Dr. Monica G. Williams, Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 30 | Comments: 0 | Views: 207
of 206
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content



ENGAGEMENT LEVELS OF
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LEADERS
IN ENTREPRENEURIALISM THROUGH FUNDRAISING

A Dissertation
by
Monica Georgette Williams



Submitted to the Graduate School
Prairie View A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree


Doctor of Philosophy


July 2009


Major Subject: Educational Leadership


ENGAGEMENT LEVELS OF

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LEADERS

IN ENTREPRENEURIALISM THROUGH FUNDRAISING



A Dissertation

by

Monica Georgette Williams


Approved as the style and content by:


___________________________________
William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.
(Dissertation Chair)



__________________________ ____________________________
David E. Herrington, Ph.D. Ronald Howard, III, Ph.D.
(Member) (Member)




___________________________ ____________________________
Michael L. McFrazier, Ed.D. Lisa D. Hobson Horton, Ph.D.
(Member) (Member)



____________________________ ______________________________
Lucian Yates III, Ph.D. William H. Parker, Ed.D.
Dean, Whitlowe R. Green Dean, Graduate School
College of Education




July 2009

iii
ABSTRACT

Public Historically Black College and University
leaders are being increasingly called upon to develop an
entrepreneurial spirit that encourages fundraising from the
private sector. Fundraising at HBCUs is no longer the sole
responsibility of development officers. The overwhelming
truth is that donors want relationships with a variety of
institutional leaders and the direct beneficiaries of their
gifts. So often, donors need to feel connected to a cause
and the gift benefactor. This connection presupposes
direct involvement by university leaders in the cultivation
activities for donors. Unfortunately, many HBCU leaders
fail to engage in the donor cultivation and stewardship
process that creates a continuum of giving by
philanthropists. This researcher believes that the lack of
money raised at public HBCUs could be attributed to a
leaders’ unwillingness to exercise entrepreneurial
behavior.
In an attempt to define and understand the
entrepreneurial university and its leader, the researcher
applied Clark’s (1998) theoretical framework. Clark (1998)
asserts that entrepreneurial activities encompass third-
stream income sources that generate innovative, non-

iv
traditional revenues and stimulate engagement in activities
that produce and enhance traditional income streams.
To address this problem, the researcher conducted a
study that questioned whether there is a relationship
between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the
financial stability of their institutions. This study also
examined the extent to which leaders valued and carried out
entrepreneurial activities, the factors associated with the
best practices in fundraising, the degree to which the
institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities in both the president’s and
advancement offices. Finally, the researcher explored the
institutional leaders’ perception of their entrepreneurial
abilities.
This study utilized results from a questionnaire
surveying presidents and fund development officers employed
at five of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 member
schools to examine how entrepreneurial orientation among
public HBCU presidents impacts revenue generation or
gifting at their respective institutions.





v
DEDICATION
Words cannot express the debt of gratitude I owe you,
Canaan L. Harris, MD, for your continued encouragement and
support during my educational journey. I thank you for
saving me from myself. I dedicate my career and this
manuscript to you.



















vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My ever-evolving relationship with God has made this
journey possible. To Him, I am eternally grateful. The
new mercies He grants me each day have guided this project.
It is only appropriate that I give all glory and honor to
Him for giving me the wisdom and intelligence to produce
this body of literature.
Brittaney Cooks, you are my greatest inspiration.
Knowing how proud you are of me has motivated me in more
ways than you know. I am proud to have you as my daughter,
and I look forward to the day when you, too, embrace all
the rewards higher education has in store for you.
No matter what, Theodore Bruce Lawrence, I believe you
are my friend and my gift from God. I am thankful that I
have you to challenge the ethical dimensions of my life.
Your firm demeanor and interest in my constant growth and
development is what I value most. I only hope I can live
up to your belief that I will follow in the footsteps of
the great Mary McLeod Bethune. Thank you, Daryl Michelle,
for sharing your daddy with me and Brittaney. You and your
dad mean so much to me.
Georgiana A. Thomas, “Mama”, when God made you my
grandmother, He gave me the greatest gift one could ever

vii
imagine. You are my favorite girl! Your love and support
keeps me going.
I could not have asked for better parental support
than I received from my parents, June and Jerry Dillingham.
During the times that I thought I couldn’t keep going and
wanted to give up, you showed up just in time to help me
sort things out.
Having you as my younger siblings, Jordan Williams and
Cher Riles, has helped me realize the importance of setting
a good example. You and your spouses, Tavonye and Kevin,
have encouraged me constantly as I have sought to achieve
this milestone. I hope that your children, Joshua,
Madison, and Joel will one day take advantage of all the
opportunities that education has to offer.
To my aunt, Fleur Lyman, I sincerely appreciate your
wisdom and objectivity. I love you and Russell and only
wish Gerrard was here to celebrate this accomplishment with
us.
Living in Dallas, Texas, taught me survival skills.
Gladys Williams, “Grandma”, thank you for your love and
support. Jordan Williams, Sr., Daddy, I inherited your
love for education.
Sister-friends have been with me in every aspect of my
life. Theresa Moor, you have always wanted better for me

viii
than I did for myself. I am overwhelmed by our 30 years of
amity and blessed that you unselfishly shared Aunt Barbara
(Thompson) with me. Having the Moors (Jules, Jillyan and
Jules) as my second family has been inspiring.
From childhood until now, I have always been able to
depend on you, Chandra Robertson-Bailey. You and Aunt
Charlene (Rubit) have consistently been in my corner.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my gratitude
for the hospitality extended to me by Nelson and Michelle
Bowman over the last few years. Your constant
encouragement has meant more to me than you’ll ever know.
Thanks for always keeping the light on!
Patsy and Willie Drewrey, I can always depend on you
to give it to me straight! You are great friends.
xoxoxoxo
Thank you to my “Sissy”, Sherilynn Scott, for always
being there when I need you.
God didn’t make us blood-sisters, but Shanda
Patterson, you are my sistah. I cannot tell you the many
times you have lifted me up when all I wanted to do was
fall flat on my face. Two words come to mind when I think
of you—guardian angel!
Jessica Bell and Dominique Sanders, I am so thankful
for the camaraderie we have reciprocated over the years.

ix
All of my friends at the Sportsman Country Club, you
have encouraged me when I needed it the most. Love you Kim
and Sherry!
Charlene Evans and James Ward, you have been the
mentors who have guided me personally and professionally.
I appreciate your insight and guidance throughout the
years.
Willie Trotty and George Wright, I am grateful for the
confidence you placed in me to lead the best development
office among all HBCUs. The opportunity you granted me
stimulated my interest in conducting the research for this
body of knowledge.
Larry V. Green, Esq., I appreciate your confidence in
me. Your friendship means the world!
Extend the View Cabinet Members June & Marvin
Brailsford, Opal Johnson Smith, Nathelyne A. Kennedy, and
Roy G. Perry, you made this work important by giving me the
confidence that HBCU alumni do value their institutions.
Thanks for your wisdom, Patty Lonsbary!
Nina Wilson Jones, you have been my spiritual sister
and teacher of many things. Because of your constant
pouring into me, I believe that I can do all things through
Christ who strengthens me.

x
Pastors Mia & Remus Wright, your spiritual guidance
has been my source of strength many times during this
process. Even though you lead an enormous flock, you have
always made me feel like I was the only member at The
Fountain of Praise. Your continued words of encouragement
and prayers will never be forgotten.
Naomi Lede, it all started with you. You gave me my
name which I later came to learn means “wise counselor”.
Somehow, you always knew I would do great things…especially
in education. Thank you so very much for having that
confidence in me. I always wanted to be a “doctor” because
of you.
Lastly, but most importantly, I would like to thank my
committee members for pushing me to make this study
worthwhile. To Dr. William A. Kritsonis, you are a God-
send; Dr. David Herrington, thanks for the push; Dr.
Michael McFrazier, I never would have made it without your
encouragement; Dr. Ronald Howard, I appreciate getting to
know you; and Dr. Lisa Hobson-Horton, thank you for serving
on my committee and for providing another perspective about
fundraising. Dr. Tyrone Tanner, you didn’t serve on my
committee, but you were always there when I needed your
assistance. I love you all, Cohort III!!!!


xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION ................................................ v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ xi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... xv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................... xv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................ 1
Statement of the Problem ............................. 3
Purpose of the Study ................................. 5
Research Questions ................................... 5
Theoretical Framework ................................ 6
Assumptions .......................................... 7
Delimitations of the Study ........................... 8
Limitations of the Study ............................. 8
Definition of Terms .................................. 9
Significance of the Study ........................... 11
Summary ............................................. 11
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. 13
Overview ............................................ 13
History of Educational Fundraising .................. 14
History of African-American Philanthropy ............ 20

xii
Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education .............. 24
CHAPTER III. METHOD .................................... 32
Overview ............................................ 32
Research Questions .................................. 33
Research Design ..................................... 34
Population and Sample ............................... 38
Instrumentation ..................................... 38
Research Procedures ................................. 45
Data Collection ..................................... 46
Data Analysis ....................................... 47
Limitations of the Study ............................ 51
CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA ......................... 52
Introduction ........................................ 52
Research Questions .................................. 53
Research Question One ............................... 53
Research Question Two ............................... 54
Research Question Three ............................. 54
Research Question Four .............................. 55
Research Question Five .............................. 55
Respondent Information .............................. 56
Description of Institutions ......................... 59
Tier One Institutions .......................... 59
Tier Two Institutions .......................... 60
Flagship Universities .......................... 60

xiii
Superior Universities .......................... 65
Entrepreneurial Operations .......................... 67
University Leader vs. Business Executive ....... 71
Advancement Experience and
Professional Development ....................... 77
Who’s to Blame? ................................ 80
Entrepreneurial Activities .......................... 85
Unfunded Priorities ............................ 85
Donor Cultivation and Solicitation ............. 96
Impact of Philanthropy ......................... 99
CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 106
Introduction ....................................... 106
Summary ............................................ 106
Findings ........................................... 108
Research Question One ......................... 109
Research Question Two ......................... 112
Research Question Three ....................... 113
Research Question Four ........................ 114
Research Question Five ........................ 115
Conclusions ........................................ 116
Recommendations .................................... 118
Implications ....................................... 119
Recommendations for Further Study .................. 120

xiv
REFERENCES .............................................. 122
APPENDICES .............................................. 132
Appendix A: Informed Consent ...................... 133
Appendix B: Interview Questions ................... 134
Appendix C: IRB Approval Form ..................... 136
Appendix D: Questionnaire Response Form ........... 137
Appendix E: Participant Responses ................. 142
Appendix F: Historically Black Colleges &
Universities .......................... 178
CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................ 184

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 – Title III: Aid for Institutional
Development ................................. 25
Figure 4.1 – Participant Entrepreneurial
Characteristics ............................. 68
Figure 4.2 – The Fundraising Cycle ....................... 97

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 – Research Questions Paired with Interview
Questions .................................... 48
Table 4.1 – Respondent Identification .................... 58
Table 4.1 – Respondent Identification Numbers......................... 69
Table 4.3 – Differences Between University Leaders and
Business Executives .......................... 71
Table 4.4 – Responsible Parties for Fundraising ......... 81
Table 4.5 – Current Fundraising Strategies ............... 89
Table 4.6 – Future Fundraising Strategies ............... 94
Table 4.7 – Impact of Fund Development .................. 102
Table 4.8 – Funds Raised in Three Year Period .......... 105
Table 4.9 – Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Top 3
Schools .................................... 110




1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Historically Black College and University (HBCU)
leaders face great impediments when they seek to raise
private funds to support their institutional initiatives.
Raising money at these institutions is particularly
important since there has been a decline in public funding
in recent years. An investigation on this subject is vital
if HBCU leaders plan to take seriously the process of
fundraising and institutional advancement.
Background of the Problem
College and university presidents are consistently
challenged with developing new resources to support
unfunded priorities at their institutions. Faced with
competing against historic non-profit agencies and
entities, these educational chief executive officers have
the challenge of taking a more entrepreneurial approach
toward the financing of their schools. A review of the
literature suggests that entrepreneurial leadership will
help these leaders demonstrate more innovative and
expansive efforts.
Research indicates that corporate, foundation, and
private philanthropy at majority institutions substantially
2

surpasses gifting trends at HBCUs. Disparities in
philanthropy between these two institutional types can be
seen as high as 50%. Consequently, the need for external
funds has put tremendous pressure on HBCU presidents so
much so that 25% of these presidents left their jobs during
the period 2000-2002 (New York Amsterdam News, 2002). The
curtailments of federal funds, changing demographics, and
the entrance of private corporations into the business of
higher education have significantly affected the financial
state of higher education institutions (Riggs, 2005,). “As
government support of HBCUs decreases, and as the economy
worsens, competition for funding sources increases”
(Reaves, 2006, p. 47). For this reason, a study addressing
the engagement of HBCU presidents in entrepreneurialism
through fundraising was deemed necessary.
Increasing fundraising initiatives at HBCUs means
placing more emphasis on cultivating alumni and educating
them about the importance of philanthropy. Without private
support, these minority flagship institutions are likely to
fail, and it is the president’s job to educate and engage
the donor community. Engaging donors with the capacity to
make a significant financial or in-kind contribution would
ultimately translate into healthier endowments and impact
the quality of education provided at HBCUs.
3

Statement of the Problem
Tindall (2007) states that “fund raising has become
vital to all HBCUs because those additional funds allow
colleges and universities to promote and continue research
programs, supplement budgetary weak spots, enhance campus
infrastructure, upgrade the physical plant, and attract and
retain prospective faculty” (p. 1). Tindall (2007) also
notes that the fund-raising efforts of both private and
public HBCUs linger significantly behind the established
fundraising programs at traditionally White institutions.
Predominantly White institutions have alumni giving
rates that range between 20-60 percent, whereas, Black
college alumni giving rates typically fall below ten
percent (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins, 2003;
Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). “At a time when endowments
are decreasing due to economic forces and public support of
institutions of higher education” is at an all-time low,
“it is a matter of survival that Black colleges increase
their giving rates” (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins,
2003, p. 159). Unlike private HBCUs, public institutions
are supported by state government entities. It is with
this fact in mind that seeking private philanthropy has not
been a popular practice among public HBCUs. Contrarily,
Cohen (2006) argues, “Although HBCUs alumni giving have
4

been under attack for being negligent, African Americans on
the contrary have maintained a rich and diverse tradition
of giving and philanthropic support in the United States”
(p. 31).
There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few
scholars have devoted time and effort to understanding the
complexities and challenges associated with fundraising at
these institutions. By and large, schools are supported
either by the United Negro College Fund (39 private HBCU
members) or the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (47 member
public schools and 6 law schools). The Thurgood Marshall
College Fund (TMCF) is the only national organization to
provide merit scholarships, programmatic and capacity
building support to its member institutions. Building upon
this infrastructural support will help to prepare a new
generation of leaders throughout the HBCU community and the
world. Development professionals at these specialized
institutions face a growing dilemma – how to strengthen
university resources in a climate that has historically
relied almost wholly on public funding (Williams &
Kritsonis, 2006). Public HBCUs will eventually be forced
to identify private resources to survive and thrive. The
higher education landscape is changing rapidly, and both
private and public institutions are searching for new
5

revenues – requiring more entrepreneurial ways (Bowen &
Shapiro, 1998).
Purpose of the Study
Historically Black College and University leaders are
increasingly being called upon to develop an
entrepreneurial spirit that encourages fundraising from the
private sector. The purpose of this study was two-fold:
1) to determine the entrepreneurial orientation of public
HBCU administrators (Corrigan 2002) and 2) to determine how
those orientations are perceived to be related to the
revenue-generating activities of their institutions and the
institutions’ financial stability (Tierney 1988).
Research Questions
The following qualitative research questions guided the
study:
1. What connection exists between the Historically Black
College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of their
institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black College and
University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial
activities?
6

3. What factors are associated with best practices in
fundraising at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices
influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose
of advancing the institution?
5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial
orientation of the administrator’s role by the
administrator?
Theoretical Framework
This study used Clark’s (1998) theoretical framework
as a basis for defining and understanding the
entrepreneurial university. According to Clark,
entrepreneurial activities comprise third-stream income
sources that include 1) innovative and profit-based, self-
supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources,
such as business development activities and innovative
retail sales operations, 2) activities that develop and
enhance traditional income streams such as endowment and
tuition, and 3) activities that involve both traditional
and nontraditional aspects, such as distance learning,
which uses nontraditional methods of teaching to gain
tuition, a traditional source of income.
7

For this study, the researcher employed Clark’s (1998)
theory to study the relationships between HBCU fundraising
administrators at institutions within the Thurgood Marshall
College Fund’s 47 member schools. While there are 47
member schools and six law schools in this cohort, 17
institutions and all law schools were not included in this
study for reasons explained in Chapter III. Specifically,
this investigation will serve a two-fold purpose: 1) the
identification of innovative and profit-based self-
supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources;
and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional
income streams at the selected institutions. The third
component of Clark’s study addressing both traditional and
nontraditional activity aspects offers no relevance to this
study and will not be included.
Assumptions
1. Each administrator surveyed will be knowledgeable
about employing entrepreneurial orientations
necessary for increasing revenue generation.
2. Each administrator will respond to survey questions
without prejudice thereby revealing the degree to
which he/she is entrepreneurial.
8

3. Each administrator surveyed will not breech the
confidentiality relating to specific donors and/or
fundraising practices.
Delimitations of the Study
1. This was a purposeful study. It focused on the
entrepreneurial orientations administrators who
practice fundraising on behalf of public HBCUs
within the membership of the TMCF. HBCUs which are
not members of the TMCF were not be included in the
study.
2. Only presidents and chief development officers were
surveyed regarding their self-perception of
engagement levels of entrepreneurial orientation.
Limitations of the Study
1. This study did not address the entrepreneurial
orientation of presidents and chief development
officers at private institutions or HBCUs affiliated
with the United Negro College Fund.
2. Presidents and chief development officers may not
provide an objective, unbiased self-assessment
regarding their entrepreneurial orientation because
the survey was self-reported.
9

3. Some institutions invited to participate did not
have the development office infrastructure or
capacity to report data relative to the study.
Definition of Terms
Chief Development Officer – the person responsible for the
advancement efforts within a defined area; the lead person
in fundraising (Patton, 1993).
Entrepreneur – “an organizational leader who tirelessly and
actively transcends good leadership and management
practices and personally identifies opportunities, develops
a creative and innovative vision, welcomes competition, and
persuades others to contribute and participate; undertakes
a challenge in a new way” (Riggs, 2005, p. 10).
Entrepreneurial activities – activities that generate
revenue from non-traditional methods (Riggs, 2005).
Entrepreneurial Orientation – interest in entrepreneurial
activity engagement (Riggs, 2005).
Fundraising – The solicitation of gifts from private
sources, specifically individuals, corporations and
foundations (Terrell & Gold, 1993).
Financial Stability – a broad description of a steady state
in which the financial system efficiently performs its key
economic functions (Schinasi, 2004).
10

Historically Black College(s) and University(ies) – public
and private educational institutions founded for the
purpose of educating Black Americans. The Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as "...any
historically Black college or university that was
established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and
is, the education of Black Americans, and that is
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or
association determined by the Secretary [of Education)…"
(White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, 2007, ¶1).
Institutional Advancement – Activities and programs
undertaken to develop understanding and support from
constituencies to help achieve its goals in securing
resources such as students, faculty, and dollars (Rowland,
1986).
Non-traditional Revenue – philanthropically generated
dollars or new revenue garnered from the private sector
(Williams & Kritsonis, 2007).
Philanthropy – a charitable gift that expresses love for
humankind (Sears, 1990).
Traditional Revenue – money secured from tuition, sponsored
programs (i.e. federally funded initiatives), or the public
sector (Williams & Kritsonis, 2007).
11

Significance of the Study
Since the research on raising money at HBCUs is
limited, this study contributes to the existing body of
literature, as well as, probes significant issues
surrounding entrepreneurial orientation and revenue
generation at these specialized institutions. Results of
this study will be of assistance to HBCU presidents and
other administrators as they employ a rational approach to
developing and implementing a comprehensive fundraising
program. Actually executing fund development in a
strategic, entrepreneurial way will be critical to the
survival of these institutions.
Summary
Changing economic conditions at the state level have
reduced the amount of governmental support available to
public institutions of higher education. These shrinking
revenues have added a new responsibility to chief executive
officers and administrators at institutions of higher
education. Accordingly, embracing an appreciation for
cultivating relationships with donors is a necessary step
for university presidents at public institutions. This is
a different and oftentimes unwelcome responsibility among
HBCU institutional leaders (Birnbaum, 1992).
12

The fact of the matter is simply that HBCUs have to
step up to the plate in order to compete with majority
institutions. The competition is fierce for student
enrollment, student recruitment, public funding, and now
private funds. A major source of fundraising difficulties
arises from the small size of HBCUs and from their less-
affluent alumni bases (New York Amsterdam News, 2002).
“If historically Black colleges are to survive, they
must learn how to plan effectively within the institutional
context to achieve their desired fund-raising results”
(Barrett, 2006, p. 7). Each administrator’s leadership
strategy and how they focus on advancement activities and
tactics makes a difference in the amount of private money
the institution raises. It is obvious from this study that
institutions must implement some method of strategic
planning to develop advancement activities and strategies.
Employing a rational approach to developing and
implementing a comprehensive fundraising campaign is key.
Identifying institutional needs, developing plans for
achieving those needs, beginning to implement those plans,
and actually executing the campaigns will be critical to
the survival of these institutions.



13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Overview

This chapter presents research on the engagement
levels of Historically Black College and University (HBCU)
presidents and chief development officers in fundraising
and the connection between increasing educational resource
development through entrepreneurial ideology.
Entrepreneurial ideology suggests that there is a more
complex, integrated way of thinking that makes business
people more successful. Dunkelberg and Cooper (1988)
describe entrepreneurs as having orientations that
influence growth and independence. Accordingly, HBCU
leaders that possess entrepreneurial characteristics could
be more successful in their fundraising efforts if they
exercise entrepreneurial ideology.
This literature review begins with a brief historical
overview of fundraising and philanthropy which helps to
understand the importance of fundraising in education.
Next, the researcher presents literature on the history of
African-American philanthropy in order to capture beliefs
and assumptions around fundraising for African-Americans.
Finally, the section on entrepreneurialism in higher
14

education provides a collaboration of thoughts surrounding
the need for university administrators to capture the
spirit of entrepreneurialism in order to be successful in
their fundraising efforts.
History of Educational Fundraising
The concept of private philanthropy and fundraising
can be seen throughout history for thousands of years. For
centuries, Americans have relied on fundraising to support
religious infrastructure, politics, economic relief for
families, and even wars. Humanitarian efforts promoting
the spirit of giving can be witnessed prior to colonial
days when families shared their good harvests with less
fortunate families (Schoenecke, 2005, p. 17).
“From their earliest days, universities, colleges, and
schools have depended on fundraising and the generosity of
benefactors, clients, and public bodies who shared their
dreams and supported their purposes” (Rhodes, 1997, p.
xvii). Harvard College, the oldest higher education
institution in the United States, was founded in 1634 as a
result of philanthropic support provided by Reverend John
Harvard (Worth, 1993). By 1745, the only colleges in the
colonies were Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale. Most
college presidents in the colonial era would solicit
funding in order to assure institutional survival.
15

More than 100 years later, in 1862, the first federal
land grant act was established, resulting in growth and
expansion in higher education. Senator Justin Smith
Morrill lobbied Congress for financial support to establish
colleges for industrial education. The Morrill Acts of
1862 and 1890 granted federally controlled land to the
states for the purpose of building educational
institutions. As a result of the 1862 Act, institutions
were commissioned to teach agriculture, military tactics,
mechanic arts, and home economics in addition to classical
studies (Browning & Williams, 1978). By the second land
grant act in 1890, several public institutions were funded
by the states (Cultip, 1990). During the Industrial
Revolution, college presidents solicited wealthy
businessmen to gain institutional support. Because of
their generous philanthropy, many institutions were renamed
in honor of these benefactors.
The establishment of land grant institutions paved the
way for the creation of some specialized public
institutions, namely HBCUs. A key component of the land
grant system is the agricultural experiment station program
created by the Hatch Act of 1887. The Hatch Act authorized
direct payment of federal grant funds to each state to
establish an agricultural experiment station in connection
16

with the land grant institution (Browning & Williams,
1978). The amount of this appropriation varies from year to
year and is determined for each state through a formula
based on the number of small farmers. A major portion of
the federal funds must be matched by the state. HBCUs
created under jurisdiction of the Morrill Acts are Alabama
A & M University, Tuskegee University, University of
Arkansas Pine Bluff, Florida A & M University, Fort Valley
State University, Kentucky State University, Southern
University and A & M College, University of Maryland
Eastern Shore, Alcorn State University, Lincoln University,
North Carolina A & T University, Langston University, South
Carolina State University, Tennessee State University,
Prairie View A & M University, University of the Virgin
Islands, Virginia State University, and West Virginia State
University.
Nearly ten years before land grant institutions were
established, former slave owner, George Campbell, and
former slave and community leader, Lewis Adams, founded the
Negro Normal School in Tuskegee. Adams negotiated the
establishment of what is now known as Tuskegee University
in exchange for Adams’ influence on the Black vote (History
of Tuskegee, 2008). Dr. Booker T. Washington was selected
as the school’s first teacher and was installed as
17

principal of the school in 1881. Tuskegee recognizes Dr.
Washington as a highly skilled organizer and fundraiser who
was counsel to American presidents, a strong advocate of
African-American entrepreneurs, and instrumental in the
founding of Southern educational institutions (History of
Tuskegee, 2008). Dedicated in 1922, the Booker T.
Washington Monument, “Lifting the Veil”, at the center of
Tuskegee’s campus has an inscription that reads, “He lifted
the veil of ignorance from his people and pointed the way
to progress through education and industry” (History of
Tuskegee, 2008, ¶2).
“Booker T. Washington stressed that the Negro would
best benefit from agricultural training because this is how
a living would be made” (Scott, 2000, p. 32). According to
Scott (2000), being mechanically inclined, knowledgeable of
commerce, familiar with domestic services, and
professionally educated would help to advance the Negro.
Prairie View A & M University in Prairie View, Texas, is an
example of Dr. Washington’s vision for an industrial
educational system. Established in 1876 as the Alta Vista
Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas for Colored
Youth, Prairie View A & M can be remembered for its role in
the preparation and training of teachers, farming programs,
food preparation and preservation, and improving health.
18

Today, Prairie View A & M University continues to be
recognized as an HBCU leader in the arts and sciences, home
economics, agriculture, mechanical arts, and nursing.
In 1896, the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v.
Ferguson ruled that separate public institutions could be
established for Blacks and Whites. Other HBCUs were
established by four major mission societies. The American
Missionary Association was a federal government
organization. The remaining three – the Freedmen’s Aid
Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the American
Baptist Home Mission Society, and the Board of Missions for
the Freedmen of the Presbyterian Church in the USA – were
religious organizations (Cohen, 2006). While the
aforementioned societies were made up of Whites, it has
been argued that Black colleges supported by Whites were
generally regarded as more prestigious than those colleges
supported by Blacks. According to Cohen (2006), “between
1865 and 1915, Blacks contributed $25 million toward their
own educational efforts, almost half that contributed by
Whites” (p. 19). White missionary philanthropists financed
and managed HBCUs with the highest enrollment. In 1902,
John D. Rockefeller’s General Education Board contributed
significantly to higher education for Blacks (Curti & Nash,
19

1965). Gifts from this fund totaling nearly $130 million
were granted without respect to sex, creed, or race.
The Supreme Court reversed its Plessy v. Ferguson
decision in 1954, ruling under Brown v. Board of Education
that separate institutions denied Blacks an equal
education. As a result of the 1954 decision, public
schools received funding for physical improvements and
financial aid (Browning & Williams, 1978).
Public HBCUs are by and large under-funded compared to
predominantly White institutions as is evidenced by the
disparity in budgetary allocations between the two
institutional types. Without external funding, HBCUs will
be good institutions, but they will not have the quality
education that is essential for students to be successful.
“The interminable retrenchment of state and federal support
has forced colleges and universities to become increasingly
reliant on the procurement of funds from private sources in
order to recruit quality students, retain distinguished
faculty, and produce value added research” (Johnsen, 2005,
p.1).
Changing economic conditions at the state level have
reduced the amount of governmental support available to
public institutions of higher education. These shrinking
revenues have added a new responsibility to university
20

presidents. Today, even private HBCUs are struggling in
this economy. A Diverse Issues in Higher Education
interview with the United Negro College Fund president,
Michael Lomax, revealed that the “fundraising machine for
private HBCUs…is wrestling with the worst fundraising
economy in (Lomax’s) lifetime… and sources of income from
all directions continue to fall” (Stuart, 2009, p. 6). A
$7 anonymous gift in 2008 “helped the UNCF avoid a
significant drop in revenue for member schools this year”
(Stuart, 2009, p.6).
Embracing an appreciation for cultivating
relationships with donors is a necessary responsibility for
university administrators at public institutions but is a
different and oftentimes unwelcome responsibility among
HBCU institutional leaders (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 39). As
stated by Barrett, (2006), “If historically Black colleges
are to survive, they must learn how to plan effectively
within the institutional context to achieve their desired
fund-raising results” (p. 7).
History of African-American Philanthropy
Unlike majority institutions, HBCUs have not had a
long history of private philanthropy. Until recently,
there was not much emphasis placed on alumni giving at
Black colleges. In fact, “for many graduates of HBCUs,
21

giving back is not a priority and, in some cases, not a
consideration” (Reaves, 2006, p. 2). Contrarily, the Black
Church and its congregants have offered a source of
inspiration for effective fundraising among Black
Americans. The church is characterized as a powerful
historical and contemporary influence regarding African-
Americans and giving, and the Black Church continues to be
the extremely influential in the lives of Black Americans
(Reaves, 2006).
“Throughout American history, the Black Church has
occupied a distinctive position in the individual and
collective lives of African-Americans” (Ellison, 1991, p.
4). Research indicates that African-Americans attend
church more frequently, participate in church-related
activities, and belong to more church-affiliated activities
than many other Americans. African-Americans look to the
church for guidance, advocacy, and the promotion of social
needs. Accordingly, fundraising professionals at HBCUs
could view the most effective fundraising mechanism for
African-Americans as the Black Church. Some researchers,
however, have pointed out that HBCUs have not followed the
model of the Black Church. In a study conducted by
Holloman, Gasman, and Anderson-Thompkins (2003), it is
revealed that HBCU leaders did not ask for contributions
22

until the day of graduation, “however, fundraising
literature tells us that colleges and universities need to
educate their students about giving as soon as they arrive
on campus” (p. 156).
Most African-Americans are taught philanthropy as
children through their obligation to attend church and to
make a donation. Through personal engagement and building
trust, African-American preachers convey the needs of the
church and consistently encourage parishioners to support
the work of the church. “It is surprising then, giving the
way Black churches model giving for their youngest members
that Black colleges do not” (Holloman, Gasman, & Anderson-
Thompkins, 2003, p. 157).
As Carson (2001) points out, “African-Americans
understand that the role of the Black church – especially
in the area of fundraising is legendary” (p. 4).
Continuing, he says, “We recognize that the Black church
puts the force of authority and legitimacy behind its
appeals to reach givers in the Black community. The Black
Church is a triumphant example of philanthropy among
friends” (Carson, 2001, p. 4).
“As Blacks became better educated and their churches
grew in numbers and strength, their conviction began to be
expressed through the notion that Blacks ought to have
23

schools under their own management and financial control”
(Cohen, 2006, p. 20). The original purpose of HBCUs was
to teach freed slaves to read the Bible or become preachers
or teachers (Kujovich, 1994).
Early philanthropy for Black education has been
described as “the richness and vitality of American life”
and as “an illustration of America’s broken promises, a
crafty form of ‘generosity’ designed to prevent real
reform” (Anderson & Moss, 1999, p.1). It is vastly argued
that northern White philanthropists established HBCUs to
maintain social peace and to produce a capable but
submissive workforce. Today, HBCU graduates hold
significant status as stated by Holloman, Gasman, &
Anderson-Thompkins (2003):
In the future, a greater percentage of college alumni
will be Black, and equipped with degrees. More African
Americans will enter the middle class. Not only does
this mean that more African Americans will be in a
position to give, but as they advance economically,
they will participate more fully in financial planning
and institutionalized giving--tax incentives,
charitable trusts, and living wills. Finally, as the
children of African American alumni enter the
institutions of their parents, those parents will seek
24

to increase their giving in an effort to support the
continued social and economic development of their
families. This situation presents enormous
opportunities for Black colleges to increase their
financial stability and above all, to solidify their
position within the Black community and within the
greater world of American higher education. (p. 159)
Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education
Presidents and other administrators of HBCUs continue
to impress upon government officials the need for greater
federal financial support at a time when “cutbacks in
federal and state spending coupled with infrastructure
repairs and staunch competition from mainstream
institutions with limited resources have ensured severe
financial constraints on America’s HBCUs” (Nealy, 2008,
p.35). In early 2009, funding for HBCUs was cut by $85
million nationally in the category for Strengthening
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Strengthening Historically Black Colleges Graduate
Institutions remained neutral for Fiscal Years 2008 and
2009. Figure 2.1 illustrates the Obama Administration’s
aid for institutional development funding allocations from
2007-2009 (White House Initiative on Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, 2009).
25

Figure 2.1
Title III: Aid for Institutional Development (B.A. in
Millions)
2007 2008 2009
Request

Strengthening Institutions
(Part A)
$79.5 $78.1 $78.1
Strengthening Tribally
Controlled
Colleges and Universities

(Part A) 23.6 23.2 —
(mandatory) — 30.0
1
30.0
1

Strengthening Alaska Native and
Native Hawaiian-serving
Institutions

(Part A) 11.8 11.6 —
(mandatory) — 15.0
1
15.0
1

Strengthening Historically
Black Colleges and Universities

(Part B) 238.1 238.1 153.1
(mandatory) — 85.0
1
85.0
1

Strengthening Historically
Black Graduate Institutions
(Part B)
57.9 56.9 56.9
Minority Science and
Engineering Improvement (Part
E)
8.7 8.6 8.6
Strengthening Predominantly
Black Institutions (mandatory)
— 15.0
1
15.0
1

Strengthening Asian American
and Native American Pacific
Islander-serving Institutions
(mandatory)
— 5.0
1
5.0
1

Strengthening Native American-
serving nontribal institutions
(mandatory)
— 5.0
1
5.0
1

Total
419.6

571.5


451.7


1
Mandatory funds made available by the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act, P.L. 110-84 (September 27, 2007).
These funds are not part of the fiscal year 2009 budget
request.

26

Fundraising in higher education is the most widely
recognized supplement to government funding. Several HBCUs
have enjoyed the fruits of laborious fund development while
the vast majority lag significantly in obtaining
philanthropic support. There is an obvious need for HBCUs
to modify their current fundraising practices to include
aggressive solicitation strategies for various
constituencies. Corporations, foundations, alumni and
other vehicles for securing private philanthropic gifts are
essential to the survival of public institutions of higher
education.
Across the nation, higher education has experienced a
significant decline in funding, yet enrollment in higher
education is at an all-time high (Schoenecke, 2005). Riggs
(2005) posits that “for most American institutions of
higher education, traditional academic ideology held that
the institution had no business in the marketplace” (p.
27). Traditionally, higher education communities were
designed exclusively to provide teaching, learning, and
research. Accordingly, institutions of higher education
did not exercise conventional business models in order to
generate current-use funds. Today, these institutions are
expected to enter the marketplace, survive in the
27

competitive market, and adapt the practices of their for-
profit counterparts.
Until recently, public colleges and universities did
not face the need to compete with private entities because
most public funds were automatically disbursed to public
education. In the last two decades, the public funding
landscape has changed drastically, causing public
institutions of higher education to embrace the entrance of
private corporations into the business of higher education
(Cook, 1997). Institutions are being called upon by
parents and students to address concerns about rising
tuition costs, yet they are also being held more
accountable by public funding entities. Due to the decline
in state resources, public institutions are placing
stronger emphasis on fundraising (Riggs, 2005). Sears
(1990) defines philanthropy as “an expression of love for
mankind” that includes “all gifts except those from the
State” (p.10).
Riggs (2005) believes that “the rapid changes in
economic, demographic, and political conditions that face
American institutions of higher education indicate that
both the institutions and their leaders must be adaptable
and diverse” (p. 3). Changes in the historical roles and
responsibilities of college presidents have presupposed
28

that these leaders possess entrepreneurial characteristics.
“A business-like orientation focused on efficiency,
accountability, and productivity is reshaping the
management of higher education” (Dingfelder, 2007, p. 2).
Clark (1998) suggests that entrepreneurs embody a set
of character traits that are synonymous with leaders.
Entrepreneurial efforts by university administrators
translate into institutional transformation. Attributes
used to describe an individual with entrepreneurial
orientation are innovative, creative, team builder,
opportunist, proactive, risk taker, change agent,
competitive, visionary, and persuasive (Riggs, 2005).
Other researchers have described entrepreneurs as
individuals who recognize and seize opportunities when they
occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003).
Princeton University’s WordNet (2008) describes
innovative as being ahead of the times. Originative and
productive are characteristics of a creative individual.
Team builders create better employees who are willing to
advance the mission of the organization through the
leader’s vision. Being an opportunist means making tough
decisions regardless of sacrifice. In seizing
opportunities, individuals often take a proactive approach.
One who controls a situation rather than responding to the
29

outcome embodies this attribute (WordNet, 2008).
Implementing projects without regard to loss is what
proactive risk takers do.
Being entrepreneurial also means embracing change. A
change agent alters or modifies a current situation in
hopes of improving it (WordNet, 2008). By and large, being
a change agent requires competitive nature, vision, and
persuasiveness. Employing an aggressive disposition
demonstrates competitiveness. Having a strong imagination
or image of predictability is what helps visionaries
compete. Finally, calling others to action or belief is
required. This persuasive persona also lends credibility
to entrepreneurs.
Howard University president, H. Patrick Swygert can be
described as an entrepreneurial president. Swygert, along
with assistance from Howard University trustees and
officers, lead the institution’s record-breaking
fundraising campaign that yielded $275 million, the largest
amount raised to-date by any HBCU. Masterson (2008)
reports that Howard officials sought to raise $100 million
before Swygert convinced his superiors that the goal was
too modest.
H. Patrick Swygert’s entrepreneurial attributes moved
Howard University to an unprecedented level, elevating
30

Howard to its ranking among the 136 institutions asked by
the United States Finance Committee how they spend their
endowments (Masterson, 2008). Swygert, an alumnus,
invested $2 million in the campaign. Howard University’s
endowment now sits at a healthy $532 million, and there is
talk of a $1 billion capital campaign in their future. It
is expected that university officials will publish a report
on lessons learned that will be made available to other
HBCUs.
According to the director of the Council for Aid to
Education’s survey on giving as reported by Masterson
(2008), HBCUs have “less mature fund-raising operations
that rely more on money from foundations and corporations
than from alumni” (p. 2). In order for HBCUs to increase
their endowments through private philanthropy, alumni
participation is necessary. Swygert recognized the
importance of re-engaging alumni by connecting them to
students. His proactive approach could be one reason why
annual alumni giving at Howard increased from 4% to as high
as 20% during the campaign (Masterson, 2008).
Waddell (1992) confirms that “empirical research is
limited with respect to fund-raising in public colleges and
universities, particularly public Black institutions” (p.
3). In Scott’s (2000) study on successful fundraising
31

units at public historically Black colleges and
universities, there are several references to the lack of
research conducted related to fundraising at HBCUs. In
retrospect, adding to the current scarce body of literature
regarding HBCU fundraising is much needed and the primary
intent of this study.
















32
CHAPTER III
METHOD


Overview

The framework for conducting this investigation
including sections on research design, population and
sample, instrumentation, research procedures, data
collection, and data analysis is referenced in this
chapter. Also addressed in this section are validity and
reliability.
This study was designed to examine the entrepreneurial
engagement levels among Historically Black College and
University (HBCU) administrators directing inquiry to 30 of
the 47 TMCF member schools. The TMCF law schools and
seventeen member schools were not included in this study.
Persons who currently serve as acting administrators or
those who had not been in their positions more than twelve
months were not included in this study. The rationale for
excluding these individuals was that they were serving on a
temporary basis and/or that they had not served in the
current leadership capacity that would allow them to
objectively complete the questionnaire. The administrators
who were eligible to participate in the study but so
33

declined were represented in the seventeen schools not
included in the study.
Relationship-building is the premise for successful
fundraising, so administrators who had not had the
opportunity to cultivate relationships with donors due to
their temporary assignment or minimal time in office were
not included. One interim administrator was included in the
study because at the time she completed the questionnaire,
she was serving in a permanent role.
Strengthening university resources from the private
sector in an environment that has traditionally relied on
local and state funding is mandatory for HBCU survival.
Bowen and Shapiro (1998) suggest that if public HBCUs do
not become aggressive about their fundraising practices and
engage in entrepreneurial practices to increase
institutional revenue, they may not survive.
Research Questions
The following qualitative research questions guided
the study:
1. What connection exists between the Historically
Black College and University leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and the financial
stability of their institution?
34

2. To what extent do Historically Black College and
University leaders value and carry out
entrepreneurial activities?
3. What factors are associated with best practices in
fundraising at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices
influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose
of advancing the institution?
5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial
orientation of the administrator’s role by the
administrator?
Research Design
A qualitative study design was used to explore the
connection between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of their
universities. The qualitative variables used for this study
included:
• the amount of employment training and preparation,
• length of employment at the institution,
• innovative approaches used on the job,
• creativity in fundraising strategies,
• team building exercises implemented,
35

• opportunistic tactics used to get the job done,
• risk-taking approach to realize fundraising goals,
• competitive nature,
• vision-driven initiatives,
• ability to be proactive,
• persuasiveness,
• professional experience,
• philosophy of fund development, and
• the impact of private philanthropy on the institution
The qualitative method used for this research was
open-ended questions. Open-ended questions were used to
capture responses of individuals in their natural settings.
This qualitative method of inquiry helped to build upon
theory and seek to gain understanding of the subject
(Winegardner, 2004). According to Lee (1999), there are
four qualities that appear in qualitative studies. The
first quality is that studies are conducted in a natural
setting. Next, empirical data is generated as a result of
participation by the researcher. Third, the research
design allows for flexibility based upon the study.
Finally, instruments, observation methods, and modes of
analysis are not standardized allowing for more extensive
response set from participants (Lee, 1999).
36

Qualitative research is that which refers to a
person’s life, lived experiences, behaviors, emotions, as
well as organizational functioning, social movements,
cultural phenomena, and interactions between nations
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 11). This type of research can
be extremely helpful when exploring research topics about
which little is known. This is especially applicable to
the present study of the entrepreneurial engagement levels
of HBCU administrators in fundraising. There are no
studies that examine this topic. Accordingly, the
objective of this study was to explore issues surrounding
the entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU fundraisers that
will allow others to gain knowledge and understanding for
university advancement purposes.
There are generally common practices and standards
used by development professionals to raise money. To
ensure that philanthropy merits the respect and trust of
the general public, these common practices are recognized
and outlined by a number of organizations including the
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE)
and the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP).
With more than 3,400 member institutions of higher
education, “CASE helps its members build stronger
relationships with their alumni and donors, raise funds for
37

campus projects, produce recruitment materials, market
their institutions to prospective students, diversify the
profession, and foster public support of education”
(Council for the Advancement and Support of Education,
2009, ¶1). The Association of Fundraising Professionals
boasts more than 30,000 members in 200 chapters throughout
the world by helping their members “advance philanthropy
through advocacy, research, education and certification
programs” (Association of Fundraising Professionals,
2009). According to AFP (2009), its “association fosters
development and growth of fundraising professionals and
promotes high ethical standards in the fundraising
profession” (¶1).
Membership to CASE and AFP is strictly voluntary. It
is not the practice of either of these organizations to
identify best practices in fundraising for specific groups.
In other words, standards set forth by these organizations
have been endorsed by some organizations and overlooked by
others. HBCUs often do not have the resources to subscribe
to these entities, and therefore, do not have access to the
technical assistance and other benefits these organizations
provide.


38

Population and Sample
A stratified sample based on enrollment size was
used to select a minimum of five schools for participation
in this study. For purposes of this study, schools with
8,000 or more students were considered Tier 1 institutions;
institutions with 5,000 – 7,999 students were considered
Tier 2 schools; schools with 2,000 – 4,999 students were
considered Tier 3 institutions; and Tier 4 schools
represent those with less than 2,000 students.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study was an original
survey questionnaire based on prior research regarding the
entrepreneurial orientation of presidents at majority
institutions. Palys (2003) outlines many advantages to
utilizing questionnaires when conducting research. First,
surveys and questionnaires are an excellent way of
gathering data from the respondents in a direct and timely
manner. Another advantage was that the questionnaire was
distributed electronically and copies were made available
to participants at a regularly scheduled TMCF conference,
thereby granting direct access to the conference
participants who are HBCU college presidents, development
officers, alumni relations professionals, and students.
Using this research methodology in this manner increases
39

the response rate especially when respondents are given
structured time within the conference to complete the
survey. Palys (2003, p. 151) further states, “when a group
of prospective respondents agrees to allow a researcher
access to the group…response rates may approach 100
percent.”
Types of questions used in the questionnaire were
based on Clark’s (1998) discussion of entrepreneurial
involvement by colleges and universities. Clark (1998)
asserts that entrepreneurial activities help to generate
non-traditional revenues (p. 25). For purposes of this
study, non-traditional revenue generation includes (1) the
identification of innovative and profit-based self-
supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources;
and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional
income streams at the selected institutions. The survey
instrument was developed with this understanding in mind.
The instrument used was an open-ended questionnaire
designed to measure the entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU
leaders. The researcher implemented the following plan for
conducting research:
1. Identified HBCU leaders to participate in the
study.
40

2. Once identified, participants were sent the
participant letter of consent form (attached)
requesting the leader to participate.
a. If the leader agreed to participate by
returning the consent form, he/she was given
access to Survey Monkey where they completed
the 15-question survey that sought
responses to questions related to the amount
of employment training and preparation,
length of employment at the institution,
innovative approaches used on the job,
creativity in fundraising strategies, team
building exercises implemented,
opportunistic tactics used to get the job
done, risk-taking approach to realize
fundraising goals, competitive nature,
vision-driven initiatives, ability to be
proactive, persuasiveness, professional
experience, philosophy of fund development,
and the impact of private philanthropy on
the institution.
3. The open-ended questionnaire administered was an
original survey questionnaire. Types of
questions used in the questionnaire were based on
41

Clark’s (1998) discussion of entrepreneurial
involvement by colleges and universities. Clark
(1998) asserts that entrepreneurial activities
help to generate non-traditional revenues (p.
25). For purposes of this study, non-traditional
revenue generation included (1) the
identification of innovative and profit-based
self-supporting operations that go beyond
traditional sources; and 2) activities that
develop and enhance traditional income streams at
the selected institutions. Using Clark’s (1998)
theory, for example, the following was queried:
a. HBCU leaders were asked to self-assess
whether they are innovative, creative, a
team-builder, an opportunist, a risk-taker,
a change-agent, competitive, a visionary,
proactive, and persuasive to determine what
connection exists between the leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and the
financial stability of the institution.
Leaders were also asked when the institution
last engaged in a capital campaign and how
much private money the institution raised to
evaluate the connection between the leaders’
42

entrepreneurial orientation and the
financial stability of the institution.
(Research Question 1; Interview Questions 6,
14 & 15)
b. In asking what general differences HBCU
leaders perceive between their role as a
leader and the role of traditional business
executives, the researcher examined the
extent to which HBCU leaders value and carry
out entrepreneurial activities. (Research
Question 2; Interview Question 13)
c. Strategies that HBCU leaders would like to
implement in order to seek resources from
private philanthropists but are unable to do
so because of forces outside of their
control sought to frame the factors
associated with best practices in
fundraising. (Research Question 3; Interview
Question 12)
d. The impact of private philanthropy on
institutional initiatives and the strategies
HBCU leaders employ to seek resources from
private philanthropists examined how the
institutions’ development practices
43

influence entrepreneurial activities in the
leaders’ offices. (Research Question 4;
Interview Questions 10 & 11)
e. Responses from HBCU leaders regarding their
philosophy of fund development and whom they
hold accountable for fund development
addressed the perception of the
administrator’s role by the administrator.
(Research Question 5; Interview Questions 8
& 9)
To avoid high attrition rates, follow-up telephone
calls, e-mails, and letters were sent to targeted
participants who had not responded within 30 days.
Seale (1999), in his assessment of the trustworthiness
of a study, states that “the trustworthiness of a research
report lies at the heart of issues conventionally discussed
as validity and reliability” (p. 226). Triangulation and
peer examination were used to increase validity and
reliability. Triangulation occurred through consistent use
of multiple sources of evidence. Examination of the
participant responses helped determine accuracy through
triangulated data obtained through the questionnaires.
Reliability is the extent to which a study can be
duplicated. Qualitative research is difficult to have
44

consistent reliability. Stake (1995) identifies techniques
the researcher can use to help strengthen reliability. By
using multiple means of data collection, the accuracy of
data is increased. Keeping accurate records helps
authenticate the findings of the researcher. Detailed
records of how data is collected, analyzed, and conclusions
are reached increase the accuracy of records (Stake, 1995).
Generalizations and comparisons can be made if descriptions
are given that allow similar institutions to use the data
at their institution. Being able to ensure validity,
reliability, and generalizations enhances qualitative
research.
Confidentiality is a critical component of research if
trust is to develop between participants and the
researcher. There can be a tremendous amount of fear
regarding disclosure of vital information if the
participant is unable to trust the researcher to maintain
privacy at all costs. However, if confidentiality is
secured, the participant is more likely to provide key
information. Glesne and Peshkin (1992) encourage
researchers to provide participants with complete access to
the research and interview materials at all times which
will give subjects more power over documents and reports
that may contain information related to them. To maintain
45

anonymity, study participants were referred to using a
tiered structure.
Research projects must utilize diligence in creating a
research environment that brings no harm to the subject in
any way. In addition to treating the subject with respect
and care, this notion also involved including the
participant in a thorough discussion, prior to the actual
research, regarding all aspects of the study and how these
aspects may impact the participant. All factors were
considered in fulfilling this obligation, including the
future possibility of the research being published.
Research Procedures
The procedures for implementing this study were as
follows:
1. The researcher applied and received permission
from the researcher’s institutional review board
(IRB) to conduct the proposed study. Approval
was granted to poll a minimum of five HBCUs.
2. Identified a stratified sample of college
fundraisers within the TMCF membership to
participate in the study.
3. Contacted the fundraisers at each institution and
explained the research study. Each TMCF member
school administrator was sent an electronic
46

packet of information including a cover letter,
abstract of the study, consent form, and the
questionnaire. (APPENDIX C) The electronic
version was sent to participants by e-mail, and
each participant was able to access the
questionnaire in Survey Monkey.
4. Notified the participant of his/her right to
confidentiality, how their personal information
would be handled over the duration of the study,
and their right to withdraw without penalty once
he/she agreed to engage in the study.
Participant and institution names were not used
when findings were reported. A pseudonym was
assigned to each institution.
5. Made questionnaires available through electronic
mail, U.S. mail, and through conferences hosted
by the TMCF.
6. Analyzed data for conclusion development.
7. Provided to participants a copy of the research
results upon completion.
Data Collection
The 30 TMCF member presidents and their chief
development officers were contacted by electronic mail. In
the electronic transmission, each president and development
47

officer received a letter explaining the purpose and
significance of the study, an informed consent statement,
and the questionnaire. Once respondents accessed the link
to Survey Monkey’s website, they were prompted to select
the choice do not wish to participate or agree to
participate. Once the respondent chose the agree to
participate option, they were immediately redirected to the
next page to begin the survey. As a follow-up to non-
respondents, a reminder letter was sent by U.S. Mail with
an additional copy of the survey. Finally, the researcher
used telephone calls as a means to follow up on
questionnaire responses.
Data Analysis
This section presents the data analysis including a
descriptive analysis of each of the study participants.
Each respondent was asked basic demographic information
followed by the interview questions. Each participant was
asked the same set of questions in Survey Monkey. The data
collected in Survey Monkey was analyzed through coding.
The correspondence between the research questions and the
interview questions is documented in Table 3.1.



48

Table 3.1
Research Questions Paired with Interview Questions
RESEARCH QUESTIONS CORRESPONDING
INTERVIEW QUESTION
FROM QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What connection exists between
the Historically Black College
and University leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and
the financial stability of their
institution?
8, 16, 17
2.

To what extent do Historically
Black College and University
leaders value and carry out
entrepreneurial activities?
15
3. What factors are associated with
best practices in fundraising at
Historically Black Colleges and
Universities?
6, 14



4.
How do the institutions’
development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities for
the purpose of advancing the
institution?



9, 12, 13
(table continues)
49


RESEARCH QUESTIONS CORRESPONDING
INTERVIEW QUESTION
FROM QUESTIONNAIRE
5. What is the perception of the
entrepreneurial orientation of
the administrator’s role by the
administrator?

10, 11

The researcher carefully read through each response
and identified a list of the main themes in the data.
Insight into the operations of each institution was gained
by examining beliefs, assumptions, and roles of fundraising
administrators. These beliefs and assumptions comprised a
significant part of the institutional culture. The
professional experience and attitudes about fund
development helped determine the level to which the
institution has entrepreneurial leadership. Also factored
into professional experience was the institution’s age,
length of time the development office or foundation has
been in existence, and actual philanthropic dollars secured
including the total of the endowment.
Once the codes were developed, numeric variables were
assigned to each code, and the relevant numeric coding for
each response was documented. After each response was
50

coded and verified, a frequency analysis of the numeric
codings was conducted. Next, the researcher documented
the findings using percentages, the nature of the themes,
relationships and differences between the data, and
interrelationships within the themes.
The data collected was used to provide a descriptive
analysis about engagement levels of HBCU leaders in
entrepreneurialism through fundraising in the areas of
employment training and preparation, length of employment
at the institution, innovative approaches used on the job,
creativity in fundraising strategies, team building
exercises implemented, opportunistic tactics used to get
the job done, risk-taking approach to realize fundraising
goals, competitive nature, vision-driven initiatives,
ability to be proactive, persuasiveness, professional
experience, philosophy of fund development, and the impact
of private philanthropy on the institution.
The results have been documented and displayed in the
forms of charts, tables, and graphs. Summary measures of
respondents’ perceptions of their own entrepreneurial
characteristics were produced by computing the average of
responses to items regarding individual entrepreneurial
traits. Specifically, descriptive statistical methods were
used to analyze the relationship between HBCU leaders’
51

entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of
their institution.
Limitations to the Study
There were several limitations to this study. The
researcher was the primary instrument for data collection,
therefore imposing concerns regarding ability and ethics
(Creswell, 1998). When reviewing responses to the
questionnaires, the investigator must remain within the
conceptual framework of the study.
Specifically, questionnaires do have some limitations.
Instructions and questions must be clear and relative to
professional development. Participants must not feel
pressured to participate so as not to violate ethical
issues. Palys also warns researchers to be considerate of
volunteer bias. Volunteer bias is more likely to happen
because participants who voluntarily participate are less
objective than the general population causing the
possibility of skewed results (2003).




52
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA


Introduction

Presented in this chapter are the findings that
emerged from the responses to the on-line questionnaire
which sought to answer the five research questions guiding
this study. The constructs for this study were concepts
that define entrepreneurial activities that could create an
entrepreneurial university. According to Clark (1998),
creating opportunities to enhance revenue can be derived
from 1) innovative and profit-based, self-supporting
operations that go beyond traditional sources, such as
business development activities and innovative retail sales
operations and 2) activities that develop and enhance
traditional income streams such as endowment and tuition.
The methodology used to collect data and ascertain
answers was an on-line questionnaire using Survey Monkey, a
secure on-line survey tool that enables respondents to
respond quickly and easily. Responses from questionnaire
participants were enlightening and helped the researcher to
formulate concrete answers to the research questions.


53

Research Questions
1. What connection exists between the Historically
Black College and University leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and the financial
stability of their institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black College and
University leaders value and carry out
entrepreneurial activities?
3. What factors are associated with best practices
in fundraising at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices
influence entrepreneurial activities for the
purpose of advancing the institution?
5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial
orientation of the administrator’s role by the
administrator?
Research Question One
The first research question sought to examine the
existing connection between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of their
institutions. The linkages between characteristics
associated with entrepreneurial orientation and the amount
of money raised at an institution can impact the level of
54

success in private fundraising. Leaders who self-
identified as being innovative, creative, team builders,
opportunists, risk takers, change agents, competitive,
visionaries, proactive and persuasive would be likely to
have raised more money than leaders who self-reported
having fewer entrepreneurial characteristics.
Research Question Two
Research question two queried the extent to which HBCU
leaders value and implement entrepreneurial activities. In
order to assess the value placed on entrepreneurial
activities and the likelihood of implementing those
activities, participants were asked to report their
perception of differences between their role as a
university leader and the role of a traditional business
executive.
Research Question Three
In the third research question, the researcher
explored factors associated with best practices in
fundraising. Through open-ended questions, respondents
were asked to document specialized training they had to
prepare them for their positions and strategies they would
like to employ to seek resources from private
philanthropists but are unable to do so because of various
restraints. Training, or the lack thereof, is influential
55

on the organizational structure and can positively or
negatively impact institutional fundraising.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question examined how the
institutions’ development practices influenced
entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the
institution. Respondents were asked to report their
professional experience in fund development as well as
strategies they employ to seek resources from
philanthropists. They were also asked how philanthropy
impacts institutional initiatives. In order to have
successful fundraising programs, leaders must be
knowledgeable about which practices have been beneficial to
institutional advancement and which practices have had
little or no impact.
Research Question Five
Finally, the researcher examined how each leader
perceived his own entrepreneurial orientation. The
leaders’ philosophy of fund development and whom they felt
responsible for raising money were important constructs to
examine. In higher education, all administrators should
bear some responsibility for institutional advancement.
Each leaders’ perception regarding fundraising
responsibilities as well as their philosophy of fundraising
56

could determine the success or failure of a fundraising
program.
Respondent Information
Originally, 18 individuals from 17 institutions agreed
to participate in the study. After agreeing to participate
in the study, four administrators from four institutions
withdrew from participation for unreported reasons. Two
additional administrators replied that they were “unable to
participate” in the study but did not cite the reason why
they elected not to participate. The total number of
participants in the study was 14 from 13 schools. The
Institutional Review Board at Prairie View A&M University
approved the study for a minimum of five schools to be
selected.
Numerous attempts were made by the researcher to
secure additional responses to the questionnaire. In
addition to requests made by electronic mail, the
researcher sent the questionnaire by mail through the
United States Postal Service and followed up with telephone
calls to non-respondents. Of the 30 schools eligible to
participate in the study, representatives from 17 schools
(56.6%) agreed to participate and accessed the on-line
questionnaire, but administrators from 14 schools (46.6%)
actually completed the questionnaire.
57

Administrators from HBCUs in Mississippi, Louisiana,
Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia participated in the
study. The following administrative titles represent the
population of respondents: three university presidents,
one dean for institutional advancement and development, one
vice chancellor of institutional advancement, one vice
president of university advancement, one vice president for
development and external relations, one vice president for
university relations and development, one vice chancellor
of development and university relations, one vice president
for institutional advancement, one interim vice president
for university relations (who at the time of survey
completion had just been promoted to this position from the
director of development position), one director of
development and one director of institutional advancement
and planning.
In order to maintain confidentiality and protect
anonymity, each institution was given a pseudonym and
categorized by enrollment size. Tier One schools were
represented by having the word “flagship” at the beginning
of the pseudonym followed by a letter in the alphabet that
signified the synchronized order in which questionnaires
were received. Tier Two schools were labeled with the word
58

“superior” and a corresponding letter of the alphabet that
represents the synchronized order in which questionnaires
were received. Table 4.1 on the next page denotes the
numbers assigned to respondents who agreed to participate
in the study, the institutional pseudonym and tier, and
whether the institutional representative actually completed
the survey after they agreed to participate.
Table 4.1
Respondent Identification
Respondent Pseudonym Tier Agreed to
Participate
Completed
Questionnaire
1 Superior A 2 9 9
2 9
3 Superior B 2 9 9
4 9
5 Flagship B 1 9 9
6 9
7 Superior C 2 9 9
8 Superior D 2 9 9
9 Flagship C 1 9 9
10 Superior E 2 9 9
11 Flagship C 1 9 9
(table continues)
59


Respondent Pseudonym Tier Agreed to
Participate
Completed
Questionnaire
12 Flagship A 1 9 9
13 Flagship E 1 9 9
14 9
15 Flagship D 1 9 9
16 Flagship F 1 9 9
17 Flagship G 1 9 9
18 Flagship H 1 9 9
Note. Blanks in this table represent persons who agreed to
participate in the study and actually entered the secure
questionnaire area but did not complete the questionnaire.
Description of Institutions
Tier One Institutions
Schools with 6,000 or more students were identified as
Tier One institutions. There were eight institutions
represented in this category. Nine administrators
completed the questionnaire. Flagship University A,
located in the southeastern United States, has a student
enrollment of 9,038. Flagship University B in the south
central part of the United States is home to 9,100
students. Also in the south central part of the country is
Flagship University C with an enrollment of 8,600.
Flagship University D is positioned in the southeast and
60

has an enrollment of 10,388. Flagship University E is in
the Deep South with 8,500 students. Flagship University
F, located in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States,
has 7,000 students. Flagship University G in the southeast
has an enrollment of 6,442. Flagship University H is in
the northeast with 6,300 students. (Surveys 5, 9, 11, 12,
13, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Tier Two Institutions
Tier Two institutions were categorized as schools with
less than 6,000 students. There were five institutions
represented in this category. Superior University A is
positioned in the southeast part of the United States with
an enrollment of 3,061 students. Superior University B,
also located in the southeast, has 3,100 students.
Superior University C, located in the northeast, has 2,524
students. Superior University D in the southern region of
the United States has 5,100 students. Superior University
E with 3,900 students is located in the Deep South.
(Surveys 1, 3, 7, 8, 10)
Flagship University A
Flagship University A is located in the southeast.
The six-year tenured vice president for university
relations and development at Flagship University A
responded to the questionnaire. This respondent, who will
61

be referred to as Respondent 12 or R12-T1I (Respondent 12
representing Tier 1 Institution), has a Master of Education
degree and has been employed at Flagship University A for
three years. Entrepreneurial characteristics that best
described this respondent were innovative, risk taker,
proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive, team
builder, competitive, opportunist and visionary.
Flagship University B
Flagship University B is positioned in the south
central part of the country. With a Master of Business
Administration degree and more than 30 years service in
marketing and communications in multiple development
offices, this respondent has served in the capacity of vice
president for university advancement for one year at
Flagship University B. This respondent will be referred to
as Respondent 5 or R5-T1I (Respondent 5 representing Tier 1
Institution). Entrepreneurial attributes that described
this participant were innovative, proactive, creative,
change agent, persuasive, team builder, and visionary.
Flagship University C
Flagship University C is also in the United States’
south central region. Both the president and director of
development responded to the questionnaire. The president,
who will be referred to as Respondent 9 or R9-T1I
62

(Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution), holds a
Doctor of Philosophy degree and is a seasoned academician
and veteran higher education administrator. Having served
as provost, vice provost, academic program director and
tenured faculty member at various institutions, R9-T1I has
led the university for six years. Entrepreneurial
behaviors the president reports to exhibit are proactive,
change agent, persuasive, team builder and competitive.
The director of development, who will be recognized as
Respondent 11 or R11-T1I (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1
Institution), has an undergraduate degree and has worked in
the Office of Development for five years. As is consistent
with the attributes needed to increase institutional
giving, this director is innovative, proactive, creative, a
change agent, persuasive, a team builder, an opportunist,
and a visionary.
Flagship University D
Flagship University D is located in the southeast part
of the United States. The associate vice chancellor of
development and university relations responded to the
questionnaire. With an undergraduate degree and fifteen
months serving as the associate vice chancellor at Flagship
University D, this respondent has fifteen years experience
as a development director at two other institutions. This
63

respondent, who will be referred to as Respondent 15 or
R15-T1I (Respondent 15 representing Tier 1 Institution),
reported having the following entrepreneurial attributes:
innovative, proactive, creative, a change agent,
persuasive, a team builder, competitive, and a visionary.
Flagship University E
Flagship University E is in the United States’ Deep
South. The president, who responded to the questionnaire
and will be referred to as Respondent 13 or R13-T1I
(Respondent 13 representing Tier 1 Institution), holds a
Doctor of Jurisprudence with more than 25 years experience
in preparation for this position. This respondent’s
professional background in development and institutional
advancement have compliment the ten years of service given
to the presidency at Flagship University E. Innovative,
risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive,
team builder, competitive, opportunist, and visionary are
the words this respondent used to self-describe personal
entrepreneurial characteristics.
Flagship University F
Flagship University F is located in the mid-Atlantic
region of the United States. The vice president for
institutional advancement, who will be referred to as
Respondent 16 or R16-T1I (Respondent 16 representing Tier 1
64

Institution), completed the questionnaire. This
respondent, who has been employed at Flagship University F
for nine years, has served five years in the current role.
Innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent,
persuasive, team builder, competitive, and visionary are
the words this respondent used to self-describe personal
entrepreneurial characteristics.
Flagship University G
Flagship University G is in the southeast part of the
United States. The vice chancellor for university
advancement, who will be referred to as Respondent 17 or
R17-T1I (Respondent 17 representing Tier 1 Institution),
responded to the questionnaire. With an undergraduate
degree and some graduate studies, this respondent has seven
years experience in development. This respondent reported
having the following entrepreneurial attributes:
innovative, proactive, a change agent, a team builder, and
a visionary.
Flagship University H
Flagship University H is located in the northeast part
of the United States. The dean of institutional
advancement and development responded to the questionnaire.
With a graduate degree and two years serving as the dean of
institutional advancement and development at Flagship
65

University H, this respondent has been employed at Flagship
H for 13 years in various institutional advancement
positions. This respondent, who will be referred to as
Respondent 18 or R18-T1I (Respondent 18 representing Tier 1
Institution), reported having all of the entrepreneurial
attributes: innovative, a risk taker, proactive, creative,
a change agent, persuasive, a team builder, competitive, an
opportunist, and a visionary.
Superior University A
Superior University A is located in the upland
south/mid-Atlantic. The director of institutional
advancement and planning completed the questionnaire. This
respondent has a Master of Science degree and has been
employed at Superior University A for nearly two and a half
years. This respondent, referred to as Respondent 1 or R1-
T2I (Respondent 1 representing Tier 2 Institution), has
development experience that spans over five years.
Entrepreneurial characteristics that described this leader
were innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative,
persuasive, a team builder and competitive.
Superior University B
Superior University B is also located in the United
States’ southeast region. The vice chancellor for
institutional advancement, who will be referred to as
66

Respondent 3 or R3-T2I (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2
Institution), responded to the questionnaire. This
individual holds a Master of Arts degree, has been employed
at Superior University B for seven years, and has served in
the role of vice chancellor for the last three years.
Entrepreneurial attributes that described this respondent
were innovate, risk taker, proactive, creative, change
agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive, opportunist
and visionary.
Superior University C
Superior University C is located in the northeast part
of the country. The vice president for development and
external relations, who has been employed for eight years
at Superior University C, completed the questionnaire and
will be referred to as Respondent 7 or R7-T2I (Respondent 7
representing Tier 2 Institution). With nearly thirty years
experience as a development professional, Respondent 7 has
completed requirements toward a Doctor of Management and
holds ABD (all but dissertation) status. Entrepreneurial
attributes that described this participant were innovative,
risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive,
team builder, competitive and visionary.


67

Superior University D
Superior University D is located in the southern
region of the United States. The president, who will be
referred to as Respondent 8, responded to the
questionnaire. Respondent 8 or R8-T2I (Respondent 8
representing Tier 2 Institution) has been in office for
five years and has a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
Entrepreneurial characteristics that described this leader
were innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change
agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive and visionary.
Superior University E
Superior University E is positioned in the Deep South.
The interim vice president for university relations, a
doctoral candidate, completed the questionnaire. This
respondent, referred to as Respondent 10 or R10-T2I
(Respondent 10 representing Tier 2 Institution), has been
employed at Superior University E for five years and has
nine years of experience as a development professional.
Traits of entrepreneurialism that describe this respondent
are innovative, proactive, creative, change agent,
persuasive, team builder and visionary.
Entrepreneurial Operations
Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial behavior and
activities develop and enhance traditional income streams.
68

Participants were asked to report their personal
entrepreneurial characteristics (Research Question 1;
Interview Question 8). The degree to which each
participant exhibited each entrepreneurial characteristic
can be seen in Figure 4.1. All 14 respondents reported
that they were proactive team-builders. Of the 14
respondents, 13 responded that they were innovative and
persuasive change agents. More than 85%, or 12 respondents
shared that they exhibited creativity and vision.
Figure 4.1
Participant Entrepreneurial Characteristics
Entrepreneurial Characteristics
92.9
57.1
100
85.7
92.9 92.9
100
71.4
35.7
85.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
R
i
s
k

T
a
k
e
r
P
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
C
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

A
g
e
n
t
P
e
r
s
u
a
s
i
v
e
T
e
a
m

B
u
i
l
d
e
r
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
v
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
s
t
V
i
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

According to Clark (1998), creating opportunities to
enhance revenue can be derived from innovative and profit-
based, self-supporting operations that go beyond
traditional sources, such as business development
69

activities and innovative retail sales operations. The data
in this section represent how innovative and profit-based,
self-supporting operations go beyond traditional sources to
meet fundraising goals. As previously noted, each
participant was assigned a unique identification number
documented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Respondent Identification Numbers
Respondent Number/Institution Respondent
Identification
Number
Respondent 1
representing Tier 2 Institution
R1-T2I
Respondent 3
representing Tier 2 Institution
R3-T2I
Respondent 5
representing Tier 1 Institution
R5-T1I
Respondent 7
representing Tier 2 Institution
R7-T2I
(table continues)
70


Respondent Number/Institution Respondent
Identification
Number
Respondent 8
representing Tier 2 Institution
R8-T2I
Respondent 9
representing Tier 1 Institution
R9-T1I
Respondent 10
representing Tier 2 Institution
R10-T2I
Respondent 11
representing Tier 1 Institution
R11-T1I
Respondent 12
representing Tier 1 Institution
R12-T1I
Respondent 13
representing Tier 1 Institution
R13-T1I
Respondent 15
representing Tier 1 Institution
R15-T1I
Respondent 16
representing Tier 1 Institution
R16-T1I
Respondent 17
representing Tier 1 Institution
R17-T1I
Respondent 18
representing Tier 1 Institution
R18-T1I


71

University Leader vs. Business Executive
Each respondent was asked about their perception of
the differences between their role as a university leader
and that of a traditional business executive (Research
Question 2; Interview Question 15). University leaders
responded that there was a difference between the two
executive types. Table 4.3 provides this data.
Table 4.3
Differences Between University Leaders and Business
Executives
Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
2
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant Responses
Operations
Code 2:
Differences
between
university
leader and
business
executive
“My perception: I
must spent a great
deal of time in
having people "buy
in" to the things
that I want to do.”

More
difficult to
get support
at
universities
3
“Must have buy-in
from many different
constituencies.”
(table continues)
72


Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
2
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant Responses
Businesses
have more
stringent
performance
expectations
2 “Universities are
process based and
business are
performance based.”
“None. As a leader,
my responsibility is
to galvanize and
direct the creative
and intellectual
capacities of the
staff to achieve our
core purpose. This is
the universal goal of
leadership.”

Little or no
differences
between
university
leaders and
business
executives
6
“Few; … the corporate
world (gave me) the
ability to tap spir-
itual/philosophical
motivation to give.”
(table continues)
73


Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
2
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant Responses
More
flexibility
required by
university
leaders
2 “Lead by consensus
and cooperation
spanning areas that
are not in direct
control rather than
top down corporate
mode.”
The difference agreed upon by two respondents was that
university leaders believe they have more challenges with
getting various constituencies to buy-in to their vision
for the institution.
My perception: I must spend a great deal of time
in having people “buy in” to the thing that I
want to do. (R11-T1I) (Respondent 11
representing Tier 1 Institution)

Must have buy-in from many different
constituencies. (R8-T2I) (Respondent 8
representing Tier 2 Institution)
There are both internal and external struggles that
minimize the leaders’ ability to raise significant amounts
of money for institutional support. One respondent
74

believed that the bureaucracy accounted for the difference
between university leaders and business executives.
Another respondent believed that creating synergy between
university leadership and staff was a constant challenge
but acknowledged his responsibility as a leader.
As a leader, my responsibility is to galvanize
and direct the creative and intellectual
capacities of the staff to achieve (the
institution’s) core purpose. This is the
universal goal of leadership. (R12-T1I)
(Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution)
When there is no consensus between leadership and
staff, there are problems. Some leaders believe that they
have less authority to make meaningful changes at their
institutions than business executives have in the companies
they run.
(There is) less authority to make personnel
decisions (and) changes that will benefit the
institution. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing
Tier 2 Institution)

(Universities) lead by consensus and cooperation
spanning areas that are not in direct control
75

rather than the top down corporate mode. (R5-T1I)
(Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution)
Another theme that emerged in respondent’s answers
regarding the differences they perceived between university
leaders and business executives was that traditional
businesses have more stringent performance expectations.
Stronger metrics should be imposed to make sure
that employees are meeting annual fundraising
goals. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing Tier 2
Institution)

Universities are process-based and businesses are
performance-based. (R7-T2I) (Respondent 7
representing Tier 2 Institution)
One respondent disagreed with fellow advancement
officers.
(The) only difference is I work for a non-profit
(organization). Aside from that, I’m responsible
for revenue quotas and goals, deadlines,
staffing, etc. (R9-T1I) (Respondent 9
representing Tier 1 Institution)
Differences are not that great. (R16-T1I)
(Respondent 16 representing Tier 1 Institution)
76

Respondents who believed there was little or no
difference between their role as a university executive and
a traditional business executive appeared to have a more
entrepreneurial spirit. One respondent described a the
minimal difference at his institution.
Much of the work I do is similar to the that of a
traditional business executives. However, the
most important distinction is that I am an
educator. I must remain committed to integrated
students into the process of fundraising so that
they remain connected as alumni, and engaged as
learners. My office is often times full of
volunteers and interns, this maintains vibrancy
and connectedness to our student, while helping
to stay focused on the goal of producing leaders.
(R18-T1I) (Respondent 18 representing Tier 2
Institution)
Almost verbatim, two leaders suggested that the
universal goal of leadership is to convince others to
accept the vision leadership that is in place. One
participant went as far to say that his experience as a
corporate executive helped to realign institutional
advancement goals.
77

I came from the corporate world. (I) now have
(the) ability to tap spiritual (and)
philosophical motivation (for donors) to give.
(R1-T2I) (Respondent 1 representing Tier 2
Institution)
Advancement Experience and Professional Development
Kouzes and Posner (2002) believe that training builds
self-efficacy and encourages initiative. Most everyone who
responded to the questionnaire had some level of
fundraising experience and/or training (Research Question
3; Interview Question 6 and Research Question 4; Interview
Question 9). Some respondents elected not to report
additional training they had to prepare them for their
positions.
Respondent 1 had several years experience as a
volunteer fundraiser and was previously employed as
proposal manager for engineering firms. Respondent 15
worked in the areas of annual giving, major gift
fundraising, and planned giving. Respondent 16 had 20
years experience in corporate sales and marketing.
Respondents 3, 8,10 and 16 have certificates in fundraising
management from Indiana University’s Center on
Philanthropy. Respondent 3 also has certification in
estate planning from the National Institute of Estate
78

Planning and completed a one year series in major and
planned giving from John Brown Limited. Respondent 5
received professional development through the Public
Relations Society of America, and the National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Respondents
5, 10 and 16 participated in training offered by the
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.
Respondent 10 also took part in training from the Thurgood
Marshall College Fund, the United Negro College Fund, and
the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education. Respondent 12 completed the Association of
Fundraising Professionals’ Faculty Training Academy, the
National Association of Government Communicators’
Communication School, the Executive Leadership Institute
through the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, the
Executive Management Institute at Vanderbilt University,
the Owens Graduate School of Management, a professional
development management course from the National Association
of College and University Business Officers, a taxation
seminar with Crescendo Interactive, Inc., courses in
planned giving, accounting and auditing. Respondent 16
participated in seminars offered by the Association of
Fundraising Professionals. Among the many positions held
by Respondent 17 were development officer, consultant, and
79

foundation director. Presidents who responded climbed the
ranks from faculty to administration, first serving in
capacities of director, dean, vice president and provost.
Some participants received more specialized training
than others. The two respondents who reported the most
comprehensive combination of advancement experience and
professional development shared the following:
Most of my work has been in the advancement area
having served as a policy advisor to the
President, responsible for strategic planning and
initiatives. Fund development was recently added
to my portfolio. I have worked of board
development, marketing and communications,
planned giving, alumni giving, economic
development and a $15 mill capital campaign.
(R18-T1I) (Respondent 18 representing Tier 1
Institution)

Since 1987, I have worked as a consultant to
community based organization and as a development
professional for higher education institutions. I
have raised more than $350 million. I have
extensive experience in planning and managing
capital campaigns; and planned giving, major
80

gifts and annual fund programs. My expertise
includes creating and implementing development
plans and recruiting and managing volunteers. I
have successfully generated philanthropic support
from individuals, corporations, foundations, and
industry associations. Throughout my career, I
have received various awards and distinctions,
including the Association of Fundraising
Professional’s highest professional designation:
Advanced Certified Fund Raising Executive
credential. I continue to teach and lecture at
seminars, classes, and conferences sponsored by
the Association of Fundraising Professionals and
universities and colleges. (R12-T1I) (Respondent
12 representing Tier 1 Institution)
Who’s to Blame?
When respondents were asked what members of their
organization, including themselves, did they believe have
responsibility for fund development, five respondents said
they felt that upper-level administration were responsible
for fundraising, and five different respondents believed
advancement staff should be accountable for institutional
fundraising (Research Question 5; Interview Question 11).
Four respondents placed the responsibility of fundraising
81

on the entire university community including faculty,
staff, administrators, alumni, students, volunteers or
board members, parents, and community residents. (Table
4.4)
Table 4.4

Responsible Parties for Fundraising

Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
Operations
Code 1:
Responsibility
for Fundraising
Everyone in
university
community
4 “Fund development
is everyone in the
organization's
responsibility,
specifically the
president, who is
the chief fund-
raiser; the vice
president for
University
Relations and
Development, who
is the chief
development
officer…”
(table continues)
82


Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
Development/
advancement
staff with some
alumni/student
involvement
5 “Development
Operations
(research,
stewardship,
alumni records,
gift
coordinators);
Annual Giving
Program; Major
Gift Program;
Corp. & Foundation
Relations;
University
Relations; Planned
Giving; Government
Relations; Alumni
Affairs.”
(table continues)
83


Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
“President
Vice Presidents
Director of
Development
Grant Writer
Prosopect
Researcher
Gifts & Grants
Coordinator
Alumni Relations
Director.”
University
administration
5
“President,
Executive Cabinet,
Deans, Chairs,
faculty,
athletics.”




84

Two respondents defined the responsibility of
fundraising in detail.
Fund development is a outcome of product
development and marketing, donor cultivation,
gift stewardship and donor appreciation.
Furthermore, fund development is the result of
engaging prospective donors and stakeholders in
strengthening the College brand. (R18-T1I)
(Respondent 18 representing Tier 1 Institution)

Fund development is everyone in the
organization's responsibility, specifically the
president, who is the chief fundraiser; the vice
president for University Relations and
Development, who is the chief development
officer; and the entire development staff which
includes the associate vice president; the
assistant vice presidents; the foundation's
executive director; the director of Annual
Giving; the associate director of Development;
the associate director of Annual Giving; the
assistant director of Annual Giving; the board of
trustees; the prospect researcher; the donor
relations manager; and the associate director of
85

Alumni Relations. (R12-T1I) (Respondent 12
representing Tier 1 Institution)
Entrepreneurial Activities
Activities that develop and enhance traditional income
streams such as endowment and tuition are considered
entrepreneurial (Clark, 1998). Increases in philanthropic
giving are generally a result of donor cultivation and
stewardship. Philanthropists have a tendency to support
institutional initiatives that are in direct alignment with
their interests. Once a donor makes a financial
investment, they will also devote time and attention to a
cause that inspires them. For this reason, university
leaders should identify priorities for which they seek
donor support. Once the priorities are identified, leaders
should begin the process of donor cultivation which will
ultimately lead to solicitation of a gift. The impact of
that donor’s gift means institutional sustainability and
survival.
Unfunded Priorities
Developing a strategic plan for an organization is one
way to establish fundraising goals for institutional
priorities. Strategic planning orchestrates how to achieve
goals using a systemic approach (Research Question 3;
86

Interview Question 14). One leader reported that engaging
in strategic planning helped them realize their vision.
Fund development is more than seeking financial
resources. It requires an understanding of the
institutional priorities; an understanding of
donor intent and must include ways to engage and
involve donors and potential donors for long-term
relationships. There should be a strategic, well-
crafted plan for each constituency group to
maximize opportunities to build resources and to
sustain long-term relationships. (R3-T2I)
(Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution)
Some strategies that respondents identified as being
helpful when they consider raising money were matching
institutional need with donor preference, connecting the
donor to the appropriate gift closer, engaging students in
donor cultivation, investigating donor giving patterns,
hosting meaningful special events, constant outreach, and
using electronic mail as a vehicle for solicitation. When
university leaders establish a vision for the institution,
they should establish a “wish list” that includes the
unfunded priority, the cost for implementing the item, and
names of prospective donors who might be interested in
supporting the initiative. Several participants in this
87

study echoed similar sentiments when asked what strategies
they employed to seek resources from private
philanthropists (Research Question 4; Interview Question
13).
Create projects around which donors can be
attracted. Show donors how they can make a
difference in students’ lives and help them do
that. (R1-T2I) (Respondent 1 representing Tier 2
Institution)

Build university programs that that encourage
confidence among external funders. (R8-T2I)
(Respondent 8 representing Tier 2 Institution)

1. Develop a personal relationship with donors.
2. Educate them about the strengths of my
University. 3. Work closely with them when
submitting a proposal. (R11-T1I) (Respondent 11
representing Tier 1 Institution)

1. Understanding the interests of a potential
donor;
2. Researching the potential donor's giving
patterns
88

3. Determining whether the donor has an interest
in supporting higher education. 4. Identifying
the natural partner to make introductions, if
necessary. (R3-T2I) (Respondent 3 representing
Tier 2 Institution)

Engage them with the students and programs, (and)
involve them in the development of programs.
(R5-T1I) (Respondent 5 representing Tier 1
Institution)

Research (the donor’s) potential, establish
relationship (with the prospective donor), ask
(the prospect for money). (R16-T1I) (Respondent
16 representing Tier 1 Institution)

Cultivation, engagement, use of events, addition
to boards, publicity, create naming
opportunities, planned or combination giving and
stewardship. (R15-T1I) (Respondent 15
representing Tier 1 Institution)

The #1 strategy is prospect research. We are
always looking to see our community's potential
89

for giving. (R18-T1I) (Respondent 18
representing Tier 1 Institution)

Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 represent the responses to
survey questions nine and ten. Five themes emerged when
reviewing current fundraising strategies utilized by the
participants (Table 4.5). Three categories surfaced in the
data analysis of future fundraising strategies among
participants (Table 4.6).
Table 4.5
Current Fundraising Strategies
Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
Activity
Code 1:
Current
Strategies
Match
institutional
need with donor
preference
3 “Create
projects
around which
donors can be
attracted.”
(table continues)
90


Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
“Build
university
programs that
that encourage
confidence
among external
funders”
Involve students
and alumni in
donor
cultivation
2 “Engage them
with the
students and
programs,
involve them
in the
development of
programs.”
(table continues)
91


Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
Know your donor 4 “1.Under-
standing the
interests of a
potential
donor; 2.
Researching
the potential
donor's giving
patterns; 3.
Determining
whether the
donor has an
interest in
supporting
higher
education. 4.
Identifying
the natural
partner” to
solicit.
(table continues)
92


Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
“Grant
proposals
Direct Mail
Personal
solicitation
E-
solicitation”

21
st
Century
solicitation
strategies
including
technologically-
driven
cultivation and
solicitation
4
“One-on-one
cultivation
and
soliciation,
direct mail,
call center
and class
agent
program.”
(table continues)
93


Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 1
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
Special events
1
“1. A
signature
event;
2. An annual
campaign;
3. A major
gift and
planned giving
program;
4. A corporate
and foundation
relations
program;
5. A donor
relations
program.”






94

Table 4.6
Future Fundraising Strategies
Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 2
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
Activity
Code 2:
Future
Strategies
No future
strategies
planned

2
“Our
strategies
are
successful,
there are no
new ones I
would employ.
If I had more
resources
(i.e., budget
and
personnel) I
could raise
more money.”
(table continues)
95


Entrepreneurial
Activity Code 2
Themes Frequency Examples of
Participant
Responses
“Hire more
people to
raise money.”

Increase
number of
development
staff in
order to
increase
donor contact
9
“Limited
staffing, it
takes money
to raise
money.”
Engage more
volunteers/
alumni
1 “Board and
volunteer
relation-
ships. Donor
research
Alumni,
parents and
friends”
Maintain
efficient
donor records
1 “Moves
Management”

Successful fundraisers learn how to commingle their
personal, philosophical view of fundraising with the
96

organization’s strategic plan. One respondent recognized
that sensational fund development happens as a result of
thinking outside the box—being entrepreneurial.
My belief is that fund development's purpose (as
it pertains to higher education) is to advance
the mission of the institution by raising money
for current operations and capital projects;
marketing the institutions to target audiences
and publics; and attracting the types and kinds
of students the institution desires. (R12-T1I)
(Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution)
Donor Cultivation and Solicitation
Successful institutions of higher education dedicate a
significant amount of time and resources toward the
development and solicitation of philanthropic gifts.
Through donor cultivation, fundraisers develop a strategy
to match the donor’s interest with the institution’s needs.
While donor cultivation is an on-going process, the
culmination of cultivation is solicitation. Seiler (2009)
suggests that there is a step-by-step cyclical process
involved in securing philanthropic support called The Fund
Raising Cycle (Figure 4.2).


97


Figure 4.2
The Fundraising Cycle © by Seiler (2009)

98

Seiler’s (2009) diagram represents how to effectively
plan and execute the fundraising process. Implementing a
process such as this is paramount to securing a gift.
Ultimately, this continuous process suggests that the
fundraiser and the donor build a relationship. Several
study participants acknowledged the importance of
relationship-building in their responses.
Know your donor. (R7-T2I) (Respondent 7
representing Tier 2 Institution)

Relationship building is the key ingredient to
long-term funding relationships. (R9-T1I)
(Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution)

It is all about relationship development and
being a matchmaker between donor and
program/university. (R5-T1I) (Respondent 5
representing Tier 1 Institution)

Understanding the institutional mission and
aligning institutional goals to the mission - in
addition it is about relationship building.
(R10-T2I) (Respondent 10 representing Tier 2
Institution)
99

Donors give to organizations because they want to
solve a problem or a challenge. Panas (2002) confirms that
“major donors give to bold, heroic, and audacious programs
rather than to needy institutions” (p. 39). Newman (2002)
advances Panas’ position stating, “As they travel along the
continuum of philanthropy, growing in stability, wealth,
and acculturation, diverse donors shift their charitable
motivations from sharing to helping and eventually to
investing” (p. 131). One participant in this study echoed
these sentiments.
Institutional initiatives drive philanthropy. We
raise money to support the institutional
initiatives which ultimately become the academic
blueprint of our organization. (R12-T1I)
(Respondent 12 representing Tier 1 Institution)
Impact of Philanthropy
Philanthropy is viewed by many as the highest level of
social responsibility. Private philanthropy can
significantly transform an institution and “substantially
increase the amount of discretionary dollars available to
institutional leaders” (Cheslock & Gianneschi, 2008, p.
210). The following respondents reported that philanthropy
closes the gap where government funds cease.
100

Philanthropy helps us better define and explain
our goals, showing how our activities benefit
society. R11-T1I) (Respondent 11 representing
Tier 1 Institution)

It is essential as most state and federal
entities only provide program support which
excludes endowments and capital campaign
projects. (R9-T1I) (Respondent 9 representing
Tier 1 Institution)

(Philanthropy) supports initiatives that are not
covered by public resources. (R8-T2I)
(Respondent 8 representing Tier 2 Institution)

Having private dollars enables us to support the
university’s highest priorities at a level far
above what state funding supports. (R17-T1I)
(Respondent 17 representing Tier 1 Institution)

It has become an institutional priority,
especially in the wake of diminishing state
resources for higher education. (R3-T2I)
(Respondent 3 representing Tier 2 Institution)
101

Private philanthrophy accounts for 65% of
institutional giving. Some alumni, and others who
have experienced the College in various ways,
contact with a student, printed materials, direct
mailing, targeted ask, or television. The impact
of private philanthropy, or as we term is
"transformative giving" is essential to our
success. (R18-T1I)
(Respondent 18 representing Tier 1 Institution)
A single respondent shared that “private funding and
investment income creates our University’s margin of
excellence” (Respondent 15 representing Tier 1
Institution). Toward that end, participants in this study
were asked about their philosophy of fund development and
how it impacts their institutions (Research Question 5;
Interview Question 10 and Research Question 4; Interview
Question 12). The analysis of this query resulted in the
emergence of three ways in which participants’ institutions
could be impacted through fundraising – a better caliber of
students will be attracted to the institution, funding is
increased through relationship-building, and the
institution can build capacity (See Table 4.7).


102

Table 4.7
Impact of Fund Development
Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
3
Themes Frequency Significant
Participant
Responses
Operations
Code 3:
Philosophy
and impact
of Fund
Development
Attract
better
caliber of
students
1 “My belief is that
fund development's
purpose (as it
pertains to higher
education) is to
advance the mission
of the institution
by raising money
for current
operations and
capital projects;
marketing the
institutions to
(table continues)
103


Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
3
Themes Frequency Significant
Participant
Responses
target audiences
and publics; and
attracting the
types and kinds of
students the
institution
desires.”
Increase
funding
through
relationship-
building
6 “Understanding the
institutional
mission and
aligning
institutional goals
to the mission - in
addition it is
about relationship
building."
(table continues)
104


Entrepreneurial
Operations Code
3
Themes Frequency Significant
Participant
Responses
Institutional
capacity
building
6 “Fund development
is more than
seeking financial
resources. It
requires an
understanding of
the institutional
priorities; an
understanding of
donor intent and
must include ways
to engage and
involve donors and
potential donors
for long-term
relationships.
There should be a
strategic, well-
crafted plan…”

Finally, in an effort to consider each leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation, the researcher queried
105

participants about the amount of private money the
institution raised and the last time the institution
engaged in a capital campaign (Research Question 1;
Interview Questions 16 & 17). Responses are documented in
Table 4.8.
Table 4.8
Funds Raised in Three Year Period (*Represents approximate
number)
RESPONDENT MOST RECENT CAPITAL
CAMPAIGN
AMOUNT OF MONEY
RAISED
1 Not sure $500,000
3 1991 $8,000,000*
5 2003 $8,500,000
7 Currently $6,000,000
8 Currently Not reported
9 2008 $15,000,000
10 2000 $3,000,000*
11 2008 $15,000,000*
12 Planning phase for first
campaign
$8,000,000
13 Currently $25,000,000
15 2007 $30,000,000*
16 2007 Not reported
17 2003 Not reported
18 Planning phase for first
campaign
$1,500,000

106
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATONS

INTRODUCTION

Chapter V presents a summary of the study and a
discussion based upon the findings as a result of the data
analysis. Concluding remarks will also address
implications of the findings and recommendations for
further research.
Summary
Raising private money at public Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) is critical to
institutional survival. This study focused on the level of
engagement among HBCU leaders in entrepreneurial
fundraising activities. The problem, as stated in Chapter
I, is that fund-raising efforts of both private and public
HBCUs linger significantly behind the established
fundraising programs at traditionally White institutions
(Tindall, 2007). Development professionals at HBCUs are
continuously challenged with how to advance their
institutions in a climate that has historically relied
almost wholly on public funding (Williams & Kritsonis,
2006). It is important to reiterate that public HBCUs are
supported by state government entities. It is with this
fact in mind that seeking private philanthropy has not been
107

a popular practice among public HBCUs. Without private
money, HBCUs minimize their chances for survival.
Specifically, this study was inspired by Clark’s
(1998) theory that suggests entrepreneurial activities help
to generate non-traditional revenues through (1) the
identification of innovative and profit-based self-
supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources;
and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional
income streams at the selected institutions. The following
research questions guided the study:
1. What connection exists between the Historically
Black College and University leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and the financial
stability of their institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black College and
University leaders value and carry out
entrepreneurial activities?
3. What factors are associated with best practices in
fundraising at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices
influence entrepreneurial activities for the purpose
of advancing the institution?
108

5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial
orientation of the administrator’s role by the
administrator?
In order to investigate why HBCU administrators have
not been as successful or aggressive in seeking private
philanthropy at a time when government funding is
shrinking, the literature review provided insight about
educational fundraising and its significance to HBCUs.
Findings
In order to capture background information, each
participant was asked to report the geographic location of
their institution, the institutional student enrollment,
their job title, the years of experience they had in the
position, their highest level of education, and the years
of service at their institution. This information was used
primarily to assist the researcher with organizing the data
collected. For example, the institutional enrollment
helped to determine whether an institution would be
categorized as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 institution. The student
enrollment established whether the institution would be
referred to as flagship or superior. Other variables such
as the job title, years of experience in the position,
highest level of education, and years of service at the
institution were used as ancillary data to subcategorize
109

results. Following is a description of what the researcher
discovered in each research question.
Research Question One
Each respondent was asked to choose characteristics
which best described them from a list of ten
entrepreneurial descriptive words. The list of
entrepreneurial descriptive words used were innovative,
creative, team builder, opportunist, risk taker, change
agent, competitive, visionary, proactive, and persuasive.
In reporting entrepreneurial characteristics, 92.9% of
respondents reported being innovative, 85.7% reported being
creative, 100% reported being team builders, 35.7% reported
being opportunist, 57.1% reported being a risk taker, 92.9%
reported being change agents, 71.4% reported being
competitive, 85.7% reported being visionaries, 100%
reported being proactive, and 92.9% reported being
persuasive.
Building teams and being proactive were the most
popular entrepreneurial characteristics among the ten
options. Common entrepreneurial characteristics among the
top three surveyed fundraising institutions were innovative
(75%), creative (75%), team builder (100%), change agent
(100%), competitive (75%), visionary (75%), proactive
(100%), and persuasive (100%). Only one of the four
110

respondents in this category reported being a risk taker
(See Table 4.9).
Table 4.9
Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Top Three Schools
Respondent 15 Respondent 13 Respondents
9 & 11
Amount
Raised
$30,000,000+ $25,000,000 $15,000,000
innovative 9 9 9
creative 9 9 9
team
builder
9 9 9 9
opportunist 9 9
risk taker 9
change
agent
9 9 9 9
competitive 9 9 9
visionary 9 9 9
proactive 9 9 9 9
persuasive 9 9 9 9

The examination of responses from the first research
question also revealed that the highest level of education
could be interrelated to the HBCU leader’s entrepreneurial
orientation. Two of three presidents have doctoral degrees
111

and one has a law degree. The president with the law
degree (Respondent 13) reported that his institution raised
$25 million in the last three years compared to Respondent
11 who raised $15 million and Respondent 8 who did not
report the amount of money raised. The significant
disparity between what was raised by Respondent 13’s
institution and Respondent 11’s institution are considered
further in the findings from Research Question 2 and
Research Question 5. There appeared to be no connection
between development executives’ level of education and the
amount of money raised. A development director (Respondent
9) with an undergraduate degree raised the largest amount
of money among his participating peers.
The researcher was surprised at the number of
institutional leaders (30.7%) who reported that they had
not participated in a strategic fundraising effort or that
they had not launched a capital campaign in ten or more
years. Given the shortfall in government support to public
higher education, it is nearly impossible to meet
institutional demands without private philanthropic
support. Respondent 13, who has proven his entrepreneurial
spirit, said that he is “full service”. Michael Lomax, the
“fundraising machine for private HBCUs” concurred in his
interview with Diverse Issues in Higher Education saying
112

that HBCUs should fundraise regardless of their
apprehensions (Stuart, 2009, p.6).
Research Question Two
Participants were asked to report the general
differences they perceived between university leaders and
business executives in order to determine the extent to
which they carry out entrepreneurial activities. Survey
responses showed that leaders believed it was more
difficult to get support at universities than businesses.
They also believed that businesses have more stringent
performance expectations and that more flexibility is
required of university leaders. Finally, some leaders
believed that there was minimal or no difference between
university leaders and business executives.
Having challenges with the donor community “buying in”
to the institutional vision was common among three study
participants. Two participants cited that businesses
expect a greater level of performance from their employees
than do university leaders. Two different participants
shared that university leaders have to be more flexible in
their leadership. The largest number of participants
thought there was little or no difference in the two types
of leaders.

113

Research Question Three
The factors associated with best practices in
fundraising were examined by the level of professional
development acquired by the leader and future strategies
they would like to incorporate in their advancement
initiatives. Each respondent had some additional training,
certification, continuing education, and/or professional
development. The researcher pondered why only four
respondents (Respondents 3, 8, 10 and 16) took advantage of
the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy’s training
provided by the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF) for
several years. Indiana University offers the most
comprehensive philanthropic academic program to
professionalize fundraising as an occupation. Through a
partnership with the Lilly Endowment and The Center on
Philanthropy at Indiana University, TMCF provides training
to development professionals from the 47 TMCF member
schools. Faculty members and instructors from the Center
of Philanthropy facilitate the credit-based training
program. The program is further enhanced by providing an
opportunity for development staff at the TMCF member
schools to work together, share skills and resources while
creating a network of fundraising talent (History of
114

Thurgood Marshall College Fund, Capacity Building, 2007,
¶1).
Research Question Four
Similar to Research Question 3, participants were
asked to share current strategies they utilized to raise
more money from private philanthropists in order to
determine how the institutions’ development practices
influence entrepreneurial activities. Additionally, the
manner in which leaders’ development practices influenced
entrepreneurial activities was measured by the amount of
professional advancement experience obtained by leaders and
the level of philanthropic impact on each institution’s
initiatives.
It was determined by the researcher that there was an
interrelationship between the factors associated with best
practices in fundraising and how the institutions’
development practices influence entrepreneurial activities.
For example, development professionals tended to have like
responses when reporting additional training they had to
prepare them for their positions and their professional
experience within the fields of fund development and
university advancement.


115

Research Question Five
The fifth research question considered respondents’
philosophy of fund development and whom the respondent
viewed as being responsible for fundraising to gauge their
perceptions of entrepreneurial orientation. In quoting the
J.F. Smith Group, fundraising project managers, one
respondent said that “fund-raising is a team effort—it
takes every person in the development office working
together to achieve your goals and objectives.” Another
respondent believed “that fund development's purpose (as it
pertains to higher education) is to advance the mission of
the institution by raising money for current operations and
capital projects; marketing the institutions to target
audiences and publics; and attracting the types and kinds
of students the institution desires.”
Given these and other responses by study participants,
the researcher determined that the surveyed HBCU
administrators do recognize themselves as being
entrepreneurially oriented. The reported perceptions of
entrepreneurial orientation among participants suggests
that there is an attitude among these leaders that embraces
a business-minded spirit. Every surveyed participant
shared a philosophy of fund development that could be
attributed to entrepreneurial orientation.
116

Conclusions
Administrators who completed the questionnaire shared
insightful information that will assist fellow HBCU leaders
in their quests to secure private gifts to supplement their
public funding. In Chapter III, the researcher noted
Johnsen’s (2005) position that the decline in public
support for colleges and universities mandates that these
institutions seek private funds as a matter of survival.
Results from the survey showed HBCU leaders acknowledge the
challenges they face in the midst of shrinking revenues
from public entities, and they shared initiatives they are
implementing to increase the level of private philanthropy
at their institutions. Initiatives undertaken by these
leaders include (1) donor cultivation and relationship
building to increase the financial stability of their
schools, (2) participating in entrepreneurial activities
that will encourage donors to invest in their institutions,
and (3) employing best fundraising practices to achieve
maximum fundraising results.
Results from this study consistently showed that there
was a shortage in staff in advancement offices. One
respondent put it best saying “it takes money to raise
money”, and raising money requires a reasonable number of
staff. Building a one-on-one relationship with donors
117

necessitates consistent contact with donors, and that means
having a reasonable number of staff to engage the donor
community. Donors are different, and they need to be
treated differently (Foote, 1986).
Barrett (2006) confirms that HBCUs need to engage in
appropriate planning to achieve fundraising results.
Strategic planning emerged as a priority among respondents
in this study. Activities such as matching institutional
needs with donor interests, involving students and alumni
in donor cultivation, and using technology to execute e-
philanthropy were identified as key strategies for
institutional advancement.
Best fundraising practices recognized by organizations
such as the Council for the Advancement and Support of
Education (CASE), the Association of Fundraising
Professionals (AFP), and The Center on Philanthropy at
Indiana University were mentioned as important professional
development vehicles. These organizations spend a
significant amount of time researching how to achieve the
maximum fundraising results. Participating in training
offered by these experts can only increase HBCU
administrators’ chances of raising more money. Through its
partnership with the Lily Foundation, The Thurgood Marshall
College Fund offers intensive training for member
118

institutes each year. Several administrators who
participated in the study did not report taking advantage
of this opportunity. This training is a valuable learning
experience that every member school fundraising
professional should obtain.
Recommendations
Based on this study, the following are suggestions for
increasing the engagement levels of HBCU leaders in
entrepreneurialism through fundraising:
1. HBCU leaders should develop and implement plans to
cultivate donors who have the capacity to make significant
contributions to their institutions.
2. HBCU leaders should begin to educate students
about the importance of philanthropy before they arrive to
campus.
3. HBCU leaders should use the Black church
fundraising model as an example of successful fundraising.
4. HBCU leaders should continue to implement
strategies that have proven to be successful fundraising
mechanisms.
5. HBCU leaders should identify creative ways that
will encourage donors to invest in their institutions. Get
to know your donor, and match the institution’s needs with
the donor’s interests.
119

6. HBCU leaders who have not engaged in a capital
campaign should, at a minimum, make plans to conduct a
campaign planning study and feasibility study.
Implications
Fund development is quite possibly the most important
activity that an HBCU administrator will undertake.
Without private dollars to support these institutions,
HBCUs will not be able to survive at a time when our
country is facing economic depression and consistent
declines in public funding. Most participants in this study
are implementing activities and practices that help them
realize incremental fundraising successes. Those
administrators who have led their institutions in
successful capital campaigns have done so because they have
exhibited entrepreneurial behavior. The entrepreneurial
engagement levels exhibited by these individuals are in
direct alignment with Clark’s (1998) description of
entrepreneurial leaders’ activities.
It is those leaders who did not know when their
institution participated in a capital campaign or those who
did not report the amount of money raised that could have
tough consequences ahead. Without fundraising
accountability from these leaders, those HBCUs are at risk
of failing.
120

Advancement and development offices at HBCUs often
lack the infrastructure needed to run successful
fundraising operations. Understanding the challenges these
institutions have with establishing or meeting fundraising
goals was important if there is to be improvement in
securing more private support. The researcher made several
attempts to gain participation from all eligible
participants but received feedback from some leaders that
they could not participate for various reasons. One
eligible administrator cited that she could not participate
because the leadership did not want to “look bad” among
peers. The researcher explained that this was a study
designed to gain knowledge to assist in HBCU institutional
advancement. In order for the public HBCU community to
increase its private fundraising, input from all
stakeholders is important.
Recommendations for Further Study
The examination of engagement levels of HBCU leaders
in entrepreneurialism through fundraising in this study
revealed the need to conduct further research.
Recommendations for further research are as follows:
1. A study could be conducted to include the public
HBCU presidents and chief development officers who were not
included in this study.
121

2. A study could be conducted comparing the
entrepreneurial engagement levels between public and
private HBCU leaders.
3. A study could be conducted comparing fundraising
at Tier One and Tier Two institutions.
4. A study could be conducted to identify the best
fundraising practices among all HBCUs.
5. A study could be conducted to determine the
engagement levels of other HBCU leaders not including the
presidents and chief development officers.
6. A study could be conducted to identify methods for
involving students in fundraising at HBCUs.
7. A study could be conducted to identify methods for
involving alumni in fundraising at HBCUs.
8. A study could be conducted comparing fundraising
between the Thurgood Marshall College Fund schools and the
United Negro College Fund Schools.







122

References
Anderson, E., & Moss, A. (1999). Dangerous donations:
Northern philanthropy and southern Black education,
1902-1930. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri
Press.
Barrett, T. G. (2006). How strategic presidential
leadership and institutional culture influenced
fundraising effectiveness at Spelman College. Planning
for Higher Education, 35(1), 5-18.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works:
Understanding success and failure in the college
presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, W., & Shapirio, H. (1998). Universities and their
leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Browning, J., & Williams, J. (1978). History and goals of
Black institutions in higher learning. In Black
colleges in America: Challenge, development and
survival (pp. 68-93). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Carson, E. D. (2001). Giving strength: Understanding
philanthropy in the Black community. Philanthropy
Matters, 2, 4.
123

Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state
appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The
case of voluntary support. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79(2), 208-229.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial
universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Cohen, R. T. (2006). Black college alumni giving: A study
of the perceptions, attitudes, and giving behaviors of
alumni donors at selected historically Black colleges
and universities. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Cook, W. B. (1997). Fundraising and the college
presidency in an era of uncertainty: From 1975 to the
present. Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 53-86.
Cooper, A., & Dunkelberg, W. (1988, Spring).
Entrepreneurs perceived chances for success. Journal
of Business Venturing, 97-108.
Corrigan, M. E. (2002). The American college president:
2002 edition. Washington: American Council on
Education.
124

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research
design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cultip, S. (1990). Fund raising in the United States:
Its role in America’s philanthropy. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Curti, M., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping
of American higher education. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Dingfelder, D. C. (2007). Exploring the dimensions of
entrepreneurial community colleges. Retrieved May 9,
2008, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Dunkelberg, W., Cooper, A. et.al. (1987). New firm growth
and performance. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, 307-321.
Ellison, C. G. (1991). Identification and separatism:
Religious involvement and racial orientation of Black
Americans. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 4.
Foote, E.T. (1986). The president’s role in a capital
campaign. Council for Advancement and Support of
Education,79-80.
Fundraising pressures plague HBCU presidents (2002,
September 26-October 2, 22). New York Amsterdam News.
125

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
History of association of fundraising professionals.
Retrieved July 12, 2008, from Association of
Fundraising Professionals Web site: http://afpnet.org
History of council for the advancement and support of
education. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from Association
of Fundraising Professionals Web site:
http://afpnet.org
History of Thurgood Marshall college fund. Retrieved June
10, 2007, from Thurgood Marshall College Fund Web
site: http://thurgoodmarshallfund.org
History of Tuskegee University. Retrieved August 11, 2008,
from Tuskegee University Web site: http://tuskegee.edu
Holloman, D. B., Gasman, M., & Anderson-Thompkins, S.
(2003). Motivations for philanthropic giving in the
African-American church: Implications for Black
college fundraising. Journal of Research on Christian
Education 12(2), 137-169.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research
and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods,
and strategies useful in the planning, design and
126

evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral
sciences. San Diego, CA: EdITS.
Johnsen, L. L. (2005). Understanding deliberative
conflicts that confront academic fundraisers: A
grounded theory study. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership
challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Kujovich, G. (1994). Public Black colleges: The long
history of unequal funding. The Journal of Blacks in
Higher Education, 2, 73-82.
Lee, T. (1999). Using qualitative methods in
organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Masterson, K. (2008). Howard U. assembles fund-raising
juggernaut. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 54.
Nealy, M. J. (2008) HBCU presidents take their case for
funding to congress. Diverse Issues in Higher
Education, 23, 35.
Newman, D. S. (2002). Opening doors: Pathways to diverse
donors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palys, T. (2003). Research decisions: Qualitative and
quantitative perspectives. Scarborough, ON: Nelson.
127

Panas, J. (2007). Asking: A 59-minute guide to
everything board members, volunteers, and staff must
know to secure a gift. Medfield, MA: Emerson &
Church.
Patton, S. L. (1993). The roles of key individuals. In M.
J. Worth (Ed), Educational Fundraising: Principles and
Practice (pp.3-9). Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.
Reaves, N. (2006). African-American alumni perceptions
regarding giving to historically Black colleges and
universities. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Rhodes, F. (1997). Successful fund raising for higher
education. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
Riggs, D. G. (2005). Entrepreneurial activities in
independent college and university presidents: A view
from the top. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest
Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Rowland, A. W. (1986). Handbook of institutional
advancement. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Schoenecke, M. (2005). A description of successful
fundraising programs in student affairs divisions.
Retrieved December 12, 2007, from ProQuest Information
128

and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Schinasi, G. J. (2004). Defining financial stability.
International Monetary Fund Working Paper #04/187.
Retrieved February 17, 2008, from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=879
012
Scott, L. V. (2000). A description of successful fund-
raising units at public historically Black colleges
and universities. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative
research. London: Sage.
Sears, J. (1990). Philanthropy in the history of American
higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Sieler, T. L. (2009). Roadmap to fundraising success.
Retrieved February 1, 2009, from The Center on
Philanthropy at Indiana University
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/TheFundRaisingSchool
/PrecourseReadings/roadmap_to_fundraising_success.aspx
129

Smith-Hunter, A. (2003, April). A psychological model of
entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business and
Economics, 1-11.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stuart, R. (2009) UNCF wrestles with new economy, old
issues. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23, 6.
Terrell M. C., & Gold, J. A. (Eds.). (1993). New roles
for educational fundraising and institutional
advancement (pp. 17-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher
education: Defining the essentials. Journal of Higher
Education 59(1), 2-21.
Tindall, N. T. J. (2007). Fund-raising models at public
historically Black colleges and universities. Public
Relations Review, 33 (2), 201-5.
Waddell, J. (1992). A study of fund raising at the
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education (NAFEO) affiliated public black colleges and
universities. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from
130

ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
White House initiative on historically Black colleges and
universities. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from U.S.
Department of Education Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-
index.html
White House initiative on historically Black colleges and
universities. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from U.S.
Department of Education Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-
index.html
Williams, M. G., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). National
implications: Why HBCU presidents need entrepreneurial
focus. National Journal: FOCUS On Colleges,
Universities, and Schools 1(1), 1-5.
Williams, M. G., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Raising more
money at the nation’s historically Black colleges and
universities. National Journal for Publishing and
Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3 (1), 1-6.
Winegardner, K. (2004). The case study method of scholarly
research. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from
http://www.tgsa.edu/online/cybrary/case1.html
131

WordNet 3.0. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from
http://dictionary.reference.com
Worth, M. J. (1993). Educational fundraising: Principles
and practice. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.




132




















APPENDICES


























133


APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORM

Participant Letter of Consent Form

Date



Dear ___________________:

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

Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am requesting your
voluntary participation in the study. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from
the study at any time, there will be no penalty. In the event that this study is published, a
pseudonym or “ghost name” will be used to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of your
name and affiliated institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with no
identifying information available.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact me at
832.498.8733 or Dr. Kritsonis at 281.550.5700.

Sincerely,



Monica G. Williams

By signing below, you are giving consent to participate in the above study.



__________________________ _______________________ _______________
Signature Printed Name Date

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

134


APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS

Interview Questions

Background Questions
1. In which state is your institution located?

2. What is your institutional enrollment?

3. What is your title?

4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?

5. What is your highest level of education?

6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position? (RQ 3)

7. How long have you been employed at this institution?

8. Please circle the following words you feel best describe you: (RQ 1)
innovative risk taker proactive
creative change agent persuasive
team builder competitive
opportunist visionary

Philanthropic Cultivation
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and
university advancement? (RQ 4)

10. What is your philosophy of fund development? (RQ 5)

11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe
responsible for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual
names) (RQ5)

12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? (RQ4)

13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
(RQ4)

14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private
philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of
control (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)? (RQ3)
135


15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university
leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? (RQ2)

Giving
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private
philanthropic sources? (RQ1)

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign? (RQ1)





































136

APPENDIX C

IRB APPROVAL LETTER


Of f i ce of Research and Devel opment Voi ce. 936. 261. 1588
Pr ai r i e Vi ew, Texas 77446-4149 FAX 936. 261. 1599
Anderson Hal l , Room 104 mcshel t on@pvamu. edu

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

DATE: Apr i l 13, 2009 APPROVED
MEMORANDUM
TO: Moni ca Wi l l i ams, Doct or al candi dat e - COE- Principal Investigator
William Kritsonis, PhD – Committee chair/advisor -EDLC
FROM: Mar ci a C. Shel t on, PhD, di r ect or , r esear ch r egul at or y compl i ance
SUBJECT: I nit ial Review and Det erminat ion

PROTOCOL NUMBER: 2008- 1101- 101 I ni t i al Revi ew
TI TLE: Engagement Levels of Historically Black College and University Leaders in
Entrepreneurialism through Fundraising
REVI EW CATEGORY: Ful l Boar d Rev i ew – Revi ew er : DE Wi l son ( 11/ 10/ 2008)
APPROVAL PERI OD: November 10, 2008 t hr ough November 9, 2009

Determination was based on the following Code of Federal Regulations:

45 CFR 46.110 (b) (1) – Some or all of the research appearing on the list and found by the
reviewer(s) involve no more than minimal risk.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

(7) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on
perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and
social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation,
human factors evaluation or quality assurance methodologies.

(Note: Some research in this category may be exempt from the HHS regulations for the protection of
human subjects. 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (2) and (b) (3). This listing refers only to research that is not exempt.)


Funded: - N/A
Provisions:
This research project has been approved for one (1) year. As principal investigator, you assume the
following responsibilities:

1. Continuing Review: The protocol must be renewed each year in order to continue with the research
project. A Continuing Review along with required documents must be submitted 30 days before the
end of the approval period. Failure to do so may result in processing delays and/or non-renewal.
2. Completion Report: Upon completion of the research project (including data analysis and final
written papers), a Completion Report must be submitted to the IRB Office.
3. Adverse Events: Adverse events must be reported to the IRB Office immediately.
4. Amendments: Changes to the protocol must be requested by submitting an Amendment to the IRB
Office for review. The Amendment must be approved by the IRB before being implemented.
137


APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FORM
1. HBCU Leader Participant Letter of Consent Form

1. Dear HBCU Leader:

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

Because of your involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am
requesting your voluntary participation in the study. If you choose
not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there
will be no penalty. In the event that this study is published, a
pseudonym or “ghost name” will be used to ensure confidentiality
and anonymity of your name and affiliated institution. Any findings
will be presented in aggregate form with no identifying information
available.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please
contact me at 832.498.8733 or Dr. Kritsonis at 281.550.5700.

Sincerely,

Monica G. Williams

By clicking "agree to participate" link below, you are giving consent
to participate in the above study.


Questions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this
study may be directed to Prairie View A&M University’s Institutional
Review Board Regulatory Compliance Officer, Marcia C. Shelton at
936.261.1588.
Agree to participate
Do not wish to participate
Dear HBCU Leader: I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research
project under the direction of Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, professor in
138

the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at Prairie
View A&M University. Specifically, I will investigate the engagement levels
of Historically Black College and University presidents and development
officers in entrepreneurialism through fundraising. Because of your
involvement in the advancement of HBCUs, I am requesting your
voluntary participation in the study. If you choose not to participate or to
withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. In the
event that this study is published, a pseudonym or “ghost name” will be
used to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of your name and affiliated
institution. Any findings will be presented in aggregate form with no
identifying information available. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding this study, please contact me at 832.498.8733 or Dr. Kritsonis
at 281.550.5700. Sincerely, Monica G. Williams By clicking "agree to
participate" link below, you are giving consent to participate in the above
study. Questions regarding your rights as a subject/participant in this
study may be directed to Prairie View A&M University’s Institutional
Review Board Regulatory Compliance Officer, Marcia C. Shelton at
936.261.1588.


HBCU Presidents and Advancement Questionnaire
Exit this survey
2. Default Section

1. In which state is your institution located?
No response

2. What is your institutional enrollment?
What is your
institutional
enrollment?
Undergraduate
students
No response

Graduate
students
No response

Combined
student
enrollment
(undergraduates
and graduates)
No response

139

3. What is your title?
No response

4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
No response

5. What is your highest level of education?
No response

6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this
position?
No response

7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
No response

8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you.
(Please choose all that apply)
Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please
choose all that apply) innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
opportunist
visionary
140

9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund
development and university advancement?
No response

10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
No response

11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you
believe have responsibility for fund development? (Please specify
titles and exclude individual names)
No response

12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
No response

13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private
philanthropists?
No response

14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from
private philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces
outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
No response

141

15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a
university leader/executive and the role of traditional business
executives?
No response

16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from
private philanthropic sources?
No response

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital
campaign?
No response


Prev

Done























142

APPENDIX E

PARTICIPANT RESPONSES


Browse Responses

Displaying 1 of 18 respondents
<< Prev Next > > Jump To:
1
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 129.71.198.254

Response Started: Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:20:24
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:04:34
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
West Virginia
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 2,648
3. What is your title?
Director of Institutional Advancement & Planning
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
5
5. What is your highest level of education?
MS
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
Many years of volunteer fundraising Past employment as Proposal Manager for Eng Firms
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
2 yr, 3 mo
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
persuasive
team builder
competitive
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Major Gifts Officer Director
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Show donors how they can make a difference in studetns' lives and help them do that.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President Director of Public Relations Director of Alumni Affairs Deans
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Major source of scholarships
143

13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Create projects around which donors can be attracted
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
Moves management
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Few; I came from the corporate world. Now have ability to tap spiritual/philosophical motivation to give
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
$500,000
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
Not sure


144



Browse Responses

Displaying 2 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
2
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 68.62.173.167

Response Started: Thu, Apr 23, 2009 8:50:10
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:11:29
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
No Response
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
No Response
3. What is your title?
No Response
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
No Response
5. What is your highest level of education?
No Response
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
No Response
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
No Response
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
No Response
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
No Response
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
No Response
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
No Response
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
No Response
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
No Response
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
No Response
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
No Response
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
145

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
No Response



146



Browse Responses

Displaying 3 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
3
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 198.85.58.140

Response Started: Fri, Apr 24, 2009 12:01:11
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:12:08
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
North Carolina
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 3000
Graduate students - 100
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 3100
3. What is your title?
Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
3
5. What is your highest level of education?
M.A.
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
Certification, Fundraising Management, I.U. Center on Philanthropy; certification, estate planning, National
Institute of Estate Planning; John Brown Limited, one year series in Major and Planned Giving
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
7 years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
opportunist
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Assistant Director, Corporate Relations; Director, Major and Planned Gifts; Associate Vice Chancellor for
Development; Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Fund development is more than seeking financial resources. It requires an understanding of the institutional
priorities; an understanding of donor intent and must include ways to engage and involve donors and
147

potential donors for long-term relationships. There should be a strategic, well-crafted plan for each
constituency group to maximize opportunities to build resources and to sustain long-term relationships.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement Director of Development Annual Fund Coordinator Development
officer, schools and programs Develompent Officer(2) Alumni Director Assistant Alumni Director
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
It has become an institutional priority, especially in the wake of diminishing state resources for higher
education.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
1. Understanding the interests of a potential donor; 2. Researching the potential donor's giving patterns 3.
Determining whether the donor has an interest in supporting higher education. 4. Identifying the natural
partner to make introductions, if necessary.
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
More face-to-face visits within the region and throughout the United States.
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Less authority to make personnel decisions/changes that will benefit the institution. Stronger metrics should
be imposed to make sure that employees are meeting annual fundraising goals.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
Approxmately $8 million.
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
1991.



148



Browse Responses

Displaying 4 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
4
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 138.238.244.121

Response Started: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 10:23:20
AM
Response Modified: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 10:23:57
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
No Response
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
No Response
3. What is your title?
No Response
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
No Response
5. What is your highest level of education?
No Response
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
No Response
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
No Response
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
No Response
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
No Response
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
No Response
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
No Response
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
No Response
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
No Response
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
No Response
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
No Response
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
149

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
No Response


150



Browse Responses

Displaying 5 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
5
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 67.66.219.252

Response Started: Mon, Apr 27, 2009 11:36:49
AM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:15:57
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Texas
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 9,100
3. What is your title?
Vice President University Advancement
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
1 year in current position
5. What is your highest level of education?
MBA
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
professional development through PRSA, CASE, state university group (NASULGC)
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
1 year
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
30+ years in marketing and communications work in development communications
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
it is all about relationship development and being a matchmaker between donor and program/university
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President, Provost, VP Student Affairs, deans, department and program heads, advancement staff, faculty,
student leaders
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
it should support institutional prioities rather than drive them. The match should be made between donor
interests and institutional priorities/initiatives
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
engage them with the students and programs, involve them in the development of programs
151

14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
expansion of advisory councils to all colleges--requires staffing for volunteer management
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
lead by consensus and cooperation spanning areas that are not in direct control rather than top down
corporate mode
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
$8.5 million
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
2003



152



Browse Responses

Displaying 6 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
6
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 129.207.110.71

Response Started: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:04:26
PM
Response Modified: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:04:42
PM


1. In which state is your institution located?
No Response
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
No Response
3. What is your title?
No Response
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
No Response
5. What is your highest level of education?
No Response
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
No Response
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
No Response
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
No Response
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
No Response
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
No Response
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
No Response
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
No Response
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
No Response
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
No Response
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
No Response
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
153

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
No Response


154



Browse Responses

Displaying 7 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
7
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 204.152.134.2

Response Started: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:23:43
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:18:38
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
PA
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 1,973
Graduate students - 551
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 2,524
3. What is your title?
Vice President, Development and External Relations
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
28
5. What is your highest level of education?
DM (ABD)
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
No Response
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
8 years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
All aspects.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Know your donor.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
All
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
155

Directly impacts.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Board and volunteer relationships. Donor research Alumni, parents and friends
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
none
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Universities are process based and business are performance based.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
$6 million
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
currently.


156



Browse Responses

Displaying 8 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
8
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 168.16.162.29

Response Started: Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:45:13
PM
Response Modified: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 11:04:08
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Louisiana
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 4,754
Graduate students - 407
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 5,161
3. What is your title?
President
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
5
5. What is your highest level of education?
Doctorate
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
Provost, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean and Associate Dean for College of Science, Director and
Associate Director of College of Science, Chemistry Department Chair
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
5 years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Lauded as “someone who can elevate the academic environment, grow research opportunities, raise
philanthropic dollars, and represent the campus to external constituencies,” Dr. Judson has been credited
with improving campus finances, diversity, retention and graduation rates, fundraising efforts and sponsored
research during his tenure as a higher education administrator.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
"The pursuit of excellence requires much change--transformative change--and (that) we must be guided by
157

high expectations, not influenced by low expectations others may have of us."
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
Advancement staff, alumni staff, alumni volunteers
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Supports initiatives that are not covered by public resources.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Build university programs that that encourage confidence among external funders
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
With funding from Title III, the institution published a master development plan that identifies initiatives to
increase organizational capacity. Among them is space to house the University Advancement, Alumni Affairs
and "all functions associated with expanding the institutions funding base."
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Must have buy-in from many different constituencies.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
Currently



158



Browse Responses

Displaying 9 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
9
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 165.95.111.254

Response Started: Fri, May 1, 2009 1:07:55
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:22:54
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Texas
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 6250
Graduate students - 1850
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 8100
3. What is your title?
Director of Development
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
5yrs
5. What is your highest level of education?
BA
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
Certificate of Fundraising Management through the Center on Philanthropy
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
5yrs
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
opportunist
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
5yrs
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Relationship building is the key ingredient to longterm funding relationships
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President Vice Presidents Director of Development Grant Writer Prosopect Researcher Gifts & Grants
Coordinator Alumni Relations Director
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
159

It is essential as most state and federal entities only provide program support which excludes endowments
and capital campaign projects
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Grant proposals Direct Mail Personal solicitation E-solicitation
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
Increasing staffing levels to accommodate an annual giving department and planned giving department
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Only difference is I work for a non-profit. Aside from that, I'm responsible for revenue quotas & goals,
deadlines, staffing etc...
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
15 million
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
We just completed our first CC in December 2008


160



Browse Responses

Displaying 10 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
10
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 70.157.5.99

Response Started: Sun, May 3, 2009 5:56:04
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:24:36
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Mississippi
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 3,700
Graduate students - 200
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 3,900
3. What is your title?
Interim Vice President, University Relations
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
9
5. What is your highest level of education?
Doctoral Candidate
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
CASe, Indiana University of Philanthropy, Thurgood Marshall, UNCF, NAFEO
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
5 years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
formal as well as informal training
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Understanding the institutional mission and aligning institutional goals to the mission - in addition it is about
relationship building
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President, Executive Cabinet, Deans, Chairs,faculty , athletics
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Tremendously. It closes the gap where federal state funds cease.
161

13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
One-on-one cultivation and soliciation, direct mail, call center and class agent program.
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
Limited staffing, it takes money to raise money,
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
I don't beleive there are any diefferences.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
in excess of 3 million
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
9 years ago


162



Browse Responses

Displaying 11 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
11
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 67.201.99.2

Response Started: Tue, May 5, 2009 9:37:33
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:25:41
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Texas
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 6,000
Graduate students - 2,600
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 8,600
3. What is your title?
President
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
Six Years
5. What is your highest level of education?
Ph.D.
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
Provost for 8 years; Vice Provost for 6 years; Director of Academic Program for 4 years; tenured faculty
member for 20 years
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
Six Years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
proactive
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Required to raise external funds in most of my Administrative jobs since 1986.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
It is essential to the goals of the Institution.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President, VP for Development, Deans, Department Heads.
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Philanthropy helps us better define and explain our goals, showing how our activities benefit society.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
1. Develop a personal relationship with them. 2. Educate them about the strengths of my University. 3. Work
closely with them when submitting a proposal.
163

14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
No Response
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
My perception: I must spent a great deal of time in having people "buy in" to the things that I want to do.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
My University has raised somewhere around $15 million.
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
We had a Capital Campaign from 2003-2008.


164



Browse Responses

Displaying 12 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
12
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 198.146.87.123

Response Started: Tue, May 12, 2009 8:23:23
AM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:26:04
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Tennessee
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 7112
Graduate students - 1926
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 9038
3. What is your title?
vice president for University Relations and Development
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
six
5. What is your highest level of education?
M.Ed.
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
• Association of Fundraising Professionals’ Faculty Training Academy, 2008; • National Assoc. of
Government Communicators’ Communication School, 2007; • Executive Leadership Institute, Indiana
University Center on Philanthropy, 2002; • Executive Management Institute, Vanderbilt University, Owens
Graduate School of Management, 2002; • Taxation Seminar, Crescendo Interactive, Inc., 2000; • Planned
Giving; Accounting and Auditing; Management, NACUBO Professional Development, 2000.
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
three years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
opportunist
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Since 1987, I have worked as a consultant to community based organization and as a development
professional for higher education institutions. I have raised more than $350 million. I have extensive
165

experience in planning and managing capital campaigns; and planned giving, major gifts and annual fund
programs. My expertise includes creating and implementing development plans and recruiting and
managing volunteers. I have successfully generated philanthropic support from individuals, corporations,
foundations, and industry associations. Throughout my career, I have received various awards and
distinctions, including the Association of Fundraising Professional’s highest professional designation:
Advanced Certified Fund Raising Executive credential. I continue to teach and lecture at seminars, classes,
and conferences sponsored by the Association of Fundraising Professionals and universities and colleges.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
My belief is that fund development's purpose (as it pertains to higher education) is to advance the mission of
the institution by raising money for current operations and capital projects; marketing the institutions to target
audiences and publics; and attracting the types and kinds of students the institution desires.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
Fund development is everyone in the organization's responsibility, specifically the president, who is the chief
fundraiser; the vice president for University Relations and Development, who is the chief development
officer; and the entire development staff which includes, the associate vice president (1); the assistant vice
presidents (2) the foundation's executive director; the director of Annual Giving, the associate director of
Development; the associate director of Annual Giving; the assistant director of Annual Giving; the board of
trustees (13); the prospect researcher; the donor relations manager; and the associate director of Alumni
Relations
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Institutional initiatives drive philanthropy. We raise money to support the institutional initatives which
ultimatley become the academic blueprint of our organization.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
1. A signature event; 2. An annual campaign; 3. A major gift and planned giving program; 4. A corporate and
foundation relations program; 5. A donor relations program.
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
Our strategies are successful, there are no new ones I would employ. If I had more resources (i.e., budget
and personnel) I could raise more money.
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
None. As a leader, my responsibility is to galvanize and direct the creative and intellectual capacities of the
staff to achieve our core purpose. This is the universal goal of leadership.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
$8 million. This represents a 100% increase over the previous three years.
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
We are planning the first one.


166



Browse Responses

Displaying 13 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
13
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 143.132.197.241

Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:33:45
AM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:29:14
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Miwssissippi
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 7000
Graduate students - 1500
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 8500
3. What is your title?
Prez
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
10
5. What is your highest level of education?
J.D.
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
25 years experience
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
10
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
opportunist
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
PArt of my job is to raise money.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Selling investment opportunities.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
167

Dierctor of Institutional Advancement Assistant Director for Development
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
More and more
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
research potential, establish relationship, ask
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
hire more people to raise money
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
I am full service
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
$25m
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
In one now



168



Browse Responses

Displaying 14 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
14
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 216.228.137.147

Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 2:34:56
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 2:36:40
PM


1. In which state is your institution located?
No Response
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
No Response
3. What is your title?
No Response
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
No Response
5. What is your highest level of education?
No Response
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
No Response
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
No Response
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
No Response
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
No Response
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
No Response
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
No Response
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
No Response
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
No Response
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
No Response
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
No Response
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
169

17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
No Response



170



Browse Responses

Displaying 15 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
15
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 152.8.40.210

Response Started: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 3:30:31
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:30:58
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
North Carolina
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 8,829
Graduate students - 1,559
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 10,388
3. What is your title?
Associate Vice Chancellor of Development and University Relations
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
15 months
5. What is your highest level of education?
Undergraduate degree
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
15 years in Development as a development director (Emory University and University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill)
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
15 months
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Annual giving, major gift fundraising, planned giving
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
JF Smith Groups says it best, "Fund-raising is a team effort – it takes every person in the development office
working together to achieve your goals and objectives."
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
Development Operations (research, stewardship, alumni records, gift coordinators); Annual Giving Program;
171

Major Gift Program; Corp. & Foundation Relations; University Relations; Planned Giving; Government
Relations; Alumni Affairs
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Private funding and investment income creates our University's margin of excellence.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Cultivation, engagement, use of events, addition to boards, publicity, create naming opportunities, planned
or combination giving and stewardship.
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
Build a better University Event program, create a Development Communication Director positions and other
writers; more resources for corporate and foundation fundraising and more frontline fundraisers
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Bureaucracy
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
Approximately $30M
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
2000-2007


172



Browse Responses

Displaying 16 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
16
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 158.103.0.1

Response Started: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 10:45:10
AM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 11:31:27
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
Maryland
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 6500
Graduate students - 500
3. What is your title?
Vice President, Institutional Advancement
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
5
5. What is your highest level of education?
Bachelor's
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
More than 20 years expereince in corporate sales and marketing Certificate in Fundraising Management
from the Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University Numerous CASE A and AFP seminars
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
9 years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
innovative
risk taker
proactive
creative
change agent
persuasive
team builder
competitive
visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Major Gifts Officer Director of Development
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Never let challenging economic conditions dampen or hinder your efforts. Keep asking.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President and Board Deans and Department Chairs Director of Development Annual Fund Manager
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
173

Biggest impact on providing additional financial assistance for students
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Constant outreach
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
Unable to hire development officers because of financial constraints
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Differences are not that great.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
2002-2007


174



Browse Responses

Displaying 17 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next > > Jump To:
17
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 152.12.8.31

Response Started: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 8:09:40
AM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 10:59:48
AM


1. In which state is your institution located?
North Carolina
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 6,442
3. What is your title?
Vice Chancellor for University Advancement
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
7
5. What is your highest level of education?
BA +
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
No Response
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
No Response
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
Innovative
Proactive
change agent
team builder
Visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Development Officer Consultant Foundation Director
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
No Response
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
Advancement Staff Chancellor Deans Program managers Volunteers (Trustees, Foundation Directors, etc)
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Having private dollars enables us to support the university's highest priorities at a level far above what state
funding supports
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
Social Research Networking, referrrals Query Letters
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
175

Enhanced prospect research More face to face meetings outside of NC involving Chancellor and board
members
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
No Response
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
No Response
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
2003



176



Browse Responses

Displaying 18 of 18 respondents
< < Prev Next >> Jump To:
18
Go > >

Response Type: Normal Response Collector: Williams HBCU Presidents and
Advancement Dissertation (Web Link)
Custom Value: empty IP Address: 199.219.183.167

Response Started: Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:06:56
PM
Response Modified: Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:28:54
PM


1. In which state is your institution located?
New York
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
Undergraduate students - 6,300
Graduate students – 0
Combined student enrollment (undergraduates and graduates) - 6300
3. What is your title?
Dean of Institutional Advancement and Development
4. How many years of experience do you have in this position?
2
5. What is your highest level of education?
Masters Degree
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for this position?
Certificate programs, and doctoral work
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
13 years
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe you. (Please choose all that apply)
Innovative
risk taker
Proactive
Creative
change agent
Persuasive
team builder
Competitive
Opportunist
Visionary
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and university
advancement?
Most of my work has been in the advancement area having served as a policy advisor to the President,
responsible for strategic planning and initiatives. Fund development was recently added to my portfolio. I
have worked of board development, marketing and communications, planned giving, alumni giving,
economic development and a $15 mill capital campaign.
10. What is your philosophy of fund development?
Fund development is a outcome of product development and marketing, donor cultivation, gift stewardship
177

and donor appreciation. Furthermore, fund development is the result of engaging prospective donors and
stakeholders in strengthening the College brand.
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe have responsibility for
fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual names)
President - Lead fundraising Dean of IAD Board Directors Provost, Deans, Chairpersons, faculty Students
Adminstrators Community Successful fundraising involves all College internal and external constituencies
collaborating to make the CASE for giving.
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives?
Private philanthrophy accounts for 65% of institutional giving. Some alumni, and others who have
experienced the College in various ways, contact with a student, printed materials, direct mailing, targeted
ask, or television. The impact of private philanthropy, or as we term is "transformative giving" is essential to
our success.
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
The #1 strategy is prospect research. We are always looking to see our community's potential for giving.
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are
unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (i.e. financial constraints, policy
restraints, etc.)?
One strategy I would like to employ is the launch of an international campaign. Of course restraints are
human and fiscal resources.
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university leader/executive and
the role of traditional business executives?
Much of the work I do is similar to the that of a traditional business executives. However, the most important
distinction is that I am an educator. I must remai committed to integrated students into the process of
fundraising so that they remain connected as alumni, and engaged as learners. My office is often times full
of volunteers and interns, this maintains vibrancy and connectedness to our student, while helping to stay
focused on the goal of producing leaders.
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised from private philanthropic sources?
we have raised a total of 1.5mill dollars from private philanthrophy.
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a capital campaign?
We are in the quiet phase of our first capital campaign. Our official launch date is Oct 2010. Our goal is to
raise 15mil by 2015.

178


APPENDIX F

LIST OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
United States & Virgin Islands
Historically Black Colleges and Universities


Alabama
Four-Year Public
Alabama A&M University
Alabama State University
Four-Year Private
Concordia College Selma
Miles College
Oakwood University
Selma University
Stillman College
Talladega College
Tuskegee University
Two-Year Public
Bishop State Community College
Shelton State Community College, C.A. Fredd Campus
Gadsden State Community College, Valley Street
J.F. Drake State Technical College
Lawson State Community College
Trenholm State Technical College
Arkansas
Four-Year Public
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Four-Year Private
Arkansas Baptist College
Philander Smith College
Delaware
Four-Year Public
Delaware State University
179



District of Columbia
Four-Year Public
University of the District of Columbia
Four-Year Private
Howard University
Florida
Four-Year Public
Florida A&M University
Four-Year Private
Bethune-Cookman College
Edward Waters College
Florida Memorial University
Georgia
Four-Year Public
Albany State University
Fort Valley State University
Savannah State University
Four-Year Private
Clark Atlanta University
Interdenominational Theological Center
Morehouse College
Morehouse School of Medicine
Morris Brown College
Paine College
Spelman College
Kentucky
Four-Year Public
Kentucky State University
Louisiana
Four-Year Public
Grambling State University
180

Southern University A&M College
Southern University at New Orleans
Four-Year Private
Dillard University of Louisiana
Xavier University
Two-Year Public
Southern University at Shreveport
Maryland
Four-Year Public
Bowie State University
Coppin State College
Morgan State University
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Michigan
Two-Year Private
Lewis College of Business
Mississippi
Four-Year Public
Alcorn State University
Jackson State University
Mississippi Valley State University
Four-Year Private
Rust College
Tougaloo College
Two-Year Public
Coahoma Community College
Hinds Community College, Utica
Missouri
Four-Year Public
Harris-Stowe State University
Lincoln University
181

North Carolina
Four-Year Public
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
North Carolina A&T State University
North Carolina Central University
Winston-Salem State University
Four-Year Private
Barber-Scotia College
Bennett College
Johnson C. Smith University
Livingstone College
Shaw University
St. Augustine's College
Ohio
Four-Year Public
Central State University
Four-Year Private
Wilberforce University
Oklahoma
Four-Year Public
Langston University
Pennsylvania
Four-Year Public
Cheyney University of Pennsylvania
Lincoln University
South Carolina
Four-Year Public
South Carolina State University
Four-Year Private
Allen University
Benedict College
Claflin University
182

Morris College
Voorhees College
Two-Year Public
Denmark Technical College
Two-Year Private
Clinton Junior College


Tennessee
Four-Year Public
Tennessee State University
Four-Year Private
Fisk University
Knoxville College
Lane College
Lemoyne-Owen College
Meharry Medical College
Texas
Four-Year Public
Prairie View A&M University
Texas Southern University
Four-Year Private
Huston-Tillotson University
Jarvis Christian College
Paul Quinn College
Southwestern Christian College
Texas College
Wiley College
Two-Year Public
St. Philip's College
Virginia
Four-Year Public
Norfolk State University
Virginia State University
183

Four-Year Private
Hampton University
Saint Paul's College
Virginia Union University
Virginia University of Lynchburg
West Virginia
Four-Year Public
Bluefield State College
West Virginia State University
U.S. Virgin Islands
Four-Year Public
University of the Virgin Islands
184

CURRICULUM VITAE FOR MONICA WILLIAMS

Monica G. Williams, M.A.
Curriculum Vitae
May 2009


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


EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

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


PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

November 2008 – Current
HoustonWorks USA – Houston, TX

Director of Resource Development – Develop a comprehensive, integrated resource
development plan including but not limited to awareness activities, annual gift campaign,
stewardship plan, planned giving program, donor database development, and using current
staff as development ambassadors; coordinate and manage a portfolio of principal and major
gift prospects and provide administrative fundraising support to the CEO; work with the CEO
and other members of the Executive Team to plan major events that will create awareness and
opportunities for gifting; assist with the development of various HWUSA publications
including the annual report and other publications that will encourage gifting opportunities;
direct human resource staff and functions including but not limited to recruiting, benefits and
compensation, development, disciplinary action, position definition, and appraisal systems;
participate in formulating and administering company policies and developing long-range
goals and objectives for employee performance; provide status reports to the Chief Executive
Officer as requested, and respond to requests for information from internal and external
constituents.

June 2007 – November 2008
Rice University – Houston, TX

Director of Development – Planned, organized, and managed the development of major gift
support for university fundraising priorities; qualification, identification, cultivation,
solicitation, and stewardship of major donor prospects capable of gifts at the $100,000+ level;
managed a portfolio of 100 major gift prospect households; outlined major gift objectives and
185

fundraising activities for assigned region; engaged prospects in a donor-centered manner that
moves the prospect along a continuum of gifting and assisted the prospect in achieving
philanthropic interest; worked with senior University officials, prospects, and key volunteers
to identify major prospects; prepared the way for solicitation by the President and other
senior campus administrators (including athletics, deans, and directors of academic units),
members of the Board of Trustees, or other senior level volunteers; responsible for
developing and executing a campaign specific fundraising strategy for program priorities and
schools in conjunction with other key constituents; recorded portfolio activity through contact
and call reports, and communicate regularly with colleagues about activity; develop and
oversee an effective program for recognition, promote alumni relations in the assigned
geographic region; identify and recruit major gift prospects to host local events.

November 2005 – May 2007
Prairie View A&M University – Prairie View, TX

Associate Vice President for Development – Lead and directed first-ever $30 million capital
initiative in University’s 130-year history; planned and strategized the cultivation, solicitation
and stewardship of major gift prospects and donors/contributors; handled inquiries for
planned giving prospects; assembled documentation needed for planned gifts; managed
performance improvement process through identifying and analyzing important
organizational and individual staff performance gaps, planned for future performance
improvement, designed and developed cost-effective and ethically justifiable interventions to
close performance gaps, implemented the interventions, and evaluated the financial and non-
financial results; through management of the Office of Alumni Relations, worked with
Director of Alumni Affairs to maximize alumni relationships and cultivate gifts; enhanced the
reputation and appreciation of the University among all constituencies including students,
faculty, parents, alumni, friends, foundations, and corporations; oversaw the development
staff and lead all areas of development including annual giving, planned giving, corporation
and foundation relations and development operations; personally managed a portfolio of
pacesetter and major gift donors and prospective donors that yielded $22.5 million; enlisted,
trained, and managed volunteers; worked with the Office of Institutional Relations and Public
Service to plan major events to create awareness and opportunities for gifting; assisted the
Director of University Relations with the development of various University publications
including the annual report and other publications that encouraged gifting opportunities;
worked cooperatively with University vice presidents and deans to cultivate gifts for
unfunded priorities.

May 2004 – November 2005
Prairie View A&M University – Prairie View, TX

Director of Development – Responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the
development office including human resource management and day-to-day management
of the University’s first-ever Capital Campaign; responsible for the success in meeting
fundraising goals in support of selective programs and projects the University advocated
and/or sponsored on a sustaining basis; planned, implemented and managed, with
Campaign Counsel, the Prairie View A&M University Capital Campaign and other
fundraising strategies and events; developed and standardized systems for prospect
review, prospect management, and proposal development; managed campaign gift-
accounting policies and provided specific assessments of campaign progress; planned and
implemented annual objectives as well as measured financial and programmatic success
with the President and CEO; monitored and reported on the campaign budget; performed
186

prospect research; identified prospective funding sources; initiated contact with
prospects; actively pursued key relationships to secure funding or referrals to other
sources; followed up on action items and managed competing deadlines; managed donor
relations, files, records, and recognition programs; ensured compliance with all charitable
giving laws including documentation; researched and wrote grant proposals appropriate
for the University and tracked success of grants pursued and received; assisted in event
planning to include sponsor packages, solicitation, recognition of sponsors and the
achievement of fundraising goals for each event; represented organization at events to
raise awareness and gain new supporters; made presentations to solicit support from
alumni, other individuals, organizations, foundations, etc.

August 2002 – May 2006
Texas Southern University – Houston, TX

Adjunct Faculty - Provided instruction in the area of Business and Professional
Communication and Human Performance in an effort to teach students how to develop an
awareness of basic communication theory, the communication process, and
organizational communication models; Students were able to apply improved listening
skills; demonstrate conceptual understanding of various types of effective traditional and
electronic resumes; demonstrate an understanding of effective techniques for both the
interviewee and the interviewer; gain experience in exercising team membership skills;
gain awareness of effective leadership styles and leadership skills; demonstrate effective
participation in planning and presenting a team project; and develop a knowledge and
practical understanding of effective public speaking skills.

April 2003 – April 2004
Texas Southern University – Houston, TX

Associate Director of Development – Developed and refined the base of donors and
prospective donors to TSU; designed and executed the annual fund campaign; oversaw
the standardized campus-wide systems for prospect identification and review, donor and
prospect management (cultivation and stewardship), and major gift proposal
development; assisted in donor research, major gift prospective donor identification and
recordkeeping; and drafted written proposals for major gift solicitations in consultation
with the Vice President for Development and the campus fundraising staff.

June 2002 – March 2003
Neighborhood Centers Inc. – Houston, TX

Director of Community Based Initiatives –Responsible for the oversight of a $1,000,000
capital campaign to redesign/reconstruct the LaPorte Community Center; launched a plan
to generate $20,000,000 for NCI operations for fiscal year 2003; direct the activities and
administration of the center based program services; determine, allocate, and manage
human and financial resources of the community based programs to meet agency and
contract objectives; serve as an effective liaison between NCI and other social service or
community programs which serve as target communities; keep abreast of policy issues
that will affect the delivery of community based program services; work diligently with
advisory boards to secure community support for social service delivery; maintain
relationship with community center advisory boards through monitoring of recruitment,
meetings, and communications; ensure that community center implementation plans are
reviewed with advisory boards; integrate and maximize the network of services provided
187

by components of community based initiatives, implementation, and procedures; conduct
and coordinate community based activities targeted at communities for the purpose of
encouraging participation in NCI Community Based Programming; participate on boards
that are advisory in nature at the local, state, and national levels; develop community
assessment and planning tool designed to assist community center area managers and
other program managers with strategic planning; assist other agency directors with
philanthropic initiatives designed to support the redevelopment of community centers;
resolve questions and complaints from external community regarding program services;
research, analyze, and draft policy briefs addressing external and internal factors
affecting program services; develop, initiate, and promote interagency communication
with social services and various networks; educate and campaign for various community
support and serve as a facilitator to create information and needs exchange that support
the missions, goals, and objectives of NCI and community based services; design and
prepare reports in response to agency, volunteer, and funding source needs; prepare,
review, and otherwise actively participates in the effective implementation and
monitoring of budgets pertaining to program operations in conjunction with agency
financial services staff.


March 2001 – June 2002
Neighborhood Centers Inc. – Houston, TX

Director of Program Operations –Responsible for the oversight of an $18,000,000 capital
campaign to reconstruct and redevelop the Ripley Campus Community Center in the East
End of Houston; wrote Requests for Proposals that generated more than $9,000,000 for
community based program operations; direct the activities and administration of the
center based program services; determine, allocate, and manage human and financial
resources of the community based programs to meet agency and contract objectives;
administer, supervise, and direct assigned programs through staff of professionals and
support employees; serve as an effective liaison between the agency and other social
service or community programs which serve as target communities; keep abreast of
policy issues that will affect the delivery of community based program services; maintain
effective structure for the advisory boards in order to maximize input from volunteers;
design and prepare reports in response to agency, volunteer, and funding source needs;
prepare, review, and otherwise actively participates in the effective implementation and
monitoring of budgets pertaining to program operations in conjunction with agency
financial services staff.

December 1998 – March 2001
Neighborhood Centers Inc. – Houston, TX

Community Center Administrator -Responsible for overall administration of community
center programs and operations whose primary function is to enhance the lives of
economically disadvantaged youth and families through comprehensive social services;
determine local community needs and program opportunities through demonstrated
knowledge of community; develop and maintain relationships with area service
providers; select and ensure implementation of services/programs to meet community
needs; oversee, monitor, and coordinate all center programs; assist in program planning
and development; promote the community center and initiate and implement marketing
of programs and enrollment; recruit, train and place volunteers at the community center;
represent the agency in the community in promotion and planning of local events;
188

administer relevant contracts and agreements as they apply to center operations; ensure
maintenance of records and submit timely and accurate reports in accordance with agency
policies and procedures; maintain relationship with Advisory Boards through recruitment,
meetings and communications; monitor and implement portions of the budget related to
center operations; enforce the agency policies on EEO and safety/health.

October 1998– December 1998
The Brown Schools/Harris County Juvenile Justice Charter Schools – Houston, TX

Judicial Outreach for Literacy Training (JOLT) Manager-Handled overall administration
of a literacy program designed to assist economically disadvantaged families and juvenile
offenders with increasing literacy skills in order to become gainfully employed; focused
on high academic standards with aligned curriculum to support a higher order of thinking
in the whole family unit; offered parent training sessions that would often include
interactive learning disciplines with their children; encouraged parents to assist their
children with innovative ways in which to stay in school and the incentives associated
with doing so.

July 1997 – June 1998
Sylvan At Work / Sylvan Learning Systems - Houston, Texas

Center Director- Focused on serving remedial educational programs to TANF recipients
in an effort to improve academic standards in adult education; selected/hired/trained
appropriate professionals for center positions; managed Director of Education, Career
Counselor, Computer Specialist and all other instructors effectively and appropriately;
developed pertinent workshops for staff development days; created, monitored and
modified staff schedules; conducted staff meetings for all employees for the purpose of
assuring adherence to all instructional and administrative policies; performed 90day, 6
month and annual reviews of personnel; demonstrated a positive rapport and genuine
concern for participants and programs; established and maintained face-to-face
relationships with participants and/or management from Texas Department of
Health/Human Services and Texas Workforce Commission; held conferences with
instructors and/or Director of Education regarding student progress, as is necessary for
timely contacts; established and maintained relationships with key community
organizations; increased company awareness of Sylvan Learning Systems/Sylvan At
Work by actively establishing relationships and making presentations to company
employees; administered diagnostic testing and summary of progress for each participant;
developed and revised curriculum.

August 1996 – July 1997
LEAP, Incorporated - Houston, Texas

Instructor-Prepared high school and adult -aged students for a broad-based curriculum
which would enable them to pass the General Educational Development (GED) test;
taught the strategies involved in learning the basic concepts of math, literature, writing,
science, and social studies.

August 1995 – August 1996
E.E. Worthing Senior High School, Houston Independent School District. - Houston, Texas

189

English Teacher – Reinforced the importance of using the English language to high
school students in grades 9-12; taught the strategies of the writing process to ensure that
students passed the TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) test at the exit level;
ensured that students progressed successfully through a broad-based curriculum which
would eventually enable them to read, reason and communicate effectively; think
creatively and critically; appreciate and apply knowledge of humanities and fine arts; use
effective interpersonal skills and view issues from a global perspective; established and
cultivated excellent rapport with parents.

August 1994 – July 1995
George Junior High School - Rosenberg, Texas

English Teacher – Taught students the English language using highly motivational
techniques to provide structure, direction and approval to individual needs in skills
development; helped organize, develop and implement strategies for TAAS (Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills) preparation; organized and structured English
development programs; established rapport with parents.

OTHER EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

-Presented conference workshops and seminars to peer professionals in development
-Presenter, Thurgood Marshall College Fund
-Speaker for United Way Campaign
-Excellent communication skills, both written and verbal
-Presented conference workshops and seminars to economically disadvantaged youth and
their educators
-Community advocate for Crime Victims Association
-In-kind tutor for multiple community literacy programs
-Co-chair, 2002 United Way Capital Campaign

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS

The Art and Science of Donor Development Certification – Advancement Resources
The Art of Fundraising I: The Fundamentals Certification – Rice University
The Art of Fundraising II: Advanced Principles & Practices Certification – Rice University
Principles and Techniques of Fundraising Certification – Center on Philanthropy
Planned Giving: Getting the Proper Start Certification – Center on Philanthropy
Developing Major Gifts Certification – Center on Philanthropy
Interpersonal Communication for Fundraising Certification – Center on Philanthropy
Nonprofit Management Institute Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.
The Care and Feeding of a Volunteer Board Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.
Organizational Development and Strategic Planning Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.
Administration and Fiscal Management Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.
Process Mapping and Improvement Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.
Internal Evaluation Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.
True Colors® Training – Neighborhood Centers Inc.



190

AFFILIATIONS

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Member
Fred C. Johnson Foundation Board Member
Metamorphosis Women’s Empowerment Conference Board Member
Greater Houston Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Immediate Past Board Member
Association of Fundraising Professionals Member
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education Member
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Member
Houston Area Urban League Member
National Association of Black Journalists Member

PUBLICATIONS

Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2006). Raising more money at the nation’s
historically black colleges and universities. National Journal for Publishing and
Mentoring Doctoral Student Research 3(1).

Williams, M.G. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). National implications: Why HBCU
presidents need entrepreneurial focus. National Journal: FOCUS On Colleges,
Universities, and Schools 1(1).

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

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

EDUCATION

Prairie View A&M University, College of Education, Prairie View, Texas
ABD for Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership
Dissertation Title: Engagement Levels of Historically Black College and University
Leaders in Entrepreneurialism Through Fundraising
Grade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0

Texas Southern University, College of Arts and Sciences, Houston, Texas
M.A. in Communications
May 2002
Grade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0

Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas
B.A. with concentration in News Editorial Journalism/English
August 1994
Grade Point Average: 3.2 / 4.0
191


Willowridge High School, Missouri City, Texas
December 1984
Honors Graduate

Sponsor Documents

Recommended


View All
Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close