University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Copyright 2021 Angelica Cortez

FUNDRAISING IN SMALL HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS:

AN EVALUATION STUDY

By

Angelica Cortez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2021

ii
Acknowledgements

The happiness I feel toward completing this study equates to the amounts of hours spent
researching, analyzing, and writing to produce this dissertation. While this study represents
countless early-morning and late-evening labor sessions, this achievement also symbolizes the
support that I am blessed to experience in both my personal and professional life.
A deep thank you to Dr. Kim Hirabayashi for shepherding my incessant questions, mazy
writing, and overzealous excitement toward nonprofit development into a cohesive [and finished]
dissertation. To Doctors Larry Picus and Wayne Combs, I appreciate both of your time and
guidance through this process.
Thank you to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an organization that I proudly build
community with. To my professional colleagues, your individual and collective support in my
monopolization of our office’s conference rooms, interest in my study, and patient understanding
with my academic journey will never be forgotten.
To my family and friends, I appreciate your mercy in the many missed outings or the
presence of my laptop at hangouts, camping trips, and special occasions. Having your social and
emotional support – and most times, encouragement – throughout these past two and a half years
was defining.
Lastly, to the lifelong friendships that I developed through this doctoral program. I truly
did not anticipate the level of trust and rapport that we have grown to share, despite being
sprinkled across the United States! I have immense gratitude and respect for each of you. To
LEAD Filipino for invariably inspiring my continued work. I raise this achievement up in the
name of my community. Mabuhay ka komunidad!

iii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………… ii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………. vi
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………… vii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….. viii

Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice…………………………………………………. 1
Context on the Field of Practice…………………………………………………………. 3
Importance of Addressing the Problem………………………………………………….. 6
Global Goal and Current Performance…………………………………………………... 8
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Field Goal…………………………………………….. 9
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions…………………………………………. 9
Methodological Framework……………………………………………………………... 10
Definitions……………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Organization of the Study………………………………………………………………... 12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature……………………………………………………... 14
America’s Charitable Sector………….………...………………………………………. 14
Professionalization……………………………………………………………………… 18
Nonprofit Fundraising…………………………...…………………………………….... 25
Exploring Professionalization in Small Nonprofits……………………………………... 34
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework…………………………….. 37
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences………………………………... 38
Interactive Conceptual Framework………………………...……….…………………... 65

Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………………………. 68
Qualitative Data Collection……………………………………………………………... 68
Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………………... 69

iv
Trustworthiness and Credibility………………………………………………………… 71
Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………... 77

Chapter Four: Findings…………………………………………………………………...... 81
Participant and Organizational Demographics………………………………………….. 81
Findings for Research Question 1………………………………………………………. 82
Findings for Research Question 2……………………………………………………..... 91
Findings for Research Question 3………………………………………………………. 122
Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………………… 136

Chapter Five: Recommendations………………………………………………………....... 138
Internal Organizational Recommendations……………………………………………... 139
External Organizational Recommendations…………………………………………….. 146
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………… 148
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………… 149

References………………………………………………………………………………….. 151

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………. 173
Appendix A: Interview Protocol………………………………………………………... 173
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol……………………………………………... 175
Appendix C: Participant Study Information Document………………………………… 176
Appendix D: Knowledge Influences: Interview Findings……………………………… 178
Appendix E: Motivation Influences: Interview Findings……………………………….. 180
Appendix F: 2016-2018 Annual Budget Revenue of Agencies………………………... 182
Appendix G: 2016-2018 Funding Sources of Participating Agencies………………….. 183
Appendix H: Organizational Influences: Interview Findings…………………………... 184
Appendix I: Member Checks Protocol…………………………………………………. 186
Appendix J: Virtual Presence Protocol………………………………………………… 187

v
Appendix K: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan…………………………. 188
Appendix L: Evaluation Instrument to Measure Level 1: Reactions to the Program….. 207
Appendix M: Evaluation Instrument to Measure Level 2: Learning in the Program…... 208
Appendix N: Interview Protocol to Measure Participant Learning and Results Six
Months After Completion………………………………………………........................

210

vi
List of Tables

Table 1. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessment Methods…………………….. 47
Table 2. Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessment Methods……………………... 56
Table 3. Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessment Methods…………………. 64
Table 4. Organizational and Participant Demographics………………………………… 82
Table 5. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes for
EDs………………………………………………………………………………………

190
Table 6. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation……………. 191
Table 7. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors……………………………….. 193
Table 8. Evaluation of the Components of Level 2: Learning for the Coaching
Program…………………………………………………………………………………..

200
Table 9. Components to Measure Level 1: Reactions to the Coaching Program……….. 201

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1. Interactive Conceptual Framework……………………………………………. 65
Figure 2. Electronic Access for Reference of Findings and Resources…………………. 204

viii
Abstract

This evaluation study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that shape the fundraising goal achievement of Executive Directors (EDs) leading small
nonprofits. Narrowly focused on the external professional expectations placed on nonprofit
organizations, this qualitative study sought to understand how EDs leading small agencies
compete, secure, and sustain funding to advance their missions. To achieve maximum variation,
this qualitative study interviewed EDs from across the state of California that run 501(c)(3) or
fiscally sponsored nonprofit organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000 and no
more than ten employees. The study found that EDs know how to skillfully compete and sustain
various funding sources for their organizations. Despite having negative emotions toward
fundraising, the financial performance of the agencies in this study indicates that nearly all of the
EDs consistently increase revenue for their organization year-over-year. Every ED in this study
adopts personal mission attachment to the social causes that their agency targets, which instills
confidence and supports their self-efficacy in building relationships with funders and donors.
Further, small nonprofits often collaborate and partner with values-aligned organizations to
leverage resources, grow their revenue, and advance their mission. This study concluded that
organizational influences related to Board of Director involvement, limited personnel, scarce
resources, and capacity, significantly shape ED fundraising performance.

1
Chapter One: Introduction

This study explores the professionalization problem that influences fundraising in small
nonprofit organizations (Betzler & Gmur, 2016; Esposito & Besana, 2018; Kapucu et al., 2011;
Ong & Hung, 2012; Paynter & Berner, 2014). Nonprofit organizations work on the frontlines to
provide basic assistance, food, job training, shelter, youth programs, substance abuse prevention
and intervention, athletics, and education (Kapucu et al., 2011; Kapucu, 2012). Regarded as
“social service providers”, nonprofits fill critical service gaps in communities (Morris, 2015). To
provide critical services, nonprofits must fundraise to administer programs that advance their
mission (Esposito & Besana, 2018; Joyaux, 2012). Therefore, nonprofits fundraise to hire staff,
secure facilities, and sustain their service provision and operations (Grayson, 2020). Centering
on the experiences of small health and human service nonprofits, the literature suggests that
financial resources determine organizational size (McKeever, 2018; McKeever & Pettijohn,
2014). Knox and Wang (2016) find in a national study, that small nonprofits have average
annual budgets of $315,000 and at least two paid staff. McKeever (2018) reports that 210,670 or
66% of registered nonprofits in the United States, operate with less than $500,000 in annual
revenue. Further, a study on capacity building for small nonprofits suggests that the average
agency functions with under $250,000 each year (Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2012). Based on the
research, this study uses the measures of $100,000-$500,000 in annual operating funds and at
least two paid employees to quantify “small” (Knutsen, 2017; Minzer et al., 2013; Vaughan,
2010). The following sections introduce the relationship between professionalism and
fundraising in the United States’ charitable social services sector.
The literature describes a strong relationship between nonprofit professionalism and
effective fundraising (Harris et al., 2015; Ong & Hung, 2012; Suarez, 2011). However, research

2
tends to focus on the fundraising outcomes of larger nonprofits, generally using the measure of
more than $1 million in annual revenue to base financial analyses and recommendations on
(Becker, 2018; Hung & Hager, 2018). In addition to emphasizing fundraising within larger
agencies, the literature focuses on the professionalization of nonprofit organizations (Ong &
Hung, 2012). Nonprofit agencies that demonstrate professionalism, or business-like legitimacy,
consistently secure increased revenue at greater sums (Becker, 2018; Carroll & Stater, 2015;
Hung & Hager, 2018). A series of structural and organizational functions define professionalism
or professionalization (Lam & McDougle, 2016). Professionalized nonprofits maintain paid
employees, financial management systems, administrative policies and procedures, Board of
Director governance, and robust technology tools including Customer Resource Management
Systems (CRMs), fundraising software, and business analytic tools to track engagement and
attract donations (Alfaro, 2015; Hwang & Powell, 2009; Runte et al., 2009). The literature
implies that professionalized nonprofits provide stakeholder accountability, which enhances
public perceptions on organizational quality (Yi, 2010). Boris et al. (2010) assert that larger and
established nonprofits attract greater public attention, serve broader client populations, and
secure revenue at higher rates than small agencies. The linkages between nonprofit
professionalization and fundraising suggest an opportunity gap exists between larger and smaller
nonprofits (Suarez, 2011).
The professionalization paradox addresses the fundraising opportunity gap between
larger and smaller nonprofits. Nonprofits perform essential fundraising activities to maintain
their services and programs (Kapucu et al., 2011). However, a prominent theme in the literature
reveals that systemic biases toward larger agencies creates an opportunity gap in the nonprofit
fundraising environment (Boris et al., 2010). Data tends to focus on the revenue generation of

3
large agencies, whereas scant studies explore fundraising outcomes in small agencies (Farrell &
Fyffe, 2015; Knutsen, 2017). Bowman (2011) finds that larger nonprofits possess the budgetary,
personnel, and material resources to effectively fundraise. Whereas, small nonprofits with
limited staff must choose to prioritize short-term client services over long-term fundraising
strategies and vice versa (Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2012). Kapucu et al. (2011) find that small
nonprofits choose to prioritize client services, which adversely impacts their fundraising
performance. The inextricable nature of choosing client needs over critical fundraising tasks
perpetuates the professionalization paradox and fundraising opportunity gap in the nonprofit
sector (Berner, 2014; Carroll & Stater, 2015; Johnson, 1998).
Small nonprofits administer social service programs but lack the capacity to compete in
professional fundraising environments (Knutsen, 2017). The absence of professional business
procedures weakens the competitive position of small nonprofits to effectively secure grants and
contracts (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). While many nonprofits choose to serve clients and fulfill their
mission statement, the literature asserts that funders link revenue to perceptions on business
professionalism (Suarez, 2011). Marvell and Gullickson (2013) find that larger nonprofits with
the resources to serve clients and manage professional processes secure revenue at higher rates
and greater amounts. The literature shows a growing disparity in fundraising opportunity
between large and small human service nonprofit organizations (Berner, 2014). The following
section provides context on the nonprofit field of practice.
Context on the Field of Practice

Changing attitudes on trust and accountability continue to shape the practices of nonprofit
fundraising (Todd, 2009). Vulnerable within the broader American economy, the literature
identifies four primary revenue sources for nonprofit organizations: individual donations, private

4
and public philanthropy, government contracts, and earned income generated through fees for
service (Besel et al., 2011; Fox, 2015; Harris et al., 2015; McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014).
Nonprofits compete across multiple funding contexts including with government agencies,
private and public foundations, and the general public (Marvel & Gullickson, 2013). Discrete
stakeholder groups with varying interests and priorities manage the revenue sources available to
nonprofits (Boris et al., 2010; Hung & Ong, 2012). Despite having various stakeholders, the
literature emphasizes that funders and donors contribute to nonprofits based on their perceptions
of organizational trust and accountability (Esposito & Besana, 2018; Campbell, 2002). The
following section addresses the dimensions of trust and accountability in the nonprofit sector’s
fundraising environment.
To address national concerns on trust, legislative and regulatory reforms aimed at
increasing public transparency swept across America between the 1940s and 1980s (King, 2017).
Certain legislative actions targeted the governance of the charitable nonprofit sector (Fox, 2015).
Federal actions such as annual financial disclosures, including reports on revenue and
expenditures, and written explanations on personnel compensation, represent significant
regulatory changes (Barber, 2012). Notably, public grant-making charities and foundations, that
traditionally supported smaller social service providers, also found themselves in the crosshairs
of increased financial reporting (Paynter & Berner, 2014). These regulatory changes, aimed at
increasing transparency, reverberated across local, state, and federal levels of government and
created a fragmented charitable sector (Lyons, 2014). Under this new regime, social service
providing nonprofits answered to numerous funders: government agencies, grant-making
charities and foundations, and the general public which demanded to know how nonprofits raised
and spent their money (Boyne, 2002; Fox, 2015; Lyons, 2014). Most prominently, government

5
agencies controlling taxpayer dollars began tying nonprofit contract funding to measures of trust,
transparency, and accountability (Barber, 2012; Campbell, 2002).
The literature discusses accountability within the broader context of nonprofit
professionalism (Barber, 2012; Paynter & Berner, 2014). Nonprofit professionalism considers
the roles of accountability and outcome measurement, or how nonprofits remain accountable and
quantify their social impact to funders (Fox, 2015). Nonprofit funders want to see outcome data
on both program-level and community-level services (Campbell, 2002). Campbell and
Lambright (2016) describe that funders want to feel confident in their resource allocation to
nonprofit contractors and seek outcome data to instill confidence. Larger nonprofits with
professional staff, financial resources, and infrastructural support manage these funder
accountability demands (Paynter & Berner, 2014). Boyne (2002) describes how government
agencies imported private sector standards on evaluation and results into their contracting
processes, which produced the practice of seeking outcome data. These actions created shared
stakeholder expectations on nonprofit accountability (Morris, 2015).
Accountability practices hold several practical and organizational forms. Specifically,
accountability actions demand inward, outward, upward, and downward organizational
mechanisms (Baur & Schmitz, 2011).
Further, developing coordinated accountability systems requires financial and human resources
(Kim & Peng, 2018). Ebrahim (2010) describes that paid employees with consistent
responsibilities can form accountability systems and controls. Small agencies with less than
$500,000 in annual funds lack financial and human resources to systematically scale their
processes and procedures (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). With limited staff available to manage and
administer professional systems, small nonprofits face complex problems with building

6
accountability with various funder groups. In summary, the nonprofit funding context has
various stakeholder groups, multiple accountability relationships, and numerous contracting and
reporting processes that emphasize professionalism (Baur & Schmitz, 2011; Sorrells & Miller,
2009; Lam & McDougle, 2016). The following section explains the importance of addressing
this problem.
Importance of Addressing the Problem

501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organizations receive funding from myriad sources (Giving
Grayson, 2020; Heist & Vance-McMullen, 2019; USA 2019; NPT, 2019). Significant revenue
streams, including private philanthropy, individual donations, and government contracting hold
distinct positions in the context of addressing the problem (Esposito & Besana, 2018; Koushyar
et al., 2015). Each funding source represents different stakeholder interests, answerability
relationships, and accountability standards impressed upon charitable nonprofit organizations
(Feiler, 2014; Harris et al., 2015).
Health and human service organizations provide programs otherwise unmet by the public
and private sectors (Yung et al., 2008). From youth development programs, jobs skills training,
to community-based treatment, human service agencies continue to serve needy, vulnerable, and
disenfranchised populations (Barber, 2012; Independent Sector, 2019). These historic practices
continue to shape professional expectations, answerability relationships, and accountability
standards between funders and health and human service nonprofit organizations (Morris, 2015).
501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations represent the largest charitable group in the United States
(National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2015). Health and human service organizations
represent a subset of the larger 501(c)(3) class, but incidentally report the highest revenue across
all nonprofit designations (Giving USA, 2018; McKeever, 2018). Boris et al. (2010) report that

7
government agencies contracted with 33,000 human service organizations from 2008-2009.
Pettijohn and Boris (2014) find that human service organizations collectively received $81
billion in annual public spending. Further, Giving USA (2018) cites that private foundations
granted $45 billion to nonprofit organizations. These financial statistics suggest that government
agencies and private foundations continue to rely on human service organizations to serve
communities nationwide (Morris, 2015). While aggregate 501(c)(3) financial data shows that the
health and human services charitable sub-group receives significant public and private funding,
disaggregating the numbers provides a deeper understanding on the fiscal health of small
providers (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014).
Disaggregating the national data exposes a wide revenue differential between large and
small nonprofits (Pettijohn & Boris, 2013). An estimated 16,000 human service organizations
report more than $10 million annually (McKeever, 2018).
By contrast, the majority of human service organizations, or 80% report less than $100,000 in
annual funds (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). This fundraising opportunity gap poses broader
implications for the American economy (Fox, 2015). Human service providers not only fill
critical public needs, they often operate in urban areas devoid of economic and social resources
(Deaton et al., 2013). Community-based organizations also foster trust with immigrant and
marginalized groups whereas government agencies arouse fear and distrust (Hwang & Powell,
2009). National data suggests two important considerations: small agencies comprise the
majority of social service providers and they operate with under $100,000 annually (Farrell &
Fyffe, 2015; McKeever, 2018). Failing to address the importance of the fundraising opportunity
gap and supporting small nonprofits stands to impact thousands of social safety nets across
communities nationwide (Knox & Wang, 2016).

8
Global Goal and Current Performance
Mission-driven charitable organizations seek to serve the common good (Jones & Mucha,
2013). Numerous causes and mission orientations govern charitable organizations (Morris,
2015). Mission-based public charities represent a hallmark in American history (Lyons, 2014).
Historically, religious institutions performed charitable activities for the poor (Barber, 2012).
Churches provided free food, education, healthcare, and shelter to the needy (Paynter & Berner,
2014). Secular beliefs on serving the public good, human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, and
justice continue to influence the global ethos of mission-driven charitable organizations
(Coleman, 2001). Modern 501(c)(3) charitable organizations include universities and
educational institutions, public and private hospitals, civic societies, arts and cultural groups, and
human service organizations (Lyons, 2014). Nonprofit organizations serve the needs of
American multiculturalism, civic engagement, health, education, quality of life, and issues of
public interest (Paynter & Berner, 2014).
Aggregate nonprofit financial data indicates strong performance in the broader American
economy (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). Based on national jobs and revenue growth statistics,
the United States’ nonprofit sector contributes to the larger economy (McKeever & Pettijohn,
2014; Freisenhahn, 2016). The Urban Institute (2016) reports that 501(c)(3) nonprofit filings
outpaced the growth of both 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofit entities, but that the country’s
overall charitable sector increased in quantity. Further, between 2007-2012, the employment
opportunities within the nonprofit sector grew 15% (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2016). The nonprofit sector steadily increased jobs from 2007-2009 during the Recession,
whereas private industry jobs declined (Freisenhahn, 2016). The national data identifies three

9
subsets in which 501(c)(3) nonprofit jobs have grown since 2012: human services, education,
and the arts (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Field Goal

The stakeholder group was executive directors (EDs) who run small 501(c)(3) or fiscally
sponsored social service nonprofit organizations in California. This field study aims to recruit
nonprofit EDs that perform fundraising activities for their organization. The researcher selected
a purposeful sample of EDs who manage organizations with under $500,000 in annual operating
revenue with at least two paid staff, but no more than ten. The literature asserts that EDs who
lead small agencies with limited resources find fundraising difficult (Grayson, 2020; Knox &
Wang, 2016). Further, EDs that achieve their fundraising performance goals stand in the
minority (Kapucu, 2012). Exploring how these EDs manage their organizational resources, time,
and staff to perform professional fundraising activities informs the practice of growing and
scaling small charitable nonprofit organizations.
This dissertation did not identify or develop a stakeholder field goal in the domain of
nonprofit executive leadership. The researcher recruited EDs from diverse organizational service
areas, mission orientations, constituencies, and geographic regions across the state of California.
With recruitment based on individual and organizational contexts, the participating EDs had no
shared or defined stakeholder field goal for this evaluation field study.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions

This study intends to contribute to a growing body of knowledge on the fundraising
practices of small 501(c)(3) social service nonprofit organizations. Despite increasing popularity
and job growth, research on how small nonprofits develop professional processes to execute
fundraising goals is not well understood (Faulk et al., 2016; Knox & Wang, 2016; Trzcinski &

10
Sobeck, 2012). Additionally, scant literature on the financial status of small health and human
service nonprofits exists (Esposito & Besana, 2018; Kuenzi & Stewart, 2017). Positioned in
California, this study recognizes the critical role that health and human service organizations fill
in serving the state’s diverse population of 40 million residents (Cal Nonprofits, 2018;
Independent Sector; 2019). California faces intractable policy challenges on housing
affordability, healthcare, transportation, and educational outcomes (Silicon Valley
Competitiveness and Innovation Project, 2019). The following research questions aimed to
discover how EDs of small health and human service nonprofits achieve their fundraising
performance goals. The following research questions guided this field study:
1. To what extent are nonprofit EDs achieving their fundraising performance goals within
their first few years of operating?
2. What are nonprofit EDs' knowledge and motivation influences related to fundraising?
3. What is the interaction between organizational settings and nonprofit ED knowledge and
motivation with respect to achieving their fundraising goals?
Methodological Framework
This study seeks to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that shape ED fundraising performance. The researcher aims to establish a basis for decision
making to address the fundraising problems that EDs of small nonprofits face. Further, the
researcher endeavors to understand how EDs interpret and construct meaning related to their
fundraising experiences. Therefore, descriptive questions, following a qualitative
methodological approach guided this study. A comprehensive collection of seminal studies,
nonprofit fundraising and management literature, and current charitable giving statistics
informed the researcher’s qualitative approach. Interviews, document analysis, member checks,

11
and the engagement of rich data collection to the point of saturation will be used to conduct the
study. The research questions will be positioned within a broader conceptual framework of a
modified Gap Analytic Model (Clark & Estes, 2008). The conceptual framework presents the
interdependent nature of ED knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in achieving
their fundraising performance goals. The conceptual framework addresses the key knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences explored in this study.
Definitions
This section provides a list of terms and definitions used throughout the course of the
study. The following terms surround the problem of practice, research questions,
methodological framework, and findings related to this study.
Executive Director (ED): EDs oversee the administration, programs, and strategic
deliverables of their nonprofit organization. Other key duties include hiring and management,
fundraising, marketing, and community outreach. EDs report directly to the Board of Directors
of their organization.
Funders: Nonprofits fundraise across various sectors and communities. The researcher
uses the term to describe the common composition of nonprofit funders: foundations,
government agencies, corporations, and individuals.
Funding: Nonprofits secure funding from numerous sources. The researcher uses the
term funding to reference the general suite of nonprofit revenue, which consists of private and
public grants, contracts, donations, and service fees.
Grants: A leading revenue source for nonprofit organizations, grants range from $1,000-
$1,000,000 (Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). Nonprofits usually receive one-time or ongoing
grants from larger and more established organizations, including foundations, corporations, and

12
government agencies. Grants do not require repayment and support nonprofit growth and
development with hiring employees, securing equipment and materials.
Public Contracts: Government agencies at all levels contract with nonprofit
organizations to provide an array of social services. The United States’ entire nonprofit sector
earns about one-third of its revenue from written agreements with government agencies
(National Council of Nonprofits, 2020).
Donations: Monetary gifts collected from individuals that support the cause of a
particular nonprofit organization. Nonprofits collect one-time and ongoing donations from
supporters of their organization. Various forms of donations include direct giving through
electronic transmission or by check. Larger gifts also come from Donor Advised Funds (DAFs)
and are administered through foundations (NPT, 2019).
Service Fees: Income that nonprofits earn through providing direct services to
individuals or partner organizations (Brown, 2018).
Organization of the Study
The presentation of this study consists of five chapters. This chapter provided the reader
with key concepts, stakeholder and contextual information, and common terminology found in
the following discussion on problems that EDs face in fundraising within their field of practice.
The researcher presented the shared field goal of the stakeholders and reviewed the study’s
framework. Chapter Two presents the literature and data on the experiences of EDs leading
small nonprofits and the status of fundraising in the broader charitable sector. Additionally,
Chapter Two provides a comprehensive discussion of the evolution of the United States’
charitable sector, why nonprofits fundraise, and the types of revenue they pursue to advance their
mission. Chapter Three discusses the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that

13
the researcher explored, in addition to the research methodology in identifying and recruiting
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the researcher presents the findings
and related analysis. Chapter Five provides recommendations to address the problem of practice,
proposes areas for future research, and summarizes the entirety of the field study.

14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This study addresses the professionalization paradox that influences fundraising in small
nonprofit organizations. The literature suggests that larger nonprofits tend to fundraise at higher
rates and greater sums than smaller organizations (Suarez, 2011). However, industry data
reveals that small nonprofits constitute the majority of providers in the United States’ health and
human services charitable sector (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). Additionally, small nonprofits
build trust on the frontlines with vulnerable communities that fear governmental agencies
(Hwang & Powell, 2009). The effects of COVID-19 continue to reveal the health and human
needs of disadvantaged populations (CalNonprofits, 2020). Therefore, supporting the
professionalization and financial health of small nonprofits and the country’s social safety net
remain vitally important.
In this chapter, the researcher reviews the literature on the status of America’s charitable
sector. Following this, the review discusses how nonprofit organizations fundraise and the
relationships between professionalized business practices and securing revenue. After
completing the literature review, the researcher addresses the conceptual framework used to
design this study and then moves to a comprehensive discussion of the assumed Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organizational Influences that EDs need to fundraise for their organizations.
The chapter concludes with a presentation of the study’s interactive conceptual framework.
America’s Charitable Sector
This section provides a comprehensive review on the genesis and status of public
charities in the United States. Using the frame of nonprofit professionalization, this review of
the literature discusses historic influences that created the disparity in financial opportunity
between large and small nonprofit organizations. In the context of resource scarcity and

15
accountability to multiple stakeholder groups, the following sections address professionalization
in funding competition for nonprofit agencies. Further, this review considers the past, current,
and future implications on the financial viability of small health and human service nonprofit
organizations. Following a review of the general literature, the discussion shifts to Clark and
Estes’ Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework and presents the interactive conceptual framework
for this evaluation field study. Using a modified structure of Clark and Estes’ Gap Analytic
Conceptual Framework, this study seeks to explore the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that EDs leading small agencies need to achieve their fundraising
goals.
Historical Overview. The historic relationship between American charities and the
government continues to influence the nonprofit sector’s fundraising conditions (Barber, 2012).
Literature on the evolution of American charities shows that religious organizations administered
the earliest social service programs in the 18th and 19th centuries (Lyons, 2014). Charitable
practices for the poor included providing free food, education, healthcare, and shelter (Paynter &
Berner, 2014). Charities independently provided social welfare programs during periods of war
and economic downturns (Barber, 2012). Coleman (2001) identifies five secular virtues that
influence charitable giving: human dignity, subsidiarity, solidarity, justice, and the common
good. These continued traditions shape shared American values on the treatment of the poor and
further, on service to the common good (Hammack, 2002).
Charitable activities and fundraising became a locus of public attention in the early 20
th

century (Morris, 2015). The historic power of American charities resided in their autonomous
fundraising strength (Barber, 2012). Charities operated and fundraised independently for nearly
half of the 20
th
century (Lyons, 2014). Between 1920-1940, financial records show that charities

16
raised an estimated $80 million in donations for services to the poor and needy (Lyons, 2014).
Public charities like the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) systematically solicited
and managed donations (Hammack, 2002). Known as “Community Chests” the YMCA
pioneered a sophisticated fundraising model and eventually syndicated operations across New
England (Morris, 2015). Community Chests fundraised in an organized schema including door-
to-door canvassing, leadership committees of influential denizens, newspaper coverage, and gift
giving from wealthy donors became fundraising mainstays for American charities (Hammack,
2002). Federated Community Chests proved to have the capacity to solicit, manage, and scale
lucrative fundraising machines (Barber, 2012). Between the 1930s-1950s, these demonstrations
of fundraising power and political influence combined with allegations of misappropriating
funds soon attracted political ire (Lyons, 2014). Public scrutiny and feelings of distrust on
charitable fundraising increased among legislators and political leaders (Barber, 2012).
Consequently, legislative reforms soon targeted the charitable sector, with particular attention on
Community Chests (Hammack, 2002). The reforms bore federal mandates on financial
reporting, annual expenditure disclosures, and professionalized accountability structures (Paynter
& Berner, 2014). The following section describes nonprofit professionalization in the vein of
existing federal governance and regulation.
Nonprofit Tax-Exemption. This section addresses the technical and administrative
dimensions of achieving nonprofit status, with additional discussion on public attitudes toward
charities. Explaining how community-based organizations qualify for federal tax-exemption
status contributes to the broader discussion on professionalism and accountability in the
charitable sector (Vaughan, 2010). Charitable nonprofits hold rich histories in the American
narrative (Barber, 2012). Despite serving the common good across multiple contexts with

17
diverse governance structures, service areas, sizes, clients, and mission statements, the federal
government appoints a single regulatory class to all charities: tax-exemption (Morris, 2015).
While state laws sanction nonprofits, federal law grants nonprofits tax-exemption status
(Sorrells & Miller, 2009). Charitable organizations seeking to maintain federal tax-exemption
status must file annual 990 forms with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (Vaughan, 2010). The
IRS requires active charities with at least $50,000 or more in gross receipts to disclose all
revenue and spending on annual 990 form filings (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). Tax-exemption status
waives nonprofit organizations from paying federal, state, and local income taxes (Lyons, 2014).
Further, nonprofit organizations may not redistribute earnings to private shareholders or inure to
the benefit of personal gain (Sorrells & Miller, 2009). Under these federal regulations,
nonprofits must reinvest organizational revenue into mission-fulfilling activities like services and
programs (Marvell & Gullickson, 2013).
Emerging federal reforms continue to increase transparency and reporting demands on
nonprofit charities. In 2008, the annual 990 form began requiring nonprofits to submit written
explanations for their highest paid employees and accounting policies (Volz et al., 2011). The
federal government continues to observe 30 different charitable tax-exemption classes
(McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). According to McKeever (2018) approximately 1.56 million
nonprofits registered with the IRS in 2015. Sorrells and Miller (2009) suggest that nonprofits
find various federal compliance and reporting standards confusing. Marvell and Gullickson
(2013) support these findings with additional evidence that nonprofits suffer under increasing
administrative demands. Discussing the federal tax-exemption environment and financial
reporting requirements contextualizes the continuing discussion on nonprofit professionalism
and fundraising for small agencies. The ensuing sections discuss the dimensions of

18
professionalization, such as competition and accountability. Following these sections, the
proposal widens the discussion on the professionalization of nonprofit fundraising.
Professionalization
Small human service nonprofit organizations face a professionalization paradox in
performing fundraising activities (Knutsen, 2017; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013; Suarez, 2011).
Whereas, larger agencies possess the staffing and budgetary capacities to produce higher rates of
revenue and growth (Knutsen, 2017). Professionalization creates a fundraising opportunity gap
between large and small nonprofit organizations (Williams & Taylor, 2012). Professionalizing
or operating with business legitimacy resonates in the nonprofit management literature (Bromley
& Orchard, 2016; Suarez, 2011). Professionalization describes the process of forming
organizational business practices (Hung & Ong, 2008). Business indicators include governance
and oversight, paid employees, administrative policies, and financial management systems
(Hwang & Powell, 2009). Yi (2010) finds that business traits like professionalism and
organizational reputation enhance positive public perceptions. The literature suggests numerous
positive outputs from professional practices, including consistent contract revenue, volunteer
engagement, and donor attraction (Suarez, 2011). However, Bromley and Orchard (2016) assert
that research on nonprofit professionalization focuses on larger agencies, suggesting a deficit of
information on the experiences of professionalism in small agencies.
Minimal studies explore the experiences of professionalism in small human service
nonprofit organizations (Kapucu, 2012). Yung et al. (2008) find that EDs of small human
service agencies report needing help with creating fundraising plans and finding resources.
Similarly, Kapucu (2012) reports that small agencies lack the budgetary funds to invest in
capacity building and fundraising training. Further, small agencies with scarce resources

19
prioritize client service delivery over fundraising initiatives (Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2012). Kim
and Peng (2018) also find that small agencies defer forming business systems due to lacking
human resource capacity. The literature suggests that accessing training and capacity building
workshops strengthens organizational and managerial development (Kapucu et al., 2011; Suarez,
2011). However, small agencies with limited financial resources and staff struggle to create
professional practices and maintain client services (Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2012). Professionalism,
tied to accountability measures, disadvantages small agencies that prioritize service over
fundraising (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). Professional traits determine perceptions on quality of
service, donor attraction, and predict funder behavior (Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). The
continued practice of tying funding to perceived nonprofit business legitimacy creates a
professionalization paradox and fundraising opportunity gap in the charitable sector (Bromley &
Orchard, 2016). The following section addresses the professionalization paradox in the prism of
competition and accountability in the broader nonprofit fundraising environment.
Competition. Competition influences nonprofit fundraising activities and their relative
effectiveness (Ashley & Faulk, 2010). Competing in an environment where demand exceeds
supply, nonprofit organizations jockey for limited funds (Cortis, 2017).
Government and private funders must make financial allocation decisions across numerous
nonprofit organizations (Besel et al., 2011). The research supports that funders use
organizational maturity and reputation to determine contracting and granting relationships (Faulk
et al., 2016). Ashley and Faulk (2010) find that funders make important but superficial
assessments on perceived quality of services and organizational maturity. Similarly, Yi (2010)
asserts that funders favor larger nonprofits, often synonymizing large organizational size with

20
higher service quality. National data suggests that fundraising competition across nonprofit
organizations could increase (Giving USA, 2019; McKeever, 2018; NPT, 2019).
According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), the quantity of
registered charitable nonprofits grows year-over-year despite shrinking financial resources in the
field (2016). The literature addresses two repeated themes in the context of competitive
nonprofit fundraising: resource scarcity and revenue diversification (Hung & Hager, 2018;
MacIndoe, 2013). Resource scarcity influences organizational behavior and revenue
diversification mitigates fiscal uncertainty (Carroll & Stater, 2015; Martin et al., 2015). The
following sections review resource scarcity and revenue diversification within the conditions of
nonprofit fundraising competition.
Resource Scarcity. Drawing on the basic principles of resource dependency theory, the
literature asserts that nonprofits make financial decisions based on resource dependence (Callen
et al., 2010; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). A few studies on small minority-led human service
organizations suggest that resource scarcity significantly influences agency functioning (Kapucu
et al., 2011). Small agencies that lack financial resources rely on voluntarism to administer
programs and services (Kapucu, 2012).
Despite evidence on the unsustainable nature of volunteer support, many human service
organizations that lack employees depend on free labor to operate (Hale, 2013). Yung et al.
(2008) also find that EDs leading small agencies commonly use personal funds to supplement
service provision. Cleo (2018) asserts that several nonprofits maintain lines of credit to offset
negative cash flow. Further, the literature argues against relying on volunteers to achieve
organizational sustainability, however studies on small agencies with professional traits
describes a different reality (Hale, 2013).

21
Kim and Peng (2018) find that small nonprofits with professional employees sustain at
higher rates. Specifically, agencies with at least two full-time employees tend to engage in
collaborative funding models that support resource-sharing (LeRoux & Langer, 2016). Hwang
and Powell (2008) argue that professional staff help develop business management practices
which facilitate fundraising activities. Further, Kim and Peng (2018) argue that professional
employees increase the networking capacity of small agencies, suggesting improvements on the
revenue generation opportunities available to their organizations. Resource scarcity and
dependence in fundraising competition reverberates in the following sections. The next segment
addresses using revenue diversification to mitigate resource scarcity and dependence.
Revenue Diversification. The literature encourages nonprofits to develop mixed income
sources (Krawcyzk & Wooddell, 2017). Similarly, research warns against the overreliance on
government and foundation funds and instead suggests engaging in commercial activities
(Martin et al., 2015). Carroll and Stater (2015) find that diversified revenue reduces fiscal
uncertainty and decreases the likelihood of closure. Cortis (2017) states the benefits of
diversifying as including flexible income and protections against fiscal volatility.
Larger organizations often leverage their resources and scaled operations to decrease financial
vulnerability (Yi, 2010). While revenue diversification supports financial sustainability, a
feasibility gap on managing mixed income exists between large and small nonprofits (Krawcyzk
& Wooddell, 2017). The literature recognizes this feasibility gap but offers little recourse for
small agencies seeking to build diverse income sources (Yi, 2010).
Managing diverse income sources necessitates administrative oversight and
consequently, increases overhead costs (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). These realities make revenue
diversification difficult for small agencies (Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). Frumkin and Keating

22
(2011) find that managing diverse income sources present higher cost burdens for small
nonprofits that lack financial management and accounting systems. Conversely, larger
nonprofits with distributed operations possess the professional resources to manage and oversee
different income streams (Knutsen, 2017). The feasibility of implementing diverse income
sources in small agencies remains unknown (Yi, 2010). Excluding small agencies from concrete
financial options punctuates the need to explore the professionalism and fundraising competition
processes of small nonprofit organizations. This proposal continues to discuss nonprofit
fundraising in the frame of accountability.
Accountability. Accountability expectations and demands integrate into nonprofit
fundraising activities (Campbell, 2002). Accountability evolved into a systematic practice in the
nonprofit sector (Barber, 2012). Suarez (2011) finds that a cultural shift in the 1980s influenced
government treatment on nonprofit accountability. Government funders started requiring social
service providers to submit formal written contract proposals (Campbell, 2002).
Further, nonprofits also reported on data outcomes at the end of each contracting period (Larson,
2004). These progressive changes on accountability expectations continue to characterize
government and nonprofit contracting relationships (Ebrahim, 2010). Contractual agreements
between two parties, a director and a provider, technically defines accountability (Baur &
Schmitz, 2011). This proposal discusses accountability in a provider-director relationship, and
further in the context of funder and nonprofit provider accountability interactions. The following
discussion positions funders as directors and nonprofits as providers.
Accountability manifests in three important considerations: to whom is one accountable,
for what is one accountable, and to what is one being measured against (Baur & Schmitz,
2011). Funders possess authoritative power and control (Benjamin, 2008). Funders tend to

23
demand unidirectional answers from nonprofit providers, expecting transparent reports on
spending and activities (Hale, 2013). Under contractual agreements, nonprofit providers answer
to funder expectations and demands (Campbell, 2002). The literature implies that nonprofit
accountability reinforces the importance of professional and business management practices
(Williams & Taylor, 2012). The presence of accountability in funding relationships further
exposes the professionalization paradox with small agencies (Bromley & Orchard, 2016).
Conceptually and practically, accountability possess multiple facets of answerability
relationships, including inward and outward, upward and downward (Baur & Schmitz, 2011).
The following sections address the inward and outward accountability relationships across
nonprofit service providers, funders, and the general public.
Outward Accountability. External accountability concerns the responsibilities that
nonprofit service providers hold with government and foundation funders, donors and
volunteers, and their client populations (Campbell, 2002). In addition to responsibilities,
outward accountability emphasizes communication to stakeholder groups on service actions or
inactions (Ebrahim, 2010). In the accountability model, each of these stakeholder groups
represent discrete directors with different expectations of the nonprofit service provider
(Ebrahim, 2010). Government and foundation funders expect transparency and accountability on
service deliverables; whereas clients expect access to programs and treatment (Dumont, 2013).
Each director group could have converging or diverging priorities concerning the activities of the
nonprofit service provider (Sloan, 2014). Campbell (2002) finds that funders expect their
grantees to report on both project-level and community-level outcomes, suggesting that an
agency holds accountability for both providing shelter in their service area and also eliminating
homelessness in their entire community during their funding period. Outward expectations pose

24
functional and financial challenges for small agencies (Suarez, 2011). In certain contexts,
stakeholder accountability demands negatively influence nonprofit organizational behaviors;
Campbell (2002) cites that it took six months for a set of nonprofit grantees to purchase the
software, track client data, and submit reports to the funder, signaling additional expenses and
time commitments for their agencies. Small nonprofits with limited resources manage the
polarities of service delivery and fundraising initiatives (Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2012). Unrealistic
accountability demands vulcanize critical activities (Kim & Peng, 2018). Amid balancing client
care with contract or grant obligations, small agencies commonly submit reports late with
unsystematic data (Campbell & Lambright, 2016). Comparatively, larger nonprofits with scaled
reporting and data management processes have the capacity to manage multiple, competing
accountability demands (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015; Yi, 2010).
Inward Accountability. Internal accountability relationships address how nonprofits
communicate actions or inactions with their personnel, Board of Directors, clients, and
volunteers (Sloan, 2014). Specifically, inward accountability concerns the extent to which
nonprofit service providers make organizational information publicly available and accessible
(Sanzo-Perez et al., 2017). National data shows volunteerism has increased 28% in the nonprofit
sector since 2016 (Cleo, 2018). Becker (2018) finds that individuals make volunteering
decisions based on perceived organizational reputation and quality of services, reinforcing the
importance of investing internal resources to ensure the availability of public
information. Additionally, Esposito and Besana (2018) assert that individual donors make
donations based on interpretations of nonprofit brand and service orientation. According to
McKeever (2018), an estimated 25.1% of United States adults volunteered with nonprofit
agencies in 2017, contributing approximately $8.8 billion hours in donated service hours. These

25
findings suggest that the availability of organizational information serves to increase volunteer
support, enhance agency reputation, and attract supporters and donors (Esposito & Besana, 2018;
Knutsen, 2017; Sanzo-Perez et al., 2017). For small health and human service agencies,
recruiting skilled volunteers presents positive implications for gaining visibility, donor attention,
and accessing formal and informal networks (Bauer, 2017; Cleopatra, 2018; Kim & Peng, 2018).
The internal actions to maintain inward accountability are critical to organizational
functioning. Continuing the conversation on organizational professionalism and accountability,
the following section discusses the dimensions of nonprofit fundraising and the primary revenue
sources for health and human service agencies.
Nonprofit Fundraising
Primary Funding Sources. This section focuses on how nonprofits secure revenue
within the contexts of philanthropy, grantmaking, and contracting. Nonprofits secure funds
across multiple sources, however, the dimensions of philanthropy, grantmaking, and contracting
characterize distinct interactions and relationships in the nonprofit fundraising environment
(Chen, 2009; Esposito & Besana, 2018; Koushyar et al., 2015; NPT, 2019). Studies on the
evolution of charitable activities in the United States support that the private and public sectors
continue to finance nonprofit social service provision (Coleman, 2001; Paynter & Berner,
2014). These realities continue to influence power dynamics between the resource-scarce
nonprofit sector and private and public benefactors (Carroll & Stater, 2015). Apparent
influences include the use of similar nomenclature in both the private and public sector to signify
funding relationships with nonprofit providers (Ashley & Faulk, 2016). Discerning examples
include the term “grants” in the context of grantmaking to nonprofit organizations. The term
“grants” does not exclusively apply to private sector philanthropy. “Grants” share nuanced

26
meaning across governmental agencies, private foundations, private corporations, and public
foundation grantmaking activities oriented around nonprofit agencies (Grayson, 2020; Koushyar
et al., 2015; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). Despite using similar terminology to characterize
funding relationships, the literature and industry reports suggest that accountability, procedural,
and administrative differences exist across the myriad contexts of philanthropy, grantmaking,
and contracting (Boris et al., 2010; Giving USA, 2018; Giving USA, 2019; Harris et al.,
2015). Understanding the distinct yet overlapping roles of these three dimensions stands to
inform the fundraising outcomes of small nonprofit agencies (Kapucu et al., 2011).
The following section discusses the interaction among philanthropy, grantmaking, and
contracting in the context of the four primary revenue sources of nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit organizations secure revenue from four leading sources: individual donations,
private and corporate grants, government contracts, and fees for service (Boris et al., 2010; Chen,
2009; Harris et al., 2011; Suarez, 2011). Each of these revenue sources derives from an
environment of philanthropy, grantmaking, or contracting (Koushyar et al., 2015; Lambright &
Campbell, 2016). However, a single system that tracks and captures the data on charitable
giving, grant and contract awards, and fees for service profit statements does not exist
(Independent Sector, 2019; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013; NPT, 2018). While the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) requires annual 990 financial form filing and industry watchdogs like the
National Philanthropic Trust (NPT) track charitable giving, one must cull aggregate information
from numerous data sources to form any comprehensive conclusions.
Further, aggregate financial information obscures the ability to breakdown financial
outcomes across organizational size and subsectors, thus complicating true evaluation analysis
(Borgonovi, 2006; Cleo, 2018; Heist & Vance-McMullen, 2019). Government and industry

27
reports tend to reflect their siloes, hence providing eclipsed information on the fiscal health of
the nonprofit sector (Borgonovi, 2006; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). An example to highlight
the gaps in these reports include, McKeever and Pettijohn (2014) asserting that 80% of human
service organizations file less than $100,000 in annual operating revenue, whereas Giving USA
(2018) state that human services received $21 billion in individual donations in one year; these
statistics offer little material value in determining the extent to which small human service
organizations benefit from robust individual giving.
The absence of systematic data collection on the fiscal status of the United States’
nonprofit sector weakens the ability to make conclusive assessments. Instead, understanding
how nonprofit organizations secure revenue, including related monetary totals, requires knitting
together government, industry, and national financial data on the charitable sector (Boris &
Pettijohn, 2013; Giving USA, 2019; NPT, 2019). However, stitching together these discrete
sources necessitates deep analysis, including cross-referencing and triangulating to ensure
consistency across the data. The following sections discuss the leading revenue sources for
nonprofit organizations in the contexts of philanthropy, grantmaking, and contracting.
Philanthropy. The literature shows a rich evolution of charitable activities in American
history (Coleman, 2001; Paynter & Berner, 2014). Benefitting the common good in social
service characterizes the shared American identity on serving needy individuals and families
(Lyons, 2014). Wealthy industrialists, like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, modeled
social responsibility in providing for the less fortunate through personal philanthropy (Koushyar
et al., 2015). These tenets continue to drive individual philanthropy in the United States, such
that personal donations to nonprofit charities totaled $292.09 billion in 2018 (Giving USA,
2019). The power of philanthropy in shared American ideals in service to the less fortunate

28
remains the top revenue source for charitable nonprofit organizations (Giving USA, 2019; NPT,
2019).
Individual donations. According to Giving USA (2019), individual giving to nonprofit
organizations totaled an estimated $292.09 billion. Further, a report from the National
Philanthropic Trust (NPT) (2019) states DAFs totaled $23.42 billion, suggesting an 8.3%
increase from $112 billion in 2017 to $121.4 billion in 2018.
Notably, DAFs play a consequential role in the fundraising outcomes of nonprofit organizations
(Heist & Vance-McMullen, 2019). Industry data supports that the force of individual donations
continues to empower the social services sector (Feiler et al., 2014; Giving USA, 2019; NPT,
2015). However, how nonprofit organizations seek to attract donations remains a source of
extended study (Grayson, 2020; Hambrick & Svennson, 2015). Literature supports that
nonprofit organizations engage in numerous marketing and social media activities to solicit
donations (Bhati & McDonnell, 2020). Most generally, nonprofit organizations host donation
portals on their websites, thus facilitating convenient actions to facilitate giving from supporters
and donors (Saxton & Guo, 2014). Additionally, social media platforms such as Facebook and
Twitter benefit from widespread popularity and nonprofits with large followings increasingly use
these platforms to disseminate information and engage stakeholders (Auter & Fine, 2018). Alfaro
(2015) finds that social media followership and presence positively associates with donation
generation, in a popular example on the “Ice Bucket Challenge” raising $220
million. Additionally, nonprofit organizations use direct marketing campaigns to engage the
public and stir political action on issues of public importance, which attracts donors and supports
(Saxton & Guo, 2014). The value of individual giving remains undisputed. However,
understanding how small human service nonprofits with scarce resources manage social media

29
campaigns and solicit donations remains unknown (Frumkin & Keating, 2011; Saxton & Guo,
2014).
Grantmaking. Private and corporate benefactors, in the form of foundations, both
engage in grantmaking activities in support of nonprofit organizations (Faulk et al.,
2016). Differing from the dimension of individual philanthropy, grantmaking from private and
public foundations involves professionalized business transactions between the funder and
nonprofit service provider (Koushyar et al., 2015). Krawcyzk and Wooddell (2017), define
“grants” as monetary awards allocated to support nonprofit mission-based work, with no
repayment necessary. While using similar nomenclature, the grantmaking administration and
accountability expectations between nonprofit providers and private and corporate funders
represent distinct profiles (Campbell & Lambright, 2016; Koushyar et al., 2015). Further,
numerous classifications of private and corporate foundations create a nuanced grantmaking
environment in which nonprofit service providers compete (Harris et al., 2015; Koushyar et al.,
2015).
Foundations and Charities. The literature and industry reports suggest that at least six
different classifications of foundations and charities administer grants to nonprofit service
providers: private foundations, family foundations, community foundations, national charities,
single-issue charities, and corporate foundations (Heist & Vance-McMullen, 2019; NPT,
2019). Data shows that nonprofit organizations earn significant income from grants (Ashley &
Faulk, 2010; Chen, 2009). Additionally, Giving USA (2018) estimates that foundations and
charities granted $45 billion to nonprofits, representing nearly 13% of donation revenue to the
charitable sector in 2017. However, the absence of a singular compendium that tracks
foundation giving to nonprofit organizations taints the potential of true analysis on the influence

30
of grants in the human services sector (NPT, 2019). Generally, foundations and charities are not
well understood in the literature (Campbell & Lambright, 2016; Faulk et al.,
2016). Administratively, foundations and charities also hold tax-exempt, or 501(c)(3) status,
which causes mixing between grantmaking foundations and charities with direct service
providers in research analysis (Ashley & Faulk, 2010; Faulk et al., 2016). While these entities
possess the same 501(c)(3) tax-exempt designations, their infrastructure, roles, and community
identities in funding and providing direct services significantly differ (Giving USA, 2018; Heist
& Vance-McMullen, 2019). Private and corporate foundations and charities operate with
freedom to award monetary grants to nonprofits that align with their goals and values (Bauer,
2017; Besel et al., 2011). Similarly, corporate foundations benefit from the sponsorship of their
parent companies and tend to grant larger rewards with less administrative oversight than private
or community foundations (Koushyar et al., 2015). Ultimately, foundations and charities
manage robust endowments and adhere to specific guidelines on awarding grants (Esposito &
Besana, 2018). Funders choose to award grants to nonprofit service providers that achieve their
foundation or charity’s organizational objectives and goals (Ashley & Faulk, 2010). For these
reasons, the relative ambiguity and autonomy of foundations and charities remain consequential
in the power that they wield in funding nonprofit service providers. The following section
discusses the nuances in grantmaking between private foundations and charities and corporate
foundations. The following section discusses the role of contracting in nonprofit fundraising
activities.
Contracting. Professionalized government contracting with nonprofit social service
providers began in the 1960s during the Johnson Administration’s “Great Society Initiative”
(Pettijohn & Borris, 2013; Witesman & Fernandez, 2012). Performed at federal, state, and local

31
levels of government, public agencies contract with nonprofits to administer social service
programs across the United States (Barber, 2012). On average, health and human service
nonprofit providers maintain seven government contracts, with the median being three contract
(Boris et al., 2010; Pettijohn & Borris, 2013). According to Giving USA (2018), human service
organizations tend to rely more on government funding as opposed to other types of nonprofits.
This point particularly punctuates in Marvell and Gullickson’s (2013) estimate that publicly-
funded social services account for one-fifth of America’s welfare expenditures. Contracting
relationships offer mutual benefits for both the government agency and nonprofit provider
(Cortis, 2017). While contracting supports social welfare, contracting out also relieves cost
burdens on public administration and service provision (Knutsen, 2017). Nonprofits that receive
government contracts also achieve their missions and cater to local circumstances and individual
needs (Trzcinski & Sobeck, 2012). The following section addresses the challenges and
opportunities related to contracting that human service organizations face when conducting
fundraising activities.
Government contracting. While contracting poses benefits, these transactions also
present challenges that require knowledge of the competitive landscape (Knutsen,
2017). Contracting introduces competition, such as public tendering procedures and public
bidding processes (Larson, 2004). Witesman and Fernandez (2012) find that government
agencies conduct rigorous screening to determine nonprofit contractors’ capacity to meet and
exceed expectations. These assessments include examining a series of professional qualities,
such as the nonprofit’s financial viability, technical capacity, staffing capacity, and previous
experience in the field (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). However, Marvell and Gullickson (2013) report
that the lack of standardized contracting practices creates a complex network of various

32
application and eligibility criteria. Nearly three-quarters of health and human service
organizations perceive government contracting as complicated and time consuming (Pettijohn &
Borris, 2013). Significant data and literature support these assertions.
Several case studies on government contracting find significant variance in eligibility
criteria (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015; Morris, 2015; Sorrells & Miller, 2009). Farrell and Fyffe (2015)
find that in Prince George County, to receive one-time funding between $500-$5,000 nonprofit
applicants must show a history of leadership, show that they partner and collaborate, have
diverse streams of revenue, and have defined key service areas; for another funding opportunity
of $3,000-$100,000 applicants need to be in service for at least three years, need to demonstrate
experience and expertise, and provide services that match community needs. The preponderance
of evidence supports that government agencies determine contractor eligibility across multiple
criteria with wide ranges of dollar amounts (Witesman & Fernandez, 2012). Farrell and Fyffe
(2015) contend that governments should partner with small nonprofits due to their established
trust and abilities to engage community members more effectively than public
agencies. However, larger agencies with professional systems on average receive larger shares
of total government contracts (Boris et al., 2010). Professional and business management
characteristics continue to influence contracting processes, a practice immortalized in historic
tradition (Paynter & Berner, 2014).
Fees for Service. Fees for service or earned income, represent a significant income
source identified in the nonprofit management literature and industry data (Kerlin & Pollak,
2011; NPT, 2019; Schatteman, 2014). Nonprofit service providers might charge fees for service
for programs, treatment, events, or membership (Feiler et al., 2014). The data suggests that
social enterprise initiatives in the charitable sector emerged in the 1980s (Harris et al.,

33
2011). Based on an entrepreneurial orientation, commercial activities intend to decrease
nonprofit reliance on philanthropic and government income (Stecker, 2014). Harris et al. (2011)
describe the entrepreneurial orientation as the creation of new or combined resources to move
into new markets or customers. The literature suggests that commercial activities strengthen an
organization’s fiscal health and sustainability (Brown, 2018). Flexible market income facilitates
organizational scale and growth (Stecker, 2014). Further, commercial revenue helps agencies
access greater resources with maximum efficiency (Cortis, 2017).
Attitudes on entrepreneurial and fees for service activities in the charitable sector are
mixed in the literature (Schatteman, 2014). Some scholars warn against business-like nonprofits
and use terms such as “infiltration” and “invasion” of the market into the charitable sector to
criticize commercial practices (Scott, 2014). Despite these opinions, nonprofits broadly adopt
commercial activities to achieve diverse organizational revenue (LeRoux & Langer, 2016;
Williams & Taylor, 2012). Harris et al. (2011) study commercial nonprofit activities that
generate cash flow; these actions include hosting concerts, operating gift shops, and selling
merchandise. An illustrative example includes Kapucu’s (2012) study of small human service
providers that charged nominal fees for program participation and counseling services. Notably,
nonprofits also generate income through brand licensing agreements with for-profit partners
(Harris et al., 2011). While uncommon, nonprofits may also contract with for-profit companies
to target consumer populations in undeveloped business markets (Webb et al., 2010). The
literature provides strong arguments for nonprofits to consider engaging in social enterprise
activities but a professional paradox and capacity gap persists (Brown, 2018; Cortis, 2017).

34
Engaging in fees for service models necessitates professional processes (Brown,
2018). Research encourages nonprofits to pursue mixed income but fails to distinguish the
experiences between large and small agencies (Harris et al., 2011).
Managing multiple revenue sources imposes cost and administrative burdens on agencies (Webb
et al., 2010). The literature shows that small agencies without professional administrative
processes struggle in these contexts (Harris et al., 2011). Frumkin and Keating (2011) find that
managing the logistics and reporting for multiple income sources are challenging and cost-
prohibitive. Drawing on the professionalization paradox embedded in the nonprofit management
literature, the researcher assumes that small nonprofits lack the resources to manage diversified
revenue (Stecker, 2014). The following section concludes the literature review with a closing
discussion on the status of professionalization and fundraising in the social services sector.
Exploring Professionalization in Small Nonprofits
Minimal literature on the fundraising activities of small nonprofits exists (Bowman,
2011; Kim & Peng, 2018). Research tends to focus on the fundraising activities and outcomes of
larger 501(c)(3) nonprofit agencies (Chen, 2009; MacIndoe, 2013; Morris, 2015). To fully
understand the fiscal health of small nonprofits requires accessing financial records and data.
Further, the data needs to disaggregate across organizational size and budget to inform
practitioners on the fiscal status of small nonprofits (Cleopatra, 2018). However, financial data
represents the 501(c)(3) charitable sector as a monolithic group (Fox, 2015; Yi, 2010). Few
studies attempt to disaggregate the reported revenue of 501(c)(3) charitable organizations in the
United States (Giving USA, 2016; 2018; McKeever & Pettijohn, 2013).

35
The IRS maintains a singular tax-exempt grouping of 501(c)(3) charitable organizations
which poses numerous challenges for understanding fiscal trends with small nonprofits (Sorrells
& Miller, 2009).
For example, nonprofit educational institutions with billion-dollar endowments, nonprofit
hospitals with national operations, and small human service nonprofits with less than $50,000 in
annual revenue all hold the same 501(c)(3) tax-exemption status with the IRS (Lyons, 2014).
Incidentally, nonprofit management literature is bereft of making clear financial distinctions
between large and small nonprofit agencies (Cleopatra, 2018). These realities present a strong
case to further explore the fiscal health and sustainability of small nonprofit organizations, which
comprise 66% of the entire 501(c)(3) tax-exempt class (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014).
McKeever (2018) finds that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations constitute the largest tax-
exempt filing category in the United States. While informative, these statistics forestall
practitioners from forming actionable conclusions for the field. There are numerous benefits to
learning and understanding the growth and sustainability of the human services sub-
sector. Exploring the fundraising performance of small human service organizations bears
favorable findings for employment, economic contributions, and healthy communities (Kapucu,
2012). Freishahn (2016) asserts that the nonprofit sector holds employer potential, even
remaining steady during the economic recession from 2007 to 2009. This field study intends to
contribute to a growing body of inquiry on the fundraising capacity of small human service
organizations.
The United States’ charitable sector is diverse and variable (McKeever,
2018). Charitable (c)(3) nonprofits constitute the largest tax-exempt category, consisting of
educational institutions, arts and cultural groups, and human service organizations (McKeever &

36
Pettijohn, 2016). Disaggregating (c)(3) financial data reveals disproportionate figures in
organizational size, scope, and annual operating budgets (Bowman, 2011). The majority of
human service organizations function with under $1 million in funding, whereas a minority of
agencies accrue over $10 million in annual revenue (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2016). Nonprofit
professionalization and the integration of business-like practices in the charitable sector emerged
in the 1940s (Barber, 2012). Historic legislative and regulatory reforms influenced the
development of professionalization in the charitable sector (Lyons, 2014). Current research
supports that a professionalization gap exists between large and small human service nonprofits
(Schatteman, 2014). Demonstrating professional characteristics is consequential to the
fundraising strength of nonprofit organizations (Suarez, 2011). Nonprofits that demonstrate
professional characteristics secure donations, contracts, grants, and collect fees for service at
higher rates than groups that lack professional processes.
Government contracts, foundation grants, and fees for service are the leading revenue
sources for nonprofit organizations (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). Each of these income sources
require organizational characteristics that demonstrate professionalization (Marvell &
Gullickson, 2013). Professional organizational characteristics include maturity, reputation,
administrative and efficient processes, and Board of Director governance (Yi, 2010). Managing
fundraising relationships in different contexts, nonprofits are accountable to multiple stakeholder
groups (Campbell, 2002). Competing in resource scarce environments, nonprofits diversify
revenue sources to lower the risk of financial volatility (Carroll & Stater, 2015). Commercial
activities, including fees for service and social enterprise ventures, offer alternative means to
generate nonprofit cash flow (Harris et al., 2011). However, a professionalization paradox and
fundraising opportunity gap persists. Large nonprofits enjoy scaled economies, infrastructural

37
support, and in-house expertise, whereas small agencies lack the capacity to effectively fundraise
and diversify income (Hung & Hager, 2018).
The literature does not consider the experiences of small agencies in professional fundraising
settings (Kerlin & Pollak, 2011). The following section discusses the conceptual framework that
guided this study, the Clark and Estes’ Gap Analytical Model.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
A modified version of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
guided this evaluation study. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework systematically
identifies performance gaps in professional organizations. Applied across several industry
contexts, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework studies how stakeholder
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impact performance and organizational
goal achievement. Knowledge, the first considered dimension, shapes, informs, and predicts
stakeholder performance (Krathwohl, 2002). Krathwohl (2002) conceptualizes four distinct
knowledge types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Rueda (2011) asserts that
these knowledge types influence individual performance and goal attainment. Motivation, the
second dimension, shapes individual behavior and task completion. A composite of cognitive,
behavioral, and social theories, individual motivation predicts personal performance, task
completion, and goal achievement (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) define three indicators
of motivated behavior: active choice, persistence, and mental effort, which guide an individual’s
attributions, goal orientation, and task completion. Organizational influences, the last
dimensions of the gap analytic framework, consider how cultural models and settings interact to
help or hinder performance goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008).

38
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences

Through the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework, the following
sections discuss the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that nonprofit
EDs need to achieve their fundraising goals. The first section discusses knowledge and the
assumed knowledge types that positively influence nonprofit EDs in fundraising goal
achievement. Following that discussion, the researcher addresses the construct of motivation in
the frames of self-efficacy, attributions, and emotions. Lastly, the researcher discusses
organizational influences in cultural settings, in relation to performance goal achievement.
Following the analysis of these three influences, the discussion transitions to addressing the
study’s research methodology.
Knowledge and Skills

Knowledge is the first unit of measurement that nonprofit EDs need to achieve their
organizational fundraising goals. This section considers the literature on knowledge and
cognition, then pivots to apply these principles to the context of nonprofit EDs leading small
agencies. Positive performance outcomes depend on the strength of employee knowledge (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). A symbiotic relationship between knowledge and
organizational goal achievement exists (Rueda, 2011). How employees interpret and understand
their performance goals impacts their related actions, assessment, and attainment (Mayer,
2011). Clark and Estes (2008) assert that investing resources to increase knowledge equips both
employees and organizations to identify performance gaps, draw improvements, and adapt to
changing conditions. Subsequently, investing in employee knowledge creates a basis for
innovative approaches to problem-solving (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).

39
Organizations that link increased employee knowledge to broader strategic goals effectively
compete in the new world economy (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Influences
Measuring nonprofit ED progress requires understanding the different knowledge types
and the cognitive processes that shape individual performance (Krathwohl, 2002). Krathwohl
(2002) conceptualizes four distinct knowledge influences and types: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. These knowledge types collectively and discretely influence
organizational performance (Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge, the first knowledge type,
describes how individuals recognize and solve problems within their organizations. Factual
knowledge includes the ability to recall terminology, information, and isolated content elements
specific to a field (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge, the second type,
captures how individuals organize bodies of field-specific knowledge into relationships with
meaning and purpose. Drawing on categories, theories, principles, and models, conceptual
knowledge involves strategy and association with and across fields of practice (Krathwohl,
2002). Procedural knowledge, the third type, refers to how individuals develop processes and
methodical knowledge. Individuals with procedural knowledge make decisions based on
criteria, techniques, and subject-specific skills (Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002) presents a
fourth knowledge type, metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge focuses on how
individuals assess and improve their own learning and approach to performance (Baker, 2006;
Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge includes self-reflection and strategic
adjustment to goal achievement.
Organizations that increase metacognitive practices could adapt the ways in which employees
think, strategize, and operate in their organization's context (Rueda, 2011).

40
The next section discusses two assumed procedural knowledge influences that nonprofit
EDs need to achieve their fundraising goals. Individuals with procedural knowledge understand
methods and processes (Krathwohl, 2002). Further, individuals with procedural knowledge
make decisions based on their process and system expertise. Data shows that nonprofit EDs with
procedural knowledge of their environment demonstrate skilled fundraising and development
practices (Bauer, 2017). The following section addresses two assumed procedural knowledge
influences that nonprofit EDs need to achieve their organizational fundraising goals.
Nonprofit EDs need to know how to compete for diverse funding revenue. The
literature supports that nonprofit agencies with mixed income gain fiscal strength and flexible
resources (Cortis, 2017). Data shows that nonprofit EDs who have procedural knowledge on
competing for diverse funding sources increase revenue for their agencies (Farrell & Fyffe,
2015). Nonprofit agencies compete for resources in a network of complex accountability
relationships with multiple funder groups (Brown, 2018). These funder groups have various
interests, goals, and values that influence their funding decisions (Harris et al., 2011). Marvell
and Gullickson (2013) find that the nonprofit funding environment has myriad eligibility criteria
and application processes. Further, funders flexibly allocate financial resources to various
nonprofit grantees that align with their goals and values (Ashley & Faulk, 2010). Faulk et al.,
(2016) report that funders not only observe different funding schedules, they hold powerful
authority in defining eligibility standards across social service competitors.
Government agencies and private and public funders administer multiple contracting and
grant application criteria (Harris et al., 2015). In competing for government contracts, Farrell
and Fyffe (2015) find that in Prince George County, Maryland, local governments only accept
funding applications from nonprofit agencies that provide data on issue areas of need,

41
demonstrate a history of leadership, and show a capacity to collaborate. Similarly, in the realm
of private charities, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Foundation at Stanford (2018) reports
that only healthcare-based nonprofits received grants through their Community Benefit program.
Further, Koushyar et al., (2015) find that private and corporate foundations tend to give grants in
highly focused and specialized areas such as furthering Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) education. Social service organizations that fall outside of these funding
criteria must know how to maneuver in a concentrated, resource-scarce, and competitive
environment (Bauer, 2017; Suarez, 2011).
The literature shows that nonprofits with procedural knowledge on the different means of
competing for revenue demonstrate fundraising strength, indicated by regularly consistent and
increasing organizational revenue (Boris et al., 2010; Morris, 2015; Suarez, 2011). While studies
on organizational capacity assert that small nonprofits cannot manage multiple incomes, the data
shows that despite organizational size, EDs need procedural knowledge to effectively compete
for diverse funding revenue (Bauer, 2017; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). The literature broadly
identifies a collection of primary revenue sources for nonprofits: government contracts, public
and private charitable grants, individual donations, and fees for service models as four diverse
funding sources for nonprofits (Boris et al., 2010; Esposito & Besana, 2018; Fischer, 2020; Heist
& Vance-McMullen, 2019).
The following section continues the discussion on the importance of procedural knowledge in
competing for diverse funding sources, specifically attracting donations, competing for contracts
and grants, and creating ways to earn income.
Attracting donations. According to Giving USA (2019), American individuals gave a
total of $292.09 billion to charitable nonprofit organizations in 2018. This figure exceeds the

42
annual giving by foundations at $75.86 billion and corporations at $20.05 billion (Giving USA,
2019). A composite of several revenue sources, including the prominent role of Donor Advised
Funds (DAFs), giving by bequest, and personal donations, the point punctuates that the battery of
individual philanthropy powers the United States’ charitable nonprofit sector (Giving USA,
2018; Heist & Vance-McMullen, 2019; McRay, 2018). Based on the data, the principal
researcher assumes that nonprofit EDs must hold procedural knowledge on attracting and
managing individual donations to fundraise for their organizations (Esposito & Besana, 2018).
The literature suggests that knowledge on social media platforms and targeted messaging to
audiences, such as managing donation campaigns bodes well for nonprofit organizations that
successfully implement these fundraising strategies (Alfaro, 2015; Hoefer, 2012). A popular 24-
hour donation drive known as “Giving Tuesday” serves as a boon for nonprofit organizations,
with data showing that a promoted “day of giving” raised $168 million in donations nationwide
(Jones, 2016). Due to this, the principal researcher believes that EDs need a knowledge base on
deploying social media sites and donation platforms to effectively fundraise for their agencies.
Notably, the literature does not explore the extent of donation drive successes for small social
service providers, with most of the research focusing on the fundraising outcomes of well-known
charities, such as the United Way (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Jones, 2016).
Competing for contracts and grants. The second primary revenue sources for nonprofits
organizations are contracts and grants. Government contracts and private and public grants
represent significant revenue sources for social service providers (Besel et al., 2011; Marvell &
Gullickson, 2013). While government contract and private and public grant funding processes
share similar application traits, they operate in different competitive systems of exchange
(Ashley & Faulk, 2010). However, the competitive processes to secure government contracts or

43
grants, public or private foundation grants are highly diffuse and variable (Grayson, 2020;
Koushyar et al., 2015). The data implies that nonprofit EDs need to know the different
procedural environments that surround these distinct funder groups (McRay, 2018). Competing
in a landscape with wide variance, the principal researcher assumes that nonprofit EDs hold deep
knowledge in fundraising with different stakeholder groups.
Government agencies, corporate foundations, and private and public charities administer
various application and bidding schedules that define public tendering and private grantmaking
processes (Larson, 2004). The lack of standardized contracting and grantmaking processes
breeds funder personalization, resulting in unique selection criteria, arbitrary application
schedules, and diffused funder demands on performance and accountability (Pettijohn & Boris,
2014). To compete effectively, Marvell and Gullickson (2013) assert that nonprofits must
display professional competencies, including the capacity to prepare and submit written
proposals, with demonstrated ability to perform. The literature supports that contracting and
grantmaking approaches across corporate funders, foundations, and governmental agencies vary
significantly (Faulk et al., 2016; Knutsen, 2017; Koushyar et al., 2015).
While corporate funders tend to give larger, unrestricted grants, governmental agencies that
reallocate taxpayer dollars and remain accountable to the public demand stricter reporting and
transparency from social service contractors (Koushyar et al., 2015; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013;
Morris, 2015).
Pettijohn and Boris (2014) find that nonprofit agencies complain about the confusing
nature of funders adhering to various funding schedules. Similarly, Marvell and Gullickson
(2013) report that small social service providers find grant application processes complicated.
Further, Yung et al. (2008) find that in a national survey of small nonprofits, 33% lacked

44
knowledge on how to research grant funding opportunities and 28% needed grant writing
assistance. While procedural knowledge is critical, the literature implies that a professional
capacity and fundraising gap exists in the sector. Procedural knowledge on competing for
contracts and grants, in public and private settings, is consequential for nonprofit EDs who seek
to scale and grow the financial resources of their organizations (Girth, 2014; Grayson, 2020).
Despite these assertions, the data shows that nonprofit EDs with an understanding of their
competitive environment’s various stakeholder interests, funding opportunities, and application
processes consistently secure revenue for their organizations (Knutsen, 2017; Suarez, 2011).
The next section discusses the distinct contract and grant processes that integrate into the
necessary nonprofit ED procedural knowledge.
Creating ways to earn income. Social service nonprofit organizations commonly charge
reduced or sliding fees for services or programs provided (Kerlin & Pollak, 2011; Schatteman,
2014). To remain flexible amid economic volatility, the literature promotes the nonprofit
management practice of maintaining mixed revenue (Stecker, 2014).
Additionally, nonprofits that seek to decrease their reliance on philanthropic and government
income consider strategies that increase their earned income (Cortis, 2017). As a prevalent
revenue source for nonprofit organizations, the principal researcher assumes that EDs need to
know how to grow and scale their services to justify charging client fees (LeRoux & Langer,
2016). Feiler (2014) finds that nonprofit organizations often promote membership to secure
consistent revenue, but with added benefits including members-only discounts and access.
While Kapucu (2012) reports that small social service providers charge modest fees but serve all
community members regardless of ability to pay. The research implies that nonprofits retain
high levels of innovation within creating ways to earn income, including selling merchandise,

45
tickets to events, and registration fees for programs (Harris et al., 2011; Hoefer, 2012).
Nonprofit EDs that know the processes in which to monetize their programs and services stand
to create additional income sources for their agencies. The following section further explores
the practice of nonprofit EDs knowing how to leverage partnerships to grow their financial
resources.
Nonprofit EDs need to know how to leverage partnerships that grow their financial
resources. The nonprofit fundraising environment has various administrative processes that
enable strategic partnerships across like-minded social service providers and community groups
(McBeath et al., 2017). Data supports that nonprofits that engage in partnerships and
collaborative efforts with other nonprofits, show positive gains in resources and financial capital
(LeRoux & Langer, 2016). Trzcinki and Sobeck (2012) find that agencies in collaborative
service models each receive funds to provide organizational programs and services. In addition
to receiving fiscal support, partners also share resources and materials to complement the
consortium’s work (Kim & Peng, 2018). MacIndoe (2013) suggests that nonprofits that enter
into collaborative partnerships reduce expenses and manage mutual resources. Further, Mavell
and Gullickson (2013) find that funder groups favor nonprofit collaboration and tend to
encourage consortium activities. Collaboration in the social services sector continues to gain
popularity within government contracting and grant-making processes (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015).
Kim and Peng (2018) describe that small agencies better position their operations and activities
by leveraging relationships in collaborative environments. However, research also shows that
larger nonprofits more commonly engage in partnership models and benefit from scaled
resources (Ada, 2013; Hale, 2013). The literature punctuates an important procedural
consideration for EDs leading small nonprofits. Larger nonprofits tend to enjoy the mutual

46
resource-sharing and strategic relationships that characterize partnership models (Knutsen, 2017;
LeRoux & Langer, 2016). To also engage in leveraging partnerships and resources, nonprofit
EDs need to know the procedures that govern these funding and service models. The next
section reviews the literature on the emerging popularity of nonprofit partnerships and
collaboration in the field.
Leveraging resources. The research studies the relationship between nonprofit
collaboration and its observed effects across the partnering agencies (MacIndoe, 2013). Funder
groups continue to emphasize nonprofit collaboration for numerous reasons. The literature
broadly asserts that cost-savings, resource-sharing, and coordinated services are among the
leading reasons for increased demands on nonprofit collaboration (Knutsen, 2017). In settings of
resource scarcity and shrinking public funds, government agencies began facilitating contract
proposals from nonprofit consortiums (Krawcyzk & Wooddell, 2017).
The literature suggests that private philanthropy also adopted new grant-making principles to
encourage collaborative proposals (Ashley & Faulk, 2010). In consortium models, one nonprofit
offers to manage the administration and distribution of funds to consortium partners based on
contract agreements (McBeath et al., 2017). Literature shows that larger nonprofits with
bureaucratic infrastructure tend to assume administrative responsibilities in collaborative funding
partnerships, however the implications for smaller agencies to benefit from shared resources
seems positive (MacIndoe, 2013). Leroux and Langer (2016) find that collaborative
relationships increase shared material and resources across partners. Campbell (2002) also
reports that collaborative service models allow partners to share costs and reduce expenses to
administer services. Due to these implicit environmental changes, nonprofit EDs need to know

47
the processes that influence collaborative fundraising models and further, how to engage in
partnerships that facilitate resource growth (Campbell, 2002).
Table 1 captures the assumed knowledge influences, typologies, and assessment methods
that the researcher intends to use during the study. The assessment methods plan to explore the
assumed procedural knowledge that nonprofit EDs need to achieve their fundraising performance
goals.
Table 1
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessment Methods
Stakeholder Global Goal
By December 2020, nonprofit executive directors (EDs) leading small human service nonprofit
organizations will achieve their fundraising goals within three years of operating.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Nonprofit EDs need to know
how to compete for diverse
funding revenue.
Procedural
Interview questions:
1. What do you believe are important
skills in fundraising?
2. What types of revenue are available
to your nonprofit organization?
3. Can you describe the role of private
philanthropy in your fundraising
activities?
4. Can you describe the role of
government contracting in your
fundraising activities?
5. How did you secure your initial
series of funds to begin operating?
Walk me through that process.
6. How do you decide which funding
opportunities to pursue? Can you
describe your process?
7. Alternatively, how do you decide
which funding opportunities you will
not pursue?

48

Document analysis:
Financial records, government contracts,
grant reports, agency marketing
literature
Nonprofit EDs need to know
how to leverage partnerships that
grow their financial resources.
Procedural
Interview questions:
8. Can you describe the role of
partnerships in growing your
financial resources?
9. What characteristics do you look for
in an organizational partner?
Document analysis:
Financial records, government contracts,
grant reports, and agency marketing
literature.
Motivation Influences
Motivation critically influences nonprofit EDs and their related fundraising goal
achievement. The second dimension in Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analytical Conceptual
Framework, motivation invokes individual interest and action. Constructed with a composite of
cognitive and behavioral theories, Rueda (2011) argues that motivation predicts individual
performance. Motivation levels, or whether an individual can or wants to perform a specific
task, determines behavior (Eccles, 2006). Motivated behavior has three indicators: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Active choice refers to an individual's
interest in task engagement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Persistence
describes a person's commitment to completing a task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer,
2011). Mental effort assesses the depth of energy, time, and investment given to a particular task
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation systems present deep implications for organizational
effectiveness (Rueda, 2011). According to Clark and Estes (2008, personal motivation incites or
inhibits individual performance. Few organizations understand the behavioral influences of
motivation levels and instead divert resources to increased staff training and development

49
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This evaluation study intends to
investigate the schema of motivation-related influences and how they drive nonprofit ED
behavior in fundraising performance.
A collection of cognitive and social theories shapes an individual's motivated
behavior. Assessing the motivation influences of nonprofit EDs leading small agencies requires
an understanding that motivation is rooted in a person's self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Pajares,
2006). Bandura (2000) conceptualizes self-efficacy, or a person's confidence on their ability to
achieve a specific task. According to Eccles (2006), the strongest predictor of motivation is how
a person assigns value to a task, and subsequently, their expectancy that the outcome of the task
will be successful. Expectations are formed through interest, perceptions, emotions, and
attributions (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Further, Anderman and
Anderman (2006) assert that attributions intrinsically link to performance and goals. An
individual's goal orientation locks into their self-efficacy, or their confidence-level in
successfully completing a task (Eccles, 2006). This calculation between self-efficacy and task
completion corresponds to perceived value (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). The following section
addresses three motivation-related theories: self-efficacy, attributions, and emotions. The
discussion then continues to apply these motivation influences on the context of nonprofit EDs
and their fundraising performance.
Self-efficacy. The literature suggests that positive self-efficacy critically influences
nonprofit ED fundraising performance (Bauer, 2017). Bandura (2000) conceptualizes two types
of self-efficacy: the first typology, individual self-efficacy, or a person's confidence in their own
capabilities; the second being collective self-efficacy, meaning a group's confidence level on the
successful completion of a specific task. This evaluation study focuses on the influence of

50
individual self-efficacy. Self-efficacy provides the foundation for human motivation (Bandura,
2000). Pajares (2006) asserts that a person's confidence, beliefs, and perceptions of capabilities
shape motivation. Consequently, individual perceptions of capability influence related behavior
and actions (Eccles, 2006). Bandura (2000) describes individual self-efficacy as a judgment
about one's self.
These personal beliefs include expectations on capability, performance, and the confidence one
has to produce favorable outcomes (Bandura, 2002). Individual self-efficacy influences the
choices that people make and the courses of action that they pursue (Bandura, 2000; Pajares,
2006). Self-efficacy mediates a person's choice of behaviors and activities (Bandura,
2000). Expectancy value and self-efficacy share a relationship that dually influences a person's
performance (Denler et al., 2006). A person with positive self-efficacy that places high
expectancy value on a task demonstrates increased mental effort, persistence, and active choice
in task completion (Bandura, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008). Positive self-efficacy translates to an
individual choosing increasingly difficult tasks and challenging themselves (Bandura, 2000).
This willingness to expend greater time and persistence to task completion signals an
individual’s positive self-efficacy (Clark & Estes, 2008). The role of individual self-efficacy in
the context of nonprofit ED fundraising performance stands as a critical factor in measuring
motivation.
Nonprofit EDs need to feel confident in their ability to achieve their organization's
fundraising goals. In competitive and resource scarce environments, nonprofit EDs play crucial
roles in fundraising for their organizations (Williams, 2013). These general tasks could include
Board of Director engagement, executing donor drives, producing fundraising events, and
managing revenue sources (Cleopatra, 2018; Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). However, the literature

51
finds that fund development efforts can range based on organizational size (Hwang & Powell,
2008). While larger nonprofits tend to contract or hire fundraising professionals, studies show
that EDs in small agencies absorb chief development responsibilities (Kapucu & Demiroz,
2013).
Williams (2013) describes fundraising responsibilities as requiring nonprofit EDs to be self-
aware, create environments that facilitate philanthropy, with an eye for recognizing threats and
opportunities. Based on these performance expectations, the researcher assumes that EDs need
to have positive self-efficacy to achieve their fundraising goals. Positive self-efficacy suggests
that EDs not only place high expectancy values on their efforts, but that they also demonstrate
motivated behavior (Bandura, 2005). In practice, motivated behavior means that EDs identify
revenue sources and commit their mental effort and time to learning multiple application and
contract processes (Clark & Estes, 2008; Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). Further, EDs with positive self-
efficacy persist through task completion, which could mean submitting written project and
budget proposals to government agencies and private foundations (Larson, 2004). There is an
implicit belief that EDs need positive self-efficacy in their writing and presentation skills, their
abilities to engage their Board of Directors, and confidence in their agency’s potential to
fundraise (Olinske & Hellman, 2017). While fund development activities vary across agencies,
the literature supports that nonprofit EDs broadly lead fundraising initiatives for their
organizations (Yung et al., 2008). The literature finds that nonprofit leaders report feeling burnt
out and overworked (Helmig et al., 2014). Kapucu et al. (2011) attribute nonprofit employee
burnout to resource unavailability. The researcher assumes that Nonprofit EDs who remain
motivated in a competitive environment with scarce resources and staff leads with positive self-
efficacy (Campbell & Lambright, 2016). Research recognizes that a fundraising capacity gap

52
between large and small nonprofits exists (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). Studies on the capacity of
small human service providers find that agency leaders need fundraising training and support
(Knox & Wang, 2018; Yung et al., 2008).
Understanding these environmental and organizational challenges, this proposal asserts that
positive self-efficacy and confidence are integral to ED motivation in fundraising goal
achievement.
Attributions. Attributions are the second assumed motivation influence. Attribution
theory relates to positive self-efficacy and confidence but addresses the cognitive process in
which individuals make meaning and form beliefs about past occurrences (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Attributions connect to perception and an individual’s interpretation on why
specific actions happened, events occurred, or the causes of certain outcomes (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Weiner (1985, 2005) states that attribution theory examines how people form
causal beliefs. These causal beliefs connect to cognitive processing and lead to behavioral
consequences (Martinko et al., 2011; Weiner, 2005). Individuals make attributions on both
personal and environmental factors (Weiner, 2005). The literature defines three causal
dimensions to attributions: locus, stability, and controllability (Weiner, 1985; 2005). Each
dimension considers separate activities and cognitive processes. Locus refers to an individual’s
belief of a cause being internal or external; stability describes whether the cause is stable or
unstable; controllability addresses if an individual perceives that they controlled the cause or
merely reacted to external factors (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Weiner, 1985). Attributional
theory centers on the thesis that individuals retain positive perceptions on their ability to perform
despite the outcome of certain occurrences or events (Weiner, 2005). The locus dimension
addresses internal and external attributions; if a learner believes that they have failed a math

53
exam because they lack ability, they are choosing an internal cause whereas if they believe that
they received poor instruction, they are attributing their performance to an external cause
(Weiner, 2005). Stability involves the perception of stable or unstable causes in specific
situations; if a learner believes that they failed a math exam because they lack the ability in math,
then this cause is stable, however if they attribute their failure to being ill at the time they took
the exam, then that is an unstable attribution (Weiner, 2005). Controllability refers to whether
the cause of an event is perceived as being under the control of the individual; if a learner
believes they lost a spelling contest because they did not practice enough, then that cause is
controllable; however, if they perceive that they lost the contest because of a lack of ability, then
the cause is uncontrollable (Weiner, 2005). An individual’s perceptions on their personal ability
form these three attributional dimensions. Formed through meaning making and causal
interpretations, individual attributions predict motivated behavior (Anderman & Anderman,
2006). The personal perceptions that individuals hold toward certain tasks and responsibilities
can empower or disempower their performance (Rueda, 2011; Weiner, 2005). These perceptions
inform behavior, which shapes actions. The literature shows that attributions hold implications
for motivated choices and behavior (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Nonprofit EDs need to attribute the achievement of their fundraising goals to their
own efforts. Nonprofit EDs that compete for contracts and grants need to retain positive beliefs
in their ability despite the outcome. In instances where the ED is successful in contract or grant
procurement, they should recognize their responsibility in that achievement. By contrast, when
nonprofit EDs are unsuccessful in securing contracts or grants, their attributions to these
occurrences remain critical (Kapucu, 2012). EDs need to maintain positive attributions in

54
understanding that external factors, unrelated to their personal abilities, also influence their
fundraising performance (Faulk et al., 2016; Kim & Peng, 2018).
The literature shows that nonprofits fundraise in competitive and resource scarce environments
(Ashley & Faulk, 2010; Faulk et al., 2016). National data shows that grantors award funding to
nonprofits based on organizational size and age (Yi, 2010). Larger nonprofits with established
reputations tend to receive contracts and grant revenue at higher rates than small agencies
(Knutsen, 2017). EDs fundraising for small agencies must recognize that funders make
decisions with limited supply in an environment with an excess of demand (Ashley & Faulk,
2010). EDs who accept that certain unstable and uncontrollable factors influence their
fundraising performance could maintain positive attributions toward their goals. Based on the
research, the researcher assumes that positive attributions shape motivated fundraising behavior
(Kuenzi & Stewart, 2017; Weiner, 2005). The following section discusses the role of emotions
in nonprofit fundraising activities.
Emotions. Numerous studies on emotions exist in both the psychological and
educational fields (Pekrun, 2011). Regarded as a multidimensional phenomenon, emotions are
coordinated processes across cognitive, physiological, affective, and motivational components
(Pekrun, 2011). The literature supports that emotions are best understood through affective
constructs (Dong, 2011). Affect describes a constellation of general motivational constructs that
influence individual thoughts and behavior (Goetz et al., 2010). These motivational constructs
include self-efficacy, beliefs, and attributions (Pekrun, 2011). In relation to emotions, an
individual’s affect connects to their emotions and moods (Dong, 2011). Literature on emotions
and moods distinguish positive and negative emotions and moods (Dong, 2011). Positive affect

55
translates to positive states including enjoyment, pride, and satisfaction whereas negative affect
consists of negative states such as anger, anxiety, and frustration (Lang & Lang, 2010).
The literature describes positive and negative affect in terms of valence and activation (Goetz et
al., 2010). Positive and negative valence distinguishes between pleasant emotions versus
negative emotions (Pekrun, 2011). The second term, activation, refers to an individual’s
physiological response to activating excitement versus deactivating relaxation (Pekrun, 2011).
The following section discusses the importance of emotions in nonprofit ED fundraising
performance.
Nonprofit EDs need positive emotions to achieve their fundraising performance
goals. The literature links personal emotions and individual goal achievement (Rueda, 2011).
Several studies argue that personal emotions and goal achievement have a reciprocal
relationship, whereby individual emotions influence goal adoption and goals influence emotions
(Pekrun, 2011). In their competitive environment, nonprofit EDs need to experience positive
emotions such as happiness, enjoyment, and pride (Dong, 2011). EDs leading small nonprofits
not only fundraise in multiple systems, they perform their development activities with minimal
resources and staff (Knox & Wang, 2018). Recent studies suggest that the nonprofit sector
experiences high rates of employee burnout (Helmig et al., 2014). Numerous environmental,
economic, and physiological factors contribute to the need for positive emotions (Bauer, 2017).
Kim and Lee (2008) find that nonprofit employees attribute burnout to long work hours.
Additionally, Howard (2009) finds that non-competitive compensation in the sector is another
leading reason for burnout and consequently, staff turnover. Assuming that small nonprofits
intimately experience employee burnout and turnover, EDs need positive emotions to engage in

56
critical fundraising tasks (Deaton et al., 2013). To engage in motivated behavior, nonprofit EDs
need to feel happy and excited in their fundraising activities (Kapucu et al., 2011).
The literature supports that positive affect influences persistence in goal achievement (Pekrun,
2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Nonprofit EDs who feel positive emotions persist in
achieving their fundraising performance goals (“Fundraising for Social Change”, 2016).
Table 2 displays the two assumed motivation influences and recommended assessments
for identifying potential gaps.
Table 2
Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessment Methods
Stakeholder Global Goal
By December 2020, nonprofit executive directors (EDs) leading small human service nonprofit
organizations will achieve their fundraising goals within their first few years of operating.
Motivation Influence Influence Type Motivation Influence Assessment
Nonprofit EDs need to feel
confident in their ability to
achieve their organization's
fundraising goals.

Self-efficacy
Interview questions:
10. What do you think you do well as
a fundraiser?
11. What do you think you are
challenged by as a fundraiser?
12. How confident are you in your
fundraising goals? What
contributes to this confidence?
Nonprofit EDs need to attribute
the achievement of their
fundraising goals to their own
efforts.
Attributions
Interview questions:
13. Tell me about a time that
highlights your fundraising
experience.
14. How do these experiences
influence your current
fundraising approaches?
15. To what do you attribute the
fundraising results for your
organization?

57
Nonprofit EDs need positive
emotions to achieve their
fundraising goals.
Emotions
Interview question:
16. How do you feel about
fundraising?
17. What emotions do you feel when
you think about fundraising for
your organization?
Organizational Influences
This section reviews the literature on organizational leadership and culture. Following a
thorough review, this segment then pivots to addressing how nonprofit organizational influences
interact with ED knowledge and motivation in relation to achieving their fundraising
goals. Exploring the role of leadership in organizational functioning and development is
requisite. Moreover, understanding the interaction between leadership and organizational culture
provides unique insights into employee knowledge and motivation (Schein,
2004). Organizational culture mimics the ethos and espoused values of its leadership (Erez &
Gati, 2004; Schein, 1992; 2004; Senge, 1990). Senge (1990) contends that the role of a leader is
to restructure and build employee trust, rapport, and engagement. Leaders define the tone,
cadence, and normalize behaviors within their organizations (Berger, 2014). Analyzing
organizational culture necessitates a careful review of the psychological influences that
leadership has on contextual knowledge and motivation (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). The forces of
organizational cultures powerfully shape and influence employee interactions to reflect desired
behavior (Senge, 1990). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2010) conceptualize this phenomenon as
cultural models and settings. Cultural models reinforce shared mental schema through
assumptions, perceptions, and sense-making activities, which inform cultural settings like
structures, policies, protocols, and processes (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010).
Consequently, the combination of organizational models and settings influence nonprofit
ED knowledge and motivation. Highly contextual, the nonprofit sector maintains specific

58
cultural models and settings that shape organizational performance, behavior, and goal
achievement (Bromley & Orchard, 2016; Carroll & Stater, 2015). The next section addresses the
roles of cultural models and settings in nonprofit organizations. Following the review on models
and settings, the discussion then shifts to the influences of specific cultural settings on nonprofit
ED fundraising performance.
Cultural Models
A diversity of governance, structure, and size exist within the United States’ charitable
sector (Morris et al., 2013). These differences refract through organizations in various ways
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). The governing cultural models of an organization can be
viewed with both external and internal considerations. Externally, the charitable sector exists to
serve the common good (Chen, 2009). Based on this shared belief, the government continues to
contract with nonprofit providers to address social needs throughout American communities
(Morris, 2015). Internally, the assumptions on serving the common good remain constant,
however literature supports that differences in governance, structure, and size determine certain
cultural models and settings (Yi, 2010). Drawing on two prevalent conceptual frameworks,
resource dependency theory and stewardship theory, the researcher assumes that despite
differences in leadership and mission orientation, nonprofits are influenced by models of
resource dependence and cooperative relationships (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Davis et al.,
1997).
The relative resource dependence of nonprofits has been comprehensively discussed in
this proposal but its repeating presence in the context of fund development warrants continued
discussion. Stewardship theory contributes to the shared theme of resource dependence but
extends the conversation to the belief that funders and nonprofits work cooperatively on shared

59
goals in service to communities (Campbell & Lambright, 2016). The following section discusses
the influences of resource dependency and stewardship theories in the assumed cultural models
of nonprofit organizations.
Resource dependency and stewardship theories. The basic principles of resource
dependence and stewardship theories influence certain nonprofit cultural models. Nonprofits
that seek financial sustainability aim to increase diverse funding sources (Carroll & Stater,
2015). However, the data shows that nonprofits raise funds in an environment with limited
resources (Ashley & Faulk, 2010; Suarez, 2011). In addition to meeting fundraising goals,
nonprofit providers must also administer social services and programs (Trzcinski & Sobeck,
2012). The discussion on nonprofit resource dependence and stewardship theories contextualizes
the polarities of fundraising tasks and service provision. The literature suggests that nonprofits
operate in cultural models that prioritize funding and relationships (LeRoux & Langer, 2016).
Data supports that nonprofits manage diverse funding sources and maintain multiple inward and
outward accountability relationships (Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). The researcher assumes that
resource dependence and relationships with funders shape cultural models of behavior, mental
schema, and beliefs in nonprofit organizations (Berger, 2014; Yung et al., 2008). These cultural
models could include shared values on resource development, building positive external
perceptions of the agency, and ensuring activities fulfill the organizational mission (Morris et al.,
2013). Board of Director engagement also supports cultural models on funding and relationships
(Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). Cultural models that prioritize funding and relationships influence the
related settings that govern the organization’s activities, policies, and procedures (Senge, 1990).
The next section discusses the role of cultural settings in governing organizational activities,
policies, and procedures.

60
Cultural Settings
Cultural models and settings describe the dyadic relationship and manifestation of
organizational culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). Cultural models guide shared mental
schema while settings visibly activate models and provide systems that reinforce or shape
behavior (Erez & Gati, 2004). Organizational culture mimics its leadership (Senge, 1990).
Organizational leaders normalize customs and behaviors that undergird the foundation of shared
perceptions, assumptions, and attitudes (Schein, 2004). Cultural models inform settings which
include organizational policies, procedures, and protocols (Korsgaard & Brodt, 2002).
Recognizing that cultural settings reinforce assumptions and perceptions, the literature asserts
that cultural settings critically influence employee engagement, trust, and communication
(Belsky, 2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2010). Organizational policies, protocols, and procedures
interact with employee performance and goal achievement (Belsky, 2014). Exploring the
interaction between cultural settings and nonprofit ED fundraising activities, across the state of
California proffers new knowledge for the field (Suarez, 2011).
Organizational cultural settings consequently influence the external and internal
fundraising activities for nonprofit agencies (Knutsen, 2017). Suarez (2010) describes how
nonprofit organizations with internal protocols that facilitate collaboration and partnership
demonstrate skill raising revenue. Similarly, Hwang and Powell (2008) find that nonprofits with
professional settings, including compensated staff and services, experience steady revenue
increases for their organizations. Kim and Peng (2018) assert that small nonprofits that
encourage external relationship development benefit from accessing informal networks within
their communities. Cultural settings also shape internal decisions, resource allocation, and
fundraising initiatives (Korsgaard & Brodt, 2002). Deaton et al., (2013) assert that nonprofits

61
that observe policies and procedures that value employee training benefit from higher
engagement and retention levels. Further, Knox and Wang (2016) find that small agencies that
prioritize building the internal capacity of their personnel and operations better position
themselves to compete in their fundraising environment. Oriented in the importance of cultural
settings in fundraising activities, the following section discusses the assumed organizational
influences that support ED fundraising performance.
Nonprofit EDs need personal and professional development opportunities outside of
their organizations. Recognizing that nonprofit EDs compete with scarce resources, this
proposal seeks to understand how they leverage external opportunities to advance their
fundraising goals. The literature suggests that nonprofit EDs with access to peers and mentors
possess social capital that assists with their personal knowledge growth and organizational
fundraising initiatives (Aggarwal et al., 2012; Payan et al., 2017). In a series of interviews with
new nonprofit executives, The Nonprofit Business Advisor (2013) finds that many respondents
indicate an interest in receiving mentorship from seasoned nonprofit executives. Kapucu and
Demiroz (2013) also report that 40 nonprofit leaders that completed a capacity building program
remained in contact with their executive mentors.
Further, four participants shared that they had partnered with other cohort mates in
related community projects (Kapucu & Demiroz, 2013). Kapucu (2012) asserts that
development opportunities outside of organizations help nonprofit leaders build fiscal and human
resources. Similarly, Kim and Peng (2018) find that in small agencies, staff members that
engage in external informal networks bring resources into their organizations. The emergence of
capacity building and leadership development programs in the nonprofit sector suggests that
nonprofit EDs need development opportunities outside of their organizations (Kuenzi & Stewart,

62
2017; Kapucu et al., 2011). Board of Director support is another notable dimension, nonprofit
EDs that maintain collegial relationships with their Board members report higher levels of
organizational rapport and engagement (Besel et al., 2011; Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). The
researcher assumes that nonprofit EDs must operate in cultural settings that support personal and
professional development (Knox & Wang, 2016). Hence, nonprofit EDs must work within
cultural settings that facilitate knowledge growth, development, and training (Bolman & Deal,
2008; Clark & Estes, 2008). The next section continues the discussion on the importance of
cultural settings in supporting nonprofit EDs in forming strategic fundraising partnerships.
Nonprofit EDs need to form strategic partnerships within their communities
through coalition engagement and membership. For the past two decades, the nonprofit
sector has seen a gradual shift in government contracting and foundation grant-making (Buteau
et al, 2014). Vulnerable to the health of the broader economy, public agencies that once had a
surplus, now manage shrinking tax revenue, which has implications for nonprofit contractors
(Fox, 2015; MacIndoe, 2013). To relieve government oversight and induce cost-savings
measures, government contractors increasingly facilitate collaborative nonprofit funding models
(Libby & Austin, 2002). Fashioned as a model to facilitate resource-sharing, cost-savings, and
community-wide impact, governmental bodies introduced the practice of funding collaborative
nonprofit efforts (Campbell, 2002). Private foundations have increasingly adopted collaborative
funding models as well, creating a change in the sector’s competitive fundraising environment
(Faulk et al., 2016).
Data asserts that small human service agencies benefit from engaging in collaborative
funding models (Carnochan et al., 2019). The literature identifies arguments in favor and against
collaborative funding models (Payan et al., 2017). Nonprofit EDs and Boards of Directors could

63
hold different opinions on the nature of collaboration (Libby & Austin, 2002). While some
leaders argue that collaborative models dilute unique agency identity, others see mutual benefits
in engaging with various partners (LeRoux & Langer, 2016). MacInoe (2013) finds a growing
nationwide emphasis on nonprofit collaboration. Further, resource-sharing, leveraging
partnerships, and mutual promotion of organizational services enhances all collaborators
(Campbell, 2002). Data shows that larger nonprofits tend to enter funding collaborations, which
presents a stronger case for coalition engagement of smaller agencies (Carnochan et al., 2019).
In Libby and Austin’s (2002) study on the forming of a local nonprofit collaborative, composed
of small to medium-sized agencies, they found that each participating group received modest
grants to support their work, and also leveraged relationships through the alliance. To enable
nonprofit EDs to achieve their fundraising goals, organizations need to adopt cultural settings
that facilitate coalition engagement and membership. Organizations that hold memberships
across coalitions access resources, share information, reduce costs, and leverage existing
programs to strengthen their impact (Kim & Peng, 2018).
Nonprofit organizations operate within diverse neighborhoods and communities, with
variance in missions, visions, and constituencies (Morris, 2015). Compounded with complicated
accounting responsibilities, communication tasks, stakeholder expectations, and funding
competition, nonprofit organizations continue to face a professionalization paradox in their
sector (Trzcinksi & Sobeck, 2012). The professionalization paradox challenges agency growth,
suggesting that a capacity gap between large and small nonprofits to compete for funds exists
(Farrell & Fyffe, 2015). These sections have discussed the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that EDs need to achieve their fundraising goals. Concerning
procedural knowledge dimensions, positive self-efficacy, attributions and emotions, to working

64
within settings that support personal development and coalition engagement and partnerships, the
following sections propose a research methodology for exploring how EDs leading small human
services agencies achieve their organization’s fundraising goals.
Table 3 proposes the assumed cultural settings that nonprofit EDs could need to support
their fundraising goals.
Table 3
Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessment Methods
Stakeholder Global Goal
By December 2020, nonprofit executive directors (EDs) leading small human service
nonprofit organizations will achieve their fundraising goals within three years of operating.
Organizational Influence Influence Type
Organizational Influence
Assessment
Nonprofit EDs need personal
and professional development
opportunities outside of their
organizations.
Cultural setting
Interview questions:
18. Can you describe any formal
professional training you have
received outside of your
agency?
19. What types of external
resources support your
fundraising work?
20. How would you describe the
role of mentors in your
fundraising work?
Nonprofit EDs need to form
strategic partnerships within
their communities through
coalition engagement and
membership.
Cultural setting
Interview questions:
21. Can you describe how your
organization participates in
informal networks in your
community?
22. Can you describe how your
organization engages in
partnerships?

65
23. Can you describe how your
organization participates in
coalitions?
Interactive Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 represents the interaction of nonprofit ED knowledge and motivation, in relation
to their fundraising activities for their organization.
Figure 1
Interactive Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework provides a basis for guiding sampling decisions, setting
participant criteria, and informing data collection choices (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). A constellation of theories, beliefs, assumptions, and paradigms based on empirical
literature and the researcher's experience, the conceptual framework shapes the inquiry (Merriam

66
& Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) asserts that effective conceptual frameworks integrate
different perspectives to produce new modalities of thought.
The previous section discussed the persistence of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational settings as major influences in nonprofit ED fundraising performance and goal
achievement. Figure 1 captures that nonprofit ED knowledge and motivation interactions with
organizational settings interdependently function to impact performance. The interactions of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational settings create context-rich environments and
conditions in the nonprofit sector (Boris et al., 2010).
Using a modified Clark and Estes' (2008) gap analytic conceptual framework, this field
study identified the performance gaps in nonprofit ED knowledge, motivation, and
organizational settings in relation to fundraising goal achievement. This field study intended to
evaluate how successful nonprofit EDs leading small agencies achieve their fundraising goals
despite minimal resources. Centered on theories drawn from resource dependency, competition,
accountability, and revenue diversification, the research supports that nonprofit leaders confront
unique economic and sociopolitical challenges (Buteau et al., 2014; Fox, 2015; Suarez,
2010). Data shows that the interaction between nonprofit ED knowledge and motivation
strongly influences performance goal achievement (Bauer, 2017). Nonprofit EDs with
procedural knowledge on competing for diverse funding and leveraging financial resources
consistently secure funding at higher rates (Suarez, 2011). Further, EDs with the motivation to
perform demonstrate commitment and persistence in their fundraising tasks (Williams, 2013).
The following section discusses Figure 1.
Figure 1 illustrates the researcher’s assumptions on the requisite knowledge, motivation,
and cultural settings that nonprofit EDs need to achieve their fundraising goals. Figure 1

67
represents ED fundraising activities in unidirectional and interdependent movements with
procedural knowledge, motivated behavior, and cultural settings that encourage their personal
growth (Kim & Peng, 2018). The blue arrows indicate unidirectional influences across the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and cultural settings in this study. On the left, the red circle in
Figure 1 captures the assumed procedural knowledge that nonprofit EDs need to compete for
diverse funding and leverage partnerships to grow financial resources. Data supports that
nonprofit EDs with procedural knowledge on diverse funding sources and leveraging partners to
grow resources increase employee headcount, access informal networks, and strengthen their
organization’s fiscal health (Kim & Peng, 2018; MacIndoe, 2013). The pink circle in the center
of Figure 1 describes the assumed motivation influences that nonprofit EDs need to engage in
fundraising tasks. The literature supports that nonprofit EDs hold chief fundraising
responsibility in their organizations (Williams, 2013). Based on the data, the researcher assumes
that EDs need positive self-efficacy to make positive attributions to their fundraising tasks
(Bauer, 2017). Further, nonprofit EDs need to feel positive emotions in their fundraising
activities for the organization. The purple circle in Figure 1 shows the assumed cultural settings
that facilitate nonprofit ED development within their fundraising duties. Nonprofit EDs that
receive capacity building training and mentorship support show higher levels of satisfaction and
performance achievement (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). Additionally, EDs that engage in strategic
partnerships such as collaborative projects, bring those resources back into their organizations
(Kim & Peng, 2018). The researcher assumes that the confluence of interdependent knowledge
and motivation in relation to cultural settings facilitate the fundraising goal achievement of
nonprofit EDs.

68
Chapter Three: Methodology
This evaluation field study follows a qualitative research methodology. In this chapter,
the researcher presents the research design, data collection and analysis methods. The study’s
research design aims to explore the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences that
EDs need to fundraise for their organization. Three research questions informed the
development of the qualitative research methodology. The research questions that guided this
study include:
1. To what extent are nonprofit EDs achieving their fundraising performance goals within
their first few years of operating?
2. What are nonprofit EDs’ knowledge and motivation influences related to fundraising?
3. What is the interaction between organizational settings and nonprofit ED knowledge and
motivation with respect to achieving their fundraising goals?
Following the presentation of this study’s research design, a comprehensive review of the
limitations and delimitations and trustworthiness and credibility of the data collection and
analysis processes involved are addressed. The chapter concludes with an examination of the
study’s ethical considerations.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative research seeks to understand how people interpret their experiences, construct
meaning, and attribute cause to personal life outcomes (Bogdan & Biklan, 2007; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This field study followed a qualitative methodology and embedded
confidentiality protections into every facet of the data collection approach. To ensure the
confidential nature of this study, the researcher used pseudonyms for all individuals and
organizations involved. Four collection methods guided the research process: interviews,

69
document analysis, member checks, and the engagement of rich and adequate data collection
(Bowen, 2009). Interviews were the leading research method, whereby document analysis and
member checks supported the continuance of ensuring an adequate inquiry process.
In total, 11 EDs were interviewed from across California. Participants were recruited
using a convenience sampling method. The researcher used electronic communication (email)
outreach to provide information about the study and request each ED’s participation in an
interview. The researcher recruited two EDs that she knew and using a snowball approach,
asked for their assistance in identifying additional nonprofit leaders. Their personal networks
assisted her in securing five more participants. The remaining four participants were identified
using GuideStar©, a national nonprofit database. The researcher retrieved their contact
information from their nonprofit’s website and sent personal email messages to them. Each
outreach message contained a brief description of the researcher and included a two-page
information document on the purpose of the study. To reference the information document used
to recruit participants, see Appendix C.
Limitations and Delimitations
This section discusses the various limitations and delimitations associated with the
research design, methods, and data analysis involved in this evaluation field study. Limitations
describe factors that either preclude or inhibit aspects of the study beyond the researcher’s
control (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Delimitations address the considerations and actions taken to
control the scope, focus, and guidelines of the research (Patton, 2002). The next section
discusses the limitations of this field study.
The extent of this study’s convenience sample yielded a participant quantity of 11 EDs in
California. With this sample size, using primarily interview data, the study’s reliance on self-

70
admission and individual perception limits the ability to generalize their experiences to the
broader population of EDs running small nonprofits in California. The literature supports that
in-person interviews facilitate trust and rapport between the researcher and the participants
(Patton, 2002; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the conditions of the COVID-19 global
pandemic, the researcher conducted all interviews through Zoom© virtual software. Precluding
the extent of the physical interaction limited the opportunities for the researcher to build trust and
rapport. Interviews were conducted over a two-month span of time, thus providing an eclipsed
view of each ED’s fundraising performance. Additionally, the findings in the interviews suggest
budgetary influences entirely attributable to the pandemic, meaning that ED fundraising
decisions centered on their response to COVID-19, which could have limited the direction of the
interviews. The final limitation relates to the capacity of time. The researcher explored
emergent and dominant themes through conducting Member Checks and verifying budget
information, however, in resource scarce times many EDs had slow response times.
Delimitations reflect how the researcher develops the research design and methodology
to reduce personal biases and increase credibility in the findings of their study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Reducing personal biases require that the researcher consider their position and
influence in relation to their study (Patton, 2002). Increasing the credibility of a study includes
using multiple data collection methods to communicate findings that rule out alternative
arguments (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher does not work directly with or for any of
the EDs that participated in the study. The EDs in this study work for 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organizations and provide health and human services directly in communities. The researcher
works for a 501(c)(6) professional association that draws revenue primarily from membership
dues and events; her line of work does not fiscally intersect, compete, or influence the operations

71
of any of the EDs involved in the study. While she holds past professional experience and
knowledge working for 501(c)(3) organizations, she conducted this study as an outsider. The
sampling recruitment criteria delimited the revenue and organizational staff size of each ED and
their agency to retain a focus on small nonprofits.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
The research methodology accounted for trustworthiness and credibility. To increase the
trustworthiness of the study, the researcher triangulated across several forms of data sources.
After completing the participant interviews, she systematically studied each nonprofit’s financial
forms and revenue figures across a three-year period. Further, she analyzed each organization’s
virtual presence using a checklist derived from the literature, such as evaluating social media
followership (Guo & Saxton, 2014). Triangulating across multiple data sources supported the
researcher in forming connections between ED emotion versus performance in fundraising. For
example, 10 EDs indicated hating fundraising in their interviews, but financial records
demonstrated that 8 of them have increased their organization’s annual budget every year since
2016. The researcher also conducted member checks with four EDs to verify that her
interpretations of the data were consistent with the experiences they shared. Integrating
systematic checks for consistency and accuracy were performed to increase the trustworthiness
of the findings. The researcher also sought to ensure the credibility of this study.
A study that addresses alternative responses or threats increases the credibility of its
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To address alternative responses, the researcher discussed
both anticipated and unanticipated influences that emerged in the findings. Unanticipated
influences include atypical or unusual fundraising experiences that countered the dominant
responses collected during the interviews. The researcher addressed outlying experiences, such

72
as the one ED that enjoyed fundraising while the other 10 despised asking for money.
Recognizing the value in alternative responses, the findings section discusses the variety of ED
experiences to strengthen the credibility of the study.
Narrow and purposeful qualitative research aims to contribute useful information to a
specific field of practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher wants to provide value to
small nonprofit development. Due to this, she took steps to increase the trustworthiness and
credibility of the research methodology and presentation of the findings.
Interviews. The researcher conducted 11 interviews with EDs from across California.
Participants were recruited based on geographical location and organizational size. The
literature supports that small nonprofits generally operate with annual budgets of $300,000 and
have at least two professional employees (Kim & Peng, 2018; Knox & Wang, 2016; Trzcinski &
Sobeck, 2012; Yung et al., 2008). Based on industry reports, financial data, and studies, three
eligibility criteria guided the recruitment of the participants (Marvell & Gullickson, 2013;
McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014).
Each participant had to meet the following criteria:
Criterion 1. They were an executive director (ED) leading a registered 501(c)(3)
nonprofit or fiscally sponsored community organization that provides health and human service
programming;
Criterion 2. They worked for an agency with an annual operating budget of at least
$100,000 and no more than $500,000;
Criterion 3. They had a team of at least two compensated employees but no more than
ten.

73
Initially, 18 EDs were contacted via email to request their participation in virtual 60-minute
interviews. Of the 18 contacted, three did not respond and four were ineligible due to budget
size, leaving 11 participants. The participants represented a diversity of regions, mission
orientations, and service areas from across the state of California. The findings section further
discusses the participant and organizational demographics, with additional information in
Appendix D.
Virtual interviews were conducted from May 20-July 21, 2020 using Zoom© software.
The interviews and related Interview Protocol were designed to explore the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that shape ED fundraising performance (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). This study used a semi-structured Interview Protocol that contained 23 open-
ended questions. Upon confirming each virtual interview, the researcher sent the Participant
Study Information Document including IRB details and the Interview Protocol in advance to
provide each ED with a basis of the questions. At the start of each interview, the researcher
verbally reviewed the administrative and confidentiality assurances related to the study; she
explained the purpose and timeline of the study, shared how the data would be stored and
destroyed, gave personal contact information, assured confidentiality, and reiterated the
individual’s voluntary participation and right to withdraw at any point. Lastly, the researcher
would receive verbal consent from each participant to record their interview using the Zoom©
software for the purposes of transcription and data analysis in the writing of the dissertation.
Each interview lasted an average of 75 minutes. Interviews began with knowledge
questions, moved to motivational influences, and concluded with organizational topics. To
understand the ED’s procedural knowledge, 9 open-ended questions asked them to describe the
various types of revenue available to their agency and further, their processes for identifying and

74
securing specific revenue sources for their organization. To understand the ED’s motivational
influences, the interview included 8 open-ended questions on beliefs, self-efficacy, attributions,
and emotions. Lastly, to explore their experiences and beliefs on organizational influences, 6
open-ended questions inquired about their perceptions on how their organization supported
training, mentorship, and learning in their fundraising work. To reference the Interview
Protocol, see Appendix A.
The researcher integrated reflective practices into her interview procedures. She made
periodic adjustments to her approach across the two-month span. For the first three interviews,
she composed reflective memos following the completion of each one. The reflective memos
captured her reactions to what she learned and heard during the interview. Initially, she would
wait several days between completing an interview and transcribing and coding the data. After
completing the fourth interview, she began transcribing the data immediately following every
completed meeting.
The transcription process involved re-listening to each recorded session, minute-by-
minute, to effectively type out a full transcription of the interview. Each interview lasted
approximately 75 minutes, with transcription activities taking two to three hours to complete.
Following the completion of each interview transcription, the researcher coded prominent
knowledge, motivation, and organizational themes using Microsoft Word© software. After the
ninth interview, she began applying axial codes across all of the interview transcripts as common
themes began saturating the data. Once she completed all interviews, she developed a code book
that captured the dominant and outlying knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Using color-coded categories, she analyzed the prevalence of certain experiences by tracking the
frequency of the times they were mentioned during the interviews.

75
The researcher changed her approach to support stronger analysis methods. Performing
her analysis nearly immediately after each interview enabled her to better understand and
identify prominent influences in the data. For example, the recurring role of Board composition
in the interviews.
Document Analysis. Documents serve numerous use cases in research, including
providing more context for a study, supplying information for interview questions, and filling
key data gaps (Bowen, 2009). Due to this, triangulating the interview data with additional
analysis on organizational documents and marketing collateral was critical to establishing a
broader understanding of ED knowledge and motivation within fundraising performance. This
study analyzed multiple documents: public annual 990 disclosure forms and the virtual presence
of the agencies, which included websites and social media pages.
Annual 990 disclosure forms. The publicly available annual 990 disclosure forms for 8
of the 11 agencies were analyzed in this study. The annual 990 forms were culled from
GuideStar©. Three of the agencies file their annual revenue as an aggregate with their fiscal host
organization, thus limiting full analysis of their financial disclosures. To retrieve their financial
information, the researcher followed up and requested their annual budget numbers for the years
2016, 2017, and 2018. The years 2016-2018 were selected based on their availability. Due to
the federal tax filing deadline extension of July 15, the 2019 annual 990 disclosure information
for the participating agencies was largely not available at the time of this study. To achieve the
maximum data aggregate of participating organizations, the researcher analyzed the 990 forms
for the years 2016-2018.
Financial document analysis was performed following the completion of the interviews to
draw comparisons between the numerical data in the 990s and recorded responses from the EDs.

76
Studying the 990 forms across a three-year period enabled the researcher to analyze each
agency’s annual revenue activity, the extent of their income diversification, and their largest
reported funding sources. Specifically, the 990s forms provided critical comparative data
between ED fundraising attitudes versus performance outputs. The document analysis protocol
that informed this research approach may be found in the Appendix B.
Virtual presence. The virtual presence of each nonprofit, which includes website
content and social media following were the second group of document sources in this study.
Once the researcher interviewed an ED, she proceeded to analyze their nonprofit’s virtual
presence and public financial records. The literature asserts that strategic marketing and social
media attract donor attention (Guo & Saxton, 2014).
Cleo (2018) also describes how individuals rely on the internet to identify nonprofits to
volunteer with. Similarly, Torgerson (2015) states that platforms like Facebook and Instagram
provide ways for supporters to share media and help nonprofits reach wider audiences. Based on
the evidence that strategic marketing and communications increase followership and direct
donations, the researcher studied each organization’s virtual presence (Alfaro, 2015). Using a
checklist, she explored each nonprofit’s website and social media pages in pursuit of key
marketing indicators. For example, she looked for the placement of a “Donate” button on each
nonprofit’s website. Additionally, she checked for ways to get involved with each nonprofit, the
frequency of posts and updates, and Facebook and Instagram followership. To reference the
Virtual Presence protocol, see Appendix J.
Member Checks. Member Checks were incorporated within the process of this study to
account for trustworthiness and credibility. Once the interviews and document analysis
procedures were complete, the researcher narrowed the findings into major themes which

77
revealed key considerations. To ensure that her interpretation of the data remained consistent
with their conveyances and experiences, the researcher contacted four of the ED participants via
electronic mail. She requested their feedback on proposed solutions she developed and
verification on the accuracy of her interpretations of the gaps. To review the Member Check
protocol for this study, see Appendix I.
Engaging in Rich and Adequate Data Collection. This study sought to achieve a
saturation point within the qualitative research process, therefore the researcher conducted rich
and adequate data collection.
The tenth and eleventh interviews conducted for this study indicated that a saturation point had
been met; the tenth and eleventh interviews revealed personal fundraising beliefs and
experiences which seemed consistent with what the researcher had learned through the course of
earlier interviews and document analysis.
Ethical Considerations

This section addresses the ethical consideration related to this evaluation field study.
Further, this segment discusses contextual influences and potential risks to the EDs that
participate in this study. Following a qualitative approach, this study interviewed 11 nonprofit
EDs that lead small nonprofits in California, analyzed the public 990 forms for the years 2016-
2018 for each agency, studied their virtual presence, confirmed or disconfirmed themes with
participants, and achieved a saturation point across a two-month data collection period. The
findings from this study provide purposeful and narrow knowledge for the field, specific to the
environmental contexts and realities of small nonprofits. The conclusions from this study do not
generalize against the entire 501(c)(3) nonprofit sector in California or the United States.
This study integrated systematic procedures that reinforced participant wellness,

78
individual consent, transparency with timelines, and critical data and confidentiality assurances
(Glesne, 2011). Ethical considerations are inseparable from the relationship and interactions
between the researcher and participants therefore critical considerations on ethical considerations
guided this study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) characterize ethical considerations into three
categories: procedural, situational, and relational. The following sections discuss each of these
categories in the context of this field study.
Procedural ethics. The first set of ethical considerations relate to procedural
sensitivities that manifest in organizational fundraising. Seaman et al. (2014) reason that
because nonprofit organizations tend to concentrate in urban areas that competition for financial
resources and serving similar constituencies is common. Kim and Peng (2018) assert similar
views in encouraging partnerships among nonprofits that compete in saturated service and
funding environments. The researcher explored the perceptions and practices of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact ED financial performance. Recognizing
that this study explored competitive nonprofit fundraising environments, the researcher engaged
with strong sensitivities. The researcher presumed that the EDs shared procedural information
that shaped their fundraising strategies and efficiencies. Due to the confidential nature of this
study, the researcher worked to assuage their concerns (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Situational ethics. Situational considerations are the second ethical concern. “Doing no
harm to others,” is the guiding principle of research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2004;
Rubin & Rubin, 2012). While this study intended no harm on its research participants, there are
serious ethical implications to address on how this study could impact California’s broader
nonprofit community, and consequently, the study’s participating agencies. Considering the
situational concerns of this study, the researcher recognized how the study situated in the larger

79
context of California’s nonprofit community. Due to the expanse of California’s nonprofit
community, this study wanted to explore how professionalization thwarts fundraising
opportunities for small agencies. Further, this study characterized these realities as inherent
equity issues. In response to possible situational threats, the researcher used pseudonyms for the
EDs and their agencies to protect the relationships and reputations of the participants.
Further, the researcher used pseudonyms to reduce agency vulnerability and increase safety.
Relational ethics. The final consideration addressed the role of relational and position
ethics in this study. The positionality of the researcher in the context of this study held important
ethical considerations. The researcher does not currently work for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization. Her employing agency is a Northern California-based regional 501(c)(6) nonprofit
trade association that operates in an environment with different revenue sources, stakeholders,
and constituencies. For background purposes, the researcher’s employer draws its entire
organizational revenue from membership dues, special events, and fees for service; by virtue of
being a trade association, the researcher’s accountability and authority relationships reside within
the organization’s members. By contrast, this study concerned small 501(c)(3) and fiscally-
sponsored health and human service nonprofit organizations across California. Using these
measurements, the researcher had no threat of reporting or supervisory biases while engaging in
this study. Specifically, the researcher explored the fundraising knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of EDs leading small agencies. Health and human service nonprofit
organizations represent a significant subset of the broader 501(c)(3) federal tax-exemption class
(McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014). 501(c)(3) nonprofits are governed by different and multiple
accountability relationships. Their leaders must answer to private and public funding agencies,
individual donors, clients, and the general community (Morris et al., 2013). The financial

80
relationships between the researcher’s employer and 501(c)(3) human service agencies are both
fiscally distant and technically discrete. Additionally, this study interviewed participants from
across California. The participating EDs represented different organizations, service areas, and
operated in various regions across the state.

81
Chapter Four: Findings
This field study sought to evaluate the extent to which EDs achieved their fundraising
goals within their first few years of operation and further, if they were on track to reach their
annual fundraising goals by December 2020. The impacts of COVID-19 punctuated each
interview in relation to fundraising and budget activities, which will be discussed further in this
section. The researcher aimed to explore ED knowledge and motivation influences in the
contexts of their organizational settings and how these interactions shaped their fundraising
performance and goal achievement.
Oriented in a modified structure of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual
Framework, this study sought to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
needs and strengths of EDs in relation to their fundraising performance. The following sections
present the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational findings from this field study. The
chapter begins with providing an overview of the participant and organizational demographics in
this study. Following this, the researcher presents the findings and related influences for each of
the three research questions that guided this qualitative study.
Participant and Organizational Demographics
A total of 11 nonprofit EDs from across California’s major regions participated in this
field study. Table 4 sorts the Participant and Organizational Demographics data based on the
ages of the agencies involved from newest to longest in existence. The sample of EDs in this
study served both rural and urban communities, with four serving the former and seven serving
the latter. The study included four EDs from Northern California, three from Southern
California, three from the Central Valley, and one from the Central Coast. Of the participants, 5
EDs founded their nonprofit and 6 were either the second or third executive to run their agency.

82
The average ED tenure of the sample was 9.5 years. Each agency had an average full-time staff
size of five. The service area composition of the participants consisted of one legal services
provider, four education and youth development providers, and six social service providers.
Table 4. Participant and Organizational Demographics
Agency
Age
(Years)
Number of
Years in
ED Role Pseudonym Region
Full-Time
Employees
3-Year
Budget
Average Service Area
8 8 Carmen
Northern
California 9 $172,100 Education
12 12 Alastair
Central
California 6 $390,225 Social Services
16 5 Peyton
Northern
California 3 $182,072 Education
16 3 Tamera
Southern
California 3 $169,166 Education
17 2 Robert
Central
California 5 $249,802 Social Services
20 8 Derrick
Central
California 3 $134,785 Education
20 15 Augustin
Southern
California 5 $375,250 Legal Services
21 21 Raquel
Northern
California 3 $308,728 Social Services
23 23 Ronnie
Central
California 2 $268,476 Social Services
43 6 Emanuelle
Northern
California 9 $414,627 Social Services
46 1 Josh
Southern
California 5 $390,261 Social Services
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1: To what extent are nonprofit EDs achieving their fundraising
performance goals within their first few years of operating? The first research question
sought to understand the historic processes of how EDs secured the funds that helped launch
their nonprofit’s operations. The researcher attempted to discover the financial influences that

83
shaped the ED’s experiences with professionalizing their nonprofit organization. While 5 of the
EDs were the founders of their agency, 6 were not but possessed institutional knowledge on the
histories of their organization. For example, Raquel was hired shortly after her founding Board
of Directors incorporated their nonprofit. Or in Tamera’s case, she volunteered with her
organization for a few years before becoming the ED. The exploration of how these nonprofits
secured their initial revenue produced two prominent influences: all 11 of the EDs and their
organizations benefited from significant initial funding and received generous in-kind and
financial community support. The next section discusses the leading finding to the first research
question and the two influences: startup funds and community support.
Finding 1: 100% of EDs achieved their fundraising goals within the first three years of
operating. While all 11 of the EDs indicated benefiting from initial funding, this finding relates
to exploring how they sustained and grew their initial funding within their first three years of
operation. The researcher observed that EDs tended to refer to their initial funding as “startup
capital” but she recognizes the nuance and distinction between funding and startup capital in the
nonprofit and for-profit sectors. The following sections present the findings around initial
funding in nonprofits but also uses terms such as startup capital to remain consistent with the
way the term was utilized during the interviews by the participants.
Deaton et al. (2013) describe the prevalence of nonprofit employee burnout due to low
pay and heavy workloads. Further, Williams (2013) asserts that EDs hold chief fundraising
responsibilities for their agency. Recognizing the environmental factors related to resource
scarcity, low compensation, and competition in the nonprofit sector, the researcher found that
each agency demonstrated fundraising strengths in growing their initial funding (Campbell,
2008; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). For example, Carmen retold her story about how receiving an

84
initial sum of startup funds helped her develop relationships to secure funding across multiple
years:
It was really easy that way where she was just like, “I’m willing to invest.” And then a
year and a half after, she had approached me – because I had known her for years – in her
words, “She had seen me grow and really wanted to invest in the organization.” So she
had approached me and had asked me if she were to give us a big chunk of funds for
multiple years, if we would be interested in hiring an ED.
Similarly, Peyton recounted how their agency’s first few years of formal operation relied on a
single grant and supportive community relationships:
Due to those connections and our founders and based on this fiscal sponsorship, based on
our connections we secured a grant. So, 2007 was the first year that we got fiscally
sponsored and because of that sponsorship we were able to secure that first grant.
Emanuelle shared how her nonprofit’s three co-founders were county social service workers and
benefited from understanding government contracting processes. Their shared knowledge
helped their agency access their initial financial and in-kind resources:
So, they rented out one small room from a church for free. Their first funding was from
the government, for a meal program. Then they got funding from United Way too.
These experiences exemplify the joint powers of startup capital and generous community
support. Further, these findings help to understand how these small nonprofits professionalized
their operations. According to the literature, small nonprofits typically fail due to deteriorating
and scarce resources (Helmig et al., 2014). Therefore, discovering that all of the EDs and their
agencies grew and sustained their operations through startup funding and community support
provides a promising practice in the growing field of small nonprofits. Further, the roles of

85
startup funds and community support extend this conversation into how relationships critically
shaped the professionalized beginnings of the nonprofits in this study.
One-time startup funds. Every ED described their nonprofit’s origin story with having
deep histories in their local communities. However, 8 of the EDs shared that they had not
actively searched for capital. Instead, their grassroots efforts attracted initial funding from a base
of supporters that followed the evolution of their work. The remaining 3 EDs indicated that they
pursued modest funding opportunities to launch their nonprofit operations. The average initial
funding sums for the nonprofits in this study ranged between $75,000-$100,000.
While all 11 EDs shared that they received significant one-time startup funding, an
important distinction between unrestricted and restricted funding trended across the interviews.
Notably, both unrestricted and restricted funds allowed each agency to advance their mission.
However, the nature of their startup funding determined the types of formalizing activities they
initially engaged in. The distinction rested between how the agency spent their initial funding: in
providing social services or building infrastructure.
This study found that unrestricted funds were received from donors or private foundations and
that restricted funds were awarded through government agencies. The following sections discuss
the different experiences with unrestricted versus restricted funding.
The researcher found that receiving large unrestricted funds proved unusual, but the most
coveted in ED experiences. Of the total participants in this study, only Derrick, Alastair, and
Robert benefitted from unrestricted one-time startup funds. They described how donations or
singular private grants allowed them to flexibly allocate resources based on their initial
administrative structural needs. For example, Derrick shared his memory of receiving their
unrestricted startup funds:

86
So, it was like a once in a lifetime thing. I didn’t know what an unrestricted grant was. I
didn’t know what philanthropy was. That grant also came with a consultant…and with
training. It created pathways. It helped us with the technology to make that happen.
Derrick described how an external organization contacted him with the unrestricted grant
opportunity. He shared that this grant enabled his organization to hire him full-time to build
their professional infrastructure. Further, Derrick indicated that this defining moment created
pathways to consultants and training. He emphasized that without community support with
completing the application, they might have missed the unusual opportunity:
Fortunately, we had people to help identify that. They had a hard time identifying
organizations in the Central Valley, so they had to convince us to even apply. In fact,
they did more of the application than we did.
Similarly, Alastair shared the rarity of how his agency received their startup capital from five
independent donors. Their collective donation fully funded his salary for three years, enabling
him to focus entirely on developing the organization:
They wanted to make sure we had some basic funding for the first three years so I
wouldn’t have to fundraise and instead focus on the foundation of what the organization
was going to be. That is pretty rare.
Alastair’s startup experience in securing three years’ worth of his full-time salary is an
aberration. Of the other 10 ED participants in this study, his story stands as an outlier that could
inform the field of practice. Alastair’s nonprofit grew out of his local church, with initial
funding support from five parish congregants. For a period of six years, he coordinated
volunteer neighborhood restoration efforts like fixing broken fences, cleaning alleyways, and
remodeling bathrooms. His grassroots activities attracted the attention of his church members.

87
Alastair’s five initial supporters not only personally donated, they also hosted private
fundraising events at their homes for him to share his nonprofit’s mission with prospective
donors. He described how his agency’s fund development strategy began with the startup
capital:
Each of these five individuals hosted something at their home...and they invited their
friends. And so, what we did, I shared what we had been doing when I was just a
volunteer running a ministry to what we had a vision for to run a nonprofit. That did two
things, it brought in more new money and brought in more awareness on who I am as an
individual and what the nonprofit had for the community.
Robert stood as the third ED to have benefitted from unrestricted startup funding. He shared
how the one-time contribution of a community supporter enabled his nonprofit to rent office
space in their downtown:
So, he gave us $10,000 and that gave us the funding, 10 years ago last December, to rent
space in our downtown for us to open our services, which is our primary outreach to our
community.
Robert continued to share that they never saw or heard from the donor again, but memorialize
how his contribution catalyzed their operations. Derrick, Alastair, and Robert told their stories
from the experiences of receiving unrestricted startup funds. Obtaining unrestricted capital
allowed them to dedicate funds toward professional infrastructure, including office space and
financial management software. The next section explores the experiences of restricted startup
funds.
In the context of nonprofit social service provision, restricted funds seek to address
specific public needs. Therefore, government agencies tend to contract with nonprofit providers

88
to administer community programs (Morris, 2015). The researcher found that EDs that received
restricted startup capital described their beginnings through immediate service provision. For
instance, Ronnie shared how his nonprofit launched their operations through a partnership with
their local police department. With a mission rooted in community development, Ronnie’s
partnership with the local police department funded their operations to serve neighborhoods with
high rates of crime and violence:
So, any community that had more than 90 calls a week, for calls for service, so 911...and
we’re talking out of a Census tract...I mean that is a small population. They provided the
initial funding for us.
Ronnie continued to describe how their partnership with the police department supported their
future hiring of two additional full-time employees. On the topic of restricting funds, Emanuelle
shared similar sentiments with her agency’s origin story:
I know that they received funding from the County for a meal program and United Way
funding for additional social services.
Augustin also shared that his nonprofit first contracted with their local county to administer
programs within underserved communities:
One of the first grants that we got was a county grant, and it was a very small grant to
help people apply for unemployment insurance.
Ronnie, Emanuelle, and Augustin’s stories represent the startup experience from the perspective
of restrictive funding. In each of their origin stories, they described how their agency received
restricted funding to provide specific social services. Due to this, each of their narratives
emphasized service provision. Their experiences notably contrast with Derrick, Alastair, and

89
Robert’s experiences with unrestricted startup capital. These findings could inform promising
practices for nonprofits seeking to launch their service provision in communities.
Community support. Community support appeared consequential in helping grassroots
organizations evolve into professionalized nonprofits. In addition to receiving one-time startup
funds, the role of community participation resounded in all 11 EDs’ stories. Every ED indicated
that their organization initially operated with unpaid volunteers.
The average span of time that the nonprofits in this study operated with no paid staff was 5 years.
However, on the longer end, Derrick ran his organization voluntarily for 12 years, whereas
Carmen and her volunteers provided services for only 2 years before receiving their startup
funding. The role of community support in the forms of volunteer labor, monetary contributions,
and transitioning into professionalized operations reverberated across all 11 EDs’ retelling of
their origin stories. In particular, Raquel’s story amplifies the power of volunteer support in their
early stages:
They were working primarily with adults in the church. They were just congregants who
were doing it in their own free time. Then, they realized that a lot of these people had
kids. The kids also needed support. So, that’s where they started to have the kids
program. All of it was done on a volunteer basis.
Similar to Alastair, Raquel’s grassroots operations also evolved from her local church. She
continued to share that in the late 1990’s, their church caught fire and burned to the ground.
Raquel described how volunteers from the community led the fundraising and restoration efforts
that created their nonprofit:

90
So, pretty much out of that came this idea...why don’t we rebuild and make the programs
for the community instead of being run by the church? Because they had to run the
capital campaign and rebuild the church, they created us as a nonprofit organization.
The experiences shared by the EDs in this study reflect the rich legacy of America’s charitable
spirit and the power of community participation (Barber, 2012; Morris, 2015). Augustin told his
nonprofit’s origin story and how their founders voluntarily organized to address a need in their
community.
His origin story personifies the powers of volunteer labor:
Because it was a large city and large county that had no established resource center. They
saw Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, and New York...they saw several areas that had
established centers. There was clearly a need, a very high need for accessible,
professional, nominal cost services. So, they thought, well let’s do this.
Community support prevailed in the areas of volunteer labor and transitioning these grassroots
organizations into professionalized processes. For example, Augustin continued to share about
how his agency’s founders understood government contracting and funding procedures. Their
procedural knowledge helped their agency access their startup funds and in-kind resources,
which catalyzed their transition into a professional nonprofit:
One of the first grants we got was a county grant...it was a very small grant to help people
apply for services. Our first real budget was probably $20,000 and we hired a part-time
person. We also had very cheap rent in an office building that one of our founders helped
with.
This study finds that community supporters integrally support the startup and growth of small
nonprofit organizations. Their participation takes many forms, including volunteer labor,

91
monetary contributions, and expertise in managing professional and financial processes. The
findings distinguish between unrestricted and restricted startup capital. Groups that obtained
unrestricted funding emphasized infrastructure and administrative development. Organizations
that received restricted startup funds focused their initial efforts on service provision.
All 11 EDs in this study show that their organization grew their initial funding, which
demonstrates fundraising strengths in their field. Their experiences stand to empower a growing
sector of small nonprofit service organizations.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2: What are nonprofit EDs’ knowledge and motivation
influences related to fundraising? The second research question addresses the interaction
between ED knowledge and motivation in relation to fundraising goal achievement. The
researcher sought to discover the various types of knowledge and motivation influences that
shaped ED fundraising decisions. She explored these influences through evaluating how
different procedural knowledge and motivation experiences affected their fundraising activities.
The following sections discuss this study’s key knowledge and motivation influences, with the
associated findings.
Knowledge Influences. The researcher sought to evaluate every ED’s knowledge
influences using multiple and different data sources. To achieve this, she referenced interview
response data, public 990 disclosure forms, budgetary information provided by the participants,
and organizational marketing material available on each of the nonprofits’ websites. She sought
to evaluate the EDs’ relative procedural knowledge in competing for diverse revenue and used a
mix of interview data, financial records, and marketing information to draw comparisons
between their personal experiences and fundraising performance. Further, she explored their

92
knowledge in leveraging partnerships to increase access to funding opportunities for their
nonprofit. Several prominent knowledge influences emerged from the data collection process.
While EDs know how to compete for diverse funding revenue, factors like mission alignment,
organizational capacity, and Board participation influence their performance. Secondly, the EDs
demonstrate continuous leveraging of partnerships to not only access financial resources, but to
grow their in-kind donations.
Knowledge Finding 1: While EDs know how to compete for diverse funding revenue,
factors like mission alignment, organizational capacity, and Board participation influence
their performance. This study initially postulated that small nonprofits needed to know how to
compete for diverse funding sources, but due to capacity could not manage multiple revenue
streams (Bauer, 2017; Carroll & Stater, 2015). The researcher found that in addition to
organizational capacity, key knowledge influences around mission alignment and Board
participation also significantly shape ED fundraising performance.
Further, this study also found that the pursuit of different funding sources does not equate
to diversified revenue. While all 11 EDs pursued different funding sources, the researcher found
that only four of them managed diverse revenue streams in their organization. A nonprofit that
reports at least three different types of funding demonstrates diversified revenue (Carroll &
Stater, 2015). Different types of revenue include: donations, grants, fees for service, and other
contributions (Bauer, 2017). Maintaining different types of revenue reduces the risk of funding
volatility and increases financial sustainability (Boris et al., 2010). To reference the diversified
funding analysis performed for this study, see Appendix G.

93
Mission alignment. The knowledge of mission alignment between nonprofits and their
funders proved consequential in how EDs competed for diverse funding opportunities. Every
ED indicated that their mission statement and values guided how they pursued funding.
Known as personal mission attachment, the researcher found that mission alignment influenced
how EDs competed for diverse revenue (Minzer et al., 2013). For example, Tamera’s agency
does not manage diverse revenue since they report two primary funding sources, but explained
that values alignment significantly impacts their funding relationships with corporations:
When they’re like, “We’re going to give you a sponsorship or donation to get in front of
your members as our customer base.” That’s too much of a gap between the work that
we do, the members that we cultivate, and then the values of that corporation...and why
they’re approaching us.
Tamera continued to explain that her Board voted to resolutely not accept corporate sponsorships
due to misaligned values. Under the leadership of her Board, Tamera relented and referenced
their mission statement as the basis of their decision.
Peyton’s agency also reports two funding sources and described mission alignment with
funders as retaining their organizational identity. Further, they recounted an experience where
their agency could have increased their revenue sources from two to three with government
funding, but mission alignment influenced their organization to not pursue the opportunity:
The core voted no, let’s not do city funding. Let’s not get any government funding
because it does not align with our values and does not align with the way that we want to
do our work.
Tamera and Peyton’s experiences of declining funding opportunities due to mission alignment
appeared true for other EDs in this study. While they declined corporate and government

94
funding respectively, Emanuelle shared a story of refusing a large one-time individual donation.
Her story recounted an instance of turning down a large individual donation that could have
funded two staff positions:
She called and asked, “Can you start this?” I can donate this much money. And we said
no. We don’t want to just run by one single donor. Or run by one foundation. We don’t
want to lose our looks and our mission.
In the context of funding, this study found that EDs seek mission alignment foremost in agreeing
to pursue financial opportunities. Meaning, the type of funding appears less significant than the
importance of mission alignment and shared values. For example, unlike Tamera’s nonprofit,
Raquel’s agency accepts corporate funding because she believes that her agency’s values align
with industry priorities in STEM:
I think it’s easier to work with corporations. And it could be because our focus is
education and specifically, we have a strong STEM component. We’re a perfect match
for corporations.
Despite being approached or actively pursuing funding opportunities, the EDs continuously cited
mission alignment and shared values in their guided strategy. For instance, mission alignment
and shared scope of work influences Josh’s knowledge on of the types of funders he approaches:
For our economic development programming, we go out to the banks. For our health and
human services, we go to the Department of Mental Health in our county.
The researcher finds that mission and values alignment significantly influence ED knowledge
related to fundraising activities. EDs use mission and values to guide their decisions on pursuing
or not pursuing funding opportunities. These organizational guidelines contribute to their
knowledge generation on the types of funders they approach.

95
This study found that of the 11 ED participants, only three of them reported at least three
different revenue sources in their annual 990 forms. For a comprehensive analysis of the income
diversification of the agencies in this study, see Appendix H.
Organizational capacity. The influence of organizational capacity resounded across the
interviews. Further, the unanticipated budget impacts of COVID-19 emerged in every
conversation. While participant responses to COVID-19 varied, each ED held concerns with the
fiscal impacts that the pandemic posed for their operations and financial sustainability. In the
context of managing diversified revenue with limited organizational capacity, the researcher
found two prominent factors: the three nonprofits that managed diverse revenue were founded on
those principles and those with diversified funding sources communicated more confidence in
achieving their 2020 fundraising goals, despite COVID-19.
Augustin, Emanuelle, and Robert each managed more than three funding streams, which
meets the threshold for diversified revenue sources (Carroll & Stater, 2015). They all shared one
commonality: their organization was founded on principles of creating and managing diverse
revenue sources. These founding principles emerged in the interviewing process, whereby the
researcher found that these three organizations were created based on models of diverse income.
For example, Augustin shared about his nonprofit’s historic relationship with revenue
diversification:
When you only have one grant source or only a couple donors that are making your
organization run, you run the risk of having your organization run out of business.
Basically, it’s now part of the DNA of the institution to have different sources of income.

96
The researcher found that Augustin’s nonprofit has reported annual revenue increases since 2016
across three discrete funding sources: earned income, donations, and grants in their 990 forms.
He attributes this knowledge on revenue diversification to the teachings of his founders:
I have to give credit to one of our founders who has been in the movement for the longest
time. He also has an MBA and from the beginning started to talk about having
diversified income sources.
Augustin’s experiences with learning about diversifying revenue sources remains consistent with
the powers of community support in growing small nonprofits. Emanuelle also spoke about the
practice of revenue diversification in her agency:
We’ve been doing this for a long time, which means that even though our budget size is
not that big, our revenue sources are very diverse. Even if we fail to meet one of our
revenue source’s goals or couldn’t get another foundation grant, we can still run this
organization. We don’t have to let any of our employees go. We don’t have to cut our
employees’ hours.
Emanuelle and Augustin approached their revenue diversification from the principles of avoiding
fiscal uncertainty and increasing organizational sustainability.
Robert also described how his nonprofit created numerous earned income programs,
including a membership model and repair center, where they charged fees:
We originally had a membership program, which was a fee for service model. We also
have a service repair shop...but since the Coronavirus, our shop has been closed down.
Doing repairs like a traditional shop allows us to charge an hourly rate.
Augustin, Emanuelle, and Robert’s experiences underscore the impacts of community support in
providing knowledge expertise that has sustained and professionalized their nonprofit operations.

97
In the context of COVID-19 and unexpected budgetary concerns, Augustin revealed that his
nonprofit was actually exceeding their 2020 fundraising goals:
We lost our largest fundraiser. We do a May fundraiser each year. We get $50,000-
$75,000 every year but had to cancel because of COVID, but yet, we’ve had the best
fundraising year we’ve ever had. We’re lucky, not because it fell from the sky, we’re
lucky because we worked on people from the Board, to staff, to work this through and
show that they really wanted to respond. That showed.
Emanuelle, similarly shared how cost savings and diverse revenue have softened her budgetary
concerns due to COVID-19:
We try to save every single dime. Our money’s not only from government, foundations,
or donors...we also have a membership program. We get dues from those like...seniors
on fixed incomes.
While the acute budgetary impacts of COVID-19 resounded across the interviews, the
role of organizational capacity in determining the pursuit of different funding opportunities
abounded. The researcher found that ED knowledge of their organizational capacity in relation
to mission alignment repeatedly factored into their fundraising strategies. Raquel shared her
thoughts on organizational capacity in pursuing government funding:
So, they’re really bureaucratic...and for a small agency, it’s not worth applying for it.
Because I’m spending half my time trying to figure out how to get $10,000 and if you
factor in the cost of my time to try and get this grant going and jump through all the
hoops they require...sometimes it’s not worth it.
Raquel’s agency reports two primary funding sources in their public disclosures. Due to mission
alignment and organizational capacity, she chooses not pursue government funding. However,

98
in a COVID-19 environment, she described how competition has increased as other social
service providers continue to lose government contracts:
Where we get affected is indirectly because the organizations that are losing their
government funding are now starting to go after the family foundations and grants that
we normally get because they don’t want to bother. They want to get the half a million,
$250K grants from the government. They don’t want to deal with $10K, $20K, or $30K
grants.
Peyton represents another agency that does not manage diverse revenue sources. Their agency
reports two primary funding sources. Peyton expressed their worries over the unanticipated
burdens of COVID-19 on their organizational expenses:
Even a small change of an extra $1,000 is like, “Oh my God, this is wild.” I think that is
concerning in this COVID moment because there are a couple thousand dollars that we
did not anticipate. For whatever reason, philanthropy is holding their purses closer to
their body. And so, that makes me feel less confident.
On the topic of organizational capacity, Josh shared similar views on organizational capacity
related to fundraising efforts:
If you don’t have enough staff to help do some of the administrative duties that are
essential to the funds, you’re going to have problems. You really need to rely on a team
that has capacity to help you create the fundraising components necessary for you to
carry out the objectives.
The discussion of organizational capacity in relation to fundraising pursuits and decisions
was nuanced with COVID-19 impacts. EDs know the various processes to compete for diverse
revenue sources but base their activities on subjective assessments of capacity and whether or not

99
the opportunities are worth their time. In economic conditions that have increased competition
and decreased supply, this study found that organizations with diversified revenue sources seem
more confident in achieving their 2020 fundraising goals as opposed to those that do not have
diverse income. This study found that out of 11 EDs, three of them manage diverse revenue.
The other eight EDs compete for different funding sources with various funders, but do not have
diverse revenue. The researcher believes that the role of organizational capacity remains critical
in the broader discussion on how EDs compete for diverse revenue. The next section addresses
the knowledge influence of Board participation.
Board participation. Board engagement or disengagement in fundraising activities
punctuated each interview. Each ED described how historic and cultural nuances shaped their
fundraising interactions with Board members. The literature asserts that Boards of Directors
play crucial governance and fundraising roles for their organizations (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011;
Yi, 2010). However, this study found that while EDs theoretically understand the purpose of
their Board of Directors, at seven total, the majority of the participants in this study did not know
how to effectively engage their Board in fund development efforts. The four EDs that
demonstrated different Board engagement techniques could inform the practice for the larger
sector of small nonprofits.
The most prominent reasons that EDs struggled with in engaging their Boards in
fundraising related to historic tenure or cultural dynamics. Meaning, some EDs inherited Board
members that had served since the nonprofit’s inception or due to cultural dynamics felt
uncomfortable asking for money. Emanuelle shared about how her organization’s founder still
serves on her Board of Directors in an honorary position. She described how her Board dislikes
fundraising and that while some members donate, they do not require their Board to donate:

100
They’re not very good at fundraising in general. Our Board makes donations, but we
don’t require 100% giving for our Board roles. Our Board is not that active in terms of
philanthropic activities.
Notably, Emanuelle fundraises and manages diverse revenue for her agency, indicating that she
holds procedural knowledge in critical fundraising skills. However, in the context of involving
her Board in fundraising efforts, she struggles with facilitating their engagement in directly
donating and fundraising within their personal networks.
Derrick spoke about the cultural shame that his Board experiences in asking for money:
There’s a shame deep inside. It is still difficult for our Board members to ask people for
money. Specifically. So...we then had to pivot and say, “Okay, the students that we’re
working with are willing to step up and make phone calls. Can you provide them a list
for them to call and make the ask?”
Derrick described how cultural dynamics influenced his Board’s fear of asking for money, which
he believed was a result of colonization:
If you needed money, the way we were raised was to put your head down and work
harder. That’s the story of our community, you know what I’m saying?
Raquel encountered similar challenges with her engaging her Board in her organization’s fund
development process:
The Board that I have is not a fundraising Board. There are one or two that understand it,
but to get them to actually do something is a whole other thing. Part of it is that they are
extremely busy in their own lives and own work. They’re just not a fundraising Board.
The researcher found that while EDs theoretically understand the role of their Board, historic
tenure or cultural dynamics influence how they approach their Boards with fundraising

101
responsibilities. For example, Raquel also expressed trying to increase her Board’s participation
in raising money:
But, I’ve tried to cultivate and get people on there that know fundraising so they can
actually help support that. At times it feels like it’s just me. I think that’s the hardest
thing.
The researcher found that while the majority of the EDs struggled with socializing their
Boards in fund development activities, four of them demonstrated effective practices with their
Boards. The fundraising strengths of these four EDs provide valuable insights for their
colleagues and field of practice. For instance, Alastair described his engagement methods with
his Board, which involved their personal time and various donations:
I ask them once a year, usually in January, “Give me two people this year that I can meet
with, have lunch, coffee, to share our story. You can join if you want, I’m fine going
cold. Just set it up.” That’s all I ask of them. They all individually donate and their
organization donates as well. They’re all different levels. They all don’t need to meet
the same criteria, it’s based on whatever their budget is.
Tamera shared about building a young Board that was committed to fundraising and how their
willingness to learn significantly contributed to her fundraising efforts. Contrasting other ED’s
experiences with tenured Board members, Tamera held strong opinions on individuals with
fundraising skills often dictating strategies instead of helping. Tamera further illustrated her
experiences:
I’ve found that the people who have fundraising skills, whatever way they do want to
help out, tend to have a very rigid perception of how we should do our fundraising. My
Board members are mostly first time Board members and are learning as they go along

102
and doing things they’ve never tried before...and they’re much more open to pitching in
and helping out versus dictating how things should look. That has helped contribute to
our success.
Alastair and Tamera both worked to ingratiate their Board members into their fund development
efforts. Similarly, Robert described working with his Board to identify potential donors to
arrange meetings with and shared a story about how a Board member helped their agency mend a
relationship with a donor:
We were looking through a list of prospects to solicit and my Board member goes, “Oh, I
had a conversation with Joe, he is so mad at our organization. He dropped off his gift in
December of 2017 and didn’t get a timely thank you or gift receipt.” So, I said, “Let’s
chat with him.” So, my Board member set up a meeting with Joe. This past December,
Joe gave us a gift.
This study finds that Board engagement or disengagement influences ED fundraising
performance. While EDs theoretically know the role of their Board in organizational governance
and fund development, eight of them struggle to effectively engage their Boards in fundraising
activities. The EDs face challenges oriented in historic tenure and cultural nuances. For
example, the founder of Emanuelle’s agency still serves on her Board and further, they do not
require their Board to donate. Derrick and his co-founder dislike fundraising and their Board
feels shame in asking for money. Whereas, Alastair, Tamera, and Robert define concrete fund
development responsibilities and experience higher engagement levels from their Boards. These
findings suggest that a knowledge gap between understanding and operationalizing Board
participation in fundraising exists with eight of the 11 EDs in this study.

103
Knowledge Finding 2: EDs continuously leverage partnerships to not only access
financial resources, but to also grow their in-kind donations. The second assumed knowledge
influence explored how EDs leverage partnerships to increase their access to financial resources.
Accessing financial resources allows nonprofits to advance their organizational mission through
increasing staff size to administer more programs and services (Yi, 2010). The interview data
revealed that EDs use partnerships to not only access financial resources, but to also grow their
in-kind donations. The researcher explored the knowledge influences that EDs followed to build
relationships. She found that EDs use a broad network of personal relationships and local
partnerships to access financial and in-kind resources.
Financial resources. Of the 11 total participants, four EDs indicated that they partnered
with other nonprofits to increase their access to financial resources. These four EDs shared that
they partnered with larger agencies to secure funding, expand their operations, and bring
visibility to their organization. The researcher wanted to understand the processes that EDs
followed to partner with other groups. Particularly, she sought to explore their knowledge in
how they chose to grow relationships that could bring value to their organization (Kim & Peng,
2018). She found that EDs tended to consider mission alignment and organizational size when
choosing to grow their partnerships. Tamera, Peyton, and Augustin all specifically mentioned
partnering with larger and more established nonprofits to increase their access to financial
resources.
Tamera described how partnering with larger organizations to access subgrants has
benefited her agency:

104
If they’re a larger organization, they might have funding available for subgrants. So, we
do receive subgrants from some groups. I think that’s helpful...just in terms of helping to
support work that we might have done anyway.
Peyton described similar views when determining how to partner with other nonprofits. They
emphasized trust and shared values, but also explained that key partnership traits included larger
organizational size compared to their own. Peyton shared that bigger nonprofits have deeper
fundraising experience, which often equates to having greater access to larger grants:
We have a few partnerships that we hold very closely and occasionally apply for funds
with. The defining characteristic of those organizations that we partner with are often
bigger than ours. They have access to that next tier of funding that we don’t have access
to because that grant amount is too big. So, they’ll have access to apply for something
that is $70K when those funders would not have even looked at us previously.
Augustin described a close partnership with a local nonprofit that he frequently collaborated with
for funding opportunities:
For us, another nonprofit...Prickles Palace… PP has been a close partner. We have gone
in on grants together...work together. We support each other.
Emanuelle’s experiences with partnerships especially highlight how a variety of community
relationships linked her agency to financial resources, including grant funding and individual
donors. She described how her agency partnered with a group that focused on senior education,
which enabled her to secure additional city funding:
The association comes to our agency 3-4 times a year to present to our seniors. They
target 10-20 seniors for each seminar. We got funding from the city...their education is
now part of our funding activities.

105
Emanuelle continued to express that her nonprofit’s partnership network has brought more
visibility to their work, which also connected them to individual donors:
Some partners came through foundations... and some came through the Counsel General.
For example, one of our attendees who came to the Census forum donated quite a good
amount of money. Before that experience, he never really thought about donating to us.
Robert’s approach also leveraged his agency’s networks with local government and small
businesses. He illustrated how partnered with a variety of government, community, and business
entities to bring revenue into his agency:
We have strategic partnerships with government entities related to education in schools.
The program is called “School to Career Initiative” and we’re the contractor to do that.
He proceeded to share that relationships with community organizations and small businesses
allowed his agency to provide ancillary services at community events, which generated fee
revenue:
We’ve created strategic partnerships with business entities to support their valet for our
community’s farmer’s market. And then the Rollerskating Club, they provide us with
proceeds and we in turn do things for them...we do aid stations, mechanic stations, and
provide equipment for their races.
Alastair shared similar experiences, where his agency contracted with other local partners to
complete various community development projects:
The Housing Authority contracted with us to help them do some neighborhood
development work with their apartment complexes...and then the city contracted with us
to do similar neighborhood development work on a macro-level.

106
The researcher finds that EDs strongly consider value alignment and organizational size when
building partnerships. She specifically noted that EDs seek to grow partnerships with larger and
established nonprofits or entities. Larger nonprofits or entities tend to benefit from rich
community networks and possess the fundraising experience that smaller agencies seek to grow
to advance their own missions. However, this study found that the 11 EDs more commonly
received in-kind resources from their strategic partners.
In-kind resources. All 11 of the EDs indicated that they benefited from partnerships that
provided in-kind resources to their agency. The extent of the in-kind donations ranged from
highly skilled volunteer labor, equipment, and materials. This study found that small nonprofit
organizations particularly rely on highly skilled volunteer labor to administer their programs and
services. For example, Raquel and Augustin both estimated that the in-kind value derived from
their volunteer labor equated to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Augustin further described
how in-kind volunteer labor strengthens his agency’s specialized service provision:
We have people that volunteer and give basically, because they’re retired, 30-40 hours a
week. They contribute to the work, but they don’t want to get paid because they’re able
to do it. Those are five people who are doing work at the office, who are serving clients,
though they’re not technically on staff.
In Augustin’s case, his agency’s relationships with highly skilled volunteers significantly
increases their capacity to serve clients. Similarly, Raquel also described how her agency’s
partnership with a local museum augments her youth program service provision:
They have their instructors come in and lead our education activities during our
summertime programs. If you think...how much would I have to spend if I were to hire

107
somebody who is trained to deliver art education for six weeks? If I were to hire two
people, how much would that have cost me if I had not partnered with this organization?
Carmen shared a similar experience in partnering with a larger nonprofit to expand her agency’s
operations into a new geography. She found that the partnering ED helped increase her funding
with an existing foundation:
And then I talked to this ED of our partner organization and he goes, “Why didn’t you
ask them for more? And he goes, “They’re millionaires and give out tons of money.
You’re the only organization in California that does this work. Ask for more!” Those
conversations allow me to grow and expand the way I think about our financial resources
for the organization.
Carmen and Raquel both described how volunteer labor and support helped increase their
funding. Peyton indicated that partnerships allowed them to benefit from shared costs related to
human and administrative resources:
All of those funds go into the software that we need, the tech support, the HR person’s
salary, the person that cuts all our checks...that model has been so helpful with keeping
our operations costs wildly low and that’s super, super helpful.
This study found that small nonprofits rely on the power of skilled volunteer labor and
relationships with larger, more established nonprofits to increase their access to financial and in-
kind resources. While seven of the EDs in this study indicated using partnerships to increase
access to financial opportunities, all 11 of the participants described that they received material
and in-kind value from strategic partnerships, particularly in the forms of volunteer labor and
learning opportunities.

108
Motivation Influences. The second research question also explored how ED motivation
interacted with their knowledge in relation to fundraising. The researcher aimed to discover how
self-efficacy, attributions, and emotions influence ED motivation in their orientation and
engagement of fundraising activities. Notably, EDs did not mention that failing to meet their
fundraising goals could result in job loss, although the researcher recognizes that the interview
protocol did not inquire on this issue. Prominent influences included beliefs on the power of
relationships, time and capacity, and storytelling to attract donors and funders. This study
discovered a reciprocal relationship between personal motivation and the procedural knowledge
that EDs choose to develop in their own fundraising style, most particularly around relationship
building. The researcher found three key motivation influences: relationships contribute to
confidence, internal attributions, and negative emotions.
Motivation Finding 1: Relationships with donors and funders contribute to ED
confidence. The researcher sought to understand the role of self-efficacy in how EDs engaged in
their fundraising activities. She learned that nine EDs expressed positive self-efficacy, which
they connected to their abilities to build relationships with donors and funders. While the
researcher initially sought to discover each ED’s confidence related to achieving their annual
fundraising goals, the influence of COVID-19. underscored the importance of this exploration
area. She found that while nine EDs held high confidence in their fundraising abilities, two of
them still expressed cautious optimism related to COVID-19 challenges. For example, Robert
explained his uncertainty with achieving his fundraising targets due to COVID-19 but generally
believed in his skills:
Year end 2019, I had a high level of confidence in my organization’s ability to raise more
funds. But, answering that question in June 2020. There’s a lot of question marks.

109
There’s a lot of uncertainty given some of the economic challenges that we’re having
nationally and locally.
Peyton responded with similar sentiments, they shared having concerns with reaching their
financial goals given the challenges with COVID-19:
Before the global pandemic, I would’ve had a different answer. I think I normally go into
every year thinking it’s going to be hard, but that we’ll do it. This year though, because
of COVID, we just have higher costs, like straight up. We just have higher costs because
we’re doing so many things we did not anticipate previously.
The researcher found that the other seven EDs alleviated their fundraising and COVID-19-
related concerns with placing confidence in their donor and funder relationships. For instance,
Raquel illustrated her confidence in the donor base that her agency had built, despite budgetary
challenges with COVID-19:
I think one of the things that probably makes me more confident than others is that
because we don’t rely on those government grants that are highly competitive and we
have those donors. We have a really core group of loyal donors that have given every
year...and whenever we ask for them to step up because we’ve had a rough year, they
usually step up.
Carmen indicated her confidence in reaching her agency’s fundraising goals for the year due to
growing relationships with her funders, “I’m pretty confident. We had been applying for
COVID-19 funding. After a week, we got it.” Further, Ronnie also responded that he was fairly
confident in achieving his agency’s fundraising goals, despite the pandemic. He anticipated his
organization would exceed its fundraising goals due to helpful relationships when he stated,

110
“We’re going to hit our $65,000 mark. We could very well do a $100,000 net at this
event...because I’ve got big people doing it for me.”
Sharing a similar sentiment, Alastair expressed feeling confident in his fundraising goals
due to building visibility and relationships with local organizations. He further explained that his
ability to build relationships and establish his own system of fundraising through storytelling
contributed to his confidence:
I’m confident in my system of doing it. I’m confident because now most of the major
leaders of institutions and businesses know me and know our work...and they will fund us
when it’s the right time. I’m confident in that.
Tamera made similar associations to relationship building in the context of fundraising for her
organization:
And that has really, really paid off for us when we develop really good relationships with
program officers. I think that’s what I do well, especially in relationship building for
fundraising.
While nine EDs expressed overall confidence, two of them indicated having generally lower
confidence levels in their fundraising abilities. Emanuelle explained her beliefs in her low
confidence levels:
I think I’m very terrible. Even telling my best friend to donate to my organization is not
easy. Telling my very rich relative to donate is not easy. Personally, I don’t think I’m
good at fundraising at all.
Derrick provided a different perspective on his confidence levels related to fundraising. He
made a distinction between his confidence in grant writing versus soliciting donations:

111
In the grant writing world, I’m a lot more confident than in the individual donation world.
To me, those things are completely separate.
While the researcher noted these two EDs’ lower confidence levels related to fundraising, she
discovered that their annual 990 forms indicated gradual revenue increases. Similarly, of the
nine other EDs that expressed high confidence in their fundraising, they also demonstrated
revenue increases year over year. Overall, this study finds that EDs base their fundraising
confidence in their relationships with donors and funders. However, due to unexpected
challenges with COVID-19, two EDs remain cautious, while another two possess lower
confidence in their overall fundraising skills. To reference comparative annual revenue analysis
for all of the nonprofits in this study, see Appendix F.
Motivation Finding 2: Internal and external attributions significantly shape ED
motivation related to their fundraising performance. The researcher found that while internal
attributions drive ED confidence in raising funds for their organization, their attributions to
external factors also shape their perceptions. This study found that EDs internally attributed
their fundraising achievements to their relationship building and communication efforts, which
encouraged their knowledge development around growing relationships and effective
storytelling. The role of storytelling in ED attributions held an important role in their motivation
with fundraising. According to Denning (2005) carefully chosen stories help organizational
leaders translate abstractions into meaningful causes for their employees and audience. The
researcher found that five of the 11 EDs used their position to tell organizational stories to
develop fundraising relationships. Conversely, this study also found that when EDs lose or fail
to secure funding, they tend to attribute the causes to external factors, including competition and
scarcity, misaligned interests, and systemic prejudice.

112
Internal attributions. This study found that a reciprocal relationship between personal
motivation and procedural knowledge exists in relation to ED fundraising performance. All 11
of the participants in this study expressed how relationship building led to their fundraising
achievements and shared stories about their knowledge growth in storytelling. For example,
Tamera felt that her storytelling about the impact of her organization had improved through
engaging funders in her work. While two of the 11 EDs hold lower confidence levels in
fundraising, they also recognize the powerful role that their relationship building played in
securing funding for their agency. Emanuelle does not feel confident in her fundraising abilities,
but believed she could build and maintain relationships. Each ED knew the importance of
relationship building and therefore indicated that they actively grew relationships for their
fundraising efforts. For instance, Emanuelle attributes her relationship building to securing
revenue for her organization’s specialized work:
I didn’t know that this relationship would bring money to our organization...or even bring
our capacity. But, having a good relationship, it came.
Carmen holds particular confidence in communicating her organization’s purpose when she
builds relationships with funders:
I do well in making sure that I speak the truth about what we do, what we need, and what
we deserve as an organization...as a community. I think the other piece is that I’m pretty
good at building relationships and then maintaining them. And making sure that those
relationships are deeper than just the funder.
Raquel similarly attributed her fundraising achievements to her knowledge in grant writing:
I’m confident in my grant writing skills and being able to put together, following the
protocols for writing grants, and knowing how to apply for grants.

113
She continued to describe how she also attributed her fundraising achievements to the donor and
funder relationships that she helped build in her agency. On the topic of individual donors she
shared:
Our biggest funding stream is really independent donors...individuals.
In her interactions with family foundations, Raquel expressed having strengths in her
relationships with these particular funders:
So, our strength is mostly with those small family foundations. They tend to look at it
more through an equity lens...they realize that we’re a small nonprofit led and run by
people of color (POCs) serving POCs.
Peyton pointedly expressed that they attributed their own personal story and position to their
fundraising activities for their organization:
I’m just going to be very transparent, that I know that my personal story influences
people to donate and I have to use that effectively. I have to do it in my power and my
agency, but I know that unfortunately, people are looking for a story to latch onto. I also
have to be mindful about how I use my story...and when I use it.
Augustin described how he encouraged his agency to reimagine their largest fundraising event of
the year amid resistance from his Board and staff:
I got a bunch of, “No, no, no!” Until I got a “Yes.” This is the only reason we now have
had 13 years...this is the event that produces $50K-$75K a year.
The interview responses captured that the presence of internal attributions resounded across each
conversation, despite different confidence levels in fundraising skills. The interview data
presented suggests that the roles of self-efficacy and positive internal attributions interrelate in
the confidence that EDs hold in building relationships. This study found that all 11 of the EDs

114
attributed their personal participation in building relationships that have led to revenue for their
organization.
External attributions. According to the literature, nonprofits compete for funding in
resource scarce environments where demand exceeds supply (Bauer, 2017; Campbell &
Lambright, 2016). Recognizing that EDs hold chief fundraising responsibilities in competitive
environments, the researcher also wanted to understand the types of attributions they made when
losing or failing to secure funding. She found that EDs made numerous external attributions to
lost funding opportunities or failures, including misaligned interests with funders or donors,
capacity, competition, and systemic bias. Of the 11 participants, one ED indicated attributing
lost funding opportunities to his own actions. These findings contrast with how EDs attribute
fundraising successes to their own efforts. The following section discusses the variety of
external attributions that EDs made toward funding losses or failures.
The researcher found that four EDs attributed misaligned interests with funders or donors
to unfavorable fundraising results. Alastair and Peyton shared their stories, but both made
particular mention of not taking these results personally. For instance, Alastair shared that
sometimes his agency might not match with a donor’s priorities:
They can fund whatever they want. If we’re genuinely sharing what we are...just because
it doesn’t match doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong...or we’re right or wrong. It just
wasn’t a good match.
Peyton explained that the importance of aligned interests often influenced their conversations
with potential donors, they further described their experiences:

115
People will give to the things that they want to give to...and people are influenced by
trends. That is natural. I think that for us, some of the attributes are what is the
movement moment that we’re in?
On the topic of attributions, Ronnie pointed to the mission of his organization and described that
people decide to support or not:
People are either walking toward what I am doing or away from what I am doing. I don’t
care. My message doesn’t change. They will all hear it.
While Alastair, Peyton, and Ronnie illustrated their attributions related to misaligned interests
with funders or donors, Raquel and Emanuelle attributed competition to unfavorable fundraising
performance.
The researcher assumed that competition would heavily punctuate the interviews,
however only Raquel and Emanuelle discussed how they believed competition influenced their
fundraising outcomes. Raquel expressed that due to COVID-19, government funding cuts to
social services had influenced her funding competition with other nonprofits vying for
foundation grants. Emanuelle also made attributions about how her agency’s narrow focus
impacted their competitive edge:
It’s very competitive among other nonprofit organizations. Especially for us...we’re very
small, very focused on an ethnic group. Especially for wider community funding, we get
less from those foundations or government just because we’re very focused on a specific
population. If I hear no, it doesn’t surprise me at all.
While Peyton did not expressly mention competition, they shared a similar view as Emanuelle
when applying for funding with large foundations. Peyton explained that due to their agency’s
budget and staff size, they understand that foundations will not award them large grants:

116
It’s like...how am I supposed to get bigger if no one gives me bigger grant amounts?
That’s a big thing, if we see that their average grant amount is $100K, we’re not going to
get it. Like, we’re not going to get it. So, I don’t even bother to apply for those.
Raquel, Emanuelle, and Peyton’s experiences illustrate how they make attributions to
environmental or external factors in relation to lost or failed funding opportunities.
The researcher found that three other EDs attributed issues of systemic bias related to
White privilege and favoring larger nonprofits to their fundraising activities and performance.
Their attributions ranged from fundraising training they received to interactions with
foundations. For instance, Derrick attributed his struggles with navigating the philanthropic
world to White privilege:
There’s a real double standard that exists in philanthropy. It comes from colonization. It
comes from White privilege. People that aren’t on the ground that have all the money,
but they think they have the solution. At the end of the day, they complicate our lives.
Carmen described how she sought grant writing workshops to improve her skills, but felt that the
fundraising training reflected White experiences:
And even if when you take courses like how to write grants, they’re very catered to a
White population rather than something that we would understand a little more. That has
always been a struggle.
She continued to share she attributed fundraising challenges to grant writing, which she believed
the nonprofit sector does not prepare EDs for:
It has always been a struggle to write grants. No one teaches you…at least for women of
color, no one teaches you how to do this stuff. It’s stuff that you’re thrown into and you
have to figure out how to do it.

117
Tamera shared a sentiment similar to Carmen. She spent time participating in grant writing
seminars and learning what worked best for her, but also made external attributions to the
nonprofit sector’s bias toward larger organizations:
I was never trained on how to do grant writing or fundraising. I also haven’t formerly
worked with anyone that has worked in development. A lot of this feels like guess work
to me...and I think what works for larger organizations they try to share in terms of best
practices, which is sometimes unrealistic for the type and level of work that we do.
On the topic of interacting with funders, Tamera described deep educational work that she
undertook with funders. She attributed their lack of awareness on her client population to
impeding her funding opportunities:
The intersection we’re at means people who are not queer, trans, and API know zero
about who we are. Like, if they know anything about the API community, it’s definitely
not about queer and trans folks. If they’re looking at LGBT communities, a lot of it is
from a White dynamic.
Derrick, Carmen, and Tamera’s experiences capture important environmental considerations
related to how small nonprofits navigate their complicated funding conditions.
Robert stood as the sole ED to make singularly internal attributions to his fundraising
successes and failures. Unlike the other participants, he explained that when his agency lost out
on funding opportunities or a donor did not wish to contribute, that he reflected on his influence
in those outcomes and sought ways to improve:
I take a negative response to a proposal as it’s not a no, it’s a not yet. So, I put more
pressure on myself that I didn’t do a good enough job in making the case. Whether it was
writing the proposal, I take it personally that I need to do a better job.

118
Attributions powerfully influence how EDs internally perceive their role in fundraising and
interpret external factors related to competing in multiple environments with different funders.
Motivation Finding 3: The researcher found that nine out of the 11 EDs experienced
negative emotions while fundraising but still achieved their revenue goals. Recognizing the
importance of positive emotions in motivated behavior, the researcher sought to explore the
types of feelings that EDs held toward fundraising. She assumed that EDs needed positive
emotions to effectively fundraise, however she found that only two out of the 11 EDs expressed
enthusiasm toward fundraising tasks while the majority of the EDs indicated disdain. The
researcher also found from budget reports and 990 forms that eight of the 11 EDs demonstrated
consistent annual revenue growth between 2016 through 2018. These findings suggest that
while EDs commonly dislike fundraising, they still achieve their fundraising goals such that they
increase their organizational revenue year over year. To reference comparative revenue growth
analysis for the participants in this study, see Appendix F.
Of the 11 participants, ten characterized their feelings toward fundraising as hatred,
dread, and overwhelming. The dominant feeling that they used to capture their negative
emotions was frustration. Numerous reasons and factors for the negative emotions were given,
including feeling frustrated by interactions with funders, beliefs that they could spend their time
serving clients instead of fundraising, and a lack of Board support. For example, Derrick
exclaimed his feelings about fundraising:
I [expletive] hate it. I [expletive] hate it! You just want to do the work and there are
times where I ask myself why I’m going to this meeting? Like, will this advance my
mission? I’m drawing more of a line now. Yeah, so I hate it.
In a similar chord, Tamera expressed her feelings toward fundraising:

119
Mostly dread. It took a very long time to figure out what was going on year-over-year for
me. So, I think that feeling of dread...not knowing and feeling uncertain about our
financial security is the primary feeling that I have with fundraising.
Feelings of dread and frustration resounded during the interviews. While Tamera communicated
feeling dread, Peyton shared that interacting with funders often felt frustrating:
When it comes to institutional and philanthropic support, honestly, I am most frustrated.
There’s just a lot of gatekeeping and a lot of hoops that people make organizations jump
through to get change. Like, truly chump change. I think that’s really frustrating.
Peyton also shared their experiences with writing grants, further describing their feelings toward
interacting with funders:
There are a few foundations that are sitting on what feels like a gazillion dollars and
they’re giving me like…$10K. I think that’s frustrating...like I just spent three hours for
$5K. Are you kidding me? I think that’s not empowering...it’s not transformative...it’s
just not fun.
Augustin reflected on his evolving feelings toward fundraising and shared how he felt when first
becoming an ED:
We are taught to be very scared of money. I felt like a loser. I felt like somebody who
didn’t know how to talk to that person (the funder). It seemed riddled with problems
instead of opportunities...with possibilities.
While he maintained his general dislike toward fundraising, Augustin described how community
organizing empowered his views on interacting with funders:

120
Over time, from different kinds of training...and not fundraising training...organizing
training that reminded me that I had a fear and that I should look at it instead of hiding it,
helped me.
Carmen offered a different perspective related to disliking fundraising, that although she felt
overwhelmed by her fundraising tasks the work needed to be done:
I do feel overwhelmed. I think I’m also always nervous when I write because I’m also
conscious that I’m not the best writer, so I get kind of nervous when I write. There are
some emotions, but at the end of the day we need to make sure that we’re fundraising so
this needs to be done. So, I’m just going to do it.
Similar to Carmen’s view, Raquel described feeling a range of emotions, but recognized that the
fundraising needed to be done for her organization and made special note of the fundraising
successes:
It raises every emotion possible. I mean, sometimes it’s anger...sometimes it’s
frustration, sometimes it feels like I’m writing a letter to Santa. Like, one of our funders
approached me wanting to do a partnership...they came in right after Thanksgiving, but
asked for something at the end of that week. So, that’s the frustrating part. But there’s
also excitement like, “These people want to fund our organization!”
Ronnie shared a similar sentiment of not liking fundraising, but doing so to serve his
organization’s work:
I don’t particularly like it right now. But, I particularly do it gladly. I don’t have to like
it, to do it.
Emanuelle pointedly described her emotions with the same feelings:

121
I don’t like fundraising at all! I’m not a person who’s good at asking...but, I have to do it
because I’m ED.
These findings suggest that although EDs tend to dislike fundraising, they fundraise to serve
their organizational mission. While nine of the EDs expressed feeling negative emotions toward
fundraising activities, two of them described feeling excitement. Josh and Robert stood in the
minority not only for enjoying fundraising, but that they both had long careers in fund
development prior to leading their organization. The researcher learned about both of their
extensive experiences in development during the interviews. In response to his feelings on
fundraising, Robert indicated:
I feel confident because that has been my thing for a long time. So, I have confidence in
my ability. I have a feeling of being at ease. I have a feeling of passion. I feel excited...I
feel energized by fundraising.
As a longtime fundraising volunteer with his agency before becoming ED, Josh felt excited to
build relationships and network in his community:
I’m elated to have that opportunity to reach out to them. I’m really, extremely excited.
Because now, I have the floor. Before it was other people having the floor to talk about
some of the great ideas, some of the great things happening with the organization.
The findings in response to the second research question suggest that ED knowledge and
motivation powerfully interact to influence their fundraising behaviors and performance. While
all 11 of the EDs in this study knew how to compete for diverse revenue, they chose to pursue or
not pursue funding opportunities based on mission alignment and organizational capacity. Of the
11 EDs, three of them managed diverse organizational revenue sources. The three EDs with
diverse revenue sources expressed higher confidence in achieving their fundraising goals in spite

122
of COVID-19 whereas groups with less than two primary funding sources felt uncertain about
their goal achievement for 2020. Generous community support in the forms of financial and in-
kind resources influence ED attributions on the importance of relationships to strengthening their
fundraising work.
The EDs in this study partner with larger organizations to significantly leverage their
access to revenue opportunities and skilled volunteer labor. Due to this, EDs increase their
knowledge on building relationships with peers, funders, and donors that could benefit their
organizational mission. At six total, the majority of EDs struggle to effectively engage their
Board members in fundraising activities, leaving them feeling alone in their responsibilities.
However, EDs associate their confidence in fundraising performance to their perceptions on the
strength of their relationships to funders and donors that support their organization. While nine
of the 11 EDs dislike fundraising, two enjoy fund development tasks. Financial records and 990
forms show that eight out of 11 of the EDs demonstrate consistent revenue growth year-over-
year between 2016 through 2018, suggesting that EDs dislike but continue to achieve their
fundraising goals.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3: What is the interaction between organizational settings and
nonprofit ED knowledge and motivation related to achieving their fundraising goals? The
third research question explored how organizational settings interact with ED knowledge and
motivation in their fundraising performance and goal achievement. According to the literature,
EDs rely on external relationships and resources, including mentors, informal networks, and
leadership development training to increase their fundraising knowledge (Aggarwal et al., 2012;
Kim & Peng, 2018). Due to this, the researcher sought to understand how EDs believed their

123
organization interacted with their fundraising responsibilities and overall performance. While all
11 of the EDs indicated engaging in external leadership training and benefiting from mentors,
key organizational challenges around organizational capacity, limited staffing, and Board
disengagement in fundraising trended across the interviews. The theme of potential particularly
resonated in her discussions with each ED. Nine out of the 11 EDs felt that their organizational
capacity limited their fundraising potential. For additional information related to the interview
protocol on organizational settings, see Appendix H.
Organizational Finding 1: Nonprofit EDs benefit from rich personal and professional
development opportunities outside of their organization. The researcher found that all 11 EDs
received external leadership development training to improve their fundraising and management
skills. While these opportunities ranged from informal, including mentor and peer support, to
formal workshops and seminars, every ED in this study participated in external activities and
networking to increase and strengthen their fundraising knowledge. For example, Derrick shared
about how working with a consultant caused him to rethink his fund development strategies:
He had to tell us that our work was priceless. He said, “If you’re going to work with me,
you’re going to need to get rid of all these fundraisers and boost the priceless work that
you’re doing. You’re not valuing your own work, so why would your community?”
Derrick continued to share that he had also received a scholarship to participate in a prestigious
year-long executive program:
The idea behind the program is that we can all come together regardless of political
background to create a better America. So, all these people...movers and shakers...rich
people, all of that kind of stuff.

124
Two other EDs shared similar experiences of receiving training to bolster their leadership and
fundraising skills, including Peyton:
I have been very lucky that people have invested in my speaking skills, for instance.
Emanuelle also described participating in countless workshops and seminars:
I always want to learn more, to be you know, strategic. I’ve been to many different
meetings, educational sessions, and trainings.
The topic of mentorship also resounded within the interviews. For instance, Carmen expressed
her nervousness with grant writing, but shared that various individuals mentored her:
I’ve had a wealth of folks that have helped me figure out how to write grants.
Carmen also described how a particular mentorship relationship with another experienced ED in
her network motivated her approach to fundraising:
Because their ED is fearless. One, he’s a Latino man and he knows his privilege. And
he’s like, “I don’t care about people, I just tell them how they are.” So, it has allowed me
to really fundraise in a fearless way.
While some mentors taught how to improve fundraising strategies, others identified fundraising
opportunities for the EDs they helped to guide. The role of external mentorship appeared to
positively influence ED knowledge and motivation. For example, Tamera described experiences
with mentors helping with her fundraising prospects:
So, if they’re like, “Oh, I saw this...it sort of fits the work of your organization.” So, we
might not have heard about it if they hadn’t notified us. And so, I think that having
mentors and advocates for different types of funding helps. Especially if they’re already
a grantee and they help to do an introduction...that is the most helpful type of connection.

125
The first finding reinforces the importance of training and mentorship in relation to ED
knowledge and motivation. EDs that receive organizational support to engage in external
personal and professional learning opportunities demonstrate that they increase their social
capital, which benefits their access to financial and material resources for their agency.
Organizational Finding 2: Nonprofit EDs form valuable strategic collaborations within
their communities through informal networks and coalition memberships. The researcher
found that ten out of the 11 EDs participated in both informal networks and coalitions, which
buttressed their organization’s access to resources and increased their knowledge of funding
opportunities. Raquel indicated that she did not participate in informal networks or coalitions
due to focusing on her organization’s internal needs. Overall, the researcher found that EDs
made distinctions between informal networks and coalition membership. For example, Peyton
and Tamera participated in informal networks with peers and other like-minded organizations to
share best practices and cross-promote each other’s events. However, Augustin, Alastair,
Carmen, and Derrick regarded coalition membership as formalized group agreements often
bound with service deliverables and clear roles, reinforced under shared memorandums of
understanding (MOUs). Both informal networks and coalitions served to increase each ED’s
social capital, fundraising knowledge, and access to revenue opportunities.
Informal networks provide shared learning experiences for EDs, including exchanging
insights on funding opportunities, relationship building, and local issues. On the topic of
informal networks, Peyton described how their agency benefits from networking with smaller
and larger organizations alike:
We work hyper-locally with other groups based in San Francisco. You know...local stuff,
where people go, where people walk is important to us. We also have a space with other

126
volunteer run groups...with other folks who have no staff at all and literally no money.
We want to support, provide resources, and train those organizations with the small
amount of privilege we have in comparison.
Peyton continued to describe their networking and engagement with larger nonprofits:
We are part of a network of organizations all fiscally sponsored by the same organization.
There are organizations that we learn together with, grow relationships with, and grow
our skills and practices. If we want to collaborate on events, we do so.
While Emanuelle did not direct her agency to participate in any formal coalitions, she explained
that informal networking has produced funding opportunities:
And the Quacks Law Center is a very good example too. Whenever they have civic
engagement funding from the county or private foundations they always reach out to us.
Robert indicated that his organization has also benefited from informal networking settings. His
involvement in the Downtown Business Association mutually benefits both organization, but
most especially secured his nonprofit as a service provider in his community’s weekly farmer’s
market:
We also have the Downtown Business Association. I’m pretty active with them...I
strategize with their Executive Director on prospects. Our organization is the organizer
of the farmer’s market...and I mentioned the valet. We’re the service provider and
connector with them. I also connect them with Small Business Saturday in October.
In response to informal networks and relationships, Ronnie shared that his agency often
collaborated with other groups:

127
We’re highly collaborative. As much as an organization can be involved in
networks...it’s really individuals, right? We are involved, but that does not mean
attending everything. I do not feel the need to attend every meeting.
Ronnie’s sentiments on not attending every meeting punctuates an important distinction between
participating in informal networks and committing to formal coalition partnerships. The
researcher found that EDs differentiated between networks and coalitions. For example, Carmen
explained her thinking around coalition membership:
We have to be very cautious of what we take on and what we don’t. Most times, we are
only in coalitions if we have a defined role to play and we can contribute. Because we
never want to just go in half [expletive].
Derrick described his experience with participating in a formalized coalition. He shared that
each organization retained their own identity, but were funded to advance a collective agenda to
develop community-wide youth programs:
We got together and we talked about all these things and then published our vision, our
manifesto. They really liked that, so they funded us for a second year, upping the funds.
In the second year, we’re formalizing our coalition with agreements...like, how do we do
business? How do we come to decisions? All that stuff.
The researcher found that coalition membership often involved advancing shared goals in
connection with funding, which influenced the professionalized nature of coalition activities.
For example, Alastair illustrated his work with participating in a coalition that sought to address
Trauma and Resiliency in their community. The coalition hosted conferences to educate their
community members, to which he shared how one particular conference resulted in a significant
fundraising achievement for his agency:

128
We do a lot of conferences with partners...usually 2-3 hour conferences on a Saturday.
One lady...I had never met her before, she’s a Brain therapist, in a sense. She emailed me
after a conference saying that she loved what she heard...and that she would love to sit
down and talk. So, we met at my office about a month later. She asked a lot of
questions. “How did this network develop?” “How did you do this?” We sat for a couple
hours and her husband later joined us. She wrote a thirty-five thousand dollar check right
there. Later that Christmas, she wrote another twenty-five thousand dollar check.
Similarly, Augustin described how his agency participated in a national campaign that connected
him to other regional and local nonprofit partners. He continued to share that collaborative
relationships in the national coalition benefited his revenue goals and supported his learning:
They actually re-grant to smaller organizations and offer workshops throughout the
county. Basically, a collection of foundations got together to fund this national
campaign.
While ten of the 11 EDs indicated participating in informal networks and coalitions, Raquel
expressed that she did not. Her response stood in the minority, where she shared that past
coalition activities caused her to feel indifferent. Overall, she believed she could more
effectively spend her time on other tasks and further explained:
Everything here is highly political. I think even now, it’s even more charged. I did that
for so many years. I was involved in so many different things. After a while you just get
tired because there isn’t a lot of action that comes out of it. There’s a lot of talking, a lot
of meetings, but not a lot of action.
The researcher found that EDs engage in informal networks and coalitions to strategically
advance their learning and fundraising goals. Organizational settings significantly support the

129
learning and motivation of nonprofit EDs in relation to their fundraising performance particularly
in the areas of training and development, mentorship, networking and coalition building with
other agencies.
Organizational Finding 3: Limited staff, competing organizational needs, and Board
influence critically shape ED fundraising performance. A third finding emerged during the
exploration of ED beliefs related to their organizational environment. While all 11 EDs gained
personal and professional development opportunities outside of their organization, which
strengthened their knowledge and supported their motivation, the researcher discovered that they
each held beliefs that limited staff, competing organizational needs, and Board participation
shaped their fundraising performance. These organizational factors influence ED knowledge and
motivation regarding the types of revenue they pursue or do not pursue, how they engage or
disengage in fundraising activities, and their overall goal achievement.
Limited staff. The researcher found that seven out of the 11 EDs felt that they needed
more staff to maximize their fundraising potential. Their expressions often included descriptions
of “feeling that it was just them” or that “they were the only ones” fundraising for the
organization. Only one ED, Ronnie, indicated having a part-time grant writer that assisted with
his fundraising efforts. The influences of limited staff influenced the types of revenue that EDs
pursued and did not pursue and how they engaged or disengaged in fundraising activities. For
instance, Augustin shared his perspective on limited staff:
I think we definitely could be bigger if we had more staff time and somebody that was
more adept at the writing and thinking through development.
Josh described similar views in explaining the importance of staff capacity when managing
fundraising initiatives:

130
There’s a lot of administrative stuff that I have to do. I really need to rely on a top-heavy
team that has those capacities to help create the fundraising components necessary to
carry out.
Raquel shared her feelings with primarily leading her organization’s fundraising activities:
At times it feels like it’s just me. I think that’s the hardest thing...the ED is the primary
grant writer. We don’t have a team.
She continued to explain that her limited staffing and knowledge of various restrictive revenue
sources determined the types of funding opportunities she pursued and did not pursue. For
example, Raquel described her approach to government funding:
For a small agency it’s not worth applying for it...because I’m spending half my time
trying to figure out how to get the $10,000. If you factor the cost of my time to try and
get this grant going to jump through all the hoops they require, it’s not worth it.
On the topic of leading his organization’s fundraising strategy, Robert stood in the minority as an
ED with deep experience in fund development. However, he admitted that his previous roles
benefited from greater staff and resources, so in the context of his small organization he stated:
You’re looking at the chief development officer, the ED, the chief marketing officer,
you’re looking at the chief financial officer, and the database manager. It’s all within one
role. It’s different.
The small nature of Robert’s organization influenced how he engaged and disengaged in various
fundraising activities. He described that a few years earlier, his Board voted to discontinue their
membership program due to administrative challenges. Instead, Robert focuses on building
partnerships and donor relationships that raise larger sums of money for his organization:

131
Instead of getting someone to give $30 a year, why don’t we try to get more annual fund
donations? So, the theory was that we’d spend more attention on raising philanthropic
dollars than membership dollars.
For Alastair, his knowledge of different government revenue and the staffing demands required
to administer such contracts also influenced his approach to various funding opportunities:
In my perspective, it’s almost always not worth it because I don’t have the size of staff
needed to administer their requirements.
The influence of limited staff permeated the researcher’s conversations with the EDs in this
study. She found that EDs tended to lead the fundraising strategy for their organization. Further,
she discovered that EDs often relied on their knowledge of different funding requirements and
responsibilities to determine their engagement or disengagement with certain types of funding
opportunities.
Competing organizational needs. The researcher found that all 11 EDs managed various
administrative, operational, and programmatic responsibilities for their organization due to
limited staff. Due to these myriad demands, she found that recurring instances of competing
organizational needs also shaped ED fundraising activities. Competing organizational needs
determined how EDs pursued and engaged or disengaged in various fund development activities.
These competing organizational needs emerged in the interviews as feelings of having no time to
fundraise, needing more staff to effectively fundraise, and having no interaction with clients due
to fundraising efforts.
Tamera explained that given her numerous organizational needs, she often wrote grant
proposals hours before due dates. In response to discussing her approach to fundraising, she
shared that she lacked the time to think creatively about her fund development strategy:

132
As the primary person on staff that does fundraising, I write things on deadlines, I don’t
have time to create anything.
The pressures of finite time permeated across the interviews. The EDs managed multiple
organizational needs which affected the time they dedicated toward fundraising. For example,
Derrick expressed his frustration with managing grant requirements instead of focusing on client
services:
Now we have to do all these BS reports...that’s real staff time. Instead of me filing these
BS reports, shouldn’t I be doing more services? Shouldn’t I be helping our staff?
He continued to share that his growing knowledge of grant reporting and requirements began to
influence how he led his organizational fundraising activities:
Sometimes the money is too little and what they ask is too much. When you first go
through as ED and you don’t know anything, you’re like, “$20K is hella money!” Then
you realize that doesn’t even pay for one FTE. I’m finally understanding that trying to go
for a half a million is one and a half staff positions now.
While Derrick described pursuing larger grants with his fundraising efforts, EDs like Augustin
and Josh discussed balancing their external relationship building responsibilities with fund
development. The researcher found that they both enjoyed the external relationship building
instead of the grant and reporting aspects of fundraising. For example, Augustin recognized his
capacity limits with time and fundraising performance:
I can very much see how there are very important parts of that with time constraints and
also because I gravitate toward implementing and getting to know people, as opposed to
coming up with a more research-based approach and formal presentations for our
funding.

133
In Josh’s fundraising strategy, he described the emphasis that he placed on building relationships
with community leaders and funders. He revealed that his organization did not want to hire a
development person due to strict budget constraints, signaling critical organizational settings in
his work:
They said a development director wasn’t needed because they had an Executive Director!
You have the external stuff, but how do you get involved in writing out the grants?
Carmen also described how the nature of her limited staff and various organizational needs
influenced her fundraising pursuits and disengagements. She shared about a time where she
refused a funding opportunity due to her agency having different organizational needs:
The amount wouldn’t even have allowed us to hire a staff, even a quarter of their time. I
started realizing what we were good at as an organization, what our values were, and
what we wanted to do that really defined what we applied for.
While the ten other EDs expressed working externally and internally with clients, Ronnie shared
a different experience. Due to his organization’s limited staff but significant volunteer base, he
served as his agency’s lead fundraiser and spent most of his time administering grants and
contracts:
I administrate and it’s done...I even administrate the one’s administering the programs
that are done. I’m so far removed from the everyday, but I get all of the stories.
Board of Director influence. Nonprofit boards significantly create and contribute to the
organizational settings that influence ED emotions and knowledge. While EDs know the role of
their Board, they struggle with factors of historic tenure and cultural dynamics in facilitating
fundraising engagement. The researcher found that issues of historic tenure and cultural
dynamics interact to create organizational conditions that negatively impact ED emotions and

134
knowledge. The literature states that nonprofit Boards govern the fiscal solvency, executive
hiring and compensation, and overall functioning of an organization (Williams, 2013).
Knowledge and motivation gaps appear to exist between EDs knowing how to engage
Boards in their fundraising efforts and having the motivation to commit to organizational change
efforts. This study found that seven of the 11 EDs do not activate their Boards to effectively
fundraise to sustain the fiscal health of their organization. The researcher provided concrete
examples of ED experiences related to Board disengagement in fundraising in previous sections.
For instance, Raquel attempted to cultivate Board engagement in her fundraising efforts to no
avail. She accepted that her Board just did not fundraise and felt alone in her work. In Josh’s
case, his Board supported his external relationship building and personal development, but did
not assist with soliciting donations for the organization.
Board reticence and disengagement in fundraising exacerbates issues of organizational
capacity, limited staff, and ED emotions in the context of their organizational settings.
Emanuelle does not expect her Board to fundraise and accepts that they do not engage in
fundraising, but also shared her response to this organizational environment:
If I fail, my organization fails. I love my Board, by the way. They just don’t have
enough skill. They don’t have enough experience.
Emanuelle’s experience draws on earlier assertions presented in this discussion. She willingly
supports her Board’s reluctance to fundraise. At seven total, the majority of EDs in this study
confront issues related to historic tenure and cultural nuances that challenge their ability to
meaningfully activate their Boards to fundraise. These challenges orient and create
organizational conditions that influence fundraising ED efforts.

135
Josh described his fundraising interactions with his Board as receiving guidance before
he performed all of his fund development activities. The researcher recognizes the value in
guiding the fundraising process but draws an important distinction between Board guidance and
actual engagement. Josh shared one of his experiences with his Board:
Each quarter I tell them, “We need to raise this amount of money in order for us to get
additional staff.” I kind of gauge it to see where our relationships are, what our current
budget looks like, and gain some direction from our Board.
Josh acknowledged that he primarily led the fundraising for his organization. He continued to
explain that engaging his Board in fundraising required cultural change around asking for
monetary support:
It’s capacity building, it’s the influence that’s necessary to address what’s deep inside,
the deep-rooted stuff that we experienced as second, third, fourth generation immigrants.
He also revealed that give minimal budget resources, his Board believe in hiring a development
staff person:
They said that a development director is not needed since they have an Executive
Director!
Augustin discussed how some of his nonprofit’s founders continue to serve on the Board and
volunteer to provide client services but hesitate to fundraise:
Some founders are still around, including the ones that donate their time to do 25-30
hours a week to do work, not go to Board meetings.
While this study found that volunteer labor significantly influences organizational capacity and
service provision, the researcher contends that the role of the Board should consistently work to
fundraise (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). Although seven of the 11 EDs struggle to effectively

136
engage their Boards in fund development, four EDs provide promising practices in creating
supportive organizational settings for themselves and Board.
Summary of Findings
This study found that all 11 of the participating EDs and their agencies transitioned from
volunteer-led grassroots organizations to professionalized nonprofits through initial startup funds
from community supporters. With significant startup capital, volunteer labor, and community
expertise in accessing financial resources, these agencies grew their operations. These one-time
startup funds enabled the EDs to create administrative systems, secure office space, provide
services, and hire staff. Within their first three years of formal operation, all 11 EDs achieved
their fundraising goals to hire staff, expand programs, and secure office space.
The nonprofit EDs in this study knew how to compete for diverse funding sources.
However, their knowledge related to mission alignment with funders and organizational capacity
with limited resources influenced the types of funding they pursued and did not pursue. Due to
staffing capacity, eight of the EDs reported two primary funding sources whereas three managed
at least four types of diverse revenue, including donations, fees for service, grants, and contracts.
To advance their organizational mission, EDs skillfully leverage partnerships to increase their
access to financial and in-kind resources. These partnerships include joint applications for
grants, shared project contracts, accessing shared resources, and significant volunteer support.
Personal mission attachment and belief in purpose motivate EDs to fundraise for their
organizational cause. EDs derive confidence from perceived relationships of trust with their
funders and donors. They attribute their organizational fundraising achievements to their
abilities to build relationships and effectively communicate their mission to funders. When faced
with funding losses or failures, EDs largely attribute those outcomes to perceived environmental

137
factors related to scarcity, competition, and systemic biases toward larger, more established
nonprofits. Despite holding negative emotions toward fundraising, EDs tend to demonstrate
positive fundraising performance. While budgets fluctuate year-to-year, public 990 forms and
private financial information collected during this study show that the participating EDs have
maintained or increased their organizational revenue since 2016.
EDs draw on numerous personal and professional development opportunities outside of
their organization to strengthen their fundraising skills. These leadership development
opportunities include mentors, fundraising training, informal networks, and formal coalition
membership. All 11 EDs receive informal advice from mentors and attend various workshops
and training to improve their fundraising. Further, all 11 EDs have participated in informal
networks that encouraged sharing best practices, resources, and materials. Three of the EDs
engaged in formal coalitions, which brought revenue into their organization, additional
leadership training, and publicity to their cause.
While EDs gain significant value from external relationship building and educational
opportunities, the influence of the Board in their fund development activities remains
consequential. Of the 11, seven EDs struggle with meaningfully engaging their Board in
fundraising activities while four show promising practices for their field. EDs conceptually
understand the role and function of their Board but struggle with historic tenure of Board
members and cultural nuances related to shame with asking people for money in fundraising.
Overall, the researcher found that addressing negative emotions and organizational settings could
strengthen the field of practice for EDs leading small nonprofit organizations.

138
Chapter Five: Recommendations
Nonprofit EDs navigate complicated fundraising environments. The literature shows that
EDs interact with multiple funder groups and numerous accountability relationships (Campbell
& Lambright, 2016; Faulk et al., 2016). This study found that all 11 EDs manage competing
priorities, possess limited staff and resources, and perform significant fundraising efforts.
Further, seven of the 11 participants felt unsupported and alone in their fundraising
responsibilities. The economic effects of COVID-19 exacerbated feelings of anxiety and
uncertainty among all 11 EDs. The researcher developed the following recommendations with
considerations on the financial and capacity constraints that EDs in small agencies face. The
recommendations in this study do not require additional costs for EDs that seek to implement
these changes in their organization. Three of the recommendations focus on internal change
management strategies and one recommendation proposes sector-wide changes to support small
nonprofits.
The researcher found that internal organizational changes could best increase the
fundraising capacity of nonprofit EDs. Emergent influences related to limited staff and resources
continuously resounded across this study’s findings. The engagement or disengagement of
Board participation in fund development activities reverberated in ED experiences.
Additionally, the EDs in this study reported feelings of isolation in conducting their fundraising
work. While the researcher found that all 11 EDs demonstrated knowledge in competing for
diverse revenue and leveraging partnerships to grow resources, the influences of their
organizational settings interacted with their emotions and performance. Promoting positive ED
emotions suggests that organizations need to facilitate better work-life balance experiences,
including distributing workload and increasing internal collaboration (Helmig et al., 2014). The

139
following sections recommend how EDs can increase their organizational fundraising capacity
through change management strategies. These recommendations also discuss how increasing
organizational capacity can improve ED motivation, prevent burnout, and encourage learning
and collaboration with their peers. To reference the recommended Implementation and
Evaluation Plan for EDs seeking to make these organizational changes, see Appendix K.
Internal Organizational Recommendations
Empirical evidence suggests that organizational environments influence employee
performance and motivation (Guiterrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rueda, 2011). Kanter and Sherman
(2016) found that nonprofit employee well-being drives optimal organizational performance.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe the relationship between cultural models and settings,
whereby models represent shared attitudes and assumptions which interact with settings, such as
policies and protocols. Further, Schein (2004) asserts the powerful role of leadership in
modeling cultural norms and behaviors in organizations. Leadership behaviors create powerful
associations, assumptions, and customs in organizations (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003).
Board Role in Fundraising. This study found that EDs in small nonprofits acutely feel
their Board’s engagement or disengagement in fundraising. BoardSource (2017) reported that
Board engagement in fundraising has slightly increased but that stronger leadership is still
needed. The report qualifies these needs with tasking organizations to develop formal policies
around Board roles and responsibilities. Therefore, EDs that seek to prevent employee burnout
and promote positive emotions must facilitate cultural settings that promote collaboration and the
distribution of shared goal achievement.
Board governance and accountability critically shape organizational functioning and
sustainability (Bauer, 2017; Williams, 2013). Boards are legally responsible and liable to ensure

140
the fiscal health and solvency of their organization (IRS, 2020). Further, literature shows that the
nonprofit sector experiences higher levels of employee burnout and attrition compared to other
industries (Minzer et al., 2013). The ED may lead these organizational changes to prevent staff
burnout and promote positive workplace settings, however the Board’s role is consequential in
these efforts (Bauer, 2017; Svennson et al., 2017). In their annual report, BoardSource (2017)
found that Boards that regularly assess their performance perform better on core responsibilities.
Further, their report describes that the Board’s understanding of its responsibilities helps them
contribute to collaborative shared goals.
The researcher recommends that EDs increase their Board’s engagement in
fundraising to improve their organizational capacity. To support this recommendation, EDs
must provide concrete and measurable goals for Board members to contribute to their
fundraising and resource development needs. Since organizational needs vary, EDs can consider
the different ways that their Board can generate financial or in-kind contributions. The
researcher found that the seven EDs that struggle with Board disengagement did not have
systematic approaches to monitoring their Board’s fundraising activities. Therefore, the
researcher recommends developing individualized fundraising plans to increase engagement.
Each individualized fundraising plan must align with the organization’s overall financial goals
and account for regular check-ins on progress (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
This study found that three EDs demonstrate promising practices for increasing Board
fundraising engagement. Alastair, Robert, and Tamera each provide concrete and measurable
goals for their Board to contribute to their fundraising and resource needs. However, the three of
them dedicate significant time to supporting their Board members in fundraising, which

141
translates to frequent one-on-one meetings with each of their Board members during the year.
Alastair, Robert, and Tamera invest their time to ensure their Board understands the fundraising
goals and has the tools to achieve them. Notably, these three EDs reported that they felt
supported by their organization in executing their fundraising goals. The following sections
describe each of their promising practices in increasing their Board fundraising engagement.
At the start of the year, Alastair requests each of his Board members to schedule meetings
with two potential donors to their organization. He gives them the option to join the meeting, but
otherwise executes the sessions independently. Secondly, Alastair asks each Board member to
financially contribute to the organization’s annual fundraiser based on their budgetary means.
He quantifies his expectations and demonstrates to the Board that their participation contributes
to the organization’s overall financial health.
Robert uses a similar approach in his Board engagement. He sits with each Board
member once a year to review the organization’s database and identify donors to meet with.
Through this approach, Robert and one of his Board members repaired a once-strained
relationship with a long-time donor. Further, Robert’s engagement strategy complements the
social capital that his Board members bring into the organization. Chen (2009) illustrates that
Board members often access networks and personal relationships that benefit the organizations
they fundraise for. Similar to Alastair, Robert provides clear and measurable expectations for his
Board members. Using Alastair and Robert’s approach, EDs might consider developing a subset
of organizational Advisors that focus solely on fundraising, while the broader Board manages the
strategic activities of the agency. The Advisors could meet quarterly to generate and execute on
fundraising activities.

142
Tamera engages her Board in significant grassroots fundraising campaigns. She shared
that her Board exceeded their goal and helped her raise $24,000 to alleviate unanticipated costs
due to COVID-19. She emphasized that her Board consists of first-time members that are eager
to learn and try new fundraising methods. Her team provided the marketing materials and her
Board worked collaboratively to achieve their fundraising goal. These elements served her
organization well, as her Board raised money within their personal and professional networks. In
Tamera’s context, she quantified the financial expectation and provided her Board with the tools
to achieve the goal.
ED fundraising performance determines their organization’s ability to hire and retain
employees, provide services, and advance their mission (Deaton et al., 2013). However, the
Board significantly influences the organizational environments that EDs work within (Hodge &
Piccolo, 2011). This study found that Board fundraising engagement stands to increase an
organization’s capacity, from increasing revenue to hire employees, accessing financial and in-
kind resources, and motivating the ED, Board engagement remains crucial.
The researcher recommends that EDs partner with a local college or university to
bring student interns into their organization to increase their internal capacity. Recognizing
that internship programs require significant administrative management, the researcher
emphasizes the importance of partnering with an established program at an educational
institution. Evidence shows that schools possess the infrastructure to effectively recruit and
place student interns in service-learning opportunities (Kapucu et al., 2011, 2012). Partnering
with a local college or university to host interns alleviates nonprofits from additional personnel
recruitment responsibilities and instead enables them to focus on student learning and project
completion.

143
The significant role of service-learning interns emerged in the interviews. Specifically,
five out of the 11 EDs described pivotal ways that interns supported their programs and
increased their organizational output. For example, Augustin’s organization hosted law school
students that actively managed client cases. He explained the benefits of intern involvement as
furthering student learning while distributing workloads across his small team of five. In
Raquel’s agency, she partnered with a local college and benefited from thousands of hours of
volunteer intern support. Operating with a small team of three employees, Raquel stated that
partnering with a college helps her organization with the placement of students. Her agency
assigns intern projects based on the student’s area of study. For example, computer science
students support her computer lab, whereas students in the social sciences help with their family
and youth programs. Additionally, Peyton also partners with nearby colleges to promote their
agency’s service-learning opportunities. Interns at Peyton’s organization receive training in
grassroots fundraising, which directly benefits their annual revenue goals.
The literature supports that emerging partnerships between schools and nonprofits seem
promising for community development (Kapucu et al., 2011; Kapucu, 2012). The Center for
Nonprofit and Public Management at Central Florida University (2020) offers a model for school
partnerships with nonprofit organizations. According to the Center’s website (2020), they place
student interns within local nonprofits to assist with capacity building initiatives. Their students
execute administrative tasks and projects to support the capacity of small nonprofits (Annual
Report for Center for Nonprofit and Public Management, 2019). Similarly, De Anza Community
College’s Humanities Mellon Scholars program supports student internship placements at local
nonprofits in their community. Mellon Scholars receive an hourly wage to complete their
service-learning internship (2020). Saltikoff (2017) asserts that internships support personal and

144
professional development behaviors. Further, Prevost et al., (2017) states that students want to
learn new skills to increase their competitiveness in the market.
In addition to practice-based evidence, several theoretical principles support this
recommendation. Bandura (2011) asserts that individuals need positive self-efficacy to display
optimal performance. He also suggests that the social nature of learning allows individuals to
observe activities and apply them to their own practice (Bandura, 2005). Self-efficacy describes
individual confidence or one’s positive beliefs in their abilities (Pajares, 2006). Collective self-
efficacy addresses the confidence levels that govern group behavior (Pajares, 2006). To increase
the organizational capacity of small nonprofits, engaging student interns to engage in social
learning in professional settings serves to increase their self-efficacy and the collective self-
efficacy of the organization (Saltikoff, 2017). In the context of collective self-efficacy, the
researcher suggests that student interns and nonprofit organizations can collectively hold high
confidence levels in shared work and mission (Kim & Peng, 2018).
The researcher recommends that EDs partner with local colleges or universities to offset
the administrative demands of hosting student interns within their organization. This
recommendation provided numerous promising practices and empirical data to support the
mutual benefits for the organization and student interns. For comprehensive change
management steps on developing an internship program, please refer to the Evaluation and
Implementation Plan in Appendix K. The following section recommends how EDs can prepare
their organization to manage an effective internship program.
The researcher recommends that EDs train and prepare their employees to manage an
effective internship program. The development of an internship program requires management
and supervision (Prevost et al., 2017). In Raquel’s example, she equipped her team with

145
management skills to help her supervise their robust internship program. Her team possessed the
training to assign and monitor intern projects that would help with their overall organizational
goals. Therefore, EDs must prepare and train their staff to manage interns to help achieve
organizational goals, which necessitates internal change management processes.
Developing the leadership and management skills of employees poses many strategic
benefits to increase the internal capacity of small nonprofits (Clark & Estes, 2008). Leaders that
develop their employees also strengthen their organizational capacity and competitive edge in the
market (Schwandt & Marquardt, 1999). Known as knowledge workers, employees that feel
empowered with increased knowledge and skill are more likely to create solutions for
organizational problems (Senge, 1990). Additionally, knowledge workers feel a sense of pride
and ownership in their organization, which motivates their behavior and performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
A modified structure of the Kotter (1995) 8-Step Model for Change could inform these
change efforts. First, the ED must communicate a sense of urgency to their team on the need for
increasing their capacity to perform fundraising activities. Following this, the ED must engage
their team in developing a shared vision around supporting student interns. These activities can
include defining quantifiable goals related to the internship program, for example, successfully
hosting four to six interns in their completion of significant administrative assignments in the
first year, thus allowing staff to submit twice as many grant applications compared to the
previous year. Together, the ED should work with their team to form agreements on internship
projects, work schedules, expectations, and reporting structures. For comprehensive information
on team preparation, see Appendix K. The following section discusses the role of external
organizational influences and provides a recommendation for change.

146
External Organizational Recommendation
This study found that all 11 EDs benefit from personal and professional development
opportunities outside of their organization. These opportunities include participating in grant
writing training, leadership programs, coalitions, and networking. The researcher also
discovered that mentorship plays an important role in ED learning. For example, a retired ED
helped Derrick restructure his organization’s revenue model. Or in Carmen’s case, being
coached by another ED on negotiating higher grant awards during funder meetings. The
interviews revealed that external support positively contributes to ED learning and motivation,
including increasing their confidence and facilitating relationship development with peers.
However, four of the EDs indicated experiencing sector biases toward larger nonprofits
in training and leadership programs. Tamera explained that several training programs assume
that their audience has full administrative systems and resources to fundraise. Tamera instead
benefits from engaging in external collaborations with other small nonprofits. Carmen shared a
similar experience, but from the perspective of cultural competency. She believed that grant
writing and fundraising training tends to cater to White nonprofit managers, which impacted her
learning experience. Derrick also held strong feelings against nonprofit leadership programs.
After completing a one-year leadership training alongside executives from other sectors, he did
not identify with the learning environment as one of the few POCs leading a grassroots
organization.
The researcher recommends coordinating a collective of EDs leading small nonprofits
that facilitates mentorship, resource sharing, and professional development. The researcher
recommends that nonprofit associations and consortiums should create specialized networks for
EDs leading small organizations. The researcher believes that the onus for creating external

147
organizational changes resides within the powers of nonprofit associations in the state. The EDs
in this study experience budget and capacity constraints, rendering them unable to manage the
activities of informal networks. However, nonprofit associations including the Nonprofit
Partnership, Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN), THRIVE Alliance of Nonprofits, and
the California Association of Nonprofits (CAN) possess the capacity to develop networking
spaces for EDs leading small agencies. The public information available on the websites of each
association suggests that they actively administer networking events for members. The
researcher believes that associations that curtail learning experiences to EDs leading small
nonprofits could stand to empower the sector.
The literature supports the importance of building networks catered to the needs of EDs
leading small nonprofits. De Laat and Schreurs (2013) found that networks are most effective
when members share similar environments and collaborate to address challenges. Trust (2016)
found that professional networks have unique tools, rules, members and cultures that shape how
knowledge is created, organized, and shared. Of the 11 EDs in this study, only Peyton and
Tamera engage in networks with other EDs leading small nonprofits. They shared that through
these relationships they jointly apply for grants, flag funding opportunities for each other, and
share insights on the sector. These experiences seem consistent with Hargreaves and Fullan’s
(2012) assertions that peer collaborations happen through social networks and communities.
The EDs in this study compete for funding in resource scarce environments with limited
staff and capacity. The researcher found that seven of the 11 execute their fundraising goals
without the help of their Board. Their realities in managing multiple priorities while remaining
singularly accountable for annual revenue goals creates a strong distinction between EDs leading
large organizations with development staff, program teams, and scaled administrative systems

148
(Chen, 2009, Knutsen, 2017). Given these widespread challenges, the researcher recommends
that nonprofit associations positively change the sector landscape for supporting EDs leading
small organizations.
Recommendations for Future Research
The researcher provides two recommendations in contributing to the growing body of
literature on nonprofit management. First, she believes that further qualitative research on the
relationships between EDs and their Boards could significantly inform the field of practice.
While industry reports on Board engagement provide useful numerical data, the experiences of
the EDs and Boards are not captured or translated into actionable recommendations
(BoardSource, 2017). This study found that the role of the Board influences ED motivation and
performance, most acutely in financial and resource development. However, the researcher
narrowly focused on the experiences of EDs, whereby Board engagement did not center the
research design. Future studies that seek to understand the relationship between EDs and their
Boards could provide substantial knowledge to a growing field of practitioners.
The second recommendation addresses the dearth of research on the fundraising
performance outcomes of small nonprofit organizations. This study found that fundraising
literature tends to focus on the performance outcomes of larger nonprofits that often have more
than $10 million in annual funding (Boris et al., 2010; Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). This
study’s findings suggest that the experiences between EDs leading small versus large nonprofits
bear significant distinction. Future studies that aim to discover the various management
demands of EDs in small nonprofits, including how they build capacity, how they compete for
talented employees, and how they interact with their Board remain unknown in the broader
literary field of nonprofit management. Research that explores these management and

149
administrative dimensions in the context of small nonprofit organizations would significantly
contribute to an existing body of literature.
Conclusion
The researcher believes that an equity and opportunity gap in the nonprofit sector
pervades the social safety net. This study found that the charitable sector holds biases toward
larger and professionalized nonprofits. Examples that illustrate these biases include grant
writing and development workshops that assume all EDs operate with fundraising staff, highly
bureaucratic government contracts that eliminate a small nonprofit from competing for funding,
or minimum organizational budget thresholds to determine eligibility for private grant
applications. The confluence of these organizational factors produce a widening equity and
opportunity gap in the field of practice.
While the 11 EDs in this study skillfully compete for diverse funding revenue and
leverage partnerships to grow their resources, an equity and opportunity issue persists.
The researcher believes that these equity and opportunity gaps will continue to confront small
nonprofit organizations unless addressed through internal and external organizational change
efforts. Further, the impacts of COVID-19 exacerbate the pressures these EDs and their small
teams face. While EDs manage competing priorities, they must balance the inherent tension
between fundraising and mission fulfillment. EDs must fundraise to advance their mission but
cannot achieve their mission without fundraising.
The research shows that small nonprofits serve communities on the frontlines and
develop trust with marginalized groups (Morris, 2015). Further, small nonprofits fill critical
public needs and this study found that five of the 11 EDs in this study serve in areas devoid of
economic and social resources. Additionally, national data supports that small nonprofits

150
provide safe spaces and serve individuals and families in need (Hwang & Powell, 2009). Failing
to close the equity and opportunity gap in the nonprofit sector stands to influence and affect
thousands of individuals and families in California (Suarez, 2011). With COVID-19 creating
new realities for the country, the status of the state’s social service needs will increase and
nonprofit providers will need to compete and serve on a level playing field.

151
References

Ada, A. (2013). How does interorganizational collaboration work? Examining interorganizational
collaboration among human services nonprofits. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1561356654/fulltextPDF/441BAD33B7864D8CPQ/1?ac
countid=14749
Aggarwal, R., Evans, M. and Dhananjay, N. (2012). Nonprofit boards: Size, performance, and
managerial incentives. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 53 (1-2), 466-487.
Aguinis, H. and Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. The Annual Review of Psychology, 60(45), 1-74.
Alfaro, L. (2015). Your $220 million to the ALS ice bucket challenge made a difference, study
results show. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/your-
220-million-to-the-als-bucket-challenge-made-a-difference-2015-8
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from: http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Andersson, F., Faulk, L., & Stewart, A. (2016). Toward More Targeted Capacity Building:
Diagnosing Capacity Need Across Organizational Life Stage. Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2860-2888.
Ashley, S. & Faulk, L. (2010). Nonprofit Competition in the Grants Marketplace: Exploring the
Relationship Between Nonprofit Financial Ratios and Grant Amount. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, Vol. 21, No. 1.
Auter, Z. & Fine, J. (2018). Social Media Campaigning: Mobilization and Fundraising on
Facebook. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12391.

152
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from: http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
Barber, B. (2012). Regulation of U.S. Charitable Solicitations Since 1954. International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. (23), 737-762.
Bauer, D. (2017). The “how to” grants manual: Successful grantseeking techniques for obtaining
public and private grants. Retrieved from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.
Baur, D. & Schmitz, P.H. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-
optation. J Bus Ethics, 106, 9-21. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1057-9.
Becker, A. (2018). An Experimental Study of Nonprofit Accountability and Effects on Public
Trust, Reputation, Perceived Quality, and Donation Behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, Vol. 47(3), 562-582.
Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit
practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223.
Belsky, S. (2012). Making ideas happen. Part 3: Leadership capability, The rewards overhaul.
New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of strategic
employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 1(1).
Retrieved from: https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/BergerFinalWES.pdf
Berlan, D. (2018). Understanding nonprofit missions as dynamic and interpretative conceptions.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 28 (3), 413-422.

153
Besel, K., Lewellen Williams, C., and Klak, J. (2011). Nonprofit Sustainability During Times of
Uncertainty. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 22, No. 1., 53-65.
Betzler, D. & Gmur, M. (2016). Does Fundraising Professionalization Pay? The Impact of
Organizational Fundraising Capability on a Charity’s Net Revenue from Private
Donations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 27(1), 27-42.
Bhati, A. & McDonnell, D. (2020). Success in an Online Giving Day: The Role of Social Media
in Fundraising. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019868849
BoardSource. (2017). Leading with Intent: BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
Retrieved from: https://leadingwithintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/LWI-
2017.pdf?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fleadingwithintent.org%2F
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Chapter 5: Qualitative Data. Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theories and methods (5
th
ed.), 160-172.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boris, E., de Leon, E., Roeger, K., & Nikolova, M. (2010). Human Service Nonprofits and
Government Collaboration. Findings from the 2010 National Survey of Nonprofit
Government Contracting and Grants. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/documents/Full%20Report.pdf
Bowman, W. (2011). Financial Capacity and Sustainability of Ordinary Nonprofits. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, Vol. 22(1), 32-59.
Boyne, G. (2002). Public and Private Management: What’s the Difference? Journal of
Management Studies, 39(1): 0022-2380.

154
Bromley, P. & Orchard, C. (2016). Managed Mortality: The Rise of Professional Conduct in the
U.S. Nonprofit Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 45(2): 351-374.
Brown, M. (2018). The Moralization of Commercialization: Uncovering the History of Fee-
Charging in the U.S. Nonprofit Human Services Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, Vol. 47(5), 960-983.
Buteau, E., Chaffin, M., & Gopal, R. (2014). Transparency, Performance Assessment, and
Awareness of Nonprofits’ Challenges: Are Foundations and Nonprofits Seeing Eye to
Eye? The Foundation Review, 6, 67-79.
California Association of Nonprofits. (2018). Standing UP for California’s Nonprofits: 2018
Annual Report to the California Nonprofit Community. Retrieved from:
https://calnonprofits.org/images/downloads/CalNonprofitsAnnualReport2018.pdf.
California Association of Nonprofits. (2019). Causes Count: The Economic Power of California’s
Nonprofit Sector. Retrieved from: https://calnonprofits.org
California Association of Nonprofits. (2020). California’s Nonprofits and COVID-19: Letter to
Policymakers: https://calnonprofits.org/publications/article-archive/680-california-s-
nonprofits-and-covid-19-recommendations-for-policy-makers
Callen, J., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2010). The Contextual Impact of Nonprofit Board
Composition and Structure on Organizational Performance: Agency and Resource
Dependence Perspectives. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 21(1), 101-125.
Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit
accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 243-259.

155
Campbell, D. & Lambright, K. (2016). Struggling to Get It Right. Performance Measurement
Challenges and Strategies for Addressing Them Among Funders of Human Services.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 27, No. 3.
Carroll, D. & Stater, K. (2008). Revenue Diversification in Nonprofit Organizations: Does it Lead
to Financial Stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 947-
966.
Carnochan, S., McBeath, B., Chuang, E., and Austin, M. (2018). Perspectives of Public and
Nonprofit Managers on Communications in Human Services Contracting. Retrieved
from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1495085
Carter, M. (2018). Has Goodwill Become Too Greedy? Retrieved from:
https://www.countryliving.com/shopping/a18198848/is-goodwill-a-nonprofit/
Charles, C. & Kim, M. (2016). Do Donors Care About Results? An Analysis of Nonprofit Arts
and Cultural Organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39, 864-884.
Chen, G. (2009). Does meeting standards affect charitable giving? An empirical study of New
York metropolitan area charities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 19, Issue
3: 349-365.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cleopatra, C. (2018). Nonprofit Arts Organizations: Debt Ratio Does Not Influence Donations –
Interest Expense Ratio Does. American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 48(7),
659-667.
Coleman, J.A. (2001). American Catholicism, Catholic Charities USA, and Welfare Reform.
Journal of Policy History, Vol. 13(1), 73-108.

156
Community Benefit Report (2017). Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford. Retrieved from:
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/content-public/pdf/community-benefit-report-2017.pdf
Cortis, N. (2017). Access to Philanthropic and Commercial Income Among Nonprofit
Community Service Organizations. International Society for Third-Sector Research.
Voluntas, 28: 7980821.
Davis, J., Schoorman, D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a Stewardship Theory of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, 20-47.
Deaton, A., Brock Wilkes, S., & Douglas, R. (2013). Strengthening the Next Generation: A
Multi-faceted Program to Develop Leadership Capacity in Emerging Nonprofit Leaders.
Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, Vol. 3, 34-46.
De Laat, M. & Schreurs, R. (2013). Visualizing Informal Professional Development Networks:
Building a Case for Learning Analytics in the Workplace. American Behavioral Scientist,
57 (10), 1421-1438.
Denning, S. (2005). The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of
Business Narrative. Jossey-Bass: 1
st
Edition.
Dong, A. (2011). The role of affect in creative minds. In R. Calvo & S. D’Mello (Eds.), New
Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (Explorations in the learning sciences,
instructional systems and performance technologies, Vol. 3) New York: Springer.
Dowd, A.C. (2005). Data Don’t Drive: Building a Practitioner-Driven Culture of Inquiry to
Assess Community College Performance. Lumina Foundation for Education Research
Report, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

157
Dowd, A.C., & Bensimon, E.M. (2014). Engaging the Race Question: Accountability and Equity
in Higher Education. Teachers College Press. Columbia University, New York and
London.
Dream Big: Nonprofits and UCF Building Community Partnerships. (2019). 18th Annual Central
Florida Community Partners Nonprofit Conference. Retrieved from:
https://ccie.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/11/SPA-
18thAnnualNonprofitPartnersConferenceSummary.pdf
Dumont, G. (2013). Nonprofit Virtual Accountability: An Index and its Application. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 42(5), 1049-1067.
Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & associates
(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3
rd
ed.). San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass, 101-123.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy Value Motivational Theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the
individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 53, 583–598.
Esposito, A. & Besana, A. (2018). U.S. community foundations: building a generous society in
challenging times. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30:2, 200-227.
Farrell, M. & Fyffe, S. (2015). Nonprofit-Government Contracts and Grants. A Case Study of
Prince George’s County, Maryland. Urban Institute. Retrieved from:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/72521/2000495-Nonprofit-

158
Government-Contracts-and-Grants-A-Case-Study-of-Prince-Georges-County-
Maryland.pdf
Faulk, L., Willems, J., McGinnis Johnson, J., and Stewart, A. (2016). Network Connections and
Competitively Awarded Funding: The impacts of board network structures and status
interlocks on nonprofits organizations’ foundation grant acquisition. Public Management
Review, Vol. 18, No. 10, 1425-1455.
Feiler, S., Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2014). How to Raise Voluntary Giving for Nonprofit Sports
Clubs: An Analysis of Factors Influencing Donations. International Society for Third-
Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University. Voluntas, 26: 1219-1239.
Frumkin, P. & Keating, E. (2011). Diversification Reconsidered: The Risks and Rewards of
Revenue Concentration. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2 (2), 151-164.
Fox, D. (2015). Policy commercializing nonprofits in health: the history of a paradox from the
19
th
Century to the ACA. The Milbank Quarterly, Vol.93 (1), 179-210.
Friesenhahn, E. (2016). Nonprofits in America: New Research Data on Employment, Wages, and
Establishments. Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 2, 1-13.
Froelich, K., McKee, G. & Rathge, R. (2011). Succession Planning in Nonprofit Organizations.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 22(1), 3-20.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45–56. Doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

159
Giving USA (2018). See the numbers – Giving USA 2018 Infographic. Retrieved from:
givingusa.org/see-the-numbers-usa-2018-infographic.
Giving USA (2019). The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2018. Retrieved from:
https://lclsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GUSA-2019-AnnualReport.pdf
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Stoeger, H., & Hall, N. C. (2010). Antecedents of everyday positive
emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 49–62.
Grayson, A. (2020). Charity Voice Needed in DAF Conversations. Independent Sector. Retrieved
from: https://independentsector.org/news-post/charity-voice-needed-in-daf-conversations/
Hale, K. (2013). Understanding Nonprofit Transparency: The Limits of Formal Regulation on the
American Nonprofit Sector. International Review of Public Administration, Vol. 18(3),
31-49.
Hammack, D. (2002). Nonprofit Organizations in American History. American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 45(11), 1638-1674.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every
School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harris, M., Webb, J., and Franklin, R. (2011). Understanding the Manifestation of Entrepreneurial
Orientation in the Nonprofit Context. Baylor University. 947-971.
Harris, E., Petrovits, C., & Yetman, M. (2015). The effect of nonprofit governance on donations:
evidence from the revised form 990. Accounting Review, Vol. 90 (2), 579(32)
Heist, H.D. & Vance-McMullen, D. (2019). Understanding Donor-Advised Funds: How Grants
Flow During Recession. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 48(5), 1066-
1093.

160
Helmig, B., Ingerfurth, S. & Pinz, A. (2014). Success and Failure of Nonprofit Organizations:
Theoretical Foundations. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 25(6), 1509-1538.
Hoefer, R. (2012). From Web Site Visitor to Online Contributor: Three Internet Fundraising
Techniques for Nonprofits. National Association of Social Workers. Doi:
10.1093/sw/sws002.
Hodge, M. & Piccolo, R. (2011). Nonprofit Board Effectiveness, Private Philanthropy, and
Financial Vulnerability. Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4., 520-550.
Hung, C. & Hager, M. (2018). The Impact of Revenue Diversification on Nonprofit Financial
Health: A Meta-Analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 48(1), 5-27.
Hung, C.R. & Ong, P. (2012). Sustainability of Asian-American Nonprofit Organizations in U.S.
Metropolitan Areas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 1136-1152.
Hwang, H. & Powell, W. (2009). The Rationalization of Charity: The Influences of
Professionalism in the Nonprofit Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268-298.
Independent Sector. (2019). The Nonprofit Sector in California. Retrieved from:
https://independentsector.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/California-2019.pdf
Internal Revenue Service. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.irs.gov/charities-and-nonprofits
Jones, K. & Mucha, L. (2013). Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for Nonprofit
Organizations: Accountability “for the Public Good”. International Society for Third-
Sector Research. The Johns Hopkins University, Vol. 25, 1465-1482.
Joyaux, S. (2012). What Should Your Fund Development Plan Include? Retrieved from:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/what-should-your-fund-development-plan-include/

161
Joyaux, S. (2015). Fundraising Isn’t about Money…Neither is Giving: Part 1. Retrieved from:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/fundraising-isn-t-about-money-neither-is-giving-part-1/
Kanter, B. & Sherman, A. (2016). Updating the Nonprofit Work Ethic. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. Retrieved from:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/updating_the_nonprofit_work_ethic
Kapucu, N. & Demiroz, F. (2013). Collaborative Capacity Building for Community-Based Small
Nonprofit Organizations. Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 3(1), 83-117.
Kapucu, N., Healy, B., & Arslan, T. (2011). Survival of the fittest: Capacity building for small
nonprofit organizations. Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 34, 236-245.
Kapucu, N. (2012). It Takes a Village: Capacity Building for Community-Based Nonprofit
Organizations through an Academic Center. Journal of Nonprofit Education and
Leadership, Vol. 2(3), 172-185.
Karsh, E. & Fox, A.S. (2014). The Only Grant-Writing Book You’ll Ever Need: Top Grant
Writers and Grant Givers Share Their Secrets. 4
th
Ed. Carrol & Graf Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kerlin, J. & Pollak, T. (2011). Nonprofit Commercial Revenue: A Replacement for Declining
Government Grants and Private Contributions? The American Review of Public
Administration, Vol. 41(6), 686-704.
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied.

162
Krawczyk, K. & Wooddell, M. (2017). Charitable Giving in Arts and Culture Nonprofits: The
Impact of Organizational Characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Kim, S. & Lee, J. (2008). Is Mission Attachment an Effective Management Tool for Employee
Retention? An Empirical Analysis of a Nonprofit Human Services Agency.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 27, 227-248.
Kim, M. & Peng, S. (2018). The Dilemma for Small Human Service Nonprofits: Engaging in
Collaborations with Limited Human Resource Capacity. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, Vol. 29, 83-103.
King, D. (2017). Becoming Business-Like: Governing the Nonprofit Professional. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 46(2), 241-260.
Knox, C. & Wang, X. (2016). Capacity to Implement Performance Measurement in Small
Nonprofits. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, Vol. 22(3), 1-21.
Knutsen, W. (2017). Retaining the Benefits of Government-Nonprofit Contracting Relationship:
Opposites Attract or Clash? International Society for Third-Sector Research and The
Johns Hopkins University. Voluntas, 28: 1373-1398.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from:
http://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/91fc/coursematerial/management/20%20Leading%20Change
%20-%20Why%20Transformation%20Efforts%20Fail%20by%20JP%20Kotter.pdf
Koushyar, J., Longhofer, W., & Roberts, P. (2015). A Comparative Analysis of Corporate and
Independent Foundations. Sociological Science. DOI: 10.15195/v2.a28
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

163
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kuenzi, K. & Stewart, A. (2017). An exploratory study of the nonprofit executive factor. Journal
of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, Vol. 7 (4), 306-324.
Lam, M. & McDougle, L. (2016). Community Variation in the Financial Health of Nonprofit
Human Service Organizations: An Examination of Organizational and Contextual
Effects. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 45(3), 500-525.
Lang, J. W. B., & Lang, J. (2010). Priming competence diminishes the link between cognitive test
anxiety and test performance: Implications for the interpretation of test scores.
Psychological Science, 21, 811–819.
LeRoux, K. & Langer, J. (2016). What nonprofit executives want and what they get from board
members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 27 (2), 147-163.
Libby, M. & Austin, M. (2002). Building a Coalition of Non-profit Agencies to Collaborate with
a County Health and Human Services Agency, Administration in Social Work, 26(4), 81-
99, DOI: 10.1300/J147v26n04_05.
Lu, J. (2016). Which nonprofit gets more government funding? Nonprofits’ organizational
attributes and their receipts of governmental funding? Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, Vol. 25(3), 297-312.
Lyons, C. (2014). Nonprofit Groups and Partisan Politics. CQ Researcher, Vol 24(1): 963-983.
Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2014). Nonprofit Organizations Becoming
Business-Like: A Systematic Review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol.
45(1), 64-68.

164
Marberg, A., Korzilius, H., & Kranenburg, H. (2019). What is in a theme? Professionalization in
nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations research. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 30, 113-131.
Martinko, M., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. (2011). Attribution theory in the organizational
sciences: A care of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 144-
149.
Marvell, N. & Gullickson, A. (2013). Inequality in the Spatial Allocation of Social Services:
Government Contracts to Nonprofit Organizations in New York City. Social Service
Review.
MacIndoe, H. (2013). Reinforcing the Safety Net: Explaining the Propensity for and Intensity of
Nonprofit-Local Government Collaboration. State and Local Government Review, 45(4),
283-295.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
McKeever, B. (2015). The Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2015. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/72536/2000497-The-Nonprofit-
Sector-in-Brief-2015-Public-Charities-Giving-and-Volunteering.pdf.
McKeever, B. (2018). The Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2018. Urban Institute. Retrieved from:
nccs.urban.org/publication/nonprofit-sector-brief-2018#-the-nonprofit-sector-in-brief-
2018-public-charities-giving-and-volunteering.

165
McKeever, B. & Pettijohn, S. (2014). The Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2014. Public Charities,
Giving, and Volunteering. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from: https://community-
wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/report-mckeever-
pettijohn.pdf.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Sector in Brief 2018. Urban Institute. Retrieved from: nccs.urban.org/publication/nonprofit-
sector-brief-2018#-the-nonprofit-sector-in-brief-2018-public-charities-giving-and-
volunteering.
McBeath, B., Carnochan, S., Stuart, M., & Austin, M. (2017). The managerial and relational
dimensions of public-nonprofit human service contracting. Journal of Strategic
Contracting and Negotiation, Vol. 3(2), 51-77.
Minzer, A., Klerman, J., Markovitz, C., & Fink, B. (2014). The Impact of Capacity-Building
Programs on Nonprofits: A Random Assignment Evaluation. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, Vol. 43(3), 547-569.
Moeller, L, & Valentinov, V. (2012). The Commercialization of the Nonprofit Sector: A General
Systems Theory. System Practice and Action Research, Vol. 25(4), 365-370.
Morris, A. (2004). The Voluntary Sector’s War on Poverty. Journal of Policy History, Vol. 16(4),
275-305.
Morris, A. (2015). How the State and Labor Saved Charitable Fundraising Community Chests,
Payroll Deduction, and the Public-Private Welfare State, 1920-1950. Studies in American
Political Development, 106-125.
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.

166
National Council of Nonprofits. (2020). Government Grants/Contracting. Retrieved from:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/trends-policy-issues/government-grants-contracting
National Philanthropic Trust (2019). 2019 Donor-Advised Fund Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.nptrust.org/reports/daf-report/
Netto, G., Kamenou, N., Venugopal, S., and Asghar, R. (2012). Capacity building in the minority
ethnic voluntary sector: for whom, how and for what purpose? The Policy Press: Policy
and Politics; London, Vol. 40, Iss. 2: 245-261
Nonprofit Business Advisor. (2013). New exec finds mentorship, connections, indispensable
professional development activities. Retrieved from:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=a2
76a9ec-7377-49a6-9f20-1362f1b54f65%40sessionmgr102.
Olinske, J. & Hellman, C. (2017). Leadership in the Human Service Nonprofit Organization: The
Influence of the Board of Directors on Executive Director Well-Being and Burnout.
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership, & Governance, Vol., 41(2), 95-
105.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-Efficacy Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3
rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Payan, D., Lewis, L. Cousineau, M. & Nichol, M. (2017). Advocacy coalitions involved in
California’s menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs,
resources, and strategies. Social Science & Medicine, 177, 78-86.

167
Paynter, S. & Berner, M. (2014). Organizational Capacity of Nonprofit Social Service Agencies.
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, Vol. 37(1): 111-145.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (pp. 23-
39). New York: Springer. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3.
Pettijohn, S. and Boris, E. (2014). Contracts and Grants between Human Service Nonprofits and
Government: Comparative Analysis. Urban Institute. Brief 4. Retrieved from:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22806/413189-Contracts-and-
Grants-between-Human-Service-Nonprofits-and-Government-Comparative-
Analysis.PDF
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champgain’s Academy for
Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496213.
Prevost, L., Vergara, C., Urban-Lurain, M., & Campa, III, H. (2017). Evaluation of a High-
Engagement Teaching Program for STEM Graduate Students: Outcomes of the Future
Academic Scholars in Teaching (FAST) Fellowship Program. Innovating Higher
Education, 43: 41-55. DOI: 10.1007/s10755-017-9407-x.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). In Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.)
(pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.

168
Runte, M. Basil, D., Deshpande, S. (2009). Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofit’s
Perspective: Classifying Goals and Experienced Outcomes. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 21(3), 255-270.
Saltikoff, N. (2017). The Positive Implications of Internships on Early Career Outcomes. National
Association of Colleges and Employers. Retrieved from: https://www.naceweb.org/job-
market/internships/the-positive-implications-of-internships-on-early-career-outcomes/
Sanzo-Perez, M., Rey-Garcia, M., and Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. (2017). The Drivers of Voluntary
Transparency in Nonprofits: Professionalization and Partnerships with Firms as
Determinants. International Society for Third-Sector Research, Vol. 28, 1595-1621.
Saxton, G. & Guo, C. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing
Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (1). Retrieved from:
10.1177/0899764012471585.
Seaman, B., Wilsker, A., & Young, D. (2014). Measuring Concentration and Competition in the
U.S. Nonprofit Sector: Implications for Research and Policy. Nonprofit Policy Forum,
5(2), 231-259.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7-23.
Schatteman, A. (2014). Nonprofit Accountability: To When and for What? An Introduction to the
Special Issue. International Review of Public Administration, Vol., 18(3), 1-6.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). (pp. 17–35). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.

169
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein, (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). (pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/interest/.
Schraw, G., Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education. com/ reference/article/sociocultural-theory/.
Silicon Valley Community Foundation. (2019). Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation
Project – 2019 Update: A Dashboard and Policy Scorecard for a Shared Agenda of
Prosperity and Opportunity. Retrieved from:
https://www.svcip.com/files/SVCIP_2019.pdf.
Sorrells, M. & Miller, K. (2009). The Rising Trend of Government Contracting by Nonprofits.
Contract Management; 49, 6-12.
Stecker, M. (2014). Revolutionizing the Nonprofit Sector Through Social Entrepreneurship.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624480208.
Svensson, P., Mahoney, T., & Hambrick M. (2015). Twitter as a Communication Tool for
Nonprofits: A Study of Sport-for-Development Organizations. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014553639
Svensson, P., Hancock, M., & Hums, M. (2017). Elements of Capacity in Youth Development
Nonprofits: An Exploratory Study of Urban Sport for Development and Peace
Organizations. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28,
2053-2080.

170
Suarez, D. (2010). Street Credentials and Management Backgrounds: Careers of Nonprofit
Executives in an Evolving Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39 (4), 696-
716. SAGE Publications. DOI: 10.1177/0899764009350370.
Suarez, D. (2011). Collaboration and Professionalization: The Contours of Public Sector Funding
for Nonprofit Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21,
307-326.
Suykens, B., De Rynck, F., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Examining the Influence of Organizational
Characteristics of Nonprofit Commercialization. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
1-13.
Thompson-de Benoit, A. & Kramer, Ueli (2020). Work with emotions in remote psychotherapy in
the time of Covid-19: a clinical experience, Counseling Psychology Quarterly, DOI:
10.1090/09515070.2020.1770696.
Todd, K. (2009). Mission Drift. Baylor Business Review, Vol., 27 (2), 44-45.
Torgerson, A. (2015). Develop a System for Choosing Media Highlights. Nonprofit
Communications Report: Monthly Communications Ideas for Nonprofits, Vol. 13, No. 3.
Trust, T. (2016). Using Cultural History Activity Theory to Examine How Teachers Seek and
Share Knowledge in a Peer-to-Peer Professional Development Network. Journal of
Educational Technology.
Trzcinski, E. & Sobeck, J. (2012). Predictors of Growth in Small and Mid-Sized Nonprofit
Organizations in the Detroit Metropolitan Area. Administration in Social Work, 36, 499-
519.

171
Vaughan, S. (2010). The Importance of Performance Assessment in Local Government Decisions
to Fund Health and Human Services Nonprofit Organizations. Journal of Health and
Human Services Administration, Vol., 32(4), 586-512.
Volz, W., Walsh, A., and Billings, B. (2011). Reporting the Governance, Management, and
Disclosure Policies of Nonprofits in the Redesigned Form 990. The CPA Journal, Vol.,
81(7), 38-45.
Warren, M. (2003). The Political Role of Nonprofits in a Democracy. Society, Vol. 40(4), 46-51.
Weiner, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (p. 281–312).
Guilford Press.
Williams, A. & Taylor, J. (2012). Resolving Accountability Ambiguity in Nonprofit
Organizations. International Society for Third-Sector Research, Vol. 24, 559-580.
Williams, K. (2013). Leading the fundraising charge: The role of the nonprofit executive. The
AFP/Wiley Fund Development Services. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Witesman, E. & Fernandez, S. (2012). Government Contracts with Private Organizations: Are
There Differences Between Nonprofits and For-Profits? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, Vol. 42(4), 689-715.
Working with Your Executive Director. (2016). Fundraising for Social Change, You the
Fundraiser, Chapter 38, 367-373. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yetman, M. & Yetman, R. (2009). Calibrating the Reliability of Publicly Available Nonprofit
Taxable Activity Disclosures: Comparing IRS 990 and IRS 990-T Data. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 38(1), 95-116.

172
Yi, D. (2010). Determinants of Fundraising Efficiency of Nonprofit Organizations: Evidence
from US Public Charitable Organizations. Managerial and Decision Economics. 31: 465-
475.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Yung, B., Leahy, P., Deason, L., Fischer, R., Clasen, C., & Manoj, S. (2008). Capacity-building
needs of minority health nonprofits. Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 31, 282-291.

173
Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Participant interviews will be the primary data collection method in this study. The
following interview protocol intends to guide the interviews with the research participants. The
interview protocol targets exploring the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that interact with the fundraising activities of nonprofit EDs. Designed to understand
each influence, the interview protocol groups the following 23 questions into three categories:
knowledge, motivation, and organizational dimensions. The researcher plans to use the
following protocols in her field interviews with six to twelve nonprofit EDs:
KMO Influence Interview Question
Knowledge Influences
Our interview will be grouped into three segments: knowledge, motivation, and organizational
themes, which the lead researcher assumes are critical dimensions to nonprofit fundraising
activities. For this first segment, we will focus our conversation on the various knowledge
influences that you feel inform and guide your fundraising work.
Procedural Knowledge:
[Nonprofit Executive
Directors] need to know how
to compete for diverse funding
revenue.

1. What do you believe are important skills in fundraising?
2. What types of revenue are available to your nonprofit
organization?
3. Can you describe the role of private philanthropy in your
fundraising activities?
4. Can you describe the role of government contracting in
your fundraising activities?
5. How did you secure your initial series of funds to begin
operating? Tell me about that process.
6. How do you decide which funding opportunities to
pursue? Can you describe your process?
7. Alternatively, how do you decide which funding
opportunities you will not pursue?
Procedural Knowledge:
[Nonprofit Executive
Directors]need to know how
to leverage partnerships that
grow their financial resources.
8. Can you describe the role of partnerships in growing your
financial resources?
9. What characteristics do you look for in an organizational
partner?
Motivation Influences

174
As we transition into the second segment, these questions address what motivation influences you
believe are important to your fundraising work as the executive of your nonprofit organization.
These questions are intended to explore your beliefs on the role Motivation plays in your work.
Self-Efficacy:
[Nonprofit EDs] need to feel
confident in their ability to
meet their organization’s
fundraising goals.

Attributions:
[Nonprofit Executive
Directors] need to attribute the
achievement of their
fundraising goals to their own
effort.

Emotions:
[Nonprofit EDs] need to
experience positive emotions
to achieve their financial
performance goals.
(Emotions)

10. What do you think you do well as a fundraiser?
11. What do you think you are challenged by as a fundraiser?
12. How confident are you in your fundraising goals? What
contributes to this confidence?

13. Tell me about a time that highlights your fundraising
experience.
14. How do these experiences influence your current
fundraising approaches?
15. To what do you attribute the fundraising results for your
organization?

16. How do you feel about fundraising?
17. What emotions do you feel when you think about
fundraising for your organization?

Organization Influences
In this final segment, we will cover various organizational influences, specifically your agency’s
cultural settings and how your personal and professional development is supported. Earlier we
discussed your personal experiences that shape your fundraising work – these next series of
questions will address certain external opportunities that might support your personal and
professional development within your fundraising activities.
Cultural setting:
[Nonprofit EDs] need
personal and professional
development opportunities
outside of their organizations.

18. Can you describe any formal professional training you have
received outside of your agency?
19. What types of external resources support your fundraising
work?
20. How would you describe the role of mentors in your
fundraising work?
Cultural setting:
[Nonprofit EDs] need to form
strategic collaborations within
their communities through
coalition membership and
partnerships.

21. Can you describe how your organization participates in
informal networks in your community?
22. Can you describe how your organization engages in
partnerships?
23. Can you describe how your organization participates in
coalitions?

175
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol

The researcher intends to analyze public and private documents as this study’s second
data collection method. Specific documents include analyzing public 990 financial disclosure
forms, any agency program literature that quantifies fees for service, private grant proposals and
reports, and government contracts. The researcher plans to analyze and reference these financial
documents and reports to answer the following questions:
1. What are the average gross receipts of each participating agency, ranging from fiscal
years 2015-2019?
2. How many of the participating agencies maintain diverse funding sources, such as
government contracts, private grants, and commercial revenue? To what extent are these
agencies engaging in commercial activities?
3. How many primary sources of income does each participating agency have?
4. How many government contracts does each agency have on average? The literature
suggests that the national median is three contracts per human service agency (Boris et
al., 2010). To what extent are these agencies above or below the national median?
5. Do these agencies have client fee structures for their services, such as program fees or
membership dues?

176
Appendix C: Participant Study Information Document

177

178
Appendix D: Knowledge Influences: Interview Findings
Knowledge Influences: Interview Findings
Interview Questions
Knowledge
Type Codes
Q1: What do you believe are
important skills in fundraising?
Procedural
Relationship building, writing, budgeting,
accounting, financial management,
having diversified income, public
speaking, being unafraid to ask for
money, and telling compelling stories
about your agency.
Q2: What types of revenue are
available to your nonprofit
organization?
Donations, grants, government contracts,
corporate sponsorships, and fees for
service.
Q3: Can you describe the role of
private philanthropy in your
fundraising activities?
Continuous relationship development,
inviting program officers from
foundations to our activities, and
partnerships with foundations built on
trust and proven service delivery.
Follow-up Q: How about
donations?
Donations are the most flexible forms of
funding, building a donation culture is
important to my organization, remaining
connected to donors, keeping donors
apprised of agency events and activities,
and engaging donors through newsletters
and reports.
Follow-up Q: How about fees for
service?
We do not charge fees for service, we do
not turn people away if they cannot pay,
and we charge modest fees.
Follow-up Q: How about corporate
sponsorships?
Unless there are clearly aligned values,
our Board and membership generally do
not want to accept corporate
sponsorships; accepting corporate dollars
feels transactional; corporations are not a
huge presence in our community.
Q4: Can you describe the role of
government contracting in your
fundraising activities?
Government contracts require significant
reporting, data collection, and
administration such that we cannot
adequately manage the demands and
service provision, therefore we do not
pursue government funds; our
organization is primarily funded through
government contracts to provide social
services.

179
Q5: How did you secure your initial
series of funds to begin operating?
Tell me about that process.
One-time startup funds, community
support, and local relationships with
knowledge on accessing financial
resources.
Q6: How do decide which funding
opportunities to pursue? Can
describe your process?
Funds are within scope of our work;
Funds are aligned with our organizational
mission; Achievable deliverables based
on our organization's staff and resources,
funding amount commensurate with
requested staff time, and likelihood of
receiving the funding or establishing
relationship with funding agency.
Q7: Alternatively, how do you
decide which funding you will not
pursue?
Funds are inconsistent with scope of our
work or outside our expertise; Funds are
misaligned with our values; Funding
level is disproportionate with work
involved.
Q8: Can you describe the role of
partnerships in growing your
financial resources?
We have jointly applied for grants with
partners; We have received shared
contracts with partners; We have
accessed in-kind contributions due to
partnerships; We have received material
benefits due to partnerships.
Q9: What characteristics do you
look for in a strategic partner?
Alignment of values, trust,
communication, rapport, and proven
track record.

180
Appendix E: Motivation Influences: Interview Findings
Motivation Influences: Interview Findings
Interview Questions Motivation Influence Codes
Q10: What do you think you
do well as a fundraiser?
Self-Efficacy
Build and maintain relationships,
connect with people, and making
valuable connections.
Q11: What do you think you
are challenged by as a
fundraiser?
Time, capacity, writing, budgeting,
fear of asking for money, staff
capacity, Board of Director
disengagement, and needing
professional and grant writing
development staff.
Q12: How confident are you
in your fundraising goals?
What contributes to this
confidence?
Optimistic, extremely confident,
cautiously optimistic, nervous given
COVID; donor revenue and
partnerships with private foundations
contribute to confidence.
Q13: Tell me about a time
that highlights your
fundraising experience.
Attributions
Repairing donor relations, one-time
large donation received, a $650,000
three-year grant received, and a huge
contract awarded to my agency.
Q14: How do these
experiences influence your
current fundraising
approaches?
Understanding the power of
relationships, knowing how to build
donor connections, cultivating donor
cultures, and recognizing that there is
a mix of luck in certain fundraising
circumstances.
Q15: To what do you attribute
the fundraising results for
your organization?
Systemic racism in the philanthropic
system, personal relationships with
funders, developing my own personal
fundraising style that adopts more of
a storytelling approach, the alignment
of values between our agency and the
funder.
Q16: How do you feel about
fundraising?
Emotions
Fundraising is dreadful, I hate
fundraising, I feel disempowered, I
feel a mix of emotions from
happiness, excitement, to misery, I
avoid fundraising tasks and always
complete my fundraising tasks last.
Q17: What emotions do you
feel when you think about
Dread, misery, dehumanized,
disempowerment, sadness, hatred,

181
fundraising for your
organization?
embarrassment, and guilt when
asking friends and family for money.

182
Appendix F: 2016-2018 Annual Budget Revenue of Agencies
Appendix G shows the reported annual budget revenue for the years 2016 through 2018
for each nonprofit in this study. The data supports that at six, more than half of the EDs
increased their organizational revenue year-over-year. The other five EDs’ reported revenue
suggests that they experienced fluctuations in their organizational revenue due to grants,
contracts, and donation volume. Overall, this financial data supports that 10 of the 11 nonprofits
experienced increases in their 2018 fiscal year, signaling positive fundraising performance.

183
Appendix G: 2016-2018 Funding Sources of Participating Agencies
Appendix H shows the extent of each organization’s revenue diversification between
2016 and 2018. The table captures a three-year snapshot and codes reported revenue in yellow.
Organizations that report and manage three or more funding sources have achieved a diversified
revenue model (Carroll & Stater, 2015; Knutsen, 2017). Appendix H suggests that four of the 11
EDs reached the threshold for a diversified revenue model, whereas the remaining seven reported
one or two funding sources. The data implies that nonprofits in this study majorly report grants
and donations as their primary funding sources. To produce this information, the researcher
referenced public 990 forms and private financial documents.

2016 2017 2018

Donations
& Grants
Fees for
Service
Other
Income
Donations
& Grants
Fees for
Service
Other
Income
Donations
& Grants
Fees for
Service
Other
Income
Alastair X X X X
Augustin X X X X X X X X X
Carmen X X X
Derrick X X X
Emanuelle X X X X X X X X X
Josh X X X X X X X X X
Peyton X X X
Raquel X X X X
Robert X X X X X X X X X
Ronnie X X X
Tamera X X X

184
Appendix H: Organizational Influences: Interview Findings
Organizational Influences: Interview Findings
Interview Questions
Organizational
Influence Codes
Q18: Can you describe any
formal professional training you
have received outside of your
agency?
Cultural Settings
Leadership development programs,
individual coaching on
organizational development,
capacity building programs,
fundraising and grant writing
training.
Q19: What types of external
resources support your
fundraising work?
The internet, books and articles on
fundraising, peers, and personal
relationships; having more staff,
having more time, having dedicated
grant writers, having development
professionals to design a true
fundraising strategy.
Q20: How would you describe
the role of mentors in your
fundraising work?
Influential, supportive, insightful,
helpful, and connectors to other
community and nonprofit leaders
that have helped my growth and
development.
Q21: Can you describe how your
organization participates in
informal networks in your
community?
Depends on values alignment,
based on our organization's role in
the coalition; affinity networks help
with connections and developing
expertise, peer groups support
resource sharing and relationship
building; we support smaller
grassroots organizations with our
resources.
Q22: Can you describe how your
organization engages in
partnerships?
Highly collaborative, partnerships
that mutually serve both
organizations, partnerships that
increase our access to greater grant
opportunities, partnerships that help
advance our mission, partnerships
that increase our financial
opportunities and resources.
Q23: Can you describe how your
organization participates in
coalitions?
Grant opportunities that support
coalition participation, depends on
values and cause; we do not
participate in coalitions, we focus

185
on our mission and membership, we
have had bad experiences in
coalitions, coalitions tend to lack
direction.

Appendix I: Member Checks Protocol

186
To reduce the risks of researcher bias and increase trust and credibility in this study,
rigorous steps to member check the interview data were taken throughout the course of the field
study. The lead researcher shared high level interview response data with the research
participants in the areas of cultural and organizational settings, with specific emphasis on the
roles of capacity challenges and Board of Director involvement in fundraising for their agency.
The following member check outreach language and protocol assisted with these steps:
“Hi ______,
I hope that you have been well since we last spoke. During our interview, I shared that my
dissertation completion timeline might take me through the end of 2020. I am currently
analyzing and developing my findings and wanted to check with on the below language that I
have prepared from our interview to verify that the information you shared specifically on your
fundraising capacity and the role of your Board of Directors seems consistent and accurate with
your experience. If I have misrepresented or misinterpreted anything, might you let me know?”
1. On fundraising capacity, would you agree that you do not have enough time or
capacity to adequately engage and develop different fundraising practices for your
agency?
2. If the above is true in your case, what could help with increasing your fundraising
capacity?
3. On fundraising capacity, would you agree that your Board of Directors could benefit
from training on fundraising practices, tactics, and strategies?”
Appendix J: Virtual Presence Protocol
The researcher analyzed the virtual presence of each ED’s agency that participated in this
study. Based on the literature that supports the increasing popularity of social media marketing

187
tools, the researcher sought to understand how each agency marketed their brand and services on
their website and social media pages (Alfaro, 2015; Guo & Saxton, 2020). Another form of
document analysis, the researcher sought to discover the extent of each agency’s online presence
to determine their related marketing of their services and representation of public donation
requests. The following questions and criteria guided the analysis of each agency’s online
presence:
1. Does the agency have a website?
2. Does the website have a donation button?
3. Does the website describe how to receive their services with contact information?
4. Does the website describe how to get involved with their programs with contact
information?
5. Does the agency have an Instagram profile? How many followers do they have?
6. Does the agency have a Facebook profile? How many “Likes” does their page have?

Appendix K: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The recommendations in this study followed the principles of The New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation
starts the change process with asking stakeholders to envision their end goal. By starting at the
end, The New Kirkpatrick Model also engages stakeholders in considering the return on

188
expectation (ROE) related to their vision and goals. Using ROE values and starting with the end
goal in mind, The New Kirkpatrick Model engages stakeholders in defining measurable
behaviors and indicators to evaluate goal progress and achievement. The New Kirkpatrick
Model includes three distinct stages of implementing and evaluating change: planning,
execution, and the demonstration of value (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Model
outlines three dimensions for achieving ROE: a) identifying critical behaviors that must be
performed to achieve the desired outcomes, b) required drivers that reinforce, monitor, or
encourage performance, and c) measurable leading indicators that suggest the organization’s
intended results will be achieved.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations

This study explored the fundraising purposes, needs, and expectations of 11 EDs and
their nonprofit organizations from across the state of California. Seeking to discover how EDs
manage limited staff, resources, and capacity, the researcher aimed to understand how small
nonprofits compete for funding against larger and professionalized nonprofit agencies. Due to
the study’s field design, a shared stakeholder goal was not developed. The literature and
findings from this study support that nonprofits fundraise to advance their mission (Brown,
2018). Fundraising allows nonprofits to grow their headcount and scale their services to further
their mission (Marvell & Gullickson, 2013). Marvell and Gullickson (2013) assert that
nonprofits with fundraising skill increase their headcounts, serve greater geographies, and benefit
from scaled economies.
The following implementation and evaluation framework provides recommendations that
want to improve the fundraising capacity of EDs leading small nonprofits. The
recommendations address key organizational and motivation influences that emerged as needs

189
throughout the extent of this field study. Narrowly focusing on Levels 3 and 4 in the The New
Kirkpatrick Model, the following implementation and evaluation plans intend to support EDs
that seek to increase their organizational capacity through Board fundraising engagement and
bringing student interns into their work.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Results and Leading Indicators. Level 4 evaluates the extent to which the
organizational goals were achieved and provides measurable results to demonstrate value to
stakeholders (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators are the tools that help
stakeholders measure their progress and determine related impact and achievement. This study
recommends two external and two internal outcomes to increase Board engagement in
fundraising, increase internal capacity, and support continuous ED learning. External outcomes
include the formation of a partnership with a local university to host 3-4 interns per year and the
development of a peer network of EDs leading small nonprofits. Internal outcomes include
setting Board fundraising engagement practices with systematic measurements to increase Board
fundraising activities by 50% and training staff to recruit, manage, and retain 3-4 interns per
year. Table 5 shows the recommended outcomes, metrics, and methods to determine
performance goal progress and achievement.
Table 5

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes for EDs

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes

190
An ongoing partnership with a
local university to host 3-4
student interns throughout the
year.
Perform an end-of-year
assessment on whether a
partnership has been formed
and if 3-4 interns have been
hosted in the organization.
Records of partnership
confirmation between agency
and university, records of
student applications, and data
on the quantity of internships
completed in a calendar year.
An ED peer networking group
for leaders of small nonprofits
that meets several times a year
to support learning,
collaboration, and knowledge.
The quantity of peer
networking events that the
ED attends during a calendar
year.
Records of the ED's calendar
and feedback surveys on the
networking group experience.
Internal Outcomes
Increased Board fundraising
engagement by 25% by the
end of the year.
Compare Board financial and
in-kind contributions data from
the previous year against the
current year.
Data analysis/reports on Board
fundraising and in-kind
contributions from general
ledger and financial records.
The hosting of 3-4 interns
during the calendar year,
resulting in a 30% reduction
of staff time spent on
administrative tasks.
Compare staff grant writing
activity from the previous year
with no intern support against
the current year with intern
support.
Data analysis/report on staff
grant writing activity from the
previous year's financial
records compared to the current
year.
A staff trained on management
and mentorship of student
interns.
The demonstration of
recruiting, managing, and
retaining student interns for 4-6
month internships during the
calendar year.
1:1 check-ins with staff on their
feedback and experiences
related to recruiting and
managing student interns.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors. Level 3 of The New Kirkpatrick Model concerns the behaviors that
employees, volunteers, or individuals involved must perform reliably and consistently to
demonstrate change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Critical Behaviors have the biggest
influence on achieving the intended external and internal outcomes. EDs, their Boards and staff
hold shared responsibilities in performing the Critical Behaviors to increase their organizational
capacity to fundraise and support their ED and staff’s continuous learning and development.

191
EDs need to build relationships with local colleges to host 3-4 interns a year. To continue
supporting their own personal and professional development, EDs need to participate in peer
networks with other leaders of small nonprofits to increase their learning and knowledge. In
addition to engaging in their own learning, EDs need to give greater management responsibility
to their staff to supervise interns. Lastly, EDs need to increase Board fundraising engagement
through communicating clear expectations and measurable goals. Their unified commitment to
demonstrating Critical Behaviors remains integral to the effectiveness of increasing their
organizational capacity to fundraise. Table 6 shows the Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods,
and Timing for Evaluation.
Table 6

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1.ED identifies and
reaches out to 2-3 local
universities to establish
contact and share
internship
opportunities to
encourage students to
apply.
The number of student
intern applications
received.
An online application
form repository that
stores the information
for future reference
and data analysis.
At the beginning and
end of each application
window throughout the
year.
2. ED identifies and
participates in the
collective peer network
of other leads of small
nonprofits.
The number of
networking events that
the ED attends.
Self-reporting by the
ED.
End of year
performance review of
achievements, learning
and development
opportunities.

192
3. ED creates Board
fundraising
engagement action
plan with concrete
goals and measurable
expectations.
A measurement of
financial and in-kind
contributions from the
Board based on dollar
amounts and
estimations of in-kind
value against the
previous year's
benchmark of Board
contributions to assess
a 25% increase.
Various financial or in-
kind needs that the
Board can execute that
produces a 25% overall
increase in their
fundraising
contributions toward
the organization's
annual revenue goals.
Quarterly
4. ED trains staff to
manage and mentor
student interns.
Staff managers report
their leadership
development and
practice.
Self-reporting by the
staff managers.
Quarterly
Required Drivers
Required Drivers. Required Drivers include key behaviors performed by supervisors,
managers, or authority figures in relation to achieving the intended organizational outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required Drivers have two categories: support and
accountability. Organizational leaders enact these behaviors to guide and implement change.
Required Drivers include processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward
performance of Critical Behaviors on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
EDs possess significant responsibilities in guiding the Required Drivers of change. The
first series of Required Drivers concern Reinforcing behavior through regular All-Hands and
one-on-one meetings related to project areas. The ED will engage the staff and Board in various
Reinforcement activities, including weekly All-Hands staff meetings to discuss high-level
updates such as partnering with a local university and the status of intern applications. One-on-
one meetings with the staff and Board will vary from weekly, monthly, to quarterly based on the
type of activity. EDs should conduct monthly meetings with Board members to prepare them for
their fundraising activities. To Encourage the new behavior, EDs should provide guidance to the

193
staff and Board, but also allow them to create their own management and fundraising styles.
EDs should also Reward the progress of their staff and Board’s activities through public
recognition during All-Hands and Board meetings and digitally, through the organization’s
newsletters and social media pages. Lastly, EDs should develop regular and systematic check-in
schedules with the staff and Board. EDs should meet on a bi-weekly basis with intern managers
to gather feedback and offer support. With Board support in achieving their fundraising goals,
the EDs should complete quarterly individual check-ins with each Board to assess progress and
identify needs or support. Table 7 lists the recommended methods, timing, and supports required
to reinforce, encourage, monitor, and reward the staff and Board.
Table 7
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
All-Hands meeting to share
updates on university
partnership in relation to
building an internship program.
Weekly 1
All-Hands meeting to provide
updates on status of intern
applications and scheduling
interviews with candidates.
Ongoing, as needed 1
ED meets with the Board to
coordinate a shared fundraising
plan with roles and
responsibilities including
concrete goals with measurable
expectations.
Monthly 1,2

194
ED prioritizes participating in a
peer network of other small
nonprofit leaders to support
their learning and development.
Ongoing, as needed 1,2
Encouraging
Provide team flexibility with
building partnership with
universities.
Ongoing, as needed 1, 2
Support staff in creating a
positive internship program.
Ongoing, as needed 1,2,3
ED conducts 1:1 phone calls
with Board members to gain
insights and feedback on
fundraising and in-kind
resource development
engagement.
Monthly 1,2
Rewarding
EDs provide recognition for
intern progress and program
completion through verbal
acknowledgement, newsletters,
and social media posts.
Ongoing, as needed 1
EDs give kudos to staff for
identifying and securing interns
every semester throughout the
year.
Ongoing 1
Monitoring
ED meets with staff to check-in
on the relationship with the
university in partnering to host
interns.
Ongoing 1,2

195
ED meets with intern managers
to check on their experience,
feedback, and intern
performance.
Bi-Weekly 1,2

ED executes regular individual
fundraising check-ins with each
Board member on their
progress and achievement.
Quarterly 1
Organizational Support. Key motivated behavior such persistence, time, and mental
effort will positively determine the effects of the organizational change plan (Clark & Estes,
2008). Since small nonprofits operate in resource scarce and competitive environments, the
recommended change implementation plan does not incur added costs or suggest additional staff
for participating organizations. Instead, the change plan accentuates the positive individual and
collective self-efficacy of EDs and their staff to increase their Board’s engagement in fundraising
and find methods to strengthen their internal capacity. Facilitating the engagement of 4-6 part-
time, interns in a calendar year provides in-kind and material support to the organization’s
productivity and fundraising goals. Further, developing rapport with local universities elevates
the brand and visibility of small organizations that tend to rely on volunteers and community
members. Focusing internal efforts on communicating clear goals and measurable fundraising
expectations with Board members supports a shared vision in achieving the organization’s
annual revenue goals. Additionally, integrating networking with other leaders of small
nonprofits promotes ED professional development but also increases opportunities for new
knowledge generation and collaboration with peers (Ada, 2013; Trust, 2016). Lastly, promoting
organizational learning requires a change in systematic internal practices, including weekly and
bi-weekly meetings with added structure. Again, the recommended change implementation plan
seeks to improve the fundraising capacity and efforts of small nonprofits, whereby reducing staff

196
time on administrative tasks to focus on external relationships and fund development are the
priorities. Organizational support for these changes includes persistence, time, and mental effort.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. EDs need to understand the basic principles of change management to
facilitate internal discussions and activities with their Board and staff to gain buy-in and
commitment to the change steps. Leading these change processes require the investment of time,
clear communication, and adjustments to workflow. These actions require that EDs have the
knowledge to identify organizational financial and in-kind needs, facilitate strategic planning
sessions, and execute systematic check-ins to measure Board fundraising progress and staff
responsibilities. The EDs in this study demonstrated confidence in the quality of their
relationship building strengths. Therefore, the following section outlines how EDs can use their
confidence to increase collaboration in their organization. The following sections discuss how
EDs can learn to identify their organizational needs and manage and measure their organizational
change efforts. The specific learning goals for EDs are:
Following completion of the recommended solutions, EDs will be able to:
1. Perform a needs assessment of their organization’s financial and resource needs,
(D, P)
2. Create individual fundraising engagement plans for each Board member, (D, P)
3. Design regular check-ins that measure Board member fundraising progress and
goal achievement, (D, P)
4. Develop an internship program that brings intern support into the organization,
(D, P)

197
5. Prepare staff to recruit and manage student interns to complete projects that
contribute to the broader goals of the organization, (P)
6. Shift personnel responsibilities to include certain percentages of time spent on
grant writing, (P)
7. Delegate administrative tasks to student interns to increase staff involvement on
fundraising activities, (P)
8. Apply organizational protocols that encourage personal learning and
development, (P, Confidence)
9. Create appropriate timelines for various review processes, (P)
10. Build collective ownership in their organization’s fundraising efforts,
(Confidence)
Program. Virtual individual coaching sessions will support EDs in achieving these
learning outcomes. The program’s learning goals are intended for EDs with less than 10
employees. The content and objectives aim to develop management processes that increase
organizational capacity and Board fundraising engagement. The virtual coaching consists of
four ninety-minute meetings between the ED and coach. The program involves the completion
of asynchronous exercises whereby the ED brings their assignments to each session. The total
coaching program duration for completion is 660 minutes or 11 hours, executed across a three-
month period.
The coaching curriculum will be based on Kotter’s 8-Step Model for Change and Clark
and Estes’ concept of cascading goals. The exercises, discussions, and activities will connect the
8-Step Model for Change and development of cascading goals with the ED’s organizational
context. The coaching sessions will be designed to engage the EDs in relevant change efforts

198
that reflect their own experiences and contexts. The coach will engage the EDs in reflective
discussions related to their current cultural settings and what they seek to change. Following a
sequential process, each 90 minute session builds on the other. Starting at the end, the ED will
first indicate their 8-10 year financial and programmatic vision for their organization, followed
by an assessment of their current financial performance, their beliefs on their organizational
needs, and their personnel and resources to achieve those goals.
EDs will be asked to complete four asynchronous assignments throughout the coaching
program. Each virtual coaching session will begin with a review of the ED’s asynchronous
assignment, with gradual scaffolding from their current performance to creating a change
strategy to help them achieve their future fundraising goals. Each assignment will be used
throughout the session to generate discussion on the ED’s intended goals, current financial
performance, and their available personnel and resources. Learning modalities will involve role-
playing, conducting Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis in relation
to change activities, and stakeholder engagement. The coach will help the ED plan to redesign
certain cultural settings, including Board and staff roles and responsibilities to increase their
organizational capacity and increase Board fundraising engagement. Throughout the program,
the coach will engage the ED in individualized sessions on approaches that build the ED’s
confidence and commitment to the change process. Specifically, the coach will train the ED in
implementing, managing, and measuring their organizational change goals. The completion of
the asynchronous exercises will serve as an integral piece to the curriculum of the individual
coaching program.
The coaching program will provide four job aids. To reinforce the learning and change
implementation efforts, EDs will be provided with job aids on Kotter 8-Step Change Models,

199
suggested timelines for execution, and sample Board engagement templates with cascading goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Further, another job aid will contain various examples of employee
performance plan templates from other small nonprofit organizations. The job aids will be
embedded into the virtual sessions and discussed in the context of implementing some of the
change strategies into their respective organizations. Additionally, the EDs will be asked to
develop a final change implementation plan, incorporating 1-2 of the change and goal setting
models, into their redesigned structure that supports their agency’s fundraising and growth goals.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning. EDs leading small nonprofits largely face
organizational gaps in relation to achieving their fundraising goals. Due to this study’s findings,
the recommended learning program focuses on increasing EDs’ declarative and procedural
knowledge in creating and facilitating systems that increase their organization’s fundraising
capacity. Additionally, this program emphasizes the importance of the EDs’ confidence and
commitment to implementing the organizational change efforts. Based on these two critical
factors, the EDs’ procedural knowledge and relative confidence levels will be evaluated upon
completion of the comprehensive and individualized coaching sessions. Table 8 lists the
evaluation methods and timing for the components of learning.
Table 8
Evaluation of the Components of Level 2: Learning for the Coaching Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice.
In the asynchronous segments of the
course during and after virtual coaching
sessions.
Individual demonstration of using Kotter’s 8-Step
Change Model to facilitate processes and perform
the new skills.
Regularly during the virtual coaching
sessions and documented via instructor
observation notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

200
Individual application of the skills with
organization-specific applications.
During virtual coaching sessions.
Knowledge checks via Google Classroom ©
through asynchronous exercises asking ED to
describe how they will apply specific change
models to their organization.
In the asynchronous portions of the
coaching program at the end of each
individual virtual session.
Knowledge checks through Google Classroom ©
via the development of an organization-specific
Action Plan for how they will apply what they
learned in the program, will accomplish, and
critical touch points on their progress.
After completing the coaching program.
Retrospective pre- and post-feedback survey,
asking EDs about their level of process knowledge
before and after the coaching sessions.
After completing the coaching program.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Formative evaluation via instructor observation to
determine ED engagement through asking
questions, involvement in discussions, facial
expressions/body language, and offering
responses.
During virtual coaching sessions.
Formative evaluation via pulse checks on
challenges and barriers and their organization-
specific Action Plan to see if ED finds the content
and information valuable.
During virtual coaching sessions.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Individual discussions following practice,
application, and feedback.
During virtual coaching sessions.
Summative survey asking about their confidence
level.
After completing the coaching program.
Formative surveys asking about their beliefs on
the challenges and barriers to implementing
change efforts in their agency.
In the asynchronous portions of the
coaching program at the end of each
individual virtual session.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Individual discussions following practice,
application, and feedback.
During virtual coaching sessions.
Summative survey asking about their commitment
level.
After completing the coaching program.
Formative surveys asking about their beliefs on
the challenges and barriers to implementing
change efforts in their agency.
In the asynchronous portions of the
coaching program at the end of each
individual virtual session.
Summative survey asking about their commitment
to implementing their organization-specific Action
Plan
After completing the coaching program.
Level 1: Reaction

201
Evaluating the ED participants’ reactions to individualized coaching remains critical to
the learning and application processes. Level: 1 Reactions consist of three components:
engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Hence, Level: 1 seeks to determine the
degree to which participants find the training favorable, interesting, and relevant to their jobs.
Table 9 illustrates the methods this evaluation and implementation framework plans to use to
determine how the participants react to individualized coaching for fundraising and capacity
growth strategies.
Table 9

Components to Measure Level 1: Reactions to the Coaching Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance During the coaching sessions.
Program evaluation Two weeks after the coaching program ends.
Completion of asynchronous assignments During the coaching sessions.
Instructor observations During the coaching sessions.
Performance on multiple choice, explaining
new material, and applying concepts to
respective organization
During the coaching sessions.
Relevance
Brief pulse checks with EDs during coaching
sessions
At the end of each coaching session.
Program evaluation Two weeks after the coaching session ends.
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse checks with EDs during coaching
sessions
At the end of each coaching session.
Program evaluation Two weeks after the coaching session ends.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. This program will evaluate ED
confidence, learning, and commitment to results throughout their entire experience. Using a
blended evaluation approach (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), the asynchronous segments of
the coaching program administered through Google Applications © such as Google Classroom,

202
Google Forms, and Google Analytics will collect data from the completed multiple-choice
questionnaires, sessions attended, and knowledge checks via discussion boards. Google Forms
will distribute short surveys after each in-person coaching session to request participant feedback
on relevance of the material to their fundraising goals, quality of facilitation, and overall
experience with the content and delivery of the virtual coaching program.
To evaluate Level 1 experiences, during virtual coaching sessions, the coach will
facilitate brief pulse-checks with the participants. These pulse-checks will include asking the
EDs about the relevance of the course material to their fundraising efforts and challenges or
barriers of the course content based on their organizational environment and budgetary
conditions. Level 2 evaluation will include checks for understanding using role playing
simulations and discussion board scenarios from the coaching program’s content. Additionally,
the facilitator will observe ED engagement during virtual coaching sessions, checking for
demonstration of having completed assignments, asking questions, and engaging in conversation.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 90 days after
the completion of the coaching program, and once more at 25 weeks, the leadership coach will
administer a survey containing open and scaled items using the Blended Approach (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). The initial summative assessment will seek ED reactions and opinions on
the perceived relevance of the program (Level 1), confidence and value of applying their new
knowledge (Level 2), and open-ended questions on their personal experiences with completing
the coaching program. At 25 weeks, or at six months, the leadership coach will send another
survey to measure and discover the participants’ confidence, perceived value, and additionally,
how they have applied the change management processes within their teams and overall

203
organization (Level 3) and furthermore, inquire on any marked progress or results that they have
experienced following the completion of the coaching program.
Data Analysis and Reporting
This section discusses how the findings from the leadership coaching program will be
shared with participants and broader stakeholders in the nonprofit sector. While the findings
associated with Levels 1 and 2 hold importance in the larger evaluation and improvement plan,
the presentation of the findings primarily concerns the outcomes revealed in obtaining Level 3
and 4 data. At 25 weeks, or at six months, the leadership coach will send another survey to
measure and discover the participants’ confidence, perceived value, and most critically, seek to
understand how they have implemented change and capacity building measures to improve
fundraising in their organizations. The following steps will be taken to report out on the coaching
program’s findings and furthermore, to contribute new knowledge to the growing field of small
social service organizations seeking fiscal sustainability.
High level findings from the intensive coaching program will be available across a
multitude of platforms, including on a password-protected cloud platform where participating
organizations can access useful data, via electronic mail communication, and through virtual
report outs. The findings will be accessible and relevant for a variety of purposes, including ED
curiosity or wanting to understand how other small agency leaders improved their fundraising
capacity, via electronic access for reference and analysis, or in virtual or in-person dialogues
with the coach and other past participants in the program. The following sections explicate these
specific engagement steps that the coach will pursue to ensure that the findings are socialized,
consumed, and understood by the participants and stakeholders in California’s nonprofit sector,
with a specific emphasis on the fundraising capacities of small social service organizations, via

204
sharing the findings electronically, facilitating connections, and providing virtual report outs to
EDs and their agencies.
Figure 2
Electronic access for reference of findings and resources.

Electronic access for reference of findings and resources. Figure 2 illustrates how
high-level findings data will be made available to past program participants to inform their
change processes and implementation efforts. Various data and reports from EDs that have
completed the coaching intensive, including success stories, testimonials, and organizational
financial updates related to fundraising victories, will be accessible via a shared, but password-
protected cloud-based software such a shared Google Drive ©. Ensuring access to past and
current participant testimonials, experiences, and related organizational wins aims to provide
intelligence and information for how EDs seeking to implement change strategies in their
contexts might learn from colleagues in their field, across California.
ED connections. The leadership coach holds a critical role in facilitating relationships
between EDs that have participated in the individualized coaching program. EDs may benefit
from forming relationships with other small agency leaders. These relationships could produce
new knowledge in their leadership practices, sharing tips and insights on fundraising, and
communicating about additional solutions to improving fundraising within their resource-

205
constrained organizations. The leadership coach might consider developing a communication
group, via private Google Groups ©, Facebook Groups ©, and LinkedIn © to create a space for
continuous exchange, dialogue, and resource-sharing.
Virtual or in-person dialogues. Relationship maintenance between the leadership coach
and EDs remains a significant element to the effectiveness of the change recommendations
outlined in this proposal. The leadership coach should aim to develop trust, rapport, and a
professional relationship with their ED counterparts to continuously help with their fundraising
capacity building and improvement efforts. Serving as an organizational resource, the leadership
coach will schedule one virtual or in-person dialogue with the ED and their organization to
present on their program’s findings but to also learn about how that specific agency has
navigated and experienced the changes within their organizations. Systematic relationship-
building through virtual or in-person dialogues develops a reciprocal relationship, whereby the
ED and their organization feel heard, listened to, and supported in the fundraising capacity
improvement efforts by the leadership coach. The following section summarizes how the New
World Kirkpatrick Model was used to plan, implement, and evaluate the recommendations
outlined in this proposal.
The foundational principles of the New World Kirkpatrick Model guided the
comprehensive design and framework of this proposal’s recommendations on improving the
fundraising capacities of small health and human service nonprofit organizations. All four levels
are considered throughout the planning, development, and implementation phases of the
recommended solutions outlined in this proposal.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model outlines three key data analysis questions: 1. Does
the program meet expectations?, 2. If not, why not?, and 3. If so, why? Operating through the

206
prism of a broad organizational goal, as previously explained in this proposal, a singular
stakeholder goal was not identified. Therefore, the solution’s design and framework considered
the fundraising environments of small human service organizations in California in establishing
these key data analysis questions. Recognizing that small human service organizations often
employ EDs as their sole fundraising officers, with scarce resources and staff, the design and
framework centered the goal of increasing fundraising capacity in these organizations. The
planning to achieve this goal factored around two principal conditions: not incurring additional
costs and not necessitating the hiring of more staff for these small nonprofit organizations.
Basing the solutions in these two conditions, the proposal seeks to yield a high return on
expectations (ROE) and perceived emotional, social, and financial value for the participating
EDs and their nonprofit agencies. Following this fundraising capacity improvement and
evaluation plan will increase organizational revenue by 20% over an eighteen-month span.
Appendices D and E illustrate how the associated key data analysis questions will be evaluated
to determine perceptions on value, engagement levels, and feelings on ROE, with further
considerations on how root causes will be identified.

Appendix L: Evaluation Instrument to Measure Level 1: Reactions to the Coaching
Program

Coaching Survey Form
Participant Evaluation: Session 1 Evaluation

Date and location: __________________________________
Instructions:
● For questions 1-3, please use the following rating scale:

0 = strongly disagree 10 = strongly agree

207
● Please circle the appropriate rating to indicate the degree to which you agree with each
statement.
● Please provide comments to explain your ratings.
Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1. I took responsibility for being involved
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in today’s session.
Comments:

Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2. The information in today’s session is
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 applicable to my work.
Comments:

Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 3. The presentation style of the facilitator
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 contributed to my learning experience.
Comments:

4. Please provide any suggestions for change/improvement you may have for next week’s
session and for future sessions of this coaching program.

Appendix M:
Evaluation Instrument to Measure Components of Level 2: Learning in the Coaching
Program
Coaching Survey Form
Participant Evaluation Following Completion of Coaching Program

Date and location: __________________________________
Instructions:
● For questions 5-8, please use the following rating scale:

1 2 3 4 5
None or very Very high level

208
low level
● Please circle the appropriate rating before the training and now (after the training).
● Please provide comments to explain your ratings.
Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1. I took responsibility for being involved
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in this coaching program.
Comments:

Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2. This program held my interest.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Comments:

Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 3. The presentation style of the facilitator
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 contributed to my learning experience.
Comments:

Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 4. The information in this program is
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 applicable to my work.
Comments:

Rating
Strongly disagree Strongly agree 5. I would recommend this program to
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 to others.
Comments:

Before the program 6. Knowledge of theories of After the program
1 2 3 4 5 change models 1 2 3 4 5
Before the program 7. Confidence to implement After the program
1 2 3 4 5 change models in organization 1 2 3 4 5
Before the program 8. Commitment to implement After the program
1 2 3 4 5 change models in organization 1 2 3 4 5
Before the program 9. Relevance to implement After the program
1 2 3 4 5 change models in organization 1 2 3 4 5

209
10. How can this coaching program be improved?

11. Please share any additional comments you may have. If you authorize us to use your
comments in our marking materials, please print your name and organization name.

Appendix N:
Interview Protocol to Measure Participant Learning and Results Six Months After
Completion

Coaching 6 Month Participant Interview Protocol
Participant Interview Protocol Following Completion of Coaching Program

Date and location: __________________________________

210
1. How are you currently using what you learned during the coaching program?

2. What do you believe were the most important skills you learned from the coaching
program?

3. What positive outcomes are you seeing as a result of what you are doing? Might you
share any historical comparisons of what was occurring before the coaching program
and now?

4. To what can you attribute that success?

5. If you are not using the skills you learned during the coaching program, what are the
reasons?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This evaluation study explores the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that shape the fundraising goal achievement of Executive Directors (EDs) leading small nonprofits in the state of California. Narrowly focused on the external professional expectations placed on nonprofit organizations, this qualitative study sought to understand how EDs leading small agencies compete, secure, and sustain funding to advance their missions. To achieve maximum variation, this qualitative study interviewed EDs statewide that run 501(c)(3) or fiscally sponsored nonprofit organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000 and no more than 10 employees. The study found that EDs know how to skillfully compete and sustain various funding sources for their organizations. Despite having negative emotions toward fundraising, the financial performance of the agencies in this study indicates that nearly all of the EDs consistently increase revenue for their organization year-over-year. Every ED in this study adopts personal mission attachment to the social causes that their agency targets, which instills confidence and supports their self-efficacy in building relationships with funders and donors. Further, small nonprofits often collaborate and partner with values-aligned organizations to leverage resources, grow their revenue, and advance their mission. This study concluded that organizational influences related to Board of Director involvement, limited personnel, scarce resources and capacity, significantly shape ED fundraising performance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

PDF

Health care disparities and the influence of nurse leader cultural competency: an evaluation study

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Relocated professional fundraisers in Hawaii: the impact of cultural sensitivity and cultural awareness on fundraising performance

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

PDF

Human error risk reduction in aviation: an evaluation study

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Recruiting and hiring female police officers: an evaluative study

PDF

A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study

PDF

The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Looking through the staff lens: membership retention strategies in 501c6 nonprofit organizations

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

International school director tenure: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Cortez, Angelica (author)

Core Title Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/26/2021

Defense Date 11/17/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community organizations,evaluation,executive director,fund development,Fundraising,health and human services,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Picus, Larry (committee member)

Creator Email angelica@upsetsociety.co,cort719@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-423478

Unique identifier UC11666554

Identifier etd-CortezAnge-9288.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-423478 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CortezAnge-9288.pdf

Dmrecord 423478

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cortez, Angelica

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA