 1. 22- 25

Sears, J. B. (1990--reprinted from 1918). WWW
edugetien. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Cited by L. S. Miller

(G. A. Baker, III, J. Dudziak, and P. Tyler, eds.) (1994). Community college
resource development. Foundations and fund raising. Ahenglbeekguﬂm

WW- Westport, CT. Greenwood Press.
Sharon, Jr., W. H., ed. (1982). Ihmmmuulmeellegefeundetieu, Washington,

DC: National Council for Resource Development.

Shaw 3 C andM A Taylor (1995) Roinxentingfundraisingoﬁoalimgihe.
MW- San Francisco: Jossey—Bass Publishers.

Stanley, R. (1991, August/September). Decision makers: David R. Pierce, President

and CEO. AACJC Communimlochmoalaandluniorﬁollegoloumal. 62.
No. 1,8-10.

. (1994). Study of the Michigan community college funding formula. Lansing:
Senate Fiscal Agency, 1994, 1.

Townsend, C. (1991, August/September). The team approach: NCRD'S executive
institute CommunrtxlochmoalaanilumoLCollegoJournaLQ. No 1.4446

Waters, D. (1993, November). The long run: The growing importance of

resource development at community colleges. Wm i,
No. 22, 2.

Watkins, B. T. (1984). Two-year colleges face a decline 1n enrollment. Wide
oLHigheLEduoation.28.l. 16

Watkins, B. T. (1984). Two-year colleges step up pursuit of private funds. The
Chronicloofﬂisherﬁducation.28No.8, 1,14.

Wattenbarger, J. L. and S. Mercer. (1985). Community college ﬁnancing. Supplemeuue
AM. No. 165-

300

Wattenbarger, J. L. and S. Mercer. (1985). WW5. Gainesville:

University of Florida, Institute of Higher Education. (Eric document repro
services, ED 232 751).

Wattenbarger, J. L. and Heck, J. (1986, Spring). Adjusting to decreased revenues at
community colleges in 1985. Community College Review 13, No. 4, 21.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1994). AnAmeneenJmpmenye. Racine,
Wisconsin. The Johnson Foundation. Cited by J. E. Rouche. (1996,

April/May). Leadership challenges for 2000, W,
66, No. 5, 12.

Witt, A. A., J. L. Wattenbarger, J. F. Gollattscheck, and J. E. Suppiger. (1994).
Ammoascommummoollegoslhoﬁrsmenm Washington. DC:
The Community College Press, 1994.

Worth, M. J. and J. W. Asp II. (1996, February). Salesperson, catalyst, manager, leader.
Cmrenm, (no volume listed in periodical), 22, No. 2, 25.

301

 

"‘1111111111111111“