This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 05:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community CollegeJournal of Research andPracticePublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

EMERGING TRENDSAND CRITICAL ISSUESAFFECTING PRIVATEFUND-RAISING AMONGCOMMUNITY COLLEGESKaren Luke Jackson, J. Conrad Glass JrPublished online: 15 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Karen Luke Jackson, J. Conrad Glass Jr (2000)EMERGING TRENDS AND CRITICAL ISSUES AFFECTING PRIVATE FUND-RAISINGAMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGES, Community College Journal of Researchand Practice, 24:9, 729-744, DOI: 10.1080/106689200750034496

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/106689200750034496

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views

of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

EMERGING TRENDS AND CRITICAL ISSUESAFFECTING PRIVATE FUND-RAISING AMONGCOMM UNITY COLLEGES

Karen Luke JacksonDepartment of Leadership and Educational Studies, AppalachianState University, Boone, North Carolina, USA

J. Conrad Glass, Jr.Department of Adult and Community College Education, NorthCarolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Community college presidents have indicated that private fund-raising is ofincreasing importance to their institutions. The purpose of this study was to identifyand rank order emerging trends and critical issues affecting private fund-raisingamong community colleges. Development of�cers representing 42 North Carolinacommunity colleges participated in the study. The greatest number of participantsidenti�ed trends related to business and industry, the need for private funds,and increased competition. Leadership, image, and the role of the development of�cerwere the critical issues categories ranked as most important. Recommendations areoffered to inform planning and decision making, stimulate dialogue about policyissues, and frame questions for future research.

Researchers and practitioners have explored emerging trends andcritical issues affecting various aspects of higher education (Brooks,Joss, & Newsome, 1997; Cohen, 1993; Green, 1994; Johnson &Meyerson, 1994; Lorenzo & Banach, 1992; Moquin, 1995; Wilson, 1993;Wood, 1993). Private fund-raising, however, has not been one of theareas of interest, perhaps because the practice has been held in suchlow esteem. As a result, studies have not kept pace with the growthin fund-raising activities (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Grace, 1993).Research exploring trends and issues related to resource developmentand private fund-raising at community colleges is particularly limited(Daniel, 1985; Mecca, 1988).

Address correspondenc e to Karen Luke Jackson, PO Box 2078, Hendersonville,North Carolina 28793, USA. E-mail: kjackson@ ioa.com

729

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24: 729–744, 2000Copyright # 2000 Taylor & Francis1066-8926/00 $12.00 + .00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

In contrast, community college leaders have indicated that privatefund-rising is of increasing importance to their institutions (Adams,Keener, & McGee, 1994; Collins, Leitzel, Morgan, & Stalcup, 1994;Deegan, 1992; Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994; McCabe, 1996; McClenney& Mingle, 1992; Mercer, 1994; Miller, 1994; Scott, 1991). Although many2-year public institutions have turned to educational foundations fornew sources of revenue, their private fund-raising efforts havegenerated less income than those of senior public and privateinstitutions and have not been integrated into planning andmanagement (Clements, 1996; Glass & Jackson, 1998a).

Conducting research that informs practice is dif�cult because of therapid changes occurring in both resource development and highereducation. Practitioners argue that researchers ignore topics thataddress their needs, and researchers complain that practitioners failto use �ndings to enhance their fund-raising efforts (Grace, 1993;Hollister, 1993).

Hollister (1993) observed that dominant research models assumethat �ndings and recommendations will automatically enablepractitioners to accomplish established ends. This is seldom the case.He proposed an alternative approach, based on the proposition thatresource development of�cers already have a substantial base ofknowledge, and suggested that practitioners and researchers engagein ongoing dialogues, �rst clearly recording what is happening, thenframing questions that need to be studied.

Building on Hollister’s (1993) alternative approach, this studyengaged North Carolina community college resource developmentpractitioners in identifying and rank ordering emerging trends andcritical issues affecting private fund-raising. The North CarolinaCommunity College System consists of 58 public community collegesand the North Carolina Center for Applied Textile Technology. All59 institutions engage in private fund-raising (Gatewood, 1994; Lamme,1995; North Carolina Community College System, 1996; Wolf, 1996).

During �scal year 1995–1996, however, only 0.4% of the revenue forNorth Carolina community colleges came from sources other thanfederal, state, and local governments, sales and services, or tuition.In addition, only �ve institutions reported the amount of private giftsthey received to the Council for Aid to Education (1996). Identifyingand rank ordering trends and issues can provide information usefulto practitioners seeking to strengthen private fund-raising effortsand to researchers framing questions for further research.

730 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

M ETHOD

Forty-two individuals identi�ed by North Carolina community collegepresidents as having primary responsibility for private fund-raising attheir respective institutions participated in this Delphi study. TheDelphi procedure is a group interview process that focuses a panelof experts on speci�c questions through a series of rounds ofquestionnaires. This technique seeks convergence of opinion and isapplicable when informed judgement is needed for problem solving,policy making, or planning (Coates, Coates, Jarratt, & Heinz, 1986;Deshler & Hagan, 1991; Dobbert & Kurth-Schai, 1992; Kreitner &Kinicki, 1992; Uhl, 1983). Participants who need to communicateand be a part of the decision-making process are selected as panelmembers. The responses of the group represent a more accurate picturethan those of a single expert (Green, 1994; Uhl, 1983).

For this study, data were collected from November 1996 throughMarch 1997 and analyzed in two rounds. A Delphi committee of threeformer presidents of the National Council for Resource Developmentreviewed drafts of �rst- and second-round questionnaires for clarityand content (Uhl, 1983).

In Round 1, participants were given the researchers’ de�nition ofemerging trends and critical issues. They were then asked to respondto two open-ended questions:

1. What emerging trends will have the greatest impact on privatefund-raising by North Carolina community colleges in the next 5years?

2. What critical issues are currently impacting private fund-raising byNorth Carolina community colleges?

The researchers analyzed the data generated by using steps outlined byTesch (1990) and a matrix design recommended by Miles andHuberman (1994). The names of categories emerged from the contentanalysis of textual responses.

In Round 2, respondents were asked to rank (a) statements inemerging trends categories, (b) statements in critical issues categories,and (c) the categories into which critical issues had been grouped bythe researchers. Group medians, group ranks, ranges, and frequencydistributions were calculated for each. Rank ordering was used toallow participants to prioritize the relative importance of the identi�edtrends, issues, and issues categories (Ewing, 1987; Heath & Nelson,1986).

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 731

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Delphi procedure provides for con�dential responses andanonymous reporting. The procedure may encourage participants toraise issues that might not be articulated in face-to-face focus groupsand thus may yield more accurate information about conditions inthe �eld. In addition, group statistical responses ensure that theopinions of all respondents are represented (Deshler & Hagan, 1991;Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992; Uhl, 1983).

Incompleteness, inaccuracies, or discrepancies in the data wereaddressed by noting issues or trends appearing in the literature reviewand absent from the data. Conversely, trends or issues appearing in thedata and not reported in the literature review were noted. This form oftriangulation enhanced the �ndings.

FINDINGS

Emerging Trends

Emerging trends were de�ned as ‘‘a series of social, technological,economic or political characteristics that can usually be estimatedor measured over time’’ (Mecca, 1988, p. 246) and ‘‘de�ne the contextwithin which organizations function’ ’ (Morrison, 1995, n.p.). Emergingtrends identi�ed in Round 1 were grouped into 10 categories. Thecategories, the number of participants identifying trends in eachcategory, and the number of trends identi�ed in each category arepresented in Table 1.

In Round 2, participants were asked to rank order emerging trendswithin each category. The statement or statements ranked mostimportant in each category are shown in Table 2. Trends related to(a) business and industry, (b) need for private funds, and (c)competition were identi�ed by the greatest number of respondentsas those that will affect future private fund-raising by North Carolinacommunity colleges.

Trends related to business and industry have been reportedextensively in the literature. Corporations were the second-largestcontributors to community colleges in 1995 (Council for Aid toEducation, 1996). In addition, one of the missions of communitycolleges—to train and retrain the workforce—creates the opportunityto attract corporate gifts (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Bryce, 1993;Keener, Ryan, & Smith, 1991; Ryan, 1993). A concern expressed bydevelopment of�cers in this study was that reductions in funds forindustrial training will reduce donations to North Carolina communitycolleges.

732 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The growing need for private funds identi�ed by 20 participatsincluded 11 items ranked in Table 3. The need for private contributionsto support workforce training, ranked third by North Carolinadevelopment of�cers, did not appear in the literature. Instead, thefocus was on increasing contract training to generate revenue.Soliciting operating funds, a trend noted by Green (1994) in her studyof the Virginia Community College System, ranked near the bottomof the list generated by North Carolina development of�cers.

Increased competition for private funds was identi�ed as the thirdmost important trend. This topic is discussed extensively in literatureaddressing private fund-raising by educational institutions and othernonpro�t organizations (Catanzaro & Miller, 1994; Council for Aidto Education, 1996; Duronio & Loessin, 1991; Johnson & Meyerson,1994; Mixer, 1993). In this study, North Carolina community collegedevelopment of�cers identi�ed new foundations being establishedby hospitals, public schools, and other public entities and the growingnumber of nonpro�t agencies conducting fund-raising activities as themost important sources of competition. North Carolina universitiesand private educational institutions were ranked next, whereasnational nonpro�t organizations were ranked least important. Theserankings add weight to the suggestion by Bender and Edwards (1988)that private fund-raising by community colleges might be moreanalogous to community-based rather than traditional educationalfund-raising models.

TABLE 1 Emerging Trends: Categories, Number of Participants Identifying Trends, andNumber of Trends Identi�ed (Round 1)

Participants No.Category (n ˆ 42) trends

Business and industry 24 9Need for private funds 20 11Competition 20 8Technological 14 9Public funding 14 8Nature of private fund-raising 13 10Economic 11 9Demographic 10 6Donor pool 10 9Political 8 9

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 733

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 2 Emerging Trends: Statement or Statements Ranked Number 1 in EachCategory (Round 2)

Category Statementa

Business and industry Community colleges must develop �nancial partnershipswith business and industry that combine tax fundingwith private support.

Need for private funds Student �nancial aid, including scholarships that addressneed and merit.

Competitionb Hospitals, public schools, and other public entities are creatingprivate foundations to �ll void left by reduced federalfunds.

There is a growing number of and increased fund-raisingactivities by other nonpro�t agencies.

Technological b Technological change impacting every industry will createtraining needs for which businesses and industries arewilling to pay.

Accelerated changes in technology will require hugeamounts of investment in infrastructure, hardware, andsoftware for community colleges to provide access andremain current.

Public funding Historical track record of insuf�cient funding by state. Noprospect of increases and possible future reductions.

Nature of private Fund-raising will be linked to the performance of thefund-raising institution.

Economicb Increasing cost of higher education. More families will seek‘‘affordable’’ education at community colleges as tax ratesreduce funds available for education.

Personal economic well-being. Stable or increasing incomeand purchasing power.

Perceptions of overall state of economy and con�dence inimmediate future. If economy is unstable, individuals areafraid to give.

Demographic Serving students at either end of spectrum (college transferto developmental) will stretch resources.

Donor poolb Donor pool will shift from large institutional givers toindividuals, small businesses, entrepreneurs, andprivate foundations with greater wealth.

Wealthy elderly are a potential source of private donations.Politicalb Welfare reform creating need for more workforce training.

Demands for more effective utilization of governmentresources.

Changes in tax laws that limit or do away with taxdeductions for charitable gifts.

a Statements from respondents varied from sentences to short phrases and arepresented in original form.

b In these categories, multiple statements tied for the Number 1 ranking.

734 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Critical Issues

Critical issues were de�ned as problems, challenges, opportunities,barriers, or concerns (Camillus & Datta, 1991; Stacey, 1992; Wood,1993) ‘‘that are likely to effect major changes in the policies, functionsor practices of North Carolina community colleges’’ (Wood, 1993, p. 18).Critical issues identi�ed in Round 1 were grouped into 10 categories.The categories, the number of participants identifying issues in eachcategory, and the number of issues identi�ed in each category arepresented in Table 4.

In Round 2, participants were asked to rank critical issues withineach category and then to rank the categories. The rank order ofthe statement or statements ranked most important in each categoryand the categories are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

In the leadership category, the most important issue was the role ofthe community college president. Numerous books, articles, andstudies have pointed out that community college presidents are thechief fund-raisers for their institutions (Bock & Sullins, 1987; Dempsey,1992; Fisher, 1989; Fisher & Koch, 1996; Glandon & Keener, 1994; Glass& Jackson, 1998b; Vaughan, Mellander, & Blois, 1994). In Duronio andLoessin’s (1993) case study of educational institutions thatoutperformed fund-raising effectiveness models, presidentialleadership was noted as one of four characteristics consistentlypresent. The other three were (a) institutional commitment tofund-raising, (b) entrepreneurial activities, and (c) leadership of the

TABLE 3 Rank Order of Needs for Private Funds (Round 2)

Rank order a Need

1 Student �nancial aid, including scholarships which address needand merit

2 Technology infrastructure, computers, and software3 Workforce training4 Major equipment—other than technology infrastructureb

4 Endowmentsb

6 Major campus improvement—buildingsb

6 Professional development for aging faculty and staff who need tolearn how to use technologyb

8 Day care services for single mothers9 More programs, classes, and instructors

10 Operating fundsb

10 Adult basic education and developmental coursesb

a 1ˆ most important.b Statement tied with statement above or below for same ranking.

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 735

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

chief development of�cer. The issue of presidential leadership infund-raising is not new. However, because of its high ranking in thisstudy, it merits much greater attention among presidents of NorthCarolina community colleges.

The second-highest ranked leadership issue revolved aroundfoundation board members and community college trustees. At manycommunity colleges, board development is weak. Foundation membersand trustees do not understand their respective roles and theimportance of private fund-raising for their institutions. Some areuncomfortable asking donors for money. The issue of whether too manytrustees serve on foundation boards, however, was ranked low. Theemerging con�ict between foundation boards and community collegetrustees in British Columbia and California (Deas, 1994) was not anissue of concern among the participating North Carolina communitycollege development of�cers.

Smith (1993) offered image and identity as possible reasons that2-year public institutions lag behind their 4-year counterparts infund-raising efforts. It is therefore not surprising that image wasthe second-highest ranked category. The most important image issuefound in this study was the perception that community colleges areadequately funded by state and county governments. Interestinglymissing from the category was a direct emphasis on linking missionwith development efforts, a strong theme found in the literature(Hooks & Kelley, 1990; Nahm & Zemsky, 1993; Ryan, 1994). The needto clearly communicate the community college mission to donorswas ranked Number 5.

TABLE 4 Critical Issues: Categories, Number of Participants Identifying Issues, andNumber of Issues Identi�ed (Round 1)

Participants No.Category n ˆ 42 issues

Image 26 10Solicitations 18 10Management 13 10Leadership 10 9Development of�cer 7 10Technology 7 8North Carolina Community College System 7 8Donors 6 9Resources 6 5Alumni 6 5

736 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Issues related to development of�cers were ranked third inimportance. Within that category, the position of the developmentof�cer within the institution was ranked most important. Respondentsadvocated elevating the position of development of�cer to senior leveland involving the development of�cer in institutional planning anddecision making. Strong leadership from the development of�cerand a tie between development and planning functions were found

TABLE 5 Critical Issues: Statement or Statements Ranked Number 1 in Each Category(Round 2)

Category Statementa

Image There is a perception that community colleges are adequatelyfunded by state and country governments.

Solicitations Community colleges have not tapped planned giving. Theyneed more sophisticated investment and planned givingstrategies.

Management The demand for accountability from citizens and legislatorsabout how gifts are utilized is increasing. Being goodstewards is the key to success.

Leadership Community college presidents need to understand thecomprehensive nature of resource development and itssigni�cance to their institutions.

Development of�cer The position of development of�cer needs to be elevated tosenior level, and development of�cers need to be involvedin institutional planning and decision making.

Technologyb Community colleges need to use every technologicaladvantage to get more effective performance fromresources available.

Technology will be used increasingly to manage foundations.North Carolina Subordinate status of North Carolina Community College

Community System among North Carolina educational leaders andCollege System legislators.

Donorsb Donors must see community colleges as partners who canhelp them achieve outcomes they desire, not justinstitutions concerned for their own survival.

Donors are besieged with requests and are dividing theircharitable dollars among more causes.

Resources Community college trustees and presidents need torecognize that solicitation of private support requires acommitment of resources and staff.

Alumni Community college alumni are not as loyal as alumni ofsenior institutions.

a Statements from respondents varied from sentences to short phrases and arepresented in original form.

b In these categories, multiple statements tied for the Number 1 ranking.

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 737

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

in previous studies to be factors critical to fund-raising success(Baxter, 1990; Brumbach, 1994; Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993; Duronio& Loessin, 1993; Glandon & Keener, 1994).

Many of the top-ranked statements in the remaining 7 categoriesalso have appeared in articles related to private fund-raising. Formanagement, the most important issue is accountability (Duronio &Loessin, 1991; Nichols, 1995; Scott, 1991). Ethical issues, currentlybeing discussed extensively in professional fund-raising journals,ranked only Number 6 of 10. The use of consultants, observed by Daniel(1985), did not appear as an issue of concern in this study.

Seeing donors as partners was identi�ed as the most importantcritical issue in the donors category. The statement that donors thinkthey can get ‘‘ripped off’ ’ by the nonpro�t sector ranked leastimportant. The growing distrust that has resulted from fraud andscandals (Mixer, 1993) may not have affected North Carolinacommunity colleges as much as other nonpro�t organizations.

Recognition by community college trustees and presidents thatsolicitation of private support requires commitment of resourcesand staff was ranked most important in the resources category. Thisissue is supported by studies that have found that successfulfund-raising depends on a strong institutional commitmentdemonstrated by the availability of resources to support thefund-raising program (Brumbach & Bumphus, 1993; Koelkebeck, 1994;Loessin & Duronio, 1993).

The most important issue in the Solicitations category was that oftapping planned giving, a new avenue of soliciting private supportadvocated by Edwards and Tueller (1991). In the technology category,

TABLE 6 Rank Order of Critical Issues Categories (Round 2)

Rank ordera Category

1 Leadership2 Image3 Development of�cer4 Management5 Donors6 Resources7 Solicitations b

7 Technologyb

9 Alumni10 North Carolina Community College System

a 1ˆ most important.b Category tied with category above or below for same ranking.

738 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

top-ranked issues included using technology to maximize performanceand to manage foundations. Soliciting and accepting charitable giftsthrough E-mail, discussed extensively in trade journals, ranked asthe least important issue. Observations about paperless and cashlesstransactions and soliciting and accepting donations through electronictransfer (Martin, 1993; Nichols, 1995) were not of immediate concern toparticipants in this study.

Participants did not consider community college alumni to be asigni�cant resource. This corroborates earlier reports that communitycolleges have not been able to depend on alumni as a base on which tobuild private fund-raising campaigns (Council for Aid to Education,1996; Keener et al., 1991).

The least important category to participants was critical issuesrelated to the North Carolina Community College System. The mostimportant item in this category was the System’s subordinate statusamong the state’s educational leaders and legislators. This issuerelates as much to image as to System affairs. In addition to beingleast important, this category contained the greatest number ofstatements with which participants disagreed.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although rankings were used to prioritize trends and issues, widedisparity was evident in the rankings assigned. For example, 142,or 83% , of the 171 statements were assigned a ranking of 1 by oneor more participants. Also, some top-ranked issues, such as thestatement that trustees are ignorant about private fund-raising, hada large number of participants who disagreed.

These disparities indicate that some emerging trends and criticalissues may be speci�c to certain community colleges in North Carolina,whereas others are of statewide concern. Coates and Jarratt (1988)found that certain issues need collective action, whereas others needindividual institutional responses. Such is the case in this study.

Therefore, the following implications for practice, which re�ecttrends and issues identi�ed by North Carolina development of�cers,need to be considered in the context of particular institutional or statesettings. They are offered to inform planning and decision making, tostimulate dialogue about policy issues, and to frame questions forfuture research:

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 739

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

. Community colleges need to assume and/or maintain a leadershiprole in economic development and forge �nancial partnerships withlocal businesses and industries to attract greater private �nancialsupport. The ability to forge these partnerships may require more�exibility on the part of individual institutions and the eliminationof cumbersome administrative procedures.

. Community colleges will not be able to successfully compete forprivate donations without strong leadership. A betterunderstanding of resource development; its signi�cance to theinstitution; and the speci�c roles of the president, trustees, andfoundation directors in raising private funds is essential.Professional development opportunities are needed to educatecommunity college leaders about resource development and howto raise funds for their institutions.

. The most important issue identi�ed in the Image category that mustbe overcome is the misconception that community colleges areadequately funded by state and county governments. Closely relatedis the ‘‘small potatoes’’ image and second-class stigma 2-yearinstitutions face when soliciting private contributions. Theperception of adequate funding is perpetuated by a lack ofinformation about what the true costs of training a workforceare and by publicity about community colleges as ‘‘affordable,’ ’which sometimes translates into ‘ ‘second-class.’ ’ Participantssuggested that recognition of community college students andgraduates who are skilled, valuable employees would positivelyaffect private fund-raising. In addition, collaborative partnershipswith public schools and universities that improve the image ofcommunity colleges should be explored.

. The role of the development of�cer and the position that individualoccupies within the institution critically affect fund-raising success.Community college presidents should consider elevatingdevelopment of�cers to senior-level administrators within theirinstitutions and involve them in institutional planning and decisionmaking.

. Community college foundations that have not already done soshould consider initiating planned giving programs to attractprivate donations from the wealthy elderly. Simple steps such asbequests in wills, naming the foundation the bene�ciary of lifeinsurance policies, and life estates in real property should bepursued. Although planned gifts are not immediately availablefor current needs, the long-term implications of soliciting suchgifts are enormous. Smaller institutions could share a plannedgiving of�cer on a regional basis to work with sophisticated

740 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

deferred-giving packages. Consideration also needs to be given atthe state level to hiring attorneys with expertise in planned givingwho could consult with development of�cers and local legal counselto help structure planned gifts for donors.

. Solicitation of community college alumni, if undertaken, should notfollow the model used by 4-year institutions. Instead, 2-yearinstitutions should seek new, creative approaches that could beshared with colleagues if they prove successful in generatingprivate funds.

. The amount raised should be reported each year to the Council forAid to Education. Consistent data about performance in this areahave not been available because of the lack of reporting by 2-yearinstitutions. Research will continue to be inaccurate until morecommunity colleges report their fund-raising performance forcomparison with other educational institutions and nonpro�torganizations.

REFERENCES

Adams, K., Keener, B., & McGee, E. A. (1994). Going public with private fund-raising:Community colleges garner fairer share of support. Community College Journal,65, 39–42.

Baxter, V. L. (1990). Role of leadership in the development of successful Californiacommunity college foundations: A case study of �ve California community collegefoundations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 2361A.

Bender, L. W., & Edwards, J. E. (1988). Planned and deferred giving: An untappedresource for community colleges. Community, Technical, and Junior CollegeJournal, 58, 22–24.

Bock, D. E., & Sullins, W. R. (1987). The search for alternative sources of funding:Community colleges and private fund-raising. Community College Review, 15, 13–20.

Brittingham, B. E., & Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fund-raising in highereducation (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: GeorgeWashington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brooks, J. B., Joss, K. L., & Newsome, B. M. (1997). North Carolina’s community colleges:The connection to the workforce. Community College Journal of Research andPractice, 21, 387–396.

Brumbach, M. A. (1994, December). The chief development of�cer: A job analysis.Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.

Brumbach, M. A., & Bumphus, W. G. (1993). The fundamentals of community collegefund-raising. Community College Journal, 63, 14–19.

Bryce, H. J. (1993, August). A community college president’s guide to corporatecontributions. Leadership Abstracts, 6, 1–2.

Camillus, J. C., & Datta, D. K. (1991). Managing strategic issues in a turbulentenvironment. Long Range Planning, 24, 67–74.

Catanzaro, J. L., & Miller, L. G. (1994, September). Strategic alliances: A key tool forinstitutional advancement. Leadership Abstracts, 7, 1–2.

Clements, C. R. (1996). The institutional advancement process: Preparing for the 21stcentury. Community College Journal, 66, 27–30.

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 741

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Coates, J. F., Coates, V. T., Jarratt, J., & Heinz, L. (1986). Issues management: How you canplan, organize and manage for the future. Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond Publications.

Coates, J. F., & Jarratt, J. (1988). Mapping the issues of an industry: An exercise in issuesidenti�cation. In R. L. Heath and Associates (Eds.), Strategic issues management: Howorganizations in�uence and respond to public interests and policies (pp. 122–136). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M. (1993). Trends and issues in community college �nance: ERIC review.Community College Review, 20(4), 70–75.

Collins, S. E., Leitzel, T. C., Morgan, S. D., & Stalcup, R. J. (1994). Declining revenues andincreasing enrollments: Strategies for coping. Community College Journal of Researchand Practice, 18, 33–42.

Council for Aid to Education. (1996). Voluntary support of education 1995. New York:Author.

Daniel, D. E. (1985, November). Future trends in resource development (Resource PaperNo. 34). Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.

Deas, E. (1994). Board and administration relationships contributing to communitycollege climate: A case study. Community College Review, 22(1), 44–52.

Deegan, W. L. (1992). Proven techniques: The use and impact of major managementconcepts in community colleges. Community, Technical, and Junior CollegeJournal, 62(5), 26–30.

Dempsey, J. R. (1992). An essay: Re�ections of a college president. Community CollegeReview, 20(2), 45–49.

Deshler, J. D., & Hagan, N. E. (1991). Techniques for generating futures perspectives. InN. E. Hagan (Ed.), Readings in adult education: History, philosophy, and contemporarynature (pp. 265–273). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Dobbert, M. L., & Kurth-Schai, R. (1992). Systematic ethnography: Toward anevolutionary science of education and culture. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy,& J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 93–159).San Diego; CA: Academic Press.

Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. (1991). Effective fund-raising in higher education: Tensuccess stories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1993). Management effectiveness in fundraising. In D.R. Young, R. M. Hollister, & V. A. Hodgkinson and Associates (Eds.), Governing,leading, and managing nonpro�t organizations: New insights from research andpractice (pp. 170–190). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, J. E., & Tueller, A. B. (1991). Planned giving: The future of fund-raising.Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 62(1), 40–43.

Ewing, R. P. (1987). Managing the new bottom line: Issues management for seniorexecutives. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Fisher, J. L. (1989). Establishing a successful fund-raising program. In J. L. Fisher & G. H.Quehl, The president and fund-raising (pp. 3–17). New York: American Council onEducation and Macmillan.

Fisher, J. L., & Koch, J. V. (1996). Presidential leadership: Making a difference. Phoenix,AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

Gatewood, A. C. (1994). A comparative analysis and evaluation of community collegenonpro�t foundations in North Carolina (Doctoral dissertation, North CarolinaState University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(04), 815A.

Glandon, B., & Keener, B. J. (1994, December). Going public with private fund-raising:Pro�les, patterns and perceptions of community college foundation performance.Washington, DC: National Council for Resource Development.

742 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Glass, J. C., Jr., & Jackson, K. L. (1998a). Integrating resource development andinstitutional planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22,715–739.

Glass, J. C., Jr., & Jackson, K. L. (1998b). A new role for community college presidents:Private fund raiser and development team leader. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 22, 575–590.

Grace, J. D. (1993). Trends in fund-raising research. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), Educationalfund-raising: Principles and practice (pp. 380–388). Phoenix; AZ: Oryx Press.

Green, M. L. (1994). Concerns facing the Virginia Community College System in the decadeof the 1990s (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1994).Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(4), 1223A.

Heath, R. L., & Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues management: Corporate public policymaking inan information society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hollister, R. M. (1993). Developing a research agenda for nonpro�t management. In D. R.Young, R. M. Hollister, & V. A. Hodgkinson and Associates (Eds.), Governing, leading,and managing nonpro�t organizations: New insights from research and practice (pp.306–323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hooks, W. M., & Kelley, S. E. (1990, May). The effective linkage of planning and resourcedevelopment: A process that works (Resource Paper No. 43). Washington, DC:National Council for Resource Development.

Johnson, S. L., & Meyerson, J. W. (1994). Agenda priorities: Top institutional concernsfor 1994. Trusteeship, 2(1), 21–25.

Keener, B. J., Ryan, G. J., & Smith, N. J. (1991). Paying attention pays off: How to marketresource development. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 62(1),34–37.

Koelkebeck, G. R. (1994). The evaluation of public community college readiness forprivate sector fund-raising. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(3), 803A.(University Micro�lms No. AAI95-25968).

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1992). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL:Irwin.

Lamme, R. (1995, November). Community colleges develop fundraising pitch.Philanthropy Journal of North Carolina, pp. 1, 13.

Loessin, B. A., & Duronio, M. A. (1993). Characteristics of successful fund-raisingprograms. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), Educational fund-raising: Principles and practice(pp. 39–50). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Lorenzo, A. L., & Banach, W. J. (1992). Critical issues facing America’s community colleges.Warren, MI: Macomb Community College, Institute for Future Studies. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 351 046)

Lorenzo, A. L., & LeCroy, N. A. (1994). A framework for fundamental change in thecommunity college. Community College Journal, 64(4), 14–19.

Martin, D. (1993, August). The top 10 trends in philanthropy. Fund-raising Management,pp. 40–41, 57–58.

McCabe, R. H. (1996). Strengthening �nancial resources is an educational priority.Community College Journal, 66(5), 24–26.

McClenney, K., & Mingle, J. (1992, September). Higher education �nance in the 1990s:Hard choices for community colleges. Leadership A bstracts, 5(7), 1–2.

Mecca, T. V. (1988). Planning resource development in an uncertain environment. In D. P.Mitzel (Ed.), Resource development in the two-year college (pp. 239–268). Washington,DC: National Council for Resource Development.

Mercer, J. (1994, July 13). A bigger piece of the pie: Community colleges are frustrated bythe dif�culty of securing reliable support. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A19, A21.

Private Fund-Raising Trends and Issues 743

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, L. S. (1994). Community college resource development: Foundations andfund-raising. In G. A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college inAmerica: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 360–374). Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Mixer, J. R. (1993). Principles of professional fundraising: Useful foundations for successfulpractice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moquin, B. P. (1995). Issues pertaining to the implementation of the informationsuperhighway by Texas community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International,56(9), 3426A.

Morrison, J. L. (1995, February). Beyond 2000: Visioning the future of community colleges.Paper presented at the 1995 Inaugural Futures Assembly, Orlando, FL [On-line].Available: http://sunsite.unc.edu/horizon

Nahm, R., & Zemsky, R. B. (1993). The role of institutional planning in fund-raising. In M.J. Worth (Ed.), Educational fund-raising: Principles and practice (pp. 57–66). Phoenix,AZ: Oryx Press.

Nichols, J. E. (1995). Growing from good to great: Positioning your fund-raising efforts forBIG gains. Chicago: Bonus Books.

North Carolina Community College System. (1996). A matter of facts: The North CarolinaCommunity College System fact book. Raleigh, NC: Author.

Ryan, G. J. (1993). The fund-raising and economic development linkage. In G. J. Ryan(Ed.), Partners in economic development: Community college strategies forcollaboration (pp. 59–64). Washington, DC: American Association of CommunityColleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 017)

Ryan, G. J. (1994). The president’s role in fund-raising. In R. J. Pappas (Ed.), Strategicmarketing for presidents (pp. 81–87). Washington, DC: American Association ofCommunity Colleges.

Scott, R. W. (1991). Harvard got the ivy and I got the itch. Community, Technical, andJunior College Journal, 62(1), 23–25.

Smith, N. J. (1993). Raising funds for community colleges. In M. J. Worth (Ed.),Educational fund-raising: Principles and practice (pp. 347–356). Phoenix, AZ: OryxPress.

Stacey, R. D. (1992). Managing the unknowable: Strategic boundaries between order andchaos in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: FalmerPress.

Uhl, N. P. (1983). Using the Delphi technique in institutional planning. In M. W. Peterson(Series Ed.) & N. P. Uhl (Vol. Ed.), New directions for institutional research: No. 37.Using research for strategic planning (pp. 81–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vaughan, G. B., Mellander, G. A., & Blois, B. (1994). The community college presidency:Current status and future outlook. Washington, DC: American Association ofCommunity Colleges.

Wilson, G. N. (1993). Projected trends for community college learning resources centersas perceived by management. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(3), 904A.

Wolf, M. (1996, January). Surprise gift: $800,000 for school. Philanthropy Journal of NorthCarolina, p.13.

Wood, M. T. (1993). Critical issues facing the North Carolina Community College Systemin the decade of the 1990’s (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University,1993). Dissertation Abstracts International 54(11), 3959A.

744 K. L. Jackson and J. C. Glass, Jr.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

31 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014