Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges
(USC Thesis Other)
Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Donor Affinity, Engagement, and Giving: Reframing The Student And Alumni Experience
At California Community Colleges
Tanya Inthapanti Adolph
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023
© Copyright by Tanya Inthapanti Adolph 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Tanya Inthapanti Adolph certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Cathy Krop
Eric Canny, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
iv
Abstract
This study explored the drivers for Long Beach City College alumni, a 2-year California
community college (CCC), to engage with and donate to their alma mater. Due to the widespread
decline in enrollment post-COVID-19 pandemic, institutions face increasing financial insecurity.
They must now explore new funding streams. By modeling the success of alumni engagement at
4-year schools, beginning with the student experience, CCCs can strengthen their budgets while
simultaneously providing an improved experience for their students, alumni, and campus
communities. With this research, advancement professionals and college administrators will
recognize the value of integrating a framework for alumni affinity programming in their strategic
planning. Chapter One includes an introduction to the study, its significance, limitations,
delimitations, and the definitions of terms utilized in the fundraising and alumni relations fields.
Chapter Two explores prior research, the organization of CCCs, their funding needs, and alumni
engagement and fundraising practices. Chapter Three describes the methodology of the study.
Chapter Four provides the results of the data analysis. Chapter Five presents recommendations
and suggestions for future study.
Keywords: advancement, alumni, alumni relations, development, engagement,
fundraising
v
Dedication
In loving memory of my father, Samrit Inthapanti, who believed education would give
me wings. I wish you were here to share my accomplishments.
vi
Acknowledgements
Completing this dissertation is the culmination of efforts from various individuals with
whom I would like to express my sincere appreciation. To begin, the faculty and staff at the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, especially my dissertation
committee chair, Dr. Eric Canny, without whom I would not have been able to complete this
research. I am grateful for his insight and guidance, imparted with endless patience and kindness.
My gratitude extends to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi and Dr.
Cathy Krop, for their invaluable expertise and recommendations. I would also like to
acknowledge Dr. Adrian Donato, Dr. Roseline Telfort, and Dr. Guadalupe Montaño for their
technical assistance and the Long Beach City College Foundation for supporting my research. I
would be remiss not to acknowledge the Long Beach City College alumni participants who made
this study possible. Thank you for bringing my work to life.
My heartfelt appreciation goes to my family, friends, colleagues, and community for their
support and confidence throughout my studies. Special thanks to Dara, Pulichan, Melissa,
Nicole, Christina, and Sarah for their love and memes, and Dr. Fylpaa, Dan, and dear Keith, my
cheering section. My deepest gratitude goes to my ever-supportive mother, Sonsgsri; my
husband, best friend, and greatest champion, Brett; my children, Samantha and Abigail, who
allowed me grace and time away; and my mother and father-in-law Joyce and Bob, for their
unwavering support. I am deeply grateful for this incredible network and all their tremendous
encouragement and inspiration in the past five years.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study.......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Question ................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Background of California Community Colleges .............................................................. 11
Funding Opportunities at California Community Colleges.................................. 12
Organization Structure of Leadership at California Community Colleges........... 14
Funding Disparities of California Community Colleges to 4-Year Institutions... 15
Other Barriers to Alumni Engagement and Giving at Community Colleges ....... 17
Current Alumni Engagement and Fundraising Practices.................................................. 19
The Foundation Model.......................................................................................... 19
Lack of Professional Experience in Alumni Engagement and Fundraising ......... 21
Why Alumni Support Their California Community Colleges.......................................... 23
What is Alumni Affinity? ..................................................................................... 23
viii
The College Experience........................................................................................ 29
How Alumni Support Their California Community Colleges.......................................... 35
Community Connectivity (Time).......................................................................... 35
Current Student Engagement (Talent) .................................................................. 36
Philanthropy (Treasure) ........................................................................................ 37
Achieve Equity Opportunities........................................................................................... 38
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 41
Social Identity ....................................................................................................... 41
Philanthropic Mirroring ........................................................................................ 43
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 48
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 48
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 48
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 49
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 50
Data Source: Electronic Survey........................................................................................ 52
Participants........................................................................................................................ 52
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 52
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 54
Email..................................................................................................................... 54
Social Media ......................................................................................................... 54
Snowball Sampling ............................................................................................... 54
LBCCF Monthly Newsletter................................................................................. 55
Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 55
ix
Data Analysis Process........................................................................................... 59
Validity and Reliability..................................................................................................... 59
Pilot Survey........................................................................................................... 59
Final Survey...................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 64
Demographic Summary .................................................................................................... 64
Student Engagement and Alumni Volunteerism............................................................... 67
Chi-square ............................................................................................................. 70
Student Engagement and Alumni Giving ......................................................................... 71
Pearson Correlation Analysis................................................................................ 71
Student Engagement and Alumni Donor Giving Behaviors............................................. 79
Chi-square ............................................................................................................. 79
Alumni Affinity and Alumni Giving Behaviors............................................................... 81
Regression............................................................................................................. 81
Analysis of Variance............................................................................................. 84
Chapter Five: Conclusions & Recommendations......................................................................... 90
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 90
Recommendation 1: Invest in the Student Experience ..................................................... 91
Student Satisfaction .............................................................................................. 91
Faculty and Staff Advocacy.................................................................................. 93
Recommendation 2: Invest in Alumni Engagement ......................................................... 95
Alumni Affinity Programming ............................................................................. 97
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 100
Recommendations for Future Research.......................................................................... 101
x
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 102
References................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix A: Solicitation Email.................................................................................................. 120
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 121
Appendix C: Survey Questions................................................................................................... 123
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 123
Part 1 ............................................................................................................................... 124
Part 2 ............................................................................................................................... 130
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 132
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Student Engagement Category Themes and Variables 56
Table 2: Alumni Engagement Category Themes and Variables 57
Table 3: Alumni Engagement Outcomes 58
Table 4: Construct Validity and Reliability 60
Table 5: HTMT Ratio for Discriminant Validity 61
Table 6: Fornell Larcker Criterion for Discriminant Validity 61
Table 7: Cross Loading Criterion for Discriminant Validity 62
Table 8: Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants (N = 2,003) 65
Table 9: Relationship Between Student Leadership and Alumni Volunteerism 68
Table 10: Relationship Between Student Recipient and Alumni Volunteerism 69
Table 11: Student Leadership and Alumni Donation Correlation Analysis 73
Table 12: Student Recipient and Alumni Donation Correlation Analysis 75
Table 13: Relationship Between Student Recipients and Alumni Giving 78
Table 14: Relationship Between Student Leadership and Alumni Donation Rate 80
Table 15: Regression Model Summary 81
Table 16: By Demographic Model Parameters 82
Table 17: Analysis of Variance 85
Table A1: What Motivates You to Donate to LBCC? 129
Table A2: Affinities 130
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of Engagement Represented by Philanthropy by Institution Type 25
Figure 2: Median Percentage of Engaged Alumni Who Also Give by Institution Type 26
Figure 3: Concept Map of the Categories of Alumni Engagement 29
Figure 4: Illustration of Social Identity Theory 43
Figure 5: Illustration of Philanthropic Mirroring Theory 45
xiii
List of Abbreviations
AACC American Association of Community Colleges
CCC California community colleges
CASE Council for Advancement and Support of Education
LBCC Long Beach City College
LBCCF Long Beach City College Foundation
SCFF Student-centered funding formula
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The California community college (CCC) system educates 2.1 million students each year,
making it the country’s most extensive higher education system in the United States (PepperKittredge et al., 2018). The system serves communities by providing an economical option for
students seeking to transfer to 4-year schools. The CCCs also offer vocational certifications and
degrees, host, and sponsor events as important nonprofit community partners, and contribute
social benefits valued at $265.9 billion (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
[CCCCO], n.d., 2022.). These institutions’ contributions extend beyond the classroom as
education experts agree that a college experience is not limited to academic achievement and
degree progression. Rather, a well-rounded collegiate experience includes emotional, behavioral,
and cognitive growth (Vieregger & Bryant, 2020). Activities like student government, athletics,
and service clubs frame individuals’ identities and shape their values (Carlill, 2020).
Having emerged at the turn of the 20th century, community colleges steadily grew in
number and enrollment across the United States. However, the expectation for community
colleges to build the workforce of the 21st century pushed these institutions beyond their
resources (McKinney, 2013). While federal and state governments provide their primary
funding, they gain a substantial amount of revenue from tuition and fees (Pepper-Kittredge et al.,
2018). However, the financial instability is attributed mainly to the Great Recession of the late
2000s led to widespread government funding cuts. According to Mitchell et al. (2019), the extent
of funding at 2- and 4-year public institutions was $6.6 billion higher in 2008 than in 2018. With
fewer student support programs and rising tuition and fees, many community colleges
nationwide struggled with lower enrollment rates (Mitchell et al., 2019). Most recently, due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, some CCCs reportedly dropped to a 20-year enrollment low, further
2
exacerbating their financial deficits (Hart et al., 2021). While affecting all students, these
revenue losses are most detrimental to low-income students and historically marginalized
communities who depend on financial aid and student support services the most (Mitchell et al.,
2019). Because of this, CCCs seek to establish a framework to increase alumni support as they
increasingly face financial insecurity.
As CCCs look to the future, they must hone their development expertise to harness
alumni connectivity to position their alumni as lifelong partners and supporters. Given that
alumni have connections to their community colleges, they make ideal donor prospects (Weerts
& Ronca, 2007). Skari (2014) found that alumni who give to their 4-year institutions are 3.9
times more likely to give to their 2-year institutions if asked. Further, the research finds that
alumni with associate degrees are twice as likely to give as those without (Skari, 2014). The
Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE, 2019) defined alumni engagement
as
activities that alumni value, build enduring and mutually beneficial relationships, inspire
loyalty and financial support, strengthen the institution’s reputation, and involve alumni
in meaningful activities to advance the institution’s mission” and notes that “the belief
that these activities must have significant value to alumni while also supporting the
institution’s mission. (para. 1)
Fleming’s (2019) research expands CASE’s definition of alumni engagement by utilizing
data points of attendance at college functions and the amount of dollars donated as measures of
success. However, Fleming noted that while measured quantitively, alumni engagement results
from connectivity are not to be confused with the action of engaging alumni. The author
explained that the heart of alumni affinity is the vague feelings of connectivity, loyalty, and
3
affection that bind alumni to each other and their institution (Fleming, 2019). Fleming noted that
this nuanced relationship is both behavioral and conceptual and is often the most challenging part
of fundraising operations for advancement professionals to interpret.
The CCCs must establish a framework to increase alumni support as they face growing
fiscal volatility. While the success of alumni engagement at 4-year institutions illustrates the
potential of generating private gifts from former students, CCCs lack in three fundamental areas
that 4-year institutions have established. The areas are development know-how, a strategic
fundraising plan, and a culture of philanthropy (Weerts & Ronca, 2007). This study explored
these barriers and the recommendations for raising funds through alumni affinity and
engagement.
Context and Background of the Problem
Due to growing fiscal deficits, CCCs must look to fundraising to meet future funding
needs. Alumni with established affinity to their college are a timely pilot constituency. For many
alumni, reliving the student experience is enough for connectivity (Weerts & Ronca, 2007). For
others, it may include career services, ongoing learning opportunities, or a network of personal
and professional relationships. For most alumni, however, the driving forces are a mix of values
that ebb and flow throughout their lives (Weerts & Ronca, 2007). However, one theme remains
constant in alumni cultivation:
Alumni affinity begins before graduation with engaged students. Experiences such as
student leadership, financial support such as scholarships and grant awards, or the
mentorship of a professor or staff member are just a few ways that students build lifelong
affinity. (Weerts & Ronca, 2007, p. 22–23).
4
While 4-year institutions’ student engagement formula is not as easily adapted to CCCs,
mainly due to the academic structure and community college students’ age and cultural diversity,
research has found that students are a captive audience eager to build ties and relationships that
could last a lifetime (Skari, 2014). The lack of addressing CCC alumni engagement will result in
continued funding cuts, enrollment decreases, fewer student support programs, and less financial
aid, harming the most vulnerable students. Additionally, the loss of student engagement activities
diminishes the student experience, the growth of affinity among alumni, and, ultimately, the loss
of millions of dollars in potential revenue from dedicated alumni (Fleming, 2019).
Purpose of the Project and Research Question
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationship between the student experience
and alumni giving and how alumni association programming can influence alumni giving at
CCCs. One research question guided this study.
1. What is the relationship, if any, between the community college student experience
and alumni giving?
Importance of the Study
Fundraisers could successfully identify affinities and emotional connections among
individuals by building relationships with students and alumni, thus creating engagement
opportunities to support their alma mater in personally meaningful ways (CASE, n.d.-a).
Moreover, an emphasis on exploring how affinity develops among students will better support
positive student involvement opportunities and build a culture of engaging alumni programming
throughout their lives. Ultimately, increased support and revenue will help CCCs close their
funding opportunities (Beard, 2008).
5
This research could benefit Long Beach City College (LBCC), the setting for this study,
by presenting the administration with evidence to justify the allocation of resources, funding, and
staffing to the LBCC Foundation and Alumni Association. With the development of strategic
plans for support based on the findings, the campus community and advancement professionals
could better connect with students and alumni. Their efforts will ultimately support a campus
culture of philanthropy with all constituents invested in supporting the institution.
This problem aligns with the Rossier School of Education’s mission. This study sought to
address funding opportunities that directly impact students from low-income and underserved
backgrounds, as the first programs cut are often to student and financial support services
(Mitchell et al., 2019). A residual benefit of this study is that it addresses the disparity in the
benefits alumni associations offer. Through career support, networking opportunities, and social
activities, 2-year college alumni will receive the resources and opportunities to aid in closing
persisting inequity (Johnson, 2019).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The social identity theory and theory of philanthropic giving support this study. Social
identity theory is the belief that group membership is the basis for a person’s sense of who they
are (Hogg et al., 1995). Tajfel (as cited in Hogg et al., 1995) proposed that groups to which
people belong (e.g., social class, family, sports fans, etc.) provide pride and self-esteem. Further,
groups give people a sense of social identity and belonging to the social world (Hogg et al.,
1995). Applied to alumni engagement, social identity theory accounts for affinity, membership,
and the emotional connections alumni have to their institutions and each other.
The philanthropic mirroring framework is an identity-based motivation model based on
social distance and empathy (Oyserman & Destin, 2010). It outlines how people “donors’
6
identities are a factor in their decisions to give and in how those gifts are manifested (Drezner,
2018, p. 262). Drezner (2018) explained that mirroring a prospective donor’s social identities
reduces social distance, and the prospective donor will perceive greater importance of associated
solicitations. Thus, scaffolding the framework of philanthropic mirroring with social identity
theory could play a central role in the moves-management of the donor pipeline from engaged
student to volunteer alum to philanthropic donor (Drezner, 2018). An example of this is how a
prospective donor from a socially marginalized community might be more compelled to donate
to a student from a similar background (Drezner, 2018).
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are used in this study:
Advancement: The acts of making progress in various avenues related to a university’s
strategic plan. It can come in the form of alumni relations, fundraising, recruitment, and
marketing and communications.
Affinity: Any set of alumni who are joined by a common interest, identity, or purpose.
Alumnus (masculine, plural alumni) or alumna (feminine, plural alumnae) or alumni
(plural): A former student or pupil of a school, college, or university. Commonly, but not
always, the word refers to a graduate of the educational institution.
Board committee: The governing body of a nonprofit. The members of a nonprofit board
focus on the organization’s high-level strategy, oversight, and accountability. This contrasts with
employees or managers who oversee the organization’s day-to-day operations.
Campus leadership (president’s cabinet): The cabinet provides primary leadership
support for strategic priorities and initiatives and enhances communications within the college
and outward to the community. It functions as an advisory body to address and assist with
7
matters of substantial importance to the college, including college-wide initiatives and the
strategic plan.
Certificate holder: A certificate is a formal award granted by an institution of higher
education certifying the satisfactory completion of a higher education program. Upon
completion, a certificate is valid without further action on the individual’s part. Public and
private 2-year institutions usually award them in workforce education areas.
Constituent relationship management (CRM): Also known as a constituent relationship
management database, a donor database is a software solution that houses essential donor
information. Many donor database solutions offer other valuable features, such as analytics and
automatic messaging.
Cultivation: The process of continually adding new donor prospects to a solicitation list,
motivating significant donors to make repeat gifts, and encouraging small donors to increase the
size of their gifts.
Development: The total process by which an organization increases public understanding
of its mission and acquires financial support for its programs.
Donor: The individual, organization, or institution that makes a gift.
Engagement (as in donor engagement): The extent to which your donors interact with
your organization.
Executive director: Oversees a company or nonprofit’s board of directors and leads the
organization. Executive directors work with the board of directors to ensure they are wellequipped to meet the organization’s goals.
Faculty: The teaching or academic staff of an educational system hired to educate
students.
8
First-generation student: A student who is the first in their family to attend college.
Four-year college: A 4-year college is often a college or university that offers a variety of
degree programs for students to earn their bachelor’s degrees. Some students can also earn a
master’s degree after their bachelor’s at many 4-year colleges.
Giving capacity: The financial measure of a prospect’s ability to give a gift.
Institution of higher learning: A college, university, or similar institution, including a
technical or business school, offering postsecondary level academic instruction that leads to an
associate or higher degree if the school is empowered by the appropriate state education
authority under state law to grant an associate or higher degree.
Marketing: The action or business of promoting and selling products or services,
including market research and advertising.
Mission: A philosophical or value statement that seeks to respond to the why of the
organization’s existence: its fundamental reason for being. A mission statement is not defined in
expressions of goals or objectives.
Nonprofit (or not-for-profit) organization: An organization of members or volunteers
classified by the Internal Revenue Service as providing a public benefit without profit for
members of the corporation.
Philanthropy: A voluntary action for the public good, including voluntary service,
voluntary association, and voluntary giving.
Prospective donor: Any logical source of support, whether individual, corporation,
organization, government at all levels, or foundation; emphasis is on the logic of support.
Recognition (as in donor recognition): The systematic practice of acknowledging
supporters’ contributions to your organization.
9
ROI: A return on investment is a way to evaluate efficiency, expressed as a percentage.
For nonprofits, your investment is the dollar value of time and resources to achieve an outcome.
The determination of whether the initial investment is reasonable for the outcome. The formula
for calculating ROI is (Benefit-Cost)/Cost * 100.
Sponsorship: The act of providing money for an event, place, website, or other activity in
exchange for advertising.
Staff: A collective term that refers to all the employees working in an organization who
perform regular functions of the establishment.
Stewardship: The guiding principle in philanthropic fundraising. Defined as the
philosophy and means by which an institution exercises ethical accountability in the use of
contributed resources and the philosophy and means by which a donor exercises responsibility in
the voluntary use of resources.
Strategic plan: A program incorporating a strategy for achieving organizational goals and
objectives in a specific time frame and with substantive support in the form of methods,
priorities, and resources support services. Full range of activities required to support a
fundraising effort.
Transfer student: One who begins their college academic career at one institution earns
some credits through the completion of coursework and then decides, for whatever reason, to
transfer to a different school to finish their education.
Trustee: A person or agent of a trust, such as a bank, holding legal title to the property to
administer it for a beneficiary; a member of a governing board; in corporate trust, the directors.
Two-year college: An educational institution offering a 2-year course is generally
equivalent to the first 2 years of a 2-year undergraduate course.
10
Volunteerism: The willingness of private citizens to voluntarily serve various programs
and causes, both in fundraising programs and other capacities.
Organization of the Study
This chapter includes an introduction and statement of the alumni affinity and fundraising
problem at CCCs. This chapter also includes the significance and definitions of standard terms
utilized in the fundraising and alumni relations fields. Chapter Two is an exploration of the
literature. The topics discussed are the organization of CCCs, their funding needs, current alumni
engagement, and fundraising practices. Chapter Two also explores equity issues partly attributed
to administrators’ lack of strategic planning and conceptual and theoretical frameworks for the
problem. Chapter Three describes the study’s methodology, whereas Chapter Four will present
the results of the data analysis. In Chapter Five, I will share recommendations and suggestions
for future research.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Exacerbated by the economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, many
community colleges struggle with lower enrollment rates and budget shortfalls. In California,
budget cuts of $102 million in 2022 will continue to affect course availability and student
support services (G. Chen, 2021). Without other funding streams, 2-year colleges are turning to
alumni fundraising to recoup millions in lost revenue. Considering the nearly 22 million degreedcommunity college alumni in the United States, schools have a vast pool of alumni to ask (Foley
et al., 2021).
CASE (2019) explained that the “backbone of a fundraising operation is an understanding
of the cultivation process against which activities and goals” are strategized. This practice is
referred to as donor cultivation (para. 1). In terms of alumni, donor cultivation is also referred to
as alumni engagement. Typically, this takes the form of social events such as reunions and
tailgates, student support programs, such as mentorships and internships, and the sharing of
expertise, such as serving on a board or guest speaker at a program (Weerts & Ronca, 2007).
These touchpoints are meant to strengthen alumni affinity, or the range of emotions and values
that bond alumni in a group system and nurture philanthropy, thus creating a symbiotic machine
between the school, alumni association, and alumni working together to support the institution
(Bradford, 2021).
Background of California Community Colleges
Community colleges have long served as an accessible path to higher education. The
Foundation for CCCs reported that CCCs make up the most extensive higher education system
by enrollment in the United States, with 116 institutions providing a gateway to higher education
for over 1.8 million students per year. In 2023, one in every four community college students
12
nationwide will enroll at a CCC, and three out of every 10 Californians aged 18–24 are currently
CCC students (The Foundation for CCCs, 2021). Often serving as a precursor to 4-year
institutions, community colleges offer a variety of certificate and transfer programs at a fraction
of the cost.
The CCC system is unique in its programmatic mission and open admissions policy.
Community colleges primarily serve students in three pathways. First, they serve as an
economical option for first and second-year college students to eventually transfer to a 4-year
college for their final 2 years of undergraduate education. Second, they create opportunities for
individuals to earn vocational certificates or 2-year associate degrees in vocational fields such as
automotive technology and nursing. Notably, CCC students account for more than 60% of
students who attain a bachelor’s from a California State University (CSU) and more than 30% of
University of California (UC) undergraduates (The Foundation for CCCs, 2021).
Further, remedial instruction, adult noncredit instruction, and support services contribute
to continuous workforce improvement to advance California’s economic growth and global
competitiveness, an example of the state’s policy that every person with the capacity and
motivation to pursue higher education should have an opportunity to do so. Third, they support
individuals taking classes for personal enrichment or to supplement high school or 4-year college
coursework. Community colleges also support the community with early childhood education
programs, family-friendly events, and as nonprofit community partners.
Funding Opportunities at California Community Colleges
With many iterations in structure over the years, community colleges steadily grew in
number and enrollment across the country. However, the expectation for them to enroll more
students and build the workforce of the 21st century pushed these institutions beyond their
13
resources (McKinney, 2013). In addition to greater demand, today’s 2-year colleges face
challenges of volatile enrollment, poor accountability, and decreased federal and state support
(Burke, 2020). Most recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in 2020,
schools experienced a sharp decline in enrollment. Between 2020 and 2022, the CCC system lost
nearly 300,000 students (Bulman & Fairlie, 2022). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
recession of the 2000s further impacted CCCs and resulted in public schools losing $5.3 billion
on top of $7.4 billion in cuts the previous year (O’Leary, 2009).
However, much of the challenge community colleges face is not due to environmental
factors but to institutional ones, specifically the 1960 educational master plan for education
(Bulman & Fairlie, 2022). The plan’s residual effects are still felt in 2023. While it intended to
open the door to higher education for all California residents, the plan did not include a longterm strategy to support its mission. It allowed 4-year UCs and CSUs the authority to modify
their tuition rates; conversely, the CCC system does not have the legislative authority to modify
its rates (Rodda, 1986). This limitation is one of the primary challenges CCCs face.
Lastly, California’s student-centered funding formula (SCFF), the allocation criteria
established in 2018–19, funds districts according to enrollment levels, equity, and student
success. The equity and student success areas comprise a third of appropriated funding. Equity is
based on a district’s number of students receiving financial aid. Student success is based on a
district’s counts of students who achieve various academic benchmarks. For CCCs, this includes
certificate or associate degree completion. This factor is further adjusted by the number of
financial aid recipients who reach the designated benchmarks. High-achieving districts thus
receive more funding based on financial aid recipient student performance (Bulman & Fairlie,
14
2022). In a post-pandemic world, benchmarks based on students enrolled full time are
detrimental to funding.
Over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that community college leaders
must develop strategies to stabilize themselves, as they cannot depend on federal and state
support for a substantial portion of funding (Beard, 2008). Alternative revenue streams included
establishing District Auxiliary Foundations, creating business and workforce partnerships,
generating grants and contracts, utilizing facilities and other entrepreneurial projects (Bakhit,
2014). However, community colleges throughout the nation still fall short of universities and
state-operated 4-year schools in generating alternative revenue. Over the past 3 decades,
community colleges have made efforts in resource development with some success but lack
focus and professionalism overall (Beard, 2008). However, even with a long history of funding
fluctuation, community colleges operated comfortably for the better part of the 20th century.
Few institutions experienced a dire need, nor inclination, to explore fundraising as a reliable
financial stream that many public and private 4-year universities utilized for decades. This
system allowed 4-year institutions to build and expand their foothold in the nonprofit education
sphere (Patterson et al., 2012). Eloy Oakley, past president of LBCC, pointed to this in
acknowledging that CCCs “are late to the dance” compared to 4-year colleges (as cited in
Besikof, 2010, p. 31).
Organization Structure of Leadership at California Community Colleges
Comprising 73 districts and 116 colleges, the CCC system is the nation’s most extensive
higher education system. At the highest level, operating within the CCCCO resides the
Foundation for CCCs and the board of trustees in addition to the board of governors, which
serves as the umbrella organization to the 116 CCCs and is comprised of alumni and non-alumni.
15
Within the CCC system, boards are typically comprised of alumni and other community leaders
and fall into two categories: voting and advisory. The two boards (with frequently overlapping
roles) have governing, fiduciary, and advisory duties. The board of trustees, voting members, are
elected city officials. These individuals represent their districts on behalf of the community
college and provide oversight of the institution but do not manage day-to-day operations. The
college president reports to the board of trustees, who have the authority to hire and dismiss. The
foundation’s board of governors also carries voting privileges and follows the same guidelines as
other nonprofit organizations. In addition to overseeing the foundation’s business affairs, such as
fundraising and investments, board members help create a sustainable future by ensuring sound,
ethical, and legal governance. Members of the board of governors also assist fundraising efforts
by contributing and securing other resources. These two groups of advisors are integral to
resource development in various models exclusive to each institution. To ensure robust
philanthropic programs with steady, reliable revenue streams, the governing and foundation
boards, president, and other campus leadership must commit to a shared vision (Bowles, 2021).
Funding Disparities of California Community Colleges to 4-Year Institutions
For the taxpayer, it is noteworthy that almost 51% of CSU graduates and 29% of the UC
system transferred from a CCC. Attending a CCC still provides a cost-effective alternative for
students who cannot afford to attend a 4-year university for all of their undergraduate education.
Without the 2-year option, many would not eventually earn a bachelor’s degree. Furthermore,
transfer students frequently thrive academically from the instruction received at their 2-year
school. Transfer students currently account for nearly half of UC bachelor’s degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. According to College Board (Ma et al., 2019), the
more educated people are, the more likely they are to be employed, the more likely they are to
16
support a family, pay taxes, and contribute to the community. The evidence implies that CCCs
fulfill their mission of public education, regardless of funding deficits (AACC, 2005).
To further exemplify the CCCs’ position, Yuen (2020) explored the opportunities in
funding and revenue disparities between 2- and 4-year institutions. Yuen noted that while also
subject to financial woes, 4-year colleges have revenue streams unavailable to 2-year colleges,
primarily attributed to higher tuition and fees and larger allotment of state appropriations.
Graduate school enrollment at 4-year institutions provides an additional 1.4 million full-time
enrolled students than community colleges, a considerable factor in calculating government
funding (Yuen, 2020). Yuen does concede that expenses such as room and board and
extracurricular activities, such as libraries, gyms, and computer labs, add to student fees, another
revenue source. Notwithstanding, faculty salaries typically surmount community colleges, as 4-
year schools offer more classes with professors who demand higher salaries due to experience
and advanced degrees (Indeed, 2021). These variances still amount to 2-year institutions
receiving roughly two-fifths of the revenue that 4-year institutions receive, in other words, $52
billion compared with $130 billion. Thus, accounting for tuition, grants and scholarships, state
appropriations, and local funding, there is an annual revenue disparity of $78 billion (Yuen,
2020).
The differences between 2- and 4-year schools extend to fundraising practices. Skari
(2014) explained that the primary difference in alumni engagement and giving is that 2-year
institutions are simply not asking their alumni to give. Skari found that 4-year institutions asked
for donations from 15 million alumni, while 2-year institutions only asked 600,000 alumni for
financial support. Possibly tied to limited resources at community colleges, alumni who give to
their 4-year institutions are 3.9 times more likely to give to their 2-year institutions if asked
17
(2014). The research finds that alumni with associate degrees are twice as likely to give as those
who do not hold associate degrees (Skari, 2014). Another factor for the disparity between 2-year
and 4-year institutions is investment income. Four-year colleges and universities hold
endowments worth millions or billions, particularly older institutions. Having invested their
donations over decades, and for some institutions, nearly centuries, 2-year schools “earn a
combined $27.6 million a year – the equivalent to what Harvard alone makes from its $32.7
billion endowment about every two and a half days” (Marcus, 2013, para. 10).
Other Barriers to Alumni Engagement and Giving at Community Colleges
Community colleges typically have 2 years to build affinity compared to the 4 years that
4-year schools have. Additionally, community college transfers often look to their 4-year school
for alumni engagement, mainly as 4-year schools traditionally offer more opportunities for social
connectivity, such as clubs, athletics, and Greek life. However, the research finds that the other
alumni engagement challenges that community colleges face may be much more nuanced,
beginning with their flexible enrollment, as not all CCC students graduate. Instead, some
students transfer to a 4-year school without an associate degree, some complete certificate
programs, and others attend only for a short time. This model creates confusion in defining the
term “alumni” itself and leaves former students unsure of their alumni status. Ultimately, most
CCCs categorize alumni as individuals who completed 12-15 units of coursework (Skari, 2014).
Although alumni associations strive to connect with individual alumni, many prospective
donors refuse to engage in charitable giving. Wastyn (2009) explored the motivations of those
who do not donate to higher education and identified two misperceptions about giving. First,
some assume that philanthropic giving is relegated to the wealthy and that small donations do not
make an impact. Wastyn stated that this misperception may stem from schools requesting
18
significant sums that prospective donors cannot or are unwilling to make. An example is
soliciting four-figure donations from recent graduates. Rather than giving less, alumni
misperceive that four-figure gifts are a minimum amount for impact and thus give nothing.
Second, Wastyn (2009) noted that potential donors may be unaware that donors are almost
always asked about account designation and misperceive how their gift would be utilized, which
programs their contribution would support, and which groups would benefit. A lack of trust,
understanding, and experience in philanthropy thus alienates lower-level donors who would
donate with correct information. This lack of strategic planning and marketing to combat these
assumptions could also point to the growing trend of increasingly unengaged young alumni
(McDermont & Shirley, 2009).
McDearmon and Shirley (2009) found another impediment to CCC fundraising: the long
history of affordability and misunderstanding of district fund allocation processes. Incoming tax
dollars allowed community colleges to prioritize low-cost tuition for all students for many years.
Because of this, many prospective donors see their local community college as an institution that
should provide free and low-cost services, similar to public K–12 schools. Alumni can further
misinterpret institutional needs due to the addition of complicated issues and practices such as
bond money, restricted donations, and budget allocations (Carter, 2010). Therefore, alumni
engagement and fundraising without a component of educating the public impedes alumni
association success. Further, knowledgeable alumni who are familiar with the institution’s fiscal
deficits and shortfalls could be more likely to engage and donate as they understand the impacts
of their gifts (McDearmon & Shirley, 2009).
19
Current Alumni Engagement and Fundraising Practices
The responsibility to generate income outside of tuition and fees falls to the advancement
and development professionals tasked to meet future needs. Philanthropy, therefore, cannot be
considered a value-add as it once was, as these revenue streams are now essential. Instead,
development and alumni relations professionals must strategize toward the goal of keeping
alumni involved and giving. According to Klingaman and Santos (2012), alumni engagement
and fundraising at CCCs are fulfilled in one of two models. The first CCC fundraising model is
an individual or two employed by the district who serve as college staff members. The other
model is an affiliated but independent 501.3c nonprofit organization staffed by fundraising
professionals. While both models have benefits and drawbacks, this dissertation will focus on
institutionally related but independent foundations. These foundations’ nonprofit designation and
autonomy from the fund’s recipient (the college, in addition to state and Internal Revenue
Service oversight) are almost always associated with higher-level fundraising and alumni
engagement due to best practices and transparency (National Council of Nonprofits, 2015).
The Foundation Model
On a larger scale, the Foundation for CCCs supports the 116 CCCs. Since its founding in
1998, the Foundation has provided over $250 million in direct grants, support, and cost savings
to CCCs. In 2023, the foundation’s total investment funds were worth approximately $90 million
(The Foundation for CCCs, 2023.). In 2022, CASE reported the existence of 1,400 college and
university foundations in the United States, 500 of which are affiliated with public 4-year
colleges and universities and 900 with community colleges. Community college foundations
were formed in the early 1920s to oversee fundraising and alumni activities. By the end of the
20th century, nearly all community colleges engaged with some form of a nonprofit entity. As
20
independent structures with their governing board, CCC foundations operate with the flexibility
needed for engagement with donors and prospects outside of restrictive district budgets
(Klingaman & Santos, 2012).
As separate nonprofit entities, a foundation’s fiscal transparency showcases its role as a
reliable and trusted investment and community partner. Nonetheless, the model is not without its
challenges (Klingaman & Santos, 2012). Despite the cohesion that comes from supporting a
common fundraising goal among administration, faculty, and staff at 4-year institutions,
prevalent internal challenges at 2-year schools constitute a significant impediment. First,
foundations must contend with a pervasive culture of resistance to change. In the case of CCCs’
efforts to fundraise, this is the inability of campus leadership to conceptualize alumni
engagement and fundraising (Rodriguez-McClellon, 2020). Craft and Guy (2019) described a
prevalent disposition between college leadership and foundations:
Given the fundamental precept of affordable access for students, should college leaders
shift more of the financial burden to students by continuing to raise tuition and fees in the
face of diminished public tax support? The question presents a can-do/should-do
conundrum. What the board “can do” quite deliberately is raise tuition and set fees.
Perhaps what they “should do” is take a more active role in diversifying the college’s
revenue stream. To be successful, this latter approach may require behavioral change on
the part of the board and senior administration working to create a culture of Philanthropy
… It is time for a lifestyle change in which philanthropic fundraising becomes a normal
part of doing business, ensuring that increasing revenue is available to do what
community colleges should do to meet needs. The culture of the institution must reflect
this imperative (pp. 34–40).
21
Lack of Professional Experience in Alumni Engagement and Fundraising
The lack of professional experience among college leadership, faculty, and staff is the
primary prohibitor to advancement practices, regardless of the Foundation’s best efforts. To
support their institution, campus administrators and faculty must embrace what their 4-year
counterparts have already learned: educators’ role includes cooperation outside the classroom
(Pratt, 2005). That is not to say that leadership at CCCs has not begun discussing alumni
association formation and growth. However, the culture of resistance to change will again create
roadblocks. Ready to embrace alumni engagement and fundraising, institutions experience
challenges from program creation to implementation, thereby delaying the procurement of muchneeded support (Marcus, 2013).
In a study of community college budget allocations, Kreisel and Patterson (2013) found
that fewer than 60% of participating community colleges shared that their institution allocated
funds toward alumni engagement. Among those with funding, the average amount was $23,611.
A 2014 CASE study found that among foundations surveyed, most community college
foundations perform well relative to expenses, in that the average ratio was almost $7 raised for
every dollar spent. However, further showcasing the general disconnect between colleges and
foundations is that although half the foundations raised over $1 million annually, foundations
were responsible for 60% of staff salaries (Paradise, 2015).
Housed within the foundation, alumni associations are typically the first step to engaging
former students. These organizations oversee alumni engagement, or as CASE (n.d.-a) defined,
“activities that alumni value build enduring and mutually beneficial relationships, inspire loyalty
and financial support, strengthen the institution’s reputation and involve alumni in meaningful
activities to advance the institution’s mission” (para. 2). In 2023, CASE identified four
22
categories of alumni engagement. The first is volunteer engagement, consisting of rewarding
volunteer roles endorsed and valued by the institution and that support its mission and strategic
goals. Second, experiential engagement refers to meaningful experiences that inspire alumni, are
valuable to the institution, promote its mission, celebrate its achievements, and strengthen its
reputation. Third is philanthropic engagement or diverse opportunities for alumni to make
charitable investments that are meaningful to them and support the institution’s mission and
strategic goals. Fourth is communication engagement, or interactive, meaningful, and
informative communication with alumni that supports the institution’s mission, strategic goals,
and reputation (CASE, 2021a).
Alumni’s engagement dissipates if colleges do not maintain a connection with them. The
commitment schools make to students to provide support and professional and emotional
development must continue throughout an alum’s life. This symbiotic model will become more
commonplace among institutions as operating costs increase and consumers’ (alumni)
expectations grow for ongoing engagement. Thus, for long-term financial success, community
colleges should embrace alumni cultivation by creating affinity-building experiences for alumni
and students when they have their most captive audience (Weerts & Ronca, 2007). The most
significant factors driving low levels of community college alumni engagement and giving are
the prior lack of institutional investment in alumni engagement and the lack of educating current
students about their future role as alumni. As CCC alumni giving is in the earliest stages, reliable
alumni giving data does not exist. The lack of attention in fundraising and development has left
CCCs behind the curve of their 4-year counterparts, who have established billions of dollars in
endowments over the years (Weerts & Ronca, 2007).
23
Why Alumni Support Their California Community Colleges
The success of alumni engagement and philanthropy at 4-year institutions illustrates the
potential of generating private gifts from former students. As the single largest source of
voluntary support, alumni giving accounts for nearly a quarter (22.7%) of all philanthropic
giving to higher education (CASE, 2023). Hence, the professionalism of alumni engagement and
fundraising at CCC foundations drive the research to pinpoint the motivations for alumni
connectivity, alumni motivations, and alumni giving.
What is Alumni Affinity?
The research points to characteristics and social identities that link alumni together into
affinity groups. Self-identified membership in these groups may stay consistent through an
alum’s life like cultural identity, first-generation student status, or Greek life alum (Clotfelter,
2003), while others may change over time, such as wealth, religion, or professional career field
(Drezner, 2018). Regardless of their permanence or of the unifier itself, these commonalities are
the building blocks of relationships. This type of strategic marketing focuses on the motivations
of alumni based on personal indicators such as graduation year, age, and career industry, as
demographic, socioeconomic, and psychographic factors influence personal philanthropic
activities and decisions (McDearmon, 2010).
Higher education professionals now develop programs centered around these groups to
promote connectedness with the school and other alumni. According to Drezner (2018), creating
individualized outreach is a fundamental practice successful fundraisers use to engage alumni
and solicit gifts, as no two donors are alike, and neither are their motivations. Similar to many
student programs and clubs that have long been associated with increased student retention and
growth, these programs strengthen alumni's social identity (Miller, 2010). Some institutions have
24
established connections between similar affinity student and alumni groups. These efforts have
proven to be symbiotically successful in generating donations from alumni for support such as
internships and student scholarships (Johnson, 2019).
An example of generational segmentation is young alumni or recent graduate
engagement. Johnson (2019) noted these alumni may not have the giving capacity to make
donations as they are likely in the early stages of their careers but might be interested in service
and social volunteerism. Conversely, alumni with young families are unlikely to serve as board
members due to the crowded schedules of children’s activities. Still, they may be established
enough in their careers for charitable giving on an annual basis. Also, older alumni, both working
and retired, have the experience, talent, and network to effectively advocate for their institution,
an invaluable service (Johnson, 2019). Similar to collegiate student organizations, alumni
associations aim to unite like-minded individuals. Affinity groups, service events, mentorship
programs, and career networking support lifelong learning and success (Johnson, 2019).
In 2016, CASE established a committee to develop a framework to measure meaningful
alumni engagement. The committee identified four key alumni engagement categories:
volunteer, experiential, philanthropic, and communication. The resulting alumni engagement
metrics survey (Figures 1 and 2) found that independent and 4-year institutions led with the
greatest alumni engagement across all four categories attributed to long-held practices of alumni
engagement. Noting the highest alumni engagement in the three non-giving areas, volunteer,
experiential, and communication, private and independent 4-year institutions saw more
significant philanthropic giving of 49% and 61.6%. Addressing 2-year institutions, the
researchers found these campuses showed less than 10% engagement in the three non-giving
categories, thus corresponding with the lower-level philanthropic category at 29% and concluded
25
that alumni are likely to donate to the institution if they are engaged in one of the three nonphilanthropic categories (CASE, 2021b).
Figure 1
Percentage of Engagement Represented by Philanthropy by Institution Type
Note. Independent and 4-year institutions led with the highest alumni giving across all four
categories attributed to long-held practices of alumni engagement. From The Four Categories of
Alumni Engagement According to CASE and How Institutions Measure Up by Wavelength,
2021. (https://www.searchwavelength.com/2021/06/26/the-four-categories-of-alumniengagement-according-to-case-and-how-institutions-measure-up/) Copyright 2021 by Elodyn
Inc.
26
Figure 2
Median Percentage of Engaged Alumni Who Also Give by Institution Type
Note. Independent and 4-year institutions led with the highest alumni engagement across all four
categories attributed to long-held practices of alumni engagement. From The Four Categories of
Alumni Engagement According to CASE and How Institutions Measure Up, by Wavelength,
2021. https://www.searchwavelength.com/2021/06/26/the-four-categories-of-alumniengagement-according-to-case-and-how-institutions-measure-up/. Copyright 2021 by Elodyn
Inc.
To be effective, fundraisers should be malleable in recognizing the intricacies of
developing relationships and cultivating alumni involvement, as they can change over time
(Alicea & Johnson, 2021). Figure 3 depicts the five specific touchpoints that contribute to alumni
connectivity (Fleming, 2019): personal values, perceived institutional integrity, connectedness,
commitment, and a sense of fulfillment. With each concept further divided into subcategories,
27
Fleming (2019) noted the complicated nature of individualism that institutions face as they strive
to fulfill their goals strategically.
The first category of personal values encompasses the qualities, ethics, initiatives, and
purposes an alumnus/a believes their alma mater should possess. Values are shaped by the
individual’s core experiences with the university and their innate beliefs about higher education.
They provide the foundation for evaluating the institution’s merits and understanding one’s place
in it. Here, alumni ask themselves what is important for their alma mater to be and do (Fleming,
2019, p. 114). The category of personal values encompasses the qualities, ethics, initiatives, and
purposes an alumnus/a believes their alma mater should possess.
Commitment includes the personal contributions of personal resources alumni are willing
to make to the university and the robustness of their commitment. Investment in personal
resources and personal qualities comprise this category and range between highly committed and
completely uncommitted. Essentially, commitment involves understanding what actions alumni
are willing to put forth toward the university and their persistence in continuing these behaviors
if expectations are not fulfilled. As alumni understand the values enacted by their alma mater and
the opportunities the institution provides them to become involved, alumni choose how they
want to participate. Here, alumni ask themselves what they are willing to contribute to their alma
maters. Institutions influence the commitments alumni are willing to make by providing a variety
of avenues for participation that are either aligned or misaligned with how alumni would like to
contribute to the community. (Fleming, 2010, p.120).
Lastly, a sense of fulfillment involves the depth and meaning alumni derive from their
interactions with the university. This category comprises the concepts of personal worth and
institutional agency on a continuum of high fulfillment to unfulfilling or off-putting. As alumni
28
interact with their alma mater, they evaluate how fulfilling and valuable these experiences are. If
these experiences are particularly meaningful and important to them or significantly impact their
alma mater, they can become core experiences that inform personal values. Here, alumni
evaluate what benefits their contributions accrue to themselves and their alma mater. Institutions
influence how fulfilled alumni feel by showing alumni how their interactions are impactful and
valued (Fleming, 2010). By creating enduring value, the mutually beneficial relationship
between institution and individual will become more commonplace among two-year institutions,
and consumers' (alumni) expectations will grow (Owens, 2016).
29
Figure 3
Concept Map of the Categories of Alumni Engagement
Note. Process of alumni engagement and the questions they raise as alumni evaluate their
relationship with their alma mater. Fleming, K. (2019). From “The ‘Pots of Water’ Emerging
Framework for Alumni Engagement: Examining How Alumni Make Sense of Their
Relationships with their Alma Maters” by K. Fleming, 2019, Philanthropy & Education, 3(1),
103–129. https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.3.1.05). Copyright 2019 by Indiana University Press.
The College Experience
Experiences such as student leadership, receiving financial support such as scholarships
and grants, and the mentorship of a faculty, staff member, or alum are just a few ways students
build lifelong affinity (Bombardieri, 2007). Strayhorn (2018) described student engagement as
“the time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities and the extent to
30
which the institution gets students to participate in these activities that contribute to student
success” (pp. 151–152). The author noted that students who seek opportunities to commit to
collegiate activities are motivated by a need to fulfill a sense of belonging (Strayhorn, 2018).
Strayhorn described this as an innate drive for connection to be a part of something larger and
compares the intensity to basic human needs such as air, water, food, sleep, and shelter.
Sense of Belonging
There is a growing body of research on a sense of belonging among education
professionals. Gillen-O’Neel (2021) defined a sense of belonging as “the extent to which
students feel connected to their academic institutions and the people within those institutions, is
associated with many positive academic outcomes” (p. 46). Drezner and Pizmony-Levy (2021)
added that students with a strong sense of belonging have greater motivation and confidence in
and outside of the classroom, leading to higher achievement. Much of the research on alumni
connectivity centers on alumni’s ability to donate and their expectations as donors (McNamee &
Drezner, 2022). However, researchers agree that the introduction to the institution is a critical
time for alumni affinity development, alongside a sense of belonging during the formative
student years (McNamee & Drezner, 2022). According to Graham and Gisi (2000), a wellrounded college experience consists of academic achievement and degree completion, as well as
emotional, behavioral, and cognitive growth. Graham and Gisi emphasized that the student
experience with a sense of belonging is as significant as age, income, and overall giving habits
regarding alumni giving. Skari (2014) corroborated these findings; however, 4-year institutions’
student engagement formula is not as easily adapted to 2-year schools due to community college
students’ age and cultural diversity. Nonetheless, they are an equally captive audience eager to
build lifelong relationships (Skari, 2014).
31
Peer-to-Peer Interactions
Experts have identified two key areas to support future alumni affinity outside of
extracurricular programs and activities. They are student-to-student interactions and faculty,
staff, and alumni-to-student interactions. The student-to-student interactions are generally
organic and take place in informal settings. According to Graham and Gisi (2000), full-time
students typically spend 15 hours per week in a classroom setting. The remainder of their time,
153 hours, is generally spent with their peers. The authors noted that peer influence is so
powerful that it helps shape students’ values at the time and well into their future selves.
Terenzini et al. (1999) found that interactions with peers whose values match those of the
institution led students to a greater connection to the college. Moreover, individual college
experiences are often enhanced by the cumulative effect of multiple experiences, eventually
becoming mutually reinforcing (Terenzini et al., 1999).
Student to Faculty, Staff, and Alumni Interactions
In addition to peer-to-peer interactions, faculty, staff, and alumni-to-student interactions
influence students’ development (Astin, 1993). The evidence suggests that these interactions are
positively related to intellectual and personal growth, possibly more so than peer-to-peer
interactions (Terenzini et al., 1996). Ramirez (2012) discussed mentorship as a “significant
investment in his/her students’ personal development, which extends well beyond a concern for
the adequate attainment of degree requirements or the completion of a research thesis” (p. A56).
According to Ramirez (2012), mentorship can begin with a formal relationship like that of a
professor and student. However, true mentorship’s trademark intertwines with professional and
personal characteristics. Ramirez noted that these relationships are so significant that they
32
frequently develop into lifelong friendships. Expanded networks and mentorship could transform
the student experience.
Conversely, rotating the model and creating programs for students by engaging alumni
add to the student experience. However, the personification of engaged and philanthropic alumni
is the most significant ramification. The model of what an alumnus is and does is central to a
student’s decision to engage their alma mater once graduated (Weerts & Hudson, 2009).
However, researchers Graham and Gisi (2000) cautioned that while most students seek a
common goal of educational advancement and connectivity, community college students are
often non-traditional students and may not be receptive in the same manner or to the same degree
as their 4-year counterparts.
Graham and Gisi (2000) noted that similar apathy occurs at 4-year schools, as older
students make up more of the undergraduate and graduate student populations than in years past.
This particularly applies to extracurricular activities such as clubs, athletics, service and
volunteer programs, mentorship, and networking. This is not to say that non-traditional students
are less invested in the full collegiate experience. Instead, these programs are typically designed
and marketed to the traditional undergraduate student with the resources to participate in such
activities as spare recreational time and financial capacity. The non-traditional student requires
specific engagement attuned to the barriers they face and their goals for the future (Casstevens et
al., 2012). This research does suggest administrators explore engagement avenues that link
academic and social activities. On-campus coffee shops and other open meeting spaces for adults
to connect informally can foster relationships with the campus community in an educational
environment. Whatever the case, college officials need to look closely at ways to foster
33
engagement in the college experience for adults who do not present additional barriers or conflict
with their other life roles.
The Grateful Student
Fundraising professionals generally agree that gratitude may help colleges sustain
relationships with students after graduation. Hence, the potential impacts on giving center the
cultivation process around gratitude and the drive to pay it forward. Defined as an emotional
response to act toward a perceived benefactor, researchers point to two aspects of the student
experience that leave lasting impressions of gratitude (Bombardieri, 2007). The areas result from
perceived care from faculty and staff and as recipients of financial support either through
scholarships or loans (Cownie & Gallo, 2021). Their research finds that grateful alumni predicate
their engagement activities and willingness to give back based on their student experiences. In a
study of recently graduated students, Cownie and Gallo (2021) found that alumni experienced
care in several ways: care for the unit, care for students as individuals, and care that students
succeed. Notably, students report that academics’ sense of care for the student body and
individual students appears to be easily recognized by students as a powerful aspect of the
learning experience (Cownie & Gallo, 2021). The authors’ recommendations discuss the
implications of alumni’s expressed indebtedness to faculty and their institution and the
philanthropic giving that might emerge. They advise that additional research is warranted.
Financial aid in the form of scholarships, loans, and grants are essential equalizers in
closing equity opportunities in higher education. Without these forms of financial support, many
students’ dreams of higher education would not be realized. Hence, for donors who were
previously aid recipients, “the principle is payback” (Bombardieri, 2007, p. 2). The belief that
alumni will look to pay it forward in gratitude is a widely held belief among fundraising
34
professionals (Bombardieri, 2007). However, recent research reveals that scholarship recipients
give less than their classmates who did not receive aid. Ferguson (2022) found no significant
correlation between receiving a scholarship and future monetary giving or volunteerism to the
awarding institution. Ferguson explained, “Scholarship recipients and non-recipients are not
significantly different in their intention to make future contributions of volunteer time,
professional talent (i.e., career mentoring), and financial treasure (i.e., monetary donations) to
their alma mater” (p. 81). The results of Ferguson’s study also extend to loan and grant
recipients, noting the incorrectly yet widely held beliefs regarding an alum’s financial burden in
funding education.
Some theories as to why student loans may reduce the probability of giving are that
students who take out loans may come from lower-income families and, due to circumstances
such as generational wealth and limited network, earn less later in life and have less disposable
income to give (Ferguson, 2022). Another theory for the negative effect of financial aid on
alumni giving is that loan recipients may have less disposable time and funds for frequently
expensive extracurricular student involvements, leading to feelings of exclusion from the campus
culture, thereby reducing affinity (Cownie & Gallo, 2021). Marr et al. (2005) expanded on this
implication for future alumni giving by noting the degree to which loan variables, amount, and
type can affect institutions for years. Their research suggests that, overall, loans decrease giving,
whereas grants increase the likelihood of giving. However, they concede that data outliers of
repayment terms of loans and alumni age factor heavily in alumni giving. While the data can be
discouraging, Marr et al. cautioned against short-sided institutional responses. Revisiting the
principles of alumni engagement, the authors point to the role of alumni engagement in annual
giving that eventually leads to major gifts. While not every aid recipient goes on to give, with
35
strategic cultivation, the institution can reap the benefits of fewer yet larger gifts that might
compensate for alumni who do not give.
How Alumni Support Their California Community Colleges
According to Heaton (2014), “Former students offer some of the greatest opportunities
for growth in community college advancement” (p. 36). It is evident that the more private
support a school receives, the more resources and programs it can offer its students. With these
benefits, students have a greater chance of focusing on their educational paths with quality
instruction and preparation for the future (Kreisel & Patterson, 2013). Alumni giving is generally
categorized in three ways: time, talent, and treasure.
Community Connectivity (Time)
Brown (2014) found that alumni are not simply interested in making monetary donations,
stating, “The current study reveals interest among alumni donors to contribute more than
financial gifts to the college; they would like to donate time to the institution when possible
(Brown, 2014, p. 76). To fulfill their motivations for engagement, alumni turn to volunteering as
well. Alumni volunteer roles range from requiring little commitment and time to demanding
high-profile decision-making roles. Membership in a board of governors or trustees is a publicfacing role that typically requires winning a public community election, approval by a vote of
peers, a financial commitment, or a mix of the three (Bowles, 2021).
Alumni with robust professional and personal networks can serve as valuable resources to
a community college. Alumni who share access to government officials, corporations,
foundations, and others serve in budget-relieving capacities or open doors to substantial
significant gifts. The ability to create pathways to taxpayer support for bond measures, access to
legislators regarding curriculum, and corporate decision-makers responsible for substantial
36
charitable giving cannot be understated (Weerts & Ronca, 2007). Another valuable product of
community connectivity is workforce development. The CCCs have long worked to establish
both private and public partnerships. Over the last decade, successful CCCs cultivated
relationships with local businesses. Agreements with golf courses, restaurants, car dealerships,
and the like broadened the scope of revenue generation. Career technical education has
significantly benefitted from these partnerships. Students seeking vocational and trade education
can learn from industry leaders, often securing jobs before graduation. The community also
benefits from every tax dollar spent educating CCC students, as taxpayers receive an average of
$2.10 in return throughout the students’ working lives (CCCCO, 2022).
Current Student Engagement (Talent)
Traditionally, the role of current students in alumni relations was relegated to support
roles in cultivating alumni. However, Weerts and Ronca (2007) found that donors are likelier to
give when programs and events feature an intrinsic value. The opportunity to meet a student and
see first-hand what and where their contribution might serve, whether time, talent, or treasure, is
a powerful motivator. Mentorship with current students or other alumni and hosting social
activities such as networking events offer networking opportunities for alumni. Attending official
athletic events and fundraising as a booster club are also popular ways for alumni to stay close to
their alma mater while building connections with faculty, staff, students, and fellow alumni
(Weerts & Cabrera, 2017). Student engagement also affords alumni feelings of nostalgia, another
motivator for engagement.
In his research, Ramirez (2012) asserted that mentorship is the ideal method of engaging
alumni. The opportunity to reconnect with campus by supporting students portrays the campus in
a positive light while simultaneously drawing feelings of pride and importance when connecting
37
with high-achieving students. By calling on “alumni to share their professional experience with
students, alumni reinforce what was learned in the classroom while staying close to where they
earned their degree. Volunteering is central to engagement as it can lead to philanthropic
support” (Vieregger & Bryant, 2020, p. 340).
Philanthropy (Treasure)
The emphasis on engagement should not detract from charitable giving, which has long
been the most common form of alumni support after establishing engagement. Colleges rely on
monetary and budget-relieving in-kind donations to support scholarships, student programs and
activities, capital campaigns, and more. These gifts are solicited throughout the year, outlined in
the fundraising office’s strategic plan (Drezner, 2017). Within the strategic fundraising plan,
fundraisers identify the target group of each solicitation, target amounts, and the appropriate
messaging to occupancy the asks. For example, each year at commencement, fundraisers will ask
graduating students to make a small first gift to their alumni association in honor of their
commencement. This act, primarily symbolic due to the small dollar amounts, establishes an
affinity as an alum who supports their institution; thus, a relationship is created, and cultivation
has begun (Freeland et al., 2015).
Organizations seeking to align with a school, specific program, or event may position
themselves as conscientious supporters of the school’s initiatives. Contributions in cash, stock,
and goods benefit the institution and its students while affording the donor tax benefits. Legacy,
or planned giving, in which alumni bequeath portions of their estate upon their passing, is also
commonplace and allows an alumnus to enjoy the benefits of being a donor before donating.
Lastly, corporate sponsorship is a significant portion of college and university fundraising. These
38
highly lucrative partnerships generally count toward marketing and philanthropic expenses and
bear high visibility and goodwill (Jones, 2008).
According to CASE (2021b), comparable to charitable giving overall, donations to higher
education totaled $52.9 billion in the fiscal year 2021, up from $49.5 billion in 2020. Bill
Stanczykiewicz, director of the Fundraising School at the Lilly school, explained the increase:
It’s not surprising that charitable giving has remained robust, despite the pandemic,
despite huge social concerns around racial equity, racial reconciliation, despite the
uncertainty of the economy with two negative quarters, GDP, increasing inflation and so
forth. But when you look at the data—and every economic challenge is different—but on
average, charitable giving goes down only about one-half of 1 percent, after adjusting for
inflation, during a time of recession. (as cited in Moody, 2022, para 9)
Moody (2022) cautioned, however, that while donations are on the rise, monetary gifts
are not enough to counter the drop in student attendance and the instability of the stock market’s
effects on endowments. Moody recommended sustaining fundraising by cultivating a donorgiving pipeline and building longstanding relationships with alumni (Drezner, 2017; Moody,
2022). Tied to building a pipeline of donors, fundraisers should seek new and creative ways to
engage with alumni. By creating authentic relationships and engaging them about important
issues, CCCs can increase both the amount and rates at which donations are made (Moody,
2022).
Achieve Equity Opportunities
Historically serving the most diverse and historically marginalized populations, over 69%
of CCC students in 2023 are people of various ethnic backgrounds (CCCCO, n.d.). Unlike 4-year
colleges, whose student populations generally require fewer support services, CCCs must meet
39
the greater demand for costly non-revenue generating departments such as student support and
career counseling.
Community colleges have implemented various student support services to help fulfill
equity opportunities among many student populations. These services take on many forms and
address a variety of student needs. According to Purnell and Blank (2004), the categories of
student services are academic guidance and counseling, such as course planning; academic
support, such as tutoring; personal guidance and counseling, such as mental health services;
career counseling, such as resume review and job placement; and supplemental services, such as
food pantry or basic needs support. Horn et al., (2002) noted that these areas generally operate
within stringent budgets and often lack the resources to meet the ever-changing needs of
students. Mitchell et al. (2018) concurred that students from historically unrepresented
backgrounds are most affected by rising tuition and program loss.
Stewart (2021) found that students who attend 2-year schools historically come from
lower-income socioeconomic backgrounds, noting that 40% come from families that earn less
than $50,000 per year. The Institute of Education Services (IES) of the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) detailed that 39.9% of community college students are categorized
as very low-income or below 50% of the federal poverty level, as opposed to 23.4% at public 4-
year institutions (X. Chen & Nunnery, 2019). Community colleges register 42.8% of
disadvantaged students at the low-income level and more than half of 4-year school students at
21.2% (X. Chen & Nunnery, 2019). Further, community college students are more likely to have
jobs, attend school part-time, and have familial obligations and other responsibilities. Brown and
Nichols (2013) stated that approximately 38% of the 17.6 million current college or university
students are non-traditional, roughly 6.69 million students. The authors added that 53% or 3.55
40
million of these non-traditional students care for two or more dependents, while 29% or 1.94
million are single parents. The authors conclude that 60% of these students will leave higher
education due to a lack of resources.
Historically facing obstacles to advanced education, low-income students and students
from non-traditional backgrounds are at the highest risk of noncompletion (Mitchell et al., 2019).
The outlook comes when diversity at 2-year colleges is at an all-time high. In 1980, students of
color (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American Indian students) made up
roughly 17% of students at public colleges. Thirty years later, in 2010, the percentage of students
of color more than doubled to 36%. Nearly a decade later, in 2019, students of color made up
more than 40% of American public college students. The long-term decline in funding has
threatened the positive outlook of these hard-fought wins toward equality (Mitchell et al., 2019).
Further, equity in education to support fairness and inclusion includes students seeing
educators who look like and culturally identify with themselves. This ideology extends to alumni
engagement as well. The lack of a community college alumni association that prioritizes
relationships with diverse alumni is especially detrimental to first-generation and low-income
education seekers, first as students and then as alumni (Marcus, 2013). Mentorship programs and
networking events provide students and alumni with relatable experiences and contribute to
lifelong success. Developing relationships with others who fulfilled their educational goals,
acquired success in their careers, and participated in a culture of higher education philanthropy
further builds the first steps in the donor pipeline (Marcus, 2013). While student alumni
engagement is also a powerful tool for bridging inequities by fostering alumni-to-alumni
connections through professional and social activities, the lack of campus resources impedes
such efforts.
41
The dilemma of disengaged alumni at CCCs presents an opportunity, as showcased by a
2018 Yale University project in which a diverse, 50-member alumni task force sought to address
DEI initiatives in Yale Alumni Association programming. Empowering alumni to connect and
bridge disengaged first-generation alumni fostered greater participation and retention among
alumni taskforce members and newly engaged alumni. The institutions’ alumni association noted
several specific best practices. These include alumni programming that speaks to alumni: “In
general, the AYA has difficulty getting people involved when they are younger,” said Negash,
pointing out that alumni programming must speak to them and their experiences. This means
representative panels, opportunities for young and older alumni of color to connect, and active
recruitment of speakers and leaders from diverse backgrounds. These strategies directly align
with this study’s two prevalent conceptual frameworks: social identity theory and theory of
philanthropic mirroring.
Conceptual Framework
Two conceptual frameworks guided this study. The social identity theory (Stephenson &
Bell, 2014a) and the philanthropic mirroring theory (Drezner, 2018) support the research. These
two theories showcase alumni engagement programs’ impact on alumni giving.
Social Identity
Tajfel’s social identity theory is the belief group membership forms the basis for a
person’s sense of who they are (as cited in Hogg et al., 1995). Tajfel proposed that the groups
(e.g., social class, family, sports fans, etc.) to which people belong are an essential source of
pride and self-esteem. Further, “groups give people a sense of social identity: a sense of
belonging to the social world” (Hogg et al., 1995, pp. 255–269). In addition, Monks (2004)
found that alumni who were very satisfied with their experience donated three times more than
42
those who were ambivalent, generally dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with their experience
(Monks, 2004, pp. 121–130). School administrators, therefore, are charged to identify innovative
engagement programs to meet the needs of increasingly diverse students. Accordingly, the
institution will concurrently build a healthy donor pipeline that begins with students’ first
interactions with their alma mater. Creating these varied student opportunities is in the
institution’s best interests. Designing multiple entry points for these programs is equally vital to
their success. Rau and Erwin (2015) further explored the themes of connectivity and belonging
as they examined 987 high school seniors’ campus involvement. Their recommendations include
the following:
The results also support the importance of involving students in on-campus relationships
and exposing undergraduates to various educational experiences. Students’ time as
undergraduates is critical in their formation of later philanthropic behavior back to the
institution. Although alumni activities can help foster a sense of giving, the
undergraduate experience is the basis for giving later in life. Focusing efforts on the
student experience could help develop the donor foundation’s future (Rau & Erwin, 2015,
p. 109).
These findings confirm that a breadth of engagement points could significantly increase student
success and embed philanthropic behavior and connectivity with the student. Experiences such
as academic majors, clubs, sports, and other factors relating to college engagement can shape
students’ social identity. In the case of alumni affinity, the social identity of alumni can be based
on on-campus student experiences in addition to career industry, generation, and other interests
(Stephenson & Bell, 2014a).
43
Figure 4
Illustration of Social Identity Theory
Note. From Social Psychological Perspectives of Workforce Diversity and Inclusion in National
and Global Contexts by M Mor Barak, 2008. In R. J. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of human
services management (2nd ed., pp. 239–254). SAGE. Copyright 2008 by SAGE.
Philanthropic Mirroring
A philanthropic mirroring framework (Drezner, 2018) outlines how people categorize
themselves and relate to others and then uses those two factors to determine their inclination to
support higher education. Drezner (2018) explained that mirroring a prospective donor’s social
identities diminishes the social distance, so the prospective donor will perceive greater
importance to associated solicitations. Thus, scaffolding the framework with social identity
theory could play a central role in the moves-management of the donor pipeline – that is, from
engaged student to volunteer alum to philanthropic donor (Drezner, 2018). Philanthropic
mirroring theory also expands on social identity theory in a literal sense by recognizing that
44
alumni can see a reflection of themselves in the student they support and are therefore more
likely to give, to give more, and to give more often (Drezner, 2017). An example is a former
scholarship recipient who now donates to scholarships as they identify with scholarship
recipients, possibly by inaccurately projecting their own experiences onto the student.
Drezner (2017) claimed that identity can impact philanthropy. For example, identity
creates a sense of collective, interdependence drives prosocial behaviors, and people are more
sympathetic toward those closest to them. While little data supports the correlation between
social identity theory and philanthropic mirroring theory, alumni relations and fundraising
professionals have relied on this connectivity model for years.
45
Figure 5
Illustration of Philanthropic Mirroring Theory
Note. A philanthropic mirroring framework by Drezner outlines how people categorize
themselves and how they relate to others and then uses those two factors to determine their
inclination to support higher education. From Studying Philanthropy and Fundraising in the
Field of Higher Education: A Proposed Conceptual Model by R. Chan, 2016, IGI Global
(https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9664-8.ch001). Copyright 2016 by IGI Global.
Conclusion
In their short history, CCCs have changed the face of higher education in America.
Affordable postsecondary education enabled millions to achieve social mobility and close the
46
generational wealth juncture. The flexibility and geographically available institutions also
contributed to a more diverse workforce. The benefits of these opportunities reach all members
of society (The Foundation for CCCs, 2021). For every dollar California invests in its
community colleges, the state realizes a $4.50 net return on investment. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021), workers with associate degrees earn an average annual wage
of almost $53,000, compared to an average yearly salary of $36,100 for high school-level
occupations.
Additionally, the future of CCC graduates appears assured. The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics projects that the rate of CCC graduates will increase by 11% in the 10 years ending in
2026, faster than the 7% average projected for all occupations (The Foundation for CCCs, 2021).
However, as CCCs’ incomes tighten and expenses grow, many institutions now find themselves
in a cycle of shortfalls (Yuen, 2013). Two-year colleges’ long history of educating students
without educating them about the actual costs of attendance has delegated community colleges as
newly arrived fundraisers without a legacy of experienced staff, experienced volunteers,
experienced alumni, or professional donors (Sharon, 1982). To maximize efforts, the modern
CCC leadership must pivot its practices to work collaboratively with the foundation and alumni
association, beginning with a shift solely from dollars raised to alumni engaged.
Historically, alumni contributions meant charitable giving. Weerts and Ronca (2008)
noted that in higher education’s increasingly competitive fundraising marketplace, schools must
creatively explore additional engagement methods as alumni expectations grow and colleges’
budgets tighten. By creating alumni engagement programs for current students, fundraisers will
build a foundation of affinity before students leave campus. Rather than only asking for support,
alumni associations should provide value. These can include social activities, career-based
47
networking, and ongoing personal development. This type of give-and-take is relationship-based
rather than transactional. To ensure success, this requires collaboration across the campus of
college leadership, staff and faculty, and the Foundation (Pratt, 2015). “Community colleges
have enormous untapped potential coupled with a deep commitment to an important mission, and
this combination is powerful. If tapped wisely, this synergy could potentially emerge as a pattern
of giving that is highly successful from that of other forms of higher education” (Sunderman,
2007, p. 4).
48
Chapter Three: Methodology
Though the body of research is growing, published studies around community college
alumni relations and fundraising are limited. This chapter outlines the research design and
methodology I used to assess best practices for alumni engagement at CCCs to uncover the
relationships between the student experience, alumni giving, and alumni affinity programming at
LBCC. The study sought to evaluate the relationship between the student experience and alumni
giving; and how alumni association programming can influence alumni giving at California
Community Colleges. One research question guided this study.
Research Question
This research sought to answer the following research question: What is the relationship,
if any, between current student engagement and alumni engagement?
Overview of Design
The study employed a quantitative research design to explore how CCCs can help instill
affinity in their alumni and utilize affinity programming to influence alumni engagement. I
utilized an exploratory non-probability sampling technique to identify study participants who are
LBCC alumni. The data collection process included designing the study using a nonexperimental
descriptive approach, as “variables will be measured as they occur naturally, without interference
of any kind by the researcher” (Mertler, 2021, pp. 108–111). Data came from an electronic crosssectional survey, as the data were a snapshot in time (Mertler, 2021). The research sought to
examine at least 100 alumni subjects through a data collection process of an approximately 20-
question electronic survey. Upon completion of data collection, I analyzed the data. By creating
codes and categorizing, I identified themes among responses. Data collection included
participants sharing their student experiences and involvements aimed to create a picture of the
49
alumni’s social identity in relation to their experience as a student. In addition to affinity
questions, the survey asked participants to share their LBCC engagement and donation history,
along with their personal motivations for participating in LBCC alumni activities or donating
money to LBCC (Drezner, 2018).
Research Setting
Long Beach City College (LBCC) was chosen as the site for this study as it offers a large
pool of contactable alumni and is a peer institution to many other CCCs in terms of campus
population demographics and size. According to LBCC (Data USA, n.d.), the school was
established in the 1920s and is a large, public, 2-year institution in the CCC system. The median
annual tuition at LBCC is approximately $1,000, roughly $6,500 less than the national average
for associate degree-granting colleges (Data USA, n.d.). In 2021, 69% of undergraduate students
at Long Beach City College received financial aid through grants or loans.
In comparison to some CCCs in Northern and Central California, LBCC’s student
population is categorically highly diverse. The extent of diversity is even greater at the national
level. Located in an urban area of Southern California, the student and alumni populations are
equally diverse to peer institutions in the same region. In 2021, LBCC had a total enrollment of
21,500 students, with ethnic diversity of 58.5% Hispanic or Latino, 15.2% White, 11.1% Black
or African American, 9.09% Asian, 5% Two or More Races, 0.591% Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islanders, and 0.13% American Indian or Alaska Native (Data USA, n.d.). Long Beach
City College is an HSI and is eligible for federal grants supporting the school's efforts to serve
Hispanic Americans. The college is also an Asian American and Native American Pacific
Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI) and is recognized for serving Asian Americans and
Native American Pacific Islanders. The gender ratio is 57% women to 43% men. Compared to
50
the national average of 56% female students, LBCC has a gender diversity ratio comparable to
other U.S. colleges and is inclusive of both genders (CollegeSimply, n.d.). In the same year, the
college awarded 5,116 degrees across all programs. Most, 61.8%, of these degrees were awarded
to women, and 38.2% to men. The most common race/ethnicity group of degree recipients was
Hispanic or Latino (2,873 degrees), 3.75 times more than the next closest race/ethnicity group,
White (766 degrees; Data USA, n.d.). In terms of development, a dedicated but legally separate
nonprofit supports LBCC: the LBCC Foundation and Alumni Association.
The Researcher
My commitment to academic excellence remained at the forefront throughout the study.
Thus, I begin by acknowledging my positionality from my experiences as a fundraising and
alumni engagement professional (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Before my current role as senior
director of donor development at March of Dimes, I was director of advancement and campaigns
at the LBCC Foundation, I worked at the University of Southern California Alumni Association
(USCAA) for 5 years in several roles. Most recently, I was the associate director of generational
programs. Before my time at USCAA, I was director of marketing and events at the Boys and
Girls Clubs of Long Beach, account executive with Learfield Sports, where I worked in
corporate giving and sponsorship, and Long Beach State Athletics as assistant director of
marketing.
My personal experiences include serving as a donor and board member to several nonprofit organizations, including the Long Beach Century Club, Junior League of Long Beach,
Assistance League of Long Beach, Rotary Club of Long Beach, and others. I am also an alumna
of LBCC, the site of this study. As a former student at LBCC, I served as a student leader in the
associated student government and president and vice-president of several honor societies and
51
cultural/social organizations. As a young parent and returning adult student, I received financial
aid through loans, grants, and scholarships. I also received no-cost, high-quality childcare for my
young child at the LBCC Child Development Center. At graduation, I was a president's
ambassador and a recipient of the highest honor given to a single woman each year, the Viking
Award. Since 2020, I have consistently donated to LBCC, making small monthly contributions
(<$20).
While my higher education experience working with students, donors, and alumni alters
the lens through which I view higher education fundraising, I have taken measures to ensure my
reflexivity in this study (Darwin Holmes, 2020). Although a qualitative study could be applied as
the research seeks to understand human behaviors, I chose a quantitative methodology, as
[the linear steps in the quantitative research process] constitute the preestablished
routines and strategies that help enhance researcher objectivity. This focus on objectivity
is what enables the quantitative researcher to generalize findings of a research study
beyond the particular situation (e.g., setting, school, participants) involved in that study.
(Mertler, 2021, p. 108)
To further avoid ethical dilemmas, I committed to the neutral and unbiased collection of
data, analysis procedures, and dissemination of findings (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). To reduce
the chance of unintentional massaging of the data, this work was peer-reviewed by five fellow
Rossier School of Education doctoral students or alumni (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, this
work secured approval from the LBCC Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to commencing
the study and was reviewed by a three-member dissertation committee of faculty at the USC
Rossier School of Education.
52
Data Source: Electronic Survey
I collected data via a nonexperimental descriptive approach, as “variables will be
measured as they occur naturally, without interference of any kind by the researcher” (Mertler,
2021, pp. 108–111). Utilizing a quantitative approach by collecting data through an electronic
survey, I sought to explore, examine, and present relationships and trends within the results.
Long Beach City College alumni served as the participants and were secured utilizing nonprobability, convenience, and snowball sampling.
Participants
Long Beach City College alumni made up the participant pool. The pool is ideal as the
number and diversity of contactable alumni from LBCC are comparable to many CCCs as a peer
institution. To obtain participants, I utilized a non-probability convenience sampling technique.
Calculated with a 2000-person population, 95% confidence level, and a margin of error of 10%,
my minimum sample size was 92 (Qualtrics, 2020). I sought to examine at least 100 alumni
subjects aged 18 and older, regardless of degree, certificate, transfer status, or program, who met
the study’s parameters. First, the individual must have attended LBCC, and second, the
individual must have completed at least 12 units at LBCC. Individuals who did meet the 12-unit
requirement were not considered alumni and thus excluded from participating. In total, I
collected 2,346 responses. I removed respondents who did not meet the criteria or who did not
complete 100% of the survey, resulting in a 2,003 final study sample.
Instrumentation
The data came from an approximately 20-question electronic survey requiring 12–15
minutes to complete. I developed the survey questions as the investigator. The aim was not to
test a hypothesis about a broad population but rather to develop an understanding of a small
53
subset of the LBCC alumni population. As a cross-sectional study, I attempted to achieve a
representative sample in terms of age, degree, cultural background, and student and alumni
involvement, among others, by utilizing a non-probability convenience sampling and multiple
outreach channels (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Utilizing all six of Patton's (2015) recommended
questions, I focused primarily on knowledge and opinion and values questions in the form of
true/false, closed- and open-ended, Likert scale, and demographic questions.
The survey began with an introduction and review of subject rights. Data collection
included participants’ student experiences and involvements since graduation. These questions
aimed to create a picture of the alums' social identity. By identifying the programs and
involvements that the alum participated in as a student and later in life, their interests began to
unfold (Hogg et al., 1995). Fundraising professionals use this data type by continually updating
constituent profiles in their CRM, thereby honing the system with more accurate identifiers for
each alum as they cultivate relationships. A fine-tuned CRM system better prepares staff to
engage in conversation and relationship-building with alumni (Sun et al., 2007). However, as this
study is anonymous, constituent updates are not possible. Results can only be used to draw
general themes.
In addition to affinity questions, survey participants were asked to share their engagement
and donation history to LBCC, along with their personal motivations for participating in LBCC
alumni activities or donating to LBCC (Drezner, 2018). The final questions allowed the
respondents to reflect on the information they shared and how the study experience could be
improved (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) and enter a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card. To do so,
respondents clicked a link to redirect them to a new survey form in which they could enter their
email addresses. This measure was made to protect respondent anonymity. This information will
54
support LBCC fundraisers and, more broadly, CCCs in curating the types of programming
alumni might be interested in participating in or sharing information alumni might be interested
in knowing.
Data Collection Procedures
To secure subjects, I employed the following distribution channels.
Email
Each constituent in the LBCC Foundation (LBCCF) customer relationship management
(CRM) system, Raiser’s Edge, is coded with identifying tags. Examples are the board of
governors, Hall of Fame Award recipient, and golf tournament 2020 attendees. There are
currently 2,000 alumni in the database. These individuals received an email solicitation
(Appendix A), an information sheet for exempt research form approved by LBCC (Appendix B),
and the survey link (Appendix C)
Social Media
The LBCCF manages several social media profiles. Regular activity by the LBCCF
ensures daily traffic: comments, likes, followers, and other metrics. Their data points are as
follows: Facebook: 810, Instagram: 606, LinkedIn: 384 followers. The foundation's executive
director authorized posts inviting alumni to participate. The information sheet for exempt
research form was linked in the survey's introduction, as these participants may not have
received the email.
Snowball Sampling
I employed snowball sampling by encouraging participants to share the survey link with
fellow alums (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
55
LBCCF Monthly Newsletter
Non-probability convenience sampling was ideal due to my access and an expeditious
method of securing subjects (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). However, should subjects prove
challenging to acquire, the LBCCF Executive Director authorized an announcement in an
LBCCF monthly newsletter inviting alumni to participate. The notice was to share the same
survey link with the information sheet for exempt research form used on social media. However,
this step was unnecessary as responses from the first three methods successfully acquired
participants.
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) noted that conclusions from non-probability samplings are
weaker than those from probability samples. As I employed convenience sampling, the
possibility of under-or over-representation of the population remains.
Data Analysis
The study examined two categories of student engagement (student leadership and
student recipient) and two categories of alumni engagement (volunteerism and monetary giving).
These four themes were further divided into variables identifying the nature of each involvement.
Examples and instrument abbreviations are shown below in Tables 1–3.
56
Table 1
Student Engagement Category Themes and Variables
Theme Variable Description/Examples Abbreviation
Student
leadership
programs
(StuClubs)
Student government Associated student body,
student trustee, etc.
StuClubsGov
Service club Fraternities and
Sororities, Rotary
Club, and other
volunteer groups, etc.
StuClubsServ
Honor society National and State honor
societies, etc.
StuClubsHono
Student athlete Football, softball,
swimming, cheer,
dance, etc.
StuClubsSA
President’s ambassador Student representative for
Superintendent
President, campus
tours, etc.
StuClubsPA
Other StuClubsOTHER
Student
recipient
programs
(StuServ)
Student worker Employed by institution
typically in clerical or
support role, etc.
StuServStWkr
Career center, tutoring Utilized Career Center
Services, tutoring,
study skill workshops,
research, etc.
StuServCareer
Aid programs Food Pantry, Cal-Fresh,
Childcare, etc.
StuServDSPSAID
Attended
extracurricular events
Career fairs, athletic
events, social, etc.
StuServExtraC
Scholarship/grant
recipient
Scholarships, grants,
awards etc. Does not
include loans that need
to be paid back, etc.
StuServScholarship
Other StuServOTHER
Mentor Faculty/instructor Mentor_Faculty
Staff member Mentor_Staff
Fellow student Mentor_Stu
Other MentorOTHER
None Mentor_NONE
57
Table 2
Alumni Engagement Category Themes and Variables
Theme Variable Examples Abbreviation
Alumni affinity
(EageWhy)
Career services Job placement, resume
review, interview prep.,
etc.
AffinityInt_CarServ
Cultural
programs and
activities
Fairs, lectures, workshops,
performances, etc.
AffinityInt_Cultural
Industry
networking
Mixers and informational
interviews by professional
industry, etc.
AffinityInt_Indu
Professional
development
Public speaking seminars,
certificate accreditation.,
etc.
AffinityInt_PD
Social activities Reunions, tailgates, holiday
parties, etc.
AffinityInt_Social
Service
activities
Volunteer opportunities,
board leadership,
mentorship, etc.
AffinityInt_Srv
Volunteer
activities
Class guest lecturer, assist at
commencement/ticket
taker at football games, etc.
AffinityInt_Vol
Alumni
motivations
(MOTIVGIV)
Alumni
experience
Positive or negatives
interaction with the
institution post-graduation
MotvToDon_AlumExp
Beliefs in
education
Personal beliefs regarding
education in terms of
community/society.
MotvToDon_BeliefinEd
Support
students
Career fairs, athletic events,
social, etc.
MotvToDon_HelpOthers
Approval of
institution
Approval of institutional
fund allocations (new
football field), educational
programs/practices,
housing for students
experiencing
homelessness, etc.
MotvToDon_SUPLBCC
Student
Experience
Perceptions of value and
experience received as a
student
MotvToDon_StuExp
58
Table 3
Alumni Engagement Outcomes
Theme Variable Examples Abbreviation
Alumni
volunteer
(AluVOL)
Alumni Volunteer Attend events (lectures,
sporting events,
performances,
exhibitions, etc.)
AlumProEvents
Board of governors Board member AlumProBOG
Guest speaker Guest speaker at events
or classroom
AlumProGS
Scholarship Scholarship
application/resume
reviewer
AlumProScholarship
Volunteer Assist at
commencement,
sporting events, etc.
AlumProVol
Workforce
development
Advisory Council, host
internships, etc.
AlumProWFDev
LBCC services Utilize LBCC services
(Library, Career
Center, etc.
AlumProCareer
Other Other AlumProOther
Alumni donor
(AluDON)
Rate of giving Frequency of gifts: 1–4
gifts, 5–10
donations, etc.
DonateRate
Giving total Total amount of gifts:
$0-$100, $1,000-
$5,000, etc.
DonateTotal
It is important to note that results may overlap. For example, a student-athlete might also
have been a financial aid recipient, or an alumnus donor might also be a volunteer.
Once data collection was complete, I began the analysis. First, I created codes and
categories. I then organized data and identified themes among responses (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). The organization of themes allowed me to extract and present findings (Mertler, 2021).
59
Data Analysis Process
Utilizing descriptive analysis for each question, I calculated the frequency distribution. I
then sorted these multivariate data using the statistical analysis program SPSS, examining
themes, variables, theories, and their alignment (Kaliyadan & Kulkarni, 2019).
Validity and Reliability
Ethical considerations were held to the highest standards. Participants were sent an email
invitation with a link to the survey (Appendix A) and provided a volunteer consent form
accepted by Long Beach City College (Appendix B). Without a participant's explicit consent, the
study violates the ethics of scholarly research. The questionnaire consisted of questions related to
variables identified in the literature review.
Pilot Survey
I conducted a pilot study of seven individuals before data collection with the final study
participants. The pilot sample consisted of higher education alumni relations professionals,
higher education fundraisers, and community college alumni. The purpose of conducting a pilot
study was to ensure that the instrumentation was clear to the participants and that the survey
captured rich data. I made edits after the subject matter experts and a survey methodology expert
provided their feedback from the pilot study. Once the final version was approved, the survey
was uploaded to Qualtrics and deployed.
Final Survey
I assessed the validity and reliability of the survey once the survey period closed and after
cleaning the data for incomplete responses. Table 4 presents an analysis of construct validity and
reliability for two latent constructs, affinity interest and motivation to donate. For affinity
interest, seven indicators are listed, with indicator loadings ranging from 0.444 to 0.624. The
60
construct shows acceptable reliability based on the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.634 and composite
reliability values (rho_a = 0.637; rho_c = 0.759) above the recommended 0.7 threshold (Hair et
al., 2010). However, the average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.312 is below the 0.5 guideline,
indicating issues with convergent validity. The motivation to donate construct with 5 indicators
demonstrates good reliability per the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78 and composite reliabilities
exceeding 0.7. The AVE of 0.53 also meets the recommended 0.5 level (Hair et al., 2010). This
showcases convergent validity.
Table 4
Construct Validity and Reliability
Latent
Construct Indicators
Indicator
Loading
Cronbach’s
α
Composite
reliability
(rho_a)
Composite
reliability
(rho_c)
Average
variance
extracted
(AVE)
Affinity
Service 0.593
0.634 0.637 0.759 0.312
Cultural 0.566
Industry
networking 0.444
Professional
development 0.58
Social
activities 0.549
Service
activities 0.624
Volunteer 0.54
Motivation
to Donate
Alumni
experience 0.772
0.78 0.787 0.849 0.53
Beliefs in
education 0.718
Support
students 0.697
Approval of
institution 0.737
Student
experience 0.714
61
To ensure validity, Table 5 presents that the HTMT ratio of 0.483 between the two
constructs is below the 0.85 ceiling (Henseler et al., 2015). Table 6 showcases that the FornellLarcker criterion is also met, with the shared variance (0.353) being lower than the AVE values.
Furthermore, the cross-loadings in Table 7 show that indicators load more highly on their
assigned construct versus the other. Overall, the analysis provides evidence for reliability and
discriminant validity between the constructs. However, additional indicators may be needed to
improve convergent validity, particularly for affinity interest. Evaluating validity and reliability
is critical to ensure accurate analysis and interpretation (Netemeyer et al., 2003).
Table 5
HTMT Ratio for Discriminant Validity
HTMT ratio for discriminant validity
Affinity
Motivation to donate 0.483
Table 6
Fornell Larcker Criterion for Discriminant Validity
Fornell Larcker criterion for discriminant validity
Affinity Motivation to donate
Affinity 0.559
Motivation to donate 0.353 0.728
62
Table 7
Cross Loading Criterion for Discriminant Validity
Cross loading criterion for discriminant validity
Affinity Motivation
to Donate
Affinity: Service 0.593 0.244
Affinity Cultural 0.566 0.163
Affinity: Industry networking 0.444 0.157
Affinity: Professional development 0.58 0.226
Affinity: Social activities 0.549 0.163
Affinity: Service activities 0.624 0.216
Affinity: Volunteer 0.54 0.184
Motivation to Donate: Alumni
experience 0.292 0.772
Motivation to Donate: Belief in
education 0.242 0.718
Motivation to Donate: Help others 0.211 0.697
Motivation to Donate: Approval of
institution 0.295 0.737
Motivation to Donate: Student
experience 0.226 0.714
63
Ethics
To ensure subject anonymity and non-biased recommendations through my exposure to
survey identifiers, my first step was ensuring that the survey did not collect identifying data. Not
doing so risked miscoded data, the perception of research bias, skewing of results, and study
failure. Additional adverse outcomes could have been ethics violations due to not protecting the
participants’ identities (Brown et al., 2017). Other responsibilities I adhered to were
anonymizing the results due to the sensitive nature of donor giving to avoid unintentionally
massaging the data by misinterpreting results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Thus, the electronic
survey did not collect participant names, IP addresses, or email address identifiers. I reminded
the participants to exclude identifying information at the onset of the survey. Lastly, I utilized the
Qualtrics program and my personal password-protected laptop to house data. As a final measure,
a three-member dissertation committee reviewed this work, and I secured approval from the IRB
prior to the commencement of the study.
64
Chapter Four: Findings
The study aimed to examine the relationship between the student experience and alumni
giving, as well as the potential influence of alumni association programming on alumni giving at
CCCs. Through this, the study sought to identify effective fundraising strategies to cultivate gifts
from donors who may have had limited connection with or opportunities to support their alma
mater in meaningful ways. The respondents’ demographic profile serves as a foundation for
understanding the population from which these insights were drawn and for interpreting findings.
This research sought to answer the following research question: What is the relationship, if any,
between current student engagement and alumni engagement?
Demographic Summary
The survey was live between April 19, 2023, and May 23, 2023. In that time, I collected
2,346 responses. Subsequent data analysis utilized IBM SSPS, version 28. Of the 2,346
respondents who opened the survey, 2,178 consented to the study, met the requirements of being
18 or older, having completed at least 12 units (the standard requirement for alumni status at
LBCC and some other CCCs) at LBCC, and not being current students of LBCC. As respondents
were not required to answer each question beyond qualification, I removed those who did not
complete all of the survey, resulting in a final study sample of 2,003 subjects.
The survey comprised three demographic questions regarding age, race, and gender.
Table 8 details the respondents’ demographic profile, providing a comprehensive view of their
age, the number of years since they were students at LBCC, their race, and gender. The
respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 75 or older, with the majority (86%) falling within the 18–
44 age bracket. This finding is consistent with the typical age range of recent graduating classes,
65
providing a relevant sample for studying giving behaviors related to recent experiences at the
college.
Table 8
Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants (N = 2,003)
Age range Freq Percent
Respondents’ age range
18–29 657 33%
30–44 1052 53%
45–59 204 10%
60–74 53 3%
75 or older 15 1%
Prefer not to share 22 1%
How many years has it been
since you were a student at
LBCC?
1–9 1235 62%
10–19 502 25%
20–34 132 7%
35–49 42 2%
50 + 35 2%
Prefer not to share 53 3%
Race of respondents
American Indian or Alaskan Native 217 9%
Asian 124 5%
Black or African American 137 6%
Hispanic or Latino 124 5%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 101 4%
White 1571 66%
From multiple races and ethnicities 90 4%
Prefer to self-describe or Other 4 0%
Prefer not to share 29 1%
Gender
Man 1162 55%
Woman 800 38%
Non-binary/third gender 91 4%
Prefer to self-describe or other 7 0%
Prefer not to share 41 2%
66
The respondents’ racial composition was predominantly White (66%), followed by
American Indian or Alaskan Native (9%), and smaller percentages of individuals identifying as
Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander. A small proportion of respondents (4%) identified with multiple races and ethnicities,
while an even smaller percentage chose the “prefer to self-describe or other” category. The 2021
student racial composition of students was 58.5% Hispanic or Latino, followed by 15.2% White,
11.1% Black or African American, 9.09% Asian, and smaller percentages of two or more races,
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indian or Alaska Native (Data USA,
n.d.). This distribution indicates that the study’s findings may primarily reflect White alumni’s
experiences and behaviors due to their overrepresentation in the sample. Thus, findings regarding
alumni of other racial backgrounds may be limited.
In terms of gender, the majority of respondents identified as men (55%), followed by
women (38%), and a smaller proportion identified as non-binary/third gender (4%). A few
respondents preferred to self-describe their gender or chose the “other” category, while a small
percentage preferred not to share this information. In 2021, the gender ratio was 57% women to
43% men, thus comparable to the study results (Data USA, n.d.). This gender distribution
suggests that the study’s findings may be more representative of men’s experiences and giving
behaviors, considering their higher representation in the sample.
The years since the respondents were students at LBCC varied significantly, ranging
from 1 to 50 years or more. A substantial majority (87%) of respondents had been students at
LBCC within the past 20 years, suggesting that their experiences at the college are relatively
recent and thus may be more influential on their current giving behaviors. Likewise, the
67
distribution also implies that the findings may be less applicable to alumni who attended the
college more than 20 years ago, given their underrepresentation in the sample.
Overall, the demographic profile of the respondents indicates a diverse sample in terms of
age, years since attending LBCC, race, and gender. However, certain groups are overrepresented:
younger alumni, recent students, White individuals, and men. This overrepresentation may
influence the findings and their applicability to the broader population of CCC alumni.
Therefore, it is critical to acknowledge the unique sample when interpreting findings and
considering the implications for alumni giving and engagement strategies.
Student Engagement and Alumni Volunteerism
One of the two areas about which the research question inquired is the relationship
between the community college student experience and alumni volunteerism or time (not to be
confused with monetary giving). Tables 9 and 10 present the findings of the relationships
between various student leaders, recipients, and eventual alumni volunteerism. The tables present
the data used to determine whether there is a link between the types of programs or benefits
students received during their time as students and the likelihood of subsequent alumni
volunteerism. Analysis of the data found that different types of student involvement led to
varying levels of alumni volunteerism.
Table 9
Relationship Between Student Leadership and Alumni Volunteerism
Alumni volunteerism Total Chi-square p-value
Yes No
Student
government
No 1217(60.55%) 198(9.85%) 1415(70.4%) 2.63 0.11
Yes 495(24.63%) 100(4.98%) 595(29.6%)
Total 1712(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2010(100%)
Service club
No 1126(56.02%) 200(9.95%) 1326(65.97%) 0.20 0.65
Yes 586(29.15%) 98(4.88%) 684(34.03%)
Total 1712(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2010(100%)
Honor society
No 1149(57.16%) 197(9.8%) 1346(66.97%) 0.12 0.73
Yes 563(28.01%) 101(5.02%) 664(33.03%)
Total 1712(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2010(100%)
Student-athlete
No 1111(55.27%) 220(10.95%) 1331(66.22%) 9.05 0.003
Yes 601(29.9%) 78(3.88%) 679(33.78%)
Total 1712(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2010(100%)
President’s
ambassadors
No 1471(73.18%) 243(12.09%) 1714(85.27%) 3.88 0.05
Yes 241(11.99%) 55(2.74%) 296(14.73%)
Total 1712(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2010(100%)
6
8
Table 10
Relationship Between Student Recipient and Alumni Volunteerism
Alumni volunteerism Total Chi-square p-value Yes No
Student recipients
No 1116(55.55%) 210(10.45%) 1326(66%) 3.111 0.078
Yes 595(29.62%) 88(4.38%) 683(34%)
Total 1711(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2009(100%)
Student worker
No 993(49.43%) 178(8.86%) 1171(58.29%) 0.3 0.584
Yes 718(35.74%) 120(5.97%) 838(41.71%)
Total 1711(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2009(100%)
Career center,
tutoring, etc.
No 1254(62.42%) 197(9.81%) 1451(72.22%) 6.528 0.011
Yes 457(22.75%) 101(5.03%) 558(27.78%)
Total 1711(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2009(100%)
Aid programs
No 1036(51.57%) 216(10.75%) 1252(62.32%) 15.392 0.000
Yes 675(33.6%) 82(4.08%) 757(37.68%)
Total 1711(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 1326(66%)
Attended
extracurricular
events, such as
career fairs,
athletic events,
social, etc.
No 1254(62.42%) 210(10.45%) 683(34%) 3.111 0.078
Yes 457(22.75%) 88(4.38%) 2009(100%)
Total 1711(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 1171(58.29%)
Scholarship and/or
grant recipient
Yes 1290(64.21%) 229(11.4%) 1519(75.61%) 0.29 0.590
No 421(20.96%) 69(3.43%) 490(24.39%)
Total 1711(85.17%) 298(14.83%) 2009(100%)
6
9
70
Chi-square
The results of chi-square tests examining the relationship between alumni volunteerism in
various student groups revealed that alumni volunteerism was significantly related to being a
student-athlete, χ2(1) = 9.05, p = .0026, and being a president’s ambassador, χ2(1) = 3.876,
p = .049. For student-athletes, a greater proportion volunteered as alumni (29.9%) compared to
those who were not student-athletes (10.95%). Similarly, more president’s ambassadors
volunteered as alumni (11.99%) versus non-ambassadors (12.09%). In contrast, alumni
volunteerism was not significantly related to membership in student government, service clubs,
or honor societies (all p > .05). Overall, these results suggest that volunteerism in certain
extracurricular activities, specifically athletics and leadership programs, is associated with higher
levels of alumni volunteerism later in life.
Starting with the student workers, 29.62% of those who were student workers
participated as alumni, compared to 55.55% of those who were not. The chi-square value of
3.111 with a p-value of 0.078 suggests that while there seems to be some difference in
volunteerism rates between these groups, it is not statistically significant at the conventional 0.05
level. For students involved in the career center, tutoring, and other areas, the volunteer rates are
35.74% for those involved versus 49.43% for those not involved, but this difference is not
statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.584. Similarly, the scholarship and/or grant recipients
showed no significant difference in alumni volunteerism based on the p-value of 0.590.
However, the aid program participants conveyed a different story. Students who received aid
have a 22.75% volunteer rate, notably lower than the 62.42% of students who did receive aid.
This difference is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.011, indicating that students who
were part of aid programs might be less likely to volunteer as alumni. The most striking
71
difference is in the category of students who attended extracurricular events. Students who
attended events like career fairs, athletic events, or social gatherings have a volunteer rate of
33.6%, significantly different from the 51.57% rate of those who did not attend such events. The
p-value of 0.000 confirms the statistical significance of this finding. In the broader context, these
findings provide valuable insights for institutions. Some of these findings support recent research
of no significant correlation or inverse correlation between receiving aid services, such as
scholarships, grants, career services, and tutoring, and volunteerism to the awarding institution
(Fergusson, 2022). However, additional research is warranted, particularly pertaining to student
extracurricular participation and the negative correlation to a propensity to volunteer in the
future.
Student Engagement and Alumni Giving
The second area the research question explores is the relationship, if any, between the
community college student experience and alumni monetary giving (not to be confused with
volunteerism). I ran chi-square tests to explore the relationship between students’ involvement in
various programs or activities during their academic tenure and their likelihood to donate as
alumni. The data analysis revealed that different types of student involvement led to varying
levels of alumni giving, both in amount and frequency.
Pearson Correlation Analysis
As depicted in Tables 11 and 12, I performed stepwise regression analysis and Pearson
correlation analysis on various independent variables that might influence an alumnus’s decision
to donate. The correlation matrix presented provides an assessment of the linear relationships
between pairs of variables: student government, service club, honor society, student-athlete,
president’s ambassadors, alumni donation rate, donation total, alumni participation, affinity
72
interest, and motivations to donate. A correlation coefficient (ranging from -1 to 1) close to 0
suggests little to no linear relationship, while a value close to -1 or 1 indicates a strong negative
or positive relationship, respectively. Asterisks indicate significance with ** denoting
significance at the 0.01 level and * at the 0.05 level.
Table 11
Student Leadership and Alumni Donation Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis
Service
club
Honor
society
Studentathlete
President’s
ambassadors
Donation
rate
Donation
total
Alumni
volunteer
Affinity
interest
Motivation
to donate
Total
Student
government -.159** -.127** -.164** 0.014 .146** -.079** -0.003 -0.019 -.053* 1579
Service club -.104** -0.008 -.067** -.076** -.184** -0.012 -.125** -0.042 1579
Honor society -.073** -0.043 0.000 -.093** -0.002 -0.035 0.040 1579
Student-athlete -.069** -0.044 -.095** -.062* -.100** -0.033 1579
President’s
ambassadors 0.043 .055* -0.003 -.054* -0.011 1579
Donation rate .161** 0.032 .082** 0.025 1579
Donation total -0.020 .234** .070** 1579
Alumni volunteer -.097** -.124** 1579
Affinity interest .342** 1579
Motivation to
donate 1579
73
74
Several correlations emerged. Notably, affinity interest or interest in motivation to donate
or interest in monetary giving exhibit a strong positive correlation of 0.342, significant at the
0.01 level, suggesting that as affinity interest increases, so does the motivation to donate. This
relationship supports the idea that an emotional connection to an institution can drive alumni
donation behavior. Similarly, donation amount total and affinity interest showed a significant
positive correlation of 0.234, suggesting that higher donation amounts are associated with higher
affinity interest. Additionally, donation-giving rate and donation amount total were significantly
positively correlated (0.161), implying that higher donation rates correspond to higher total
donation amounts. Most relationships show negative correlations regarding the student group
variables, though many were not statistically significant. However, the negative correlation
between student-athletes and alumni participation was significant at the 0.05 level. This suggests
that former student-athletes are associated with a lower likelihood of making monetary donations
after graduation.
Table 12 presents the correlations between various student activities and their subsequent
engagement as alumni, encompassing both participation and monetary donations. In the broader
context, this analysis is pivotal to understanding the relationship between collegiate experience
and postgraduate philanthropic behaviors. Foremost, the negative correlations between student
government leadership and service club leadership (r=-0.144,r <00.01, r = -0.144, p < 0.01),
“honor society” (r = 0111, r < 0.01, r= -0.111, p < 0.01), and “student-athlete” (r = −0.157, r <
0.01, r = −0.157, p < 0.01) suggest that students involved in government roles are less likely to
participate in these other activities.
Table 12
Student Recipient and Alumni Donation Correlation Analysis
Correlations Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1. Student
Government 1
2-Service Club
-
.144*
*
1
3-Honor Society
-
.111*
*
-
.105*
*
1
4-StudentAthlete
-
.157*
*
-
0.031
-
.064*
*
1
5-President’s
Ambassadors
0
.038
-
0.043
-
0.020
-
.062*
*
1
6-DonatRate .
148**
-
.076*
*
0
.005
-
0.037
0
.048 1
7-DonateTotal
-
.073*
*
-
.184*
*
-
.095*
*
-
.089*
*
.
056*
.
166** 1
8-Student
Worker
.
152**
0
.026
.
128**
.
056*
0
.025
-
0.031
-
.201*
*
1
9-Career Center,
tutoring, etc.
.
124**
.
155**
.
056*
.
050*
-
0.010
0
.025
-
.203*
*
-
0.038 1
10-Aid
Programs
.
065**
.
061**
.
099**
.
120**
.
100**
.
088**
-
0.004
-
.053*
-
.139*
*
1
7
5
Table 12 continued
Student Recipient and Alumni Donation Correlation Analysis
11-Attended
extracurricular
events
-
.073*
*
.
189**
.
132**
.
197**
-
0.042
-
0.012
-
.157*
*
-
.046*
-
0.029
-
0.017 1
12-Scholarship
and/or grant
recipient
.
047*
.
044*
.
106**
.
144**
.
100**
0
.023
0
.043
0
.003
-
0.013
0
.028
0
.040 1
13-Other -
0.014
-
0.016
-
0.016
-
0.016
.
054*
0
.027
-
0.008
0
.031
-
0.019
-
0.014
-
0.017
0
.039 1
14-No student
support services
0
.026
-
0.041
-
0.021
0
.001
.
080**
.
073**
0
.014
-
.151*
*
-
.178*
*
-
.130*
*
-
.163*
*
-
.119*
*
-
0.00
5
1
15-Alumni
participation
0
.036
-
0.010
0
.008
-
.067*
*
.
044*
0
.033
-
0.013
-
0.039
-
0.012
.
057*
-
.088*
*
-
0.012
-
0.00
9
.
170** 1
16-Alumni
Donations
-
0.042
0
.032
-
0.023
-
.047*
.
077**
. c
. c
-
.095*
*
-
.090*
*
0
.026
.
088**
0
.016
-
0.01
1
.
149**
.
328** 1
17-Affinity
Interest
0
.034
-
0.009
-
0.017
-
0.019
0
.002
.
060*
.
082**
-
0.039
-
0.003
-
0.024
0
.025
0
.009
-
0.00
1
-
0.011
-
.066*
*
-
0.02
6
1
18-Motivation
to donate
0
.002
-
0.005
-
0.012
-
0.036
0
.014
0
.027
0
.041
-
.074*
*
0
.011
-
0.011
0
.014
-
0.002
-
0.00
3
-
0.002
-
.060*
. c
.
562** 1
7
6
77
Further analysis reveals that total alumni monetary giving by former student aid
recipients, such as utilizing the career center and tutoring, are negatively correlated (r = −0.203,
r < 0.01, r = −0.203, p < 0.01). This implies that students who utilized support services were not
necessarily the highest or most frequent alumni financial contributors, as is commonly believed.
A notable observation is the positive correlation between students who attended extracurricular
events and alumni donations (r = 0.088, r < 0.01, r = 0.088, p < 0.01), emphasizing the potential
for long-term philanthropic impact of creating memorable extracurricular experiences for
students. Additionally, the strong positive correlation between affinity interest and motivations to
donate (r = 0.562, r < 0.01. r = 0.562, p < 0.01) accentuates the importance of aligning alumni
interests with fundraising initiatives. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of
specific affinities on alumni giving. Nonetheless, as affinity is based on individual interests,
these motivations are not necessarily scalable to other CCCs.
As a starting point, in Table 13, the student involvement variable showcases a noticeable
difference between those who worked as student workers and those who did not. Approximately
29.47% of former student workers donated, compared to a much higher 52.07% among those
who were not student workers. This disparity is statistically significant, as evidenced by a pvalue of 0.000. For those involved with the career center and services like tutoring, a distinct
pattern emerges. Alumni who were involved in these activities have a 35.74% donation-giving
rate, slightly lower than the 45.79% rate of those who were not involved. Once again, the
difference is significant, with a p-value of 0.000. Interestingly, students who benefited from aid
programs do not follow the same trend. Rather, they have a 22.2% donation rate, compared to
59.33% for those who did not receive aid. However, the difference is not statistically significant,
as indicated by a p-value of 0.250. Lastly, the scholarship and/or grant recipient category does
78
not show a significant difference in donation behaviors, with p-values of 0.460. In line with
recent research findings, the data suggests that receiving scholarships or grants does not
necessarily correlate to alumni donation tendencies in a significant manner (Fergusson, 2022).
Table 13
Relationship Between Student Recipients and Alumni Giving
Relationship between student recipients and alumni giving
Student recipients
Alumni donation
Total Chi-square pYes No value
Student worker
No 1046
(52.07%)
280
(13.94%)
1326
(66%)
Yes 18.181 0.000 592
(29.47%)
91
(4.53%)
683
(34%)
Total 1638
(81.53%)
371
(18.47%)
2009
(100%)
Career center,
tutoring, etc.
No 920
(45.79%)
251
(12.49%)
1171
(58.29%)
Yes 16.422 0.000 718
(35.74%) 120(5.97%) 838
(41.71%)
Total 1638
(81.53%)
371
(18.47%)
2009(100
%)
Aid programs
No 1192
(59.33%)
259
(12.89%)
1451
(72.22%)
Yes 1.321 0.250 446
(22.2%)
112
(5.57%)
558
(27.78%)
Total 1638
(81.53%)
371
(18.47%)
2009
(100%)
Attended
extracurricular
events, such as
career fairs,
athletic events,
social, etc.
No 1054
(52.46%)
198
(9.86%)
1252
(62.32%)
Yes 15.523 0.000 584
(29.07%)
173
(8.61%)
757
(37.68%)
Total 1638
(81.53%)
371
(18.47%)
2009
(100%)
Scholarship and/or
grant recipient
No 1244
(61.92%)
275
(13.69%)
1519
(75.61%)
Yes 0.545 0.460 394
(19.61%)
96
(4.78%)
490
(24.39%)
Total 1638
(81.53%)
371
(18.47%)
2009
(100%)
79
These analyses underscore the web of relationships between on-campus experiences and
alumni engagement. While correlation does not imply causation, these findings are instrumental
in guiding institutional strategies. Institutions can also explore why certain usage of student
services, like the career center, appears to correlate to lower donation amounts. Drawing on
established theories, such as Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement, could further uncover
patterns, emphasizing the importance of student involvement in their formative years on eventual
alumni behaviors (Astin, 1984).
Student Engagement and Alumni Donor Giving Behaviors
Chi-square
Among the sample population, membership in student government, service clubs, and
honor societies did not significantly predict donation rates (all p > .05) or the frequency of
individual donations, as evidenced in Table 14. However, former student-athletes donated at
higher rates (33.78%) compared to non-athletes (66.22%) χ2(1) = 4.437, p = .035. Additionally,
former president’s ambassadors donated more frequently (14.73%) versus non-president’s
ambassadors (85.27%), χ2(1) = 12.016, p = .001. Overall, these findings indicate that
participation in athletic teams and leadership groups during college is associated with an
increased rate of giving among alumni who give later in life. This aligns with previous research
findings that certain student activities cultivate a sense of institutional loyalty and community
that motivates later financial support (Bristol, 1990; Shapiro et al., 2010). Fostering strong
organizational identity and engagement among students may lead to higher alumni donation rates
or frequency.
80
Table 14
Relationship Between Student Leadership and Alumni Donation Rate
Alumni donation rate Total Chisquare
pYes No value
Student
government
No 1139
(56.67%)
276
(13.73%)
1415
(70.4%)
Yes 3.485 0.062 500
(24.88%)
95
(4.73%)
595
(29.6%)
Total 1639
(81.54%)
371
(18.46%)
2010
(100%)
Service club
No 1093
(54.38%)
233
(11.59%)
1326
(65.97%)
Yes 2.033 0.154 546
(27.16%)
138
(6.87%)
684
(34.03%)
Total 1639
(81.54%)
371
(18.46%)
2010
(100%)
Honor society
No 1089
(54.18%)
257
(12.79%)
1346
(66.97%)
Yes 1.095 0.295 550
(27.36%)
114
(5.67%)
664
(33.03%)
Total 1639
(81.54%)
371
(18.46%)
2010
(100%)
Student-athlete
No 1068
(53.13%)
263
(13.08%)
1331
(66.22%)
Yes 4.437 0.035 571
(28.41%)
108
(5.37%)
679
(33.78%)
Total 1639
(81.54%)
371
(18.46%)
2010
(100%)
President’s
ambassadors
No 1419
(70.6%)
295
(14.68%)
1714
(85.27%)
Yes 12.016 0.001 220
(10.95%)
76
(3.78%)
296
(14.73%)
Total 1639
(81.54%)
371
(18.46%)
2010
(100%)
81
Alumni Affinity and Alumni Giving Behaviors
By identifying campus needs, programs and trends, the foundation serves as a bridge
between volunteers and donors. The cornerstone of alumni cultivation and stewardship is the
opportunity to engage alumni in meaningful ways by showcasing how their support could or is
making a difference.
Regression
The regression model demonstrated that affinity interests significantly correlate to the
motivation to donate. Table 15 presents an in-depth examination of these influential affinity
interests. The statistical model finds the residual standard error (S) is 0.718270, meaning the
typical prediction error of the model is approximately 0.718 units. The model accounts for
22.45% of the variability in the response variable, as evidenced by the R-squared (R-sq) value.
After adjusting for the number of predictors, this explanatory power drops to 21.43%, as denoted
by the adjusted R-squared (R-sq(adj)). The predicted R-squared (R-sq(pred)), a measure of how
well the model is expected to perform on new data, is 20.27%. Cross-validation metrics, the 10-
fold cross-validation standard error (10-fold S) and R-squared (10-fold R-sq) stand at 0.723812
and 20.16%, respectively, hinting that the model might be slightly overfitted. Overall, while the
data showcase some connectivity, they indicate only a small portion of the variance in the
response variable. This potentially implies relationships or influence from other factors.
Table 15
Regression Model Summary
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) Test S Test R-sq
0.718270 22.45% 21.43% 20.27% 0.723812 20.16%
82
Table 16 presents the output of a regression analysis, including the coefficients, standard
errors, t-values, p-values, and variance inflation factors (VIF) for each predictor in the model.
The reference categories for each predictor are also provided, thus allowing for a meaningful
interpretation of the coefficients.
Table 16
By Demographic Model Parameters
Term Coef SE Coef T-value p-value VIF
Constant 1.834 0.143 12.83 0
Affinity interest 0.5589 0.0539 10.36 0 1.18
Race: White 0.4014 0.0539 7.45 0 1.4
Total donated: $2,500–$4,999 0.345 0.0585 5.9 0 1.4
Years since grad: 10–19 0.235 0.0516 4.56 0 1.4
Total donated: $25,000–$49,999 0.253 0.0675 3.75 0 1.46
Years since grad: 20–34 0.2939 0.0852 3.45 0.001 1.26
Total donated: $75,000–$99,999 0.2599 0.0776 3.35 0.001 1.45
Honor society 0.1173 0.0415 2.83 0.005 1.14
Gender: Woman 0.1039 0.0386 2.69 0.007 1.05
Race: American Indian or Alaskan 0.262 0.101 2.6 0.009 1.23
Total donated: $50,000–$74,999 0.1828 0.0746 2.45 0.014 1.46
Student-athlete 0.0913 0.0411 2.22 0.026 1.14
President’s ambassadors 0.1146 0.055 2.08 0.037 1.05
Service club 0.0727 0.0422 1.72 0.085 1.18
Donation rate: 5–14 -0.0639 0.0424 -1.51 0.132 1.3
Age: 45–59 -0.1647 0.08 -2.06 0.04 1.45
Student government -0.1015 0.0429 -2.36 0.018 1.15
Donation rate: 15–24 -0.1744 0.0537 -3.25 0.001 1.33
Total donated: $100–$999 -0.2191 0.0573 -3.83 0 1.32
Age: 30–44 -0.4648 0.048 -9.69 0 1.67
83
The regression model suggests that having an affinity interest is associated with an
increase of 0.5589 units in the motivation to donate compared to having no affinity interest. This
result is statistically significant with a p-value of 0, indicating a less than 0.01% probability that
this effect would be observed if the null hypothesis of no effect were true. The VIF for this
predictor is 1.18, suggesting no substantial multicollinearity with other predictors.
Similar interpretations were found for the other variables. For example, identifying as
White is associated with an increase of 0.4014 units in the outcome compared to identifying as
from multiple races and ethnicities, the reference category for race. This effect is also statistically
significant, with a p-value of 0. In contrast, some predictors are associated with a decrease in the
outcome. For example, having a donation rate of 15–24 gifts is associated with a decrease of
0.1744 units in the motivation to donate compared to having a donation rate of 1–4 gifts, the
reference category for donation rate. In other words, alumni who donate less often are more
motivated to do so than those who donate more often. This effect is statistically significant, with
a p-value of 0.001. The VIFs for all predictors are close to 1, suggesting no substantial
multicollinearity with other predictors. This is significant because high multicollinearity can
inflate the standard errors of the coefficients, leading to less precise data and, ultimately,
unreliable analysis (O’Brien, 2007).
In summary, the regression model provides valuable insights into the relationships
between various predictors and the outcome. However, it is crucial to remember that the findings
are correlational and not causal. Unmeasured confounding variables could potentially influence
these results, and experimental or quasi-experimental designs are necessary to establish
causality. The reference categories for each categorical variable are as follows:
• reference category for donation rate is Don_Rate_1 - 4
84
• reference category for donation amount total is Amt_Up to $99
• reference category for years since graduation is Yrs_grad_1 – 9
• reference category for age is Age_18 – 29
• reference category for race is Race_From multiple races and ethnicities
• reference category for gender is Gender_Non-binary/Third gender
Analysis of Variance
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) table provides a statistical test to determine whether
the predictors in the regression model collectively influence a motivation to donate. Table 17
presents an ANOVA for a regression model that significantly predicts the outcome (F(20,1510)
= 21.86, p < .0001), explaining a substantial portion of its variance (Adj SS = 225.58). All
predictors, excluding a donation rate of 5–14 gifts and service club participants, contribute
significantly to the model, with affinity interest being particularly notable (F(1,1510) = 107.43,
p < .0001). Despite the model’s overall significance, the significant lack-of-fit test (p < .0001)
suggests the model does not perfectly fit the data. This points to the potential existence of other
unexplored predictors. These findings highlight the complexity of the outcome’s underlying
factors and call for further research (Field, 2018).
85
Table 17
Analysis of Variance
Source df Adj SS Adj MS F-value p-value
Regression 20 225.58 11.2788 21.86 0.000
Affinity interest 1 55.42 55.4221 107.43 0.000
Donation rate_5 – 14 1 1.17 1.1733 2.27 0.132
Donation rate_15 – 24 1 5.44 5.4354 10.54 0.001
Amt donated $100–$999 1 7.55 7.5514 14.64 0.000
Amt donated $2,500–$4,999 1 17.98 17.9769 34.85 0.000
Amt donated $25,000–$49,999 1 7.25 7.2519 14.06 0.000
Amt donated $50,000–$74,999 1 3.10 3.0957 6.00 0.014
Amt donated $75,000–$99,999 1 5.79 5.7905 11.22 0.001
Years since graduated 10–19 1 10.71 10.7083 20.76 0.000
Years since graduated_20–34 1 6.15 6.1458 11.91 0.001
Age 30–44 1 48.44 48.4371 93.89 0.000
Age 45–59 1 2.19 2.1884 4.24 0.040
Race White 1 28.66 28.6638 55.56 0.000
Race American Indian or Alaskan 1 3.49 3.4883 6.76 0.009
Gender woman 1 3.73 3.7311 7.23 0.007
Student government 1 2.88 2.8848 5.59 0.018
Service club 1 1.53 1.5332 2.97 0.085
Honor society 1 4.13 4.1294 8.00 0.005
Student-athlete 1 2.55 2.5524 4.95 0.026
President’s ambassadors 1 2.24 2.2369 4.34 0.037
Error 1510 779.03 0.5159
Lack-of-fit 1113 743.69 0.6682 7.51 0.000
Pure error 397 35.33 0.0890
Total 1530 1004.60
86
Regression Equation
���������� �� ������
= 1.834 + 0.5589 ������� �������� + 0.0 ���_����_5 – 14_0
− 0.0639 ���_����_5 – 14_1 + 0.0 ���_����_15 – 24_0
− 0.1744 ���_����_15 – 24_1 + 0.0 ���_$100 − − $999_0.00
− 0.2191 ���_$100 − − $999_1.00 + 0.0 ���_$2,500 − $4,999_0
+ 0.3450 ���_$2,500 − $4,999_1 + 0.0 ���_$25,000 − $49,999_0
+ 0.2530 ���_$25,000 − $49,999_1 + 0.0 ���_$50,000 − $74,999_0
+ 0.1828 ���_$50,000 − $74,999_1 + 0.0 ���_$75,000 − $99,999_0
+ 0.2599 ���_$75,000 − $99,999_1 + 0.0 ���_����_10 – 19_0
+ 0.2350 ���_����_10 – 19_1 + 0.0 ���_����_20 – 34_0
+ 0.2939 ���_����_20 – 34_1
+ 0.0 ���_30 – 44_0 – 0.4648 ���_30 – 44_1
+ 0.0 ���_45 – 59_0 – 0.1647 ���_45 – 59_1 + 0.0 ����_�ℎ���_0
+ 0.4014 ����_�ℎ���_1 + 0.0 ����_�������� ������ �� �������_0
+ 0.262 ����_�������� ������ �� �������_1 + 0.0 ������_�����_0
+ 0.1039 ������_�����_1 + 0.0 ������� ����������_0
− 0.1015 ������� ����������_1 + 0.0 ������� ����_0
+ 0.0727 ������� ����_1 + 0.0 ����� �������_0
+ 0.1173 ����� �������_1 + 0.0 ������� ��ℎ����_0
+ 0.0913 ������� ��ℎ����_1 + 0.0 ���������� �����������_0
+ 0.1146 ���������� �����������_1
The regression analysis offers valuable insights into the factors that influence an alum’s
motivation to donate. These insights can be beneficial in the development of fundraising
strategies aimed at increasing donation rates.
Lastly, other results identified in the study include the following correlations to alumni
giving:
• Demographics: Certain demographic factors, such as race and age, influence donation
motivation. For example, individuals who identify as White, American Indian, or
Alaskan appear to have a higher motivation to donate than those who graduated 10-19
or 20–34 years ago. However, those aged 30–44 or 45–59 seem to have lower
motivation. Understanding these generational characteristics to fulfill differing needs
and values could yield greater engagement.
87
• Involvement in student activities: Involvement in various student activities also seems
to influence donation motivation. For instance, student leadership in an honor society,
student-athlete, or a president’s ambassador is associated with a higher motivation to
donate. This suggests that individuals with a high level of engagement as students
may feel a stronger connection to the institution and are, therefore, more motivated to
give back.
• Student experience: A majority of respondents (79%) described their student
experience as positive or very positive. Fewer respondents (15%) described their
experience as neither positive nor negative, and fewer (5%) described their
experience as negative or very negative. These perceptions could represent various
experiences and feelings toward the institution, which may have implications for
alumni engagement later in life. Relatedly, the study revealed that many respondents
(56%) had a mentor at the college they trusted to help them succeed. Connections to
mentors can lead to twice the odds of satisfaction with their college experience and
correlate to greater philanthropic giving in the future.
• Alumni experience: The alumni experience, or the perceived quality of the alum’s
relationship with the institution post-graduation. Most respondents highlight their
positive alumni experience as influential (25%) or very influential (23%) in making
their donations. This finding emphasizes the importance of cultivation and
stewardship by the institution and college leadership.
• Affinity interest: Affinity interest appears to be a strong predictor of donation
motivation, indicating that individuals with a high level of affinity for the cause are
more likely to donate. Survey findings indicate that professional development
88
programs were of interest or high interest to a large majority of respondents (84%).
Networking by industry was equally of interest or high interest to a majority of
respondents (84%). Similarly, career services were also of interest or high interest to
a large majority of respondents (85%). Alumni associations that give ongoing benefits
to their former students through these types of programs could benefit from increased
alumni engagement.
• Alumni motivations: A significant number of respondents found it influential (30%)
or very influential (24%) that higher education contributes to a better society, and
approval of the work taking place at LBCC is considered influential (29%) or very
influential (21%). This indicates that approval of the institution’s mission and
activities might correlate to alumni engagement. Lastly, the financial benefits of
giving were influential (30%) or very influential (19%). Thus, strategic cultivation of
alumni may be a meaningful factor in maintaining and growing engagement.
• Donation rate: Interestingly, those with a donation rate of 15–24 appear to have lower
motivation to donate compared to the reference category of 1–4. This may suggest a
level of donor fatigue among these individuals. Nonprofit organizations might
consider implementing strategies to re-engage these donors by identifying and
implementing new programming or creatively retooling existing programs.
• Donation amount: The total amount of donations also plays a significant role in the
motivation to donate. Specifically, higher amounts, such as $2,500–$4,999 and
$25,000–$49,999, indicate a greater motivation to donate. This could imply that
donors who can give larger amounts feel more motivated to do so, perhaps due to
greater cultivation and stewardship on behalf of fundraisers.
89
Overall, the research identified several areas of correlation for insight into student and
alumni engagement. Regarding students, the research identified relationships between student
engagement and alumni engagement. Alumni affinity also lends a significant correlation to donor
giving by the amount of total donations, and the rate at which donations are given is also shown
to increase. These findings support existing fundraising practices at 4-year institutions and
showcase that some practices may be applied to 2-year institutions. Further, these findings can
facilitate LBCC, the LBCC Foundation, and other CCCs toward more strategic development,
planning, and programming.
90
Chapter Five: Conclusions & Recommendations
The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between CCC student
engagement and alumni giving and the role of alumni engagement affinity programs and alumni
giving. This subject is important to explore as CCCs face ever-widening budget deficiencies due
to lower enrollment and a greater need for student services.
The study explored student engagement and its relationship to alumni engagement at
LBCC. Alumni, through a quantitative study, shared their experiences, perceptions, and
behaviors with their alma mater. This research seeks to answer the following research question:
What is the relationship, if any, between current student engagement and alumni engagement?
Findings
The study found that students engaged through student programs and services have a
correlation to alumni engagement in volunteerism and monetary giving. Applying the social
identity theory to this evidence, students’ social identity can be based on experiences such as
academic majors, clubs, sports, and other factors relating to college engagement. The
connectivity of students belonging to a group is related to continued and ongoing alumni
engagement. The study also found that engaging volunteers with enriching programming
correlates to philanthropic giving in the future. Applying the theory of philanthropic mirroring to
the evidence, alumni engagement creates a sense of collective interdependence, as people are
more sympathetic toward those closest to them. However, these results should be interpreted
with caution, and further research should seek to confirm these trends and uncover additional
insights.
Overall, these results suggest that student participation in certain extracurricular
activities, specifically athletics and leadership programs, is associated with higher levels of
91
alumni participation later in life. This aligns with previous findings on the long-term impacts of
student involvement. For example, Monks (2003) found that college athletic participation
increased later volunteering and charitable giving. The results indicate that connections formed
through student activities can foster ongoing alumni engagement.
An exploration of student recipient outcomes revealed that certain on-campus
experiences. This could be due to various factors. Perhaps those experiences foster a deeper
connection to the institution, or conversely, those who were not as involved might have had the
financial means to donate more generously. Regardless of the reasons, institutions can leverage
these insights to tailor their alumni outreach and engagement strategies, ensuring they utilize the
motivations and experiences of their alumni effectively. Institutions should also consider
investing more in the experiences that foster alumni engagement. Overall, the analysis provides
crucial insights into the factors influencing donor motivation for engagement and giving.
Namely, variables such as demographics, student leadership, affinity interest, and donation
amount are important.
Recommendation 1: Invest in the Student Experience
The research question explored the relationship, if any, between the community college
student experience and alumni giving. Therefore, recommendation one focuses on two areas of
campus engagement – the setting of the student experience. They are student satisfaction and
staff and faculty advocacy.
Student Satisfaction
Analysis of the survey results demonstrates the importance of student programming in the
alumni cultivation process. The overall perception of one’s time as a student is a crucial aspect of
the alumni experience that can significantly influence alumni engagement and giving behaviors.
92
Positive student experiences can foster a strong sense of affinity for the institution and
potentially motivate future giving. The study data found that the majority of respondents (79%)
described their time as a student at LBCC as either positive or very positive. A smaller group of
respondents (15%) described their time at LBCC as neither positive nor negative. These neutral
perceptions could represent various experiences and feelings toward the institution, which may
have implications for eventual alumni volunteerism and monetary giving. Lastly, a very small
proportion of participants (5%) described their time as a student at LBCC as negative or very
negative. While negative perceptions represent a minority of respondents, they highlight the
importance of continuously improving the student experience to foster positive alumni
perceptions and increase the propensity to give back to the institution. LBCC might consider
exploring common themes among dissatisfied students to address the causes. Recall that study
participants who choose to participate are likely already involved as alumni. Thus, the final data
output may not accurately reflect the greater population sentiment.
By providing mentorship and networking opportunities to current students, schools can
build a strong affinity prior to graduation. “Events are increasing the domain the world of alumni
relations… The more contact alumni have with the institution, the more loyalty they feel and the
better ambassadors they become. And increased involvement leads to increased giving” (CASE,
2023).
The study’s positive correlation between attending extracurricular events and alumni
participation suggests that fostering a sense of community and engagement during students’ time
at the institution could have long-term benefits in terms of alumni involvement. Extracurricular
events, such as career fairs, athletic events, social events, and others, can strengthen students’
sense of community and belonging. A study revealed that alumni who were “very satisfied” with
93
their experience donated three times more than alumni who were “ambivalent,” “generally
dissatisfied,” or “very dissatisfied” with their experience (Monks, 2003, pp. 121–130).
Conversely, the lower participation rate among student recipients of aid programs might
indicate a reevaluation of how students receive aid. For instance, offering scholarship recipients
the opportunity to meet or write thank you notes to their donors could lead to future donors, thus
creating a richer experience for both the student and donor. However, further research is
warranted to explore the underlying reasons behind the disconnect.
Faculty and Staff Advocacy
Research shows that student success is closely related to college spending. In an era of
budget deficits, the first programs to lose funding are often non-essential student programs and
services. Jenkins and Belfield (2014) noted, “Thus, short-term efficiency gains are likely to be
offset by declines in quality in the long run” (p. 8). In other words, the short-term financial
reprieve due to these cost-cutting measures may lead to long-term repercussions that could be
difficult to remedy once institutionalized. As the front line in student interaction, LBCC faculty
and staff should commit to creating an array of programming to meet student needs. Rather than
eliminate programs, institutions should invest in the tools faculty and staff require to curate a
positive student experience. Providing students with a quality education and well-rounded
extracurricular activities helps engage them, thereby cultivating involved alumni (Sun et al.,
2007).
The survey results measuring the relationship between alumni participation and
involvement in various student groups revealed that alumni participation was significantly
related to certain extracurricular programs. While some programs did not measure as significant
in future alumni participation, the data suggests that overall, student leadership is associated with
94
higher levels of alumni participation later in life. These activities could be career fairs, art
exhibitions, panel discussions, tours of various workplaces, and cultural celebrations that engage
students in various capacities. Based on the data, these types of programs might instill
philanthropic values or connectivity to the institution. Further, opportunities for students to take
on roles as planners, participants, and attendees engage a broader population of students from
various leadership and recipient groups.
Highlighting the importance of faculty and staff relationships in shaping the student
experience outside the classroom, the study revealed that a majority of respondents (56%) had a
faculty member or instructor as a mentor they trusted to help them succeed. Developing
relationships with faculty members who serve as mentors and supporters can lead to twice the
odds of reporting that they were very satisfied with their college experience and are related to
higher levels of future contributions. Such relationships can significantly contribute to students’
sense of belonging, academic success, and overall satisfaction with the institution, potentially
influencing their future giving behaviors as alumni (Ramirez, 2012). The research underscores
the pivotal role faculty and staff play in shaping the student experience. Through advocacy by
mentorship and support, they impact students by opening doors, opportunities, and expanded
networks, a critical element of the student experience during the formative college years.
Charged with caring for students and providing them with the tools for future success, LBCC
faculty and staff should strategically reassess their long-term goals as they look to build a legacy
of alumni engagement and support. To do this, the institution should consider the resources
required as investment toward future alumni engagement.
95
Recommendation 2: Invest in Alumni Engagement
Research Question 2 asked whether and how CCC alumni associations can use affinity
groups to influence alumni giving. Therefore, recommendation two focuses on two areas of
alumni engagement. They are affinity programming and donor motivations. In exploring the
topic, the research found it increasingly important for development professionals to understand
the importance of alumni motivations and the role they play in the collective giving effort
(Drezner & Huehls, 2014).
Alumni Motivations
Understanding the motivations behind alumni giving can provide valuable insights into
increasing alumni engagement and fundraising. Most respondents highlighted their positive
alumni experience as influential (25%) or very influential (23%) in making their donations. This
showcases the role of alumni engagement with the institution in fostering alumni giving. This
data suggests that continued engagement and satisfaction with the institution can stimulate
giving. The variable of a desire to help others, in turn, was considered influential (30%) or very
influential (21%) by a majority of respondents. This altruistic motivation aligns with the social
exchange theory, which posits that individuals are motivated to give back when they have
received benefits and wish to reciprocate (Emerson, 1976). The belief that higher education
contributes to a better society was also a significant motivator for respondents, with a majority
considering it influential (30%) or very influential (24%). This suggests that a commitment to the
societal value of higher education can be a significant driver of alumni giving. Approval of the
work taking place at LBCC and support for its mission was considered influential (29%) or very
influential (21%) by a majority of respondents. This indicates that alignment with the
institution’s mission and activities can motivate donations.
96
The study found that alumni identified service and volunteerism for students as areas of
interest for alumni engagement. This alignment offers much opportunity. Incorporating alumni
into student programming creates a two-way cultivation. Students experience a richer learning
environment with diverse interactions, combined with exposure to the modeling of positive
alumni involvement (Thiem & Dasgupta, 2022). Alumni, on the other hand, have the opportunity
to see first-hand the reach of their philanthropy, a principal component of stewardship. Thus,
LBCC and the LBCC Foundation might dive deeper into the data by linking years since
graduation to identify and recreate specific activities or events that took place during successful
years.
Finally, the financial benefits of philanthropic giving were considered influential (30%)
or very influential (19%) by a significant proportion of respondents. This suggests that tax
incentives and other financial benefits can play a role in motivating alumni giving. Overall, the
data suggests that a variety of factors can motivate alumni to donate to LBCC, including positive
student and alumni experiences, altruistic desires, belief in the societal value of higher education,
alignment with the institution’s mission, and financial benefits. These findings apply to
fundraising strategies by emphasizing these motivations in fundraising communications and
programming, which can support the cultivation of alumni giving.
To ensure long-term success, institutions should move beyond seeing alumni not just as
immediate value-adds for students but as long-term relationship partners. Research findings
indicate that professional development programs were of interest or high interest to a large
majority of respondents (84%). This indicates a strong demand for continued learning and career
advancement opportunities and suggests that alumni value education beyond formal schooling
and that value-adds can significantly drive alumni engagement (Jarvis, 2009). Networking by
97
industry was of interest or high interest to a majority of respondents (84%) as well, highlighting
the value of connections and interactions with professionals within specific industries. This
suggests that alumni-to-alumni networks and relationships can provide valuable resources and
opportunities. Similarly, career services were also of interest or high interest to a large majority
of respondents (85%), showcasing demand for ongoing career development and job search
support, which can create and grow an appreciation or gratitude to the institution. A prevalent
theme in 4-year college fundraising is the emphasis on ensuring alumni feel they are valued and
important stakeholders at the institution. Therefore, LBCC and the LBCC Foundation might aim
to expand professional development, networking opportunities, and career services to alumni.
Alumni Affinity Programming
Overall, the data suggest that various affinity categories are of interest to LBCC alumni.
These range from professional development and networking to service opportunities and cultural
groups. These findings can guide strategies for the LBCC Foundation to alumni expand the
alumni engagement pool by providing targeted opportunities that align with alumni’s interests.
Providing opportunities for meaningful involvement and connection can foster a strong sense of
community and identity among alumni, potentially influencing their engagement behaviors,
specifically engagement and philanthropic giving.
In addition to identifying correlations between student and alumni engagement, the data
reinforce commonalities among demographic groups, such as interests and motivations. In
addition to industry and professional development alumni affinity programming, suggested
affinity groups for LBCC and LBCC Foundation implementation are:
• Industry and professional development: For many alumni, employability was the primary
purpose for pursuing higher education, while the outcomes of employment and earnings
98
can shape alumni’s perception of their institution. Prior research found that the
connectedness of social capital is embedded in the professional network (English et al.,
2021). To position itself as a lifelong resource, LBCC should offer ongoing career
services such as resume review and skills and knowledge training such as certifications.
Recommendations are the creation of affinity groups such as a real estate professional
network or an LBCC nursing alumni group to serve as resources for career growth and
social connectivity. Utilizing the philanthropic mirroring theory, these programs could
lead to greater alumni giving.
• Social activities: Alumni overwhelmingly describe positive student experiences,
including having a sense of belonging, experiencing feelings of nostalgia, and current
connectivity to fellow alumni. In addition to professional development, alumni-to-alumni
connectivity through social activities is a primary driver for engagement. Alumni events
were of interest or high interest to a large majority of respondents (86%). This suggests
that social interactions like homecoming and community-building activities can
significantly foster alumni engagement and affinity. Similarly, service opportunities were
of interest or high interest to a significant majority of respondents (84%), indicating that
opportunities to give back and contribute to the community can foster a sense of
connection and commitment to the institution. Family-friendly activities, such as service
days in which alumni populations join in giving back activities, collectively bind alumni
together, thus strengthening affinity to the institution, in addition to building a pipeline
for the future.
• Older alumni (65+): In terms of alumni engagement demographics, American Baby
Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, make up 14% of college graduates but comprise
99
36% of active alumni (Frey, 2018). Related to financial giving, a study found that
Boomers are the most significant group numerically, with 51 million individuals
comprising 34% of the donor base, and are the most significant contributors, giving an
estimated total of $61.9 billion per year (43% of all the dollars donated); whereas the
younger Gen X give at 20% and Gen Y 11%, respectively. Additionally, at that stage in
their lives, most individuals begin to plan for the legacy they will leave upon their
passing through planned giving (Rovner, 2018). Programming related to lectures and
outings through the LBCC lifetime learning program is an opportunity for cultivation.
Funding to support the expansion of this program to the larger unengaged alumni
community could prove highly successful.
• Current students (not alumni): Engaging students through mentorship opportunities and
interactions with the LBCC Board of Governors and other leaders could translate into
future alumni leadership.
• Cultural: Ethnic and gender identity programs for members and allies. When asked about
cultural programs, 82% stated they were interested or very interested in ethnic,
LGBTQIA+, women’s groups, and faculty and staff emeriti. This suggests that affinity
groups based on shared cultural identities or interests can foster a sense of community
and connection among alumni. Affinity groups have been shown to increase the sense of
belonging of minority students. The study found these programs contribute to their sense
of belonging at the institution and provide them with a safe place where they can share
and discuss their experiences as minorities (Alicea & Johnson, 2021). Programs like a
Latino alumni association, Black alumni association, and Asian Pacific alumni
100
association could serve as an entry point to alumni leadership for many unengaged
alumni.
• LBGTQIA+: Higher education is an ideal setting for engaging non-cisgender students, as
the research suggests college is a place for identity explorations or expression (Drezner,
2018). The research findings emphasize the urgency of building welcoming and safe
communities for LGBTQ, particularly transgender individuals, both as students and as
alumni. Engaging alumni from increasingly diverse populations creates more inclusive
learning and social environments for all stakeholders.
The results of this study can help support CCCs, LBCC, and the LBCC Foundation in
curating the types of programming alumni might be interested in joining and engaging alumni in
ways personally meaningful to them. Approaching alumni engagement by offering services and
programs that support their needs at different points in their lives creates a mutually beneficial
relationship. Additionally, doing so could expand the prospective donor pool and create more
opportunities for raising funds (Weerts & Ronca, 2007).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are acknowledged in this study as the research is challenging to scale outside
of large, urban community colleges; thus, conclusions are limited. Although I employed
convenience sampling, the possibility of under-or overrepresentation of the population remains,
regardless of my reflexivity efforts throughout the study. I aimed to ensure that the findings were
as accurate and representative as possible. Further, many alumni may not have answered the
survey questions accurately, either intentionally or accidentally. This is a concern as participants
are asked to reflect on their activities and feelings from an earlier time. For some respondents,
this could be many decades ago. It is possible that some alumni could not recall experiences
101
accurately (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Another limitation of the study includes accuracy due to
the sample size. Although the survey is non-purposeful convenience-driven, the diverse nature of
LBCC may not be accurately represented, as alumni who are already engaged were mostly likely
to participate in the study.
Delimitations with the study began with the COVID-19 pandemic during 2019–2021,
which halted most events and programming. This break proved to be a roadblock in identifying
engagement interests. It is possible that study participants, having spent 2 years in home
isolation, felt differently about alumni association programs than before the outbreak. Although
the research serves as a starting point for generating a shared understanding of alumni
engagement, more work must be done. Primarily to understand how alumni evaluate their
behaviors and experiences to influence their relationships with their alma maters (Fleming,
2019).
Recommendations for Future Research
Overall, these findings indicate a considerable level of alumni engagement with LBCC
post-graduation. The variety of engagement activities reported by respondents suggests that there
are multiple pathways for maintaining and strengthening the alumni-institution relationship, each
potentially contributing to increased alumni giving. Respondents indicated significant interest in
affinity programs relating to professional development, social/service, and cultural groups.
Additional related topics of interest are the role of professional industry networks in which
schools can support career development for alumni, career and workforce development, student
perceptions and their expectations for alumni engagement, and an examination of best practices
for a cohesive and lucrative LBCC and LBCC Foundation relationship structure.
102
Further, variables such as income and donation behaviors to other nonprofit organizations
as predictors in alumni donation motivation and rate of giving could prove insightful. Additional
variables of exploration include the type of degree received – certificate, associate degree, or
transfer student. Other campus populations of potential study include campus college leadership
and fundraisers as decision makers, staff and faculty as facilitators and their own engagement
once emeriti, and parents of LBCC Child Development Center students and their long-term
relationships with the institution.
An analysis of communication channels for effective information sharing could shed light
on best practices for approaching alumni engagement marketing. Research on the effectiveness
of engaging alumni with evolving channels such as social media, paper mail versus electronic
mail, and in-person versus Zoom meetings and events could prove insightful. Lastly, an
exploration of the benefits of alumni leadership in the form of boards and committees could
appeal to the necessity of volunteer leadership in the form of an alumni association board and
committees.
Conclusion
Although tuition, fees, and local, state, and federal funds are chief sources of college
revenue, they are increasingly insufficient to meet CCC institutional needs. Capital projects,
faculty development, and campus services directly affect college faculty and staff, who are
relegated to managing such fiscal shortfalls (Zeineddine et al., 2021). Without adequate funding,
enriching programs such as the arts and student affairs are usually the first to be sacrificed, with
essential departments such as counseling and financial aid not far behind (Marcus, 2013). This
critically affects student retention, eventual graduation, the student experience, and, thus, the
ability to engage alumni, current and future.
103
This study aims to provide CCC alumni associations and development teams strategies to
engage donors by building upon relationships established during the student years and cultivating
connections with alumni post-graduation. Notwithstanding, this begins with acknowledging
alumni diversity and the multitude of motivations in the personal narratives of prospective
donors. Wastyn states that “differences between donors and non-donors do not lie in their
characteristics or motives, because in these respects, these non-donors look like donors. Men and
women, wealthy and less wealthy, married, and single, failed to give to their alma mater”
(Wastyn, 2009, p. 103).
While drivers to engage alumni are far more complex than in prior years, it remains that
alumni engagement and giving begin with the internalization of the student experience as there is
a correlation between the foundation’s purposeful cultivation post-graduation and alumni
volunteerism and monetary giving. Accordingly, the alumni experience also offers the
opportunity to enhance an existing positive relationship or repair a negative relationship. The
potentially powerful impact of student and alumni engagement thus warrants institutions to
invest in student and alumni strategic planning and engagement. While professional fundraisers
widely agree that cultivation is the first step in the fundraising process, campus communities
should look beyond the responsibility of providing educational tools in a 1-to-3-year student
cycle to thoughtful cultivation of future donors as part of their responsibility to support their
student lifelong. With the collective partnership of campus stakeholders, meaningful student and
alumni engagement can transform into much-needed resources to ensure all students and alumni,
and in turn the larger community, reap the benefits of higher education and ensure future
students have the tools they need to succeed.
104
References
Alicea, C. C. M., & Johnson, R. E. (2021). Creating community through affinity groups for
minority students in communication sciences and disorders. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 30(5), 2028–2031. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00342
American Association of Community Colleges. (2005). Competencies for community college
leaders.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2010). Community colleges past to present.
Retrieved May 29, 2022, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/history/Pages/pasttopresent.aspx
American Association of Community Colleges. (2013). AACC leadership suite. Retrieved May
29, 2022, from https://www.aacc.nche.edu/events/aacc-leadership-suite/
American Association of Community Colleges. (2022). ACC 2022 fact sheet.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AACC_2022_Fact_Sheet-Rev5-11-22.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4–15.
Bakhit, K. (2014). Presidents’ mindsets toward resource development at California community
colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(10), 889–902.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.722414
Beard, R. G. (2008). The money tree—alternative revenues for community colleges (Publication
No. 3303506) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska Lincoln]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
105
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy:
Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927
Besikof, R. J. (2010). The role of the community college president in fundraising: A best
practices study (Publication No. 3437527) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Bombardieri, M. (2007, July 9). Colleges fear debt puts damper on donations. The Boston Globe
http://www.csun.edu/pubrels/clips/July07/07-11-07A.pdf
Bowles, K. (2021, November 16). Boards: Who’s really in charge? Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-explain-it-me/boardswho%E2 %80%99sreally-charge
Bradford, T. W. (2021). We can fix this! Donor activism for nonprofit supply generation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 397–417.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00742-2
Bristol, R. B. (1990). The life cycle of alumni donations. Review of Higher Education, 13(4),
503–517. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1990.0011
Brown, L. D. (2014). A Case Study Of Alumni Donors At A Medium-Sized Community College In
The Mid-Atlantic Region: Their Motivations And Experiences.
https://doi.org/10.13016/M2JW86Q8C
Brown, V., & Nichols, T. R. (2013). Pregnant and parenting students on campus: Policy and
program implications for a growing population. Educational Policy, 27(3), 499–530.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812453995
106
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. (2022). The Impact of COVID-19 on Community College Enrollment
and Student Success: Evidence from California Administrative Data. Education Finance
and Policy, 17(4), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00384
Burke, M. (2020, March 12). California community colleges begin to move classes online in
response to coronavirus. EdSource. Https://edsource.org/2020/community-collegesacross-california-move-classes-online-in-response-to-coronavirus/625401
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (n.d.). Key facts. Retrieved December 31,
2022, from https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2022). The economic value of California
community colleges. https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCO-Website/Reports/eirtoolit/ccc-1819-mainreport-final-a11y.pdf
Carlill, E. (2020, October 12). How to aid student growth in and outside the classroom. Learning
Outside the Classroom. https://learningoutsidetheclassroomblog.org/2020/10/12/how-toaid-student-growth-in-and-outside-the-classroom/
Carter, L. S. (2010). A donor-focused fundraising model: An essential tool in community college
foundations’ toolkit. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(1–2), 99–
110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011.525182
Casstevens, W., Waites, C., & Outlaw, N. (2012). Non-traditional student retention: Exploring
perceptions of support in a social work graduate program. Social Work Education, 31(3),
256–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.556188
Chan, R. Y. (2016, January). Studying philanthropy and fundraising in the field of higher
education: A proposed conceptual model. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-
4666-9664-8.ch001
107
Chen, G. (2021). California community college system slammed with budget cuts. Community
College Review. https://www.communitycollegereview.com/blog/california-communitycollege-system-slammed-with-budget-cuts
Chen, X., & Nunnery, A. (2019). Profile of very low- and low-income undergraduates in 2015–
16 (NCES 2020-460). National Center for Education Statistics.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2003). Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities. Economics of
Education Review, 22(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00028-6
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (n.d.-a). College and university
foundations. Retrieved November 18, 2022, from https://www.case.org/connect/collegeand-university-foundations
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (n.d.-b). Donor cultivation. Retrieved
December 30, 2022, from https://www.case.org/7-donor-cultivation
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2019). Voluntary support of education:
Key findings from data collected for the 2018–19 academic fiscal year for U.S. higher
education institutions. https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/VSE%20Research%
20Brief%231_5.1.20_WEB.pdf
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2021a). Charitable giving to U.S. colleges
and universities reached $49.50 billion, virtually unchanged from last fiscal year.
https://www.case.org/resources/charitable-giving-us-colleges-and-universities-reached4950-billion-virtually-unchanged
108
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2021b). Voluntary Support of education:
Key findings from data collected for the 2020–21 academic fiscal year for U.S. higher
education institutions.
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/VSE%20Research%20Brief%20Key%20Fi
ndings%202020-21.pdf
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2023). CASE insights on alumni
engagement, 2022. https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-alumniengagement/2022-key-findings
Cownie, F., & Gallo, M. (2021). Alumni gratitude and academics: implications for engagement.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(6), 788–802,
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1820457
Craft, W. M., & Guy, K. E. (2019). Community college governing boards and foundation boards:
Ethics and the pursuit of extraordinary organizational purpose. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2019(185), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20336
Darwin Holmes, A. G. (2020). Researcher positionality - A consideration of its influence and
place in qualitative research - A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of
Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
Data USA. (n.d.). Long Beach City College. Retrieved May 1, 2022, from
https://datausa.io/profile/university/long-beach-city-college
Downing, C. S. (2021). Community college foundation board members: The overlooked partners
(500th ed.). Illinois State University (Publication No. 28256742) [Doctoral dissertation,
Illinois State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
109
Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education. ASHE
Higher Education Report, 37(2), 65–70.
Drezner, N. D. (2017). Philanthropy & education: Setting the mission and vision for a new
journal within the landscape of our field. Philanthropy & Education, 1(1), v–xii.
https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.1.1.01
Drezner, N. D. (2018). Philanthropic mirroring: Exploring identity-based fundraising in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 261–293.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1368818
Drezner, N. D., & Huehls, F. (2014). Fundraising and institutional advancement: Theory,
practice, and new paradigms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123850
Drury, R. L. (2003). Community colleges in America: A historical perspective. Inquiry, 8(1), 6.
Einolf, C. J. (2010). The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and
language. Sociology of Religion, 72(4), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srr017
English, P., de Villiers Scheepers, M. J., Fleischman, D., Burgess, J., & Crimmins, G. (2021).
Developing professional networks: The missing link to graduate employability.
Education + Training, 63(4), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2020-0309
Farrow, H., & Yuan, Y. (2011). Building stronger ties with alumni through Facebook to increase
volunteerism and charitable giving. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
16(3), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01550.x
Ferguson, D. J. (2022). Time, talent, and treasure: A study of community college scholarship
recipients transitioning to alumni advocates (Publication No. 29166694) [Doctoral
dissertation, Widener University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
110
Fleming, K. (2019). “The pots of water” emerging framework for alumni engagement:
Examining how alumni make sense of their relationships with their alma maters.
Philanthropy & Education, 3(1), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.3.1.05
Foley, D., Milan, L., & Hamrick, K. (2021, January 27). The increasing role of community
colleges among bachelor’s degree recipients: Findings from the 2019 National Survey of
College Graduates. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21309
The Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2021). Facts and figures.
https://foundationccc.org/About-Us/About-the-Colleges/Facts-and-Figures
Freeland, R. E., Spenner, K. I., & McCalmon, G. (2015). I gave at the campus: Exploring student
giving and its link to young alumni donations after graduation. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 755–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014529625
Frey, W. (2018). The millennial generation: a demographic bridge to America’s diverse future.
2018. The Brookings Institution.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2201874771/abstract/ED5E110272D742F8PQ/1
Gallo, M. L. (2013). Beyond the campus: Building a sustainable engagement culture for students
and alumni. Journal of Character Education, 9(1), 89–93.
Gillen-O’Neel, C. (2021). Sense of Belonging and Student Engagement: A Daily Study of Firstand Continuing-Generation College Students. Research in Higher Education, 62(1), 45–
71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09570-y
Graham, S. W., & Gisi, S. L. (2000). Adult undergraduate students: What role does college
involvement play? NASPA Journal, 38(1), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-
6605.1122
111
Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N. C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J. P.,
Greenough, W. T., Miller, G. A., Pratt, M. G., Iriye, M., & Aronson, D. (2007). The
Illinois White Paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting
IR “mission creep.” Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 617–649.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407300785
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th
ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hart, C. M. D., Xu, D., Hill, M., & Alonso, E. (2021). COVID-19 and community college
instructional responses. Online Learning: The Official Journal of the Online Learning
Consortium, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2568
Heaton, P. (2014). Embracing advancement. Community College Journal, 84(4), 34–38.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison
of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–
269. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787127
Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary
Education Institutions: 1999-2000: (492172006-011).
https://doi.org/10.1037/e492172006-011
Indeed. (2021). Two-year vs. four-year college: Definitions and differences (Indeed career
guide). https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/two-year-vs-fouryear-college
112
Johnson, G. R. (2019). Influence of alumni affinity groups on alumni engagement and alumni
giving (Publication No. 27665319) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida].
Jones, J. A. (2008). Foundations of corporatization: Lessons from the community college. The
History Teacher, 41(2), 213–217. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40543825
Kaliyadan, F., & Kulkarni, V. (2019). Types of variables, descriptive statistics, and sample size.
Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 10(1), 82–86.
https://doi.org/10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_468_18
Kim, Y., & Cook, B. (2013). Why do academic disciplines matter in high school and college?
Research in Higher Education, 54(7), 765–794.
Klingaman, S., & Santos, G. E. D. L. (2012). Fundraising strategies for community colleges:
The definitive guide for advancement (1st ed.). Stylus Publishing.
Kreisel, N., & Patterson, V. (2013, July 8). How community colleges can help themselves. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/How-Community-CollegesCan/140121/
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2017). A historical review of Proposition 98.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3526
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2019). Trends in Higher Education Series, Education Pays
2019. College Board.
Marcus, J. (2013, November 8). Community colleges join the fundraising game. The Hechinger
Report. http://hechingerreport.org/community-colleges-join-the-fundraising-game/
113
Markle, G. (2015). Factors influencing persistence among nontraditional university students.
Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615583085
Marr, K. A., Mullin, C. H., & Siegfried, J. J. (2005). Undergraduate financial aid and subsequent
alumni giving behavior. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 45(1), 123–
143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2003.08.005
McDearmon, J. T., & Shirley, K. (2009). Characteristics and institutional factors related to young
alumni donors and non-donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2),
83–95. https://doi.org/10.1057/ijea.2009.29
McKinney, L. (2013). Sutin, S. E., Derrico, D., Raby R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (Eds.). (2011).
Increasing Effectiveness of the Community College Financial Model: A Global
Perspective for The Global Economy [Book review]. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 37(6), 496–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.748382
McNamee, C. D., & Drezner, N. D. (2022). Breaking Stereotypes About Alumni Donors: Who
Gives First? A Discrete-Time Hazard Model. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(2),
220–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1964918
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Mertler, C. A. (2021). Introduction to educational research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in
charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
16(4), 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.43
114
Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender,
and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 35(4), 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006288288
Miller, T. E. (Ed.). (2010). Advancement work in student affairs: The challenges and strategies:
New directions for student services, Number 130. John Wiley & Sons.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., Masterson, K., & Waxman, S. (2018). Unkept promises: State cuts
to higher education threaten access and equity. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Saenz, M. (2019). State higher education funding cuts have
pushed costs to students, worsened inequality. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Monks, J. (2004). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective
institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121–130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00036-5
Moody, J. (2022, August 18). Colleges report strong fundraising year. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/08/18/colleges-report-strong-fundraisingfiscal-year-2022
Mor Barak, M. (2008). Social psychological perspectives of workforce diversity and inclusion in
national and global contexts. In R. J. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of human services
management (2nd ed., pp. 239–254). SAGE.
National Council of Nonprofits. (2015). Ethics and accountability for nonprofits.
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/ethics-and-accountability-nonprofits
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985772
115
Nichols, L. (2013). Community college foundations: Fundraising and endowment management
strategies for the new normal. https://trust.guidestar.org/blog/2013/05/28/communitycollege-foundationsfundraising-and-endowment-management-strategies-for-the-newnormal/
O’Leary, K. (2009, June 27). Breaking news, analysis, politics, blogs, news photos, video, tech
reviews. Time. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,’0.htm
Owens, C. Y. (2016). Community college alumni private fundraising: Strategies and factors for
success--A systematic review (Publication No. 10252291) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention.
The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 1001–1043.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010374775
Paradise, A. (2015). Results from the 2014 CASE Survey of Community College Foundations.
Council for Advancement and Support of Education.
Patterson, V., Justice, M., & Scott, J. A. (2012). A longitudinal examination of the relationship
of selected institutional variables to community college foundation revenue.
Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 2(2), 127–138.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1697486415/3FED9C1EA20F49EBPQ/29
Pepper-Kittredge, C., Bird, D., & Lindsey, B. (2018, August 3–5). Growing a network of
makerspaces in California community colleges: Moving towards implementation and
adoption [Paper presentation]. Third International Symposium on Academic
Makerspaces, Stanford, California, United States.
116
Pratt, E. (2015). An Examination of how California Community College Presidents have
Responded to Declining State Funds by Developing Alternative Revenue Generating
Strategies [Ed.D., Brandman University].
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1748614906/abstract/38F93FFF68FC473CPQ/1
Public Policy Institute of California. (2022). COVID-19 emergency funding and California’s
higher education systems. https://www.ppic.org/publication/COVID-19-emergencyfunding-and-californias-higher-education-systems/
Purnell, R., & Blank, S. (2004). Support Success. Services That May Help Low-Income Students
Succeed in Community College. Opening Doors. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED484621
Qualtrics. (2020, May 21). Sample size calculator & complete guide in 2022.
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/
Ramirez, J. J. (2012). The intentional mentor: effective mentorship of undergraduate science
students. Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education: JUNE: a publication of
FUN. Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 11(1), A55–A63.
Rau, N. E., & Erwin, T. D. (2015). Using student engagement to predict alumni donors: An
analytical model. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 5(2), 10.
Rodda, A. (1986). California Community Colleges: Commentary on the History of California’s
Community Colleges by Albert P. Rodda, April, 1986 | Welcome to the California State
University Dominguez Hills.
https://csudharchives.libraryhost.com/repositories/2/archival_objects/165363
Rodriguez-McClellon, L. (2020). A phenomenological study of organizational change in an
urban community college system (Publication No. 28091395) [Doctoral dissertation,
Kansas State University].
117
Rovner, M. (2018). The next generation of American Giving. Blackbaud Institute.
https://institute.blackbaud.com/asset/the-next-generation-of-american-giving-2018/
Shapiro, S. L., Giannoulakis, C., Drayer, J., & Wang, C. H. (2010). An examination of athletic
alumni giving behavior: Development of the former student-athlete donor constraint
scale. Sport Management Review, 13(3), 283–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2009.12.001
Sharon, W. H., Jr., (Ed.). (1982). The community college foundation. National Council for
Resource Development.
Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
Skari, L. A. (2014). Community college alumni: Predicting who gives. Community College
Review, 42(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113510172
Stephenson, A. L., & Bell, N. (2014a). Motivation for alumni donations: A social identity
perspective on the role of branding in higher education. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(3), 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1495
Stephenson, A. L., & Bell, N. (2014b). Motivational factors and the influence of age, gender, and
alumni interactions on alumni giving: Does campus visitation matter? International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 274–293.
Stewart, M. (2021, September 17). Alumni Can Play Key Role in Supporting Campus Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion. INSIGHT Into Diversity.
https://www.insightintodiversity.com/alumni-can-play-key-role-in-supporting-campusdiversity-equity-and-inclusion/
118
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). A key to educational success for all students (2nd ed.). Routledge.,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293
Sun, X., Hoffman, S., & Grady, M. (2007). A multivariate causal model of alumni giving:
Implications for alumni fundraisers. International Journal of Educational Advancement,
7, 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijea.2150073
Sunderman, J. A. (2007). A broad mission, clear public image, and private funding: Can
community colleges have it all? Office of Community College Research and Leadership.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED500961
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1999). Students’ out-of-class experiences
and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal
of College Student Development, 40, 610–623.
2021 home: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved December 17, 2023, from
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/
Vieregger, C., & Bryant, A. (2020). Student-alumni mentoring in the business capstone: An
opportunity to both cap and bridge the undergraduate experience. Journal of Education
for Business, 95(5), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1646700
Wastyn, M. L. (2009). Why alumni don’t give: A qualitative study of what motivates non-donors
to higher education. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2), 96–108.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ijea.2009.31
Wavelength Alumni Networks. (2021). The four categories of alumni engagement according to
CASE and how institutions measure up.
https://www.searchwavelength.com/2021/06/26/the-four-categories-of-alumniengagement-according-to-case-and-how-institutions-measure-up/
119
Weerts, D. J., & Cabrera, A. F. (2017). Segmenting university alumni using a person-centered
methodology. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(3),
e1577. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1577
Weerts, D. J., & Hudson, E. (2009). Engagement and institutional advancement. New Directions
for Higher Education, 2009(147), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.359
Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2007). Profiles of supportive alumni: Donors, volunteers, and
those who do it all. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(1), 20–34.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijea.2150044
Yuen, V. (2020). The $78 Billion Community College Funding Shortfall. American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/78-billion-community-college-fundingshortfall/
120
Appendix A: Solicitation Email
The following script was used in the solicitation email.
Greetings,
You are invited to participate in a research survey for Tanya Adolph, a doctoral student at
the University of Southern California (USC). The purpose of the study is to explore the
relationship between the student experience and alumni giving; and how alumni association
affinity programming can influence alumni giving at California community colleges. The
outcome of this study is to help guide administrators at California community colleges on the
best practices of affinity programs to cultivate students and alumni.
Eligibility:
• Participants must be aged 18 or older.
• The individual must have attended Long Beach City College and not be a current student.
• The individual must have completed at least 12 units at Long Beach City College
(Individuals who do not meet the 12-unit requirement are not considered alumni and thus
excluded from participating).
You have the option of entering a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card at the end of the
survey. The winner will be notified at the end of the study. To participate in the survey, please
click HERE.
Please consider sharing this survey to Long Beach City College alumni donors. And
please do not hesitate to email me at tanyamor@usc.edu should you have any questions or
concerns.
Thank you!
Tanya Adolph
121
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038
STUDY TITLE: Donor Affinity, Engagement, and Giving: Reframing the student
and alumni experience at California community colleges
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Tanya Adolph
FACULTY ADVISOR: Eric Canny, Ph.D.
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the study is to explore the relationship between the student experience
and alumni giving; and how alumni association affinity programming can influence
alumni giving at California Community Colleges. We hope to identify best practices
fundraisers can utilize to secure gifts from donors who might not have been connected
or had opportunities to support their alma mater in meaningful ways. You are invited as
a possible participant because you are an alum of Long Beach City College.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to complete a brief online survey about your
student and alumni experiences at Long Beach City College. The collection process will
employ approximately 25 questions. Survey completion will take about 10–15 minutes.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to share your student experiences and
LBCC involvements since graduation. In addition to affinity questions, survey
participants will be asked to share their engagement and donation history to LBCC,
along with their personal motivations for donating to LBCC.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You have the option to be entered into a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card. The
drawing will be held at the end of the study and the winner notified via email.
122
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
identifiable information will be used.
The investigator will maintain a secure dataset and ethical and thoughtful handling of
data. Data will be anonymized to protect participant information. Survey data will be
deleted one (1) year following the completion of the study under password protection via
a password-protected computer and account.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Tanya Adolph,
tanyamor@usc.edu, 562-290-7679
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
123
Appendix C: Survey Questions
The following sections present the survey used in this study.
Introduction
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.
The purpose of the study is to explore the relationship between the student experience
and alumni giving; and how alumni association programming can influence alumni giving at
California Community Colleges. We hope to identify best practices fundraisers can utilize to
secure gifts from donors who might not have been connected or had opportunities to support
their alma mater in meaningful ways. You are invited as a possible participant because you are
an alum of Long Beach City College.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to complete a brief online survey about your
student and alumni experiences at Long Beach City College. The collection process will employ
approximately 20 questions. Survey completion will take about 10–12 minutes. If you decide to
take part, you will be asked to share your student experiences and LBCC involvements since
graduation. In addition to affinity questions, survey participants will be asked to share their
engagement, along with your personal motivations for connecting with LBCC.
There is no cost to you for taking part in this study. At the end of the survey, you will
have the option to be entered into a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card. The drawing will be
held at the end of the study and the winner notified via email.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
124
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are published
or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. The investigator will
maintain a secure dataset and ethical and thoughtful handling of data. Data will be anonymized
to protect participant information. Survey data will be deleted 1 year following the completion of
the study under password protection via a password-protected computer and account. Data will
not be labeled with any personal identifying information, and IP addresses will not be collected.
Participants should not share any identifying data in the survey.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Tanya Adolph at
tanyamor@usc.edu or call 562-290-7679.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
• Yes, I would like to take this survey.
• No, I will not take this survey.
Part 1
1. Please see the following statements.
• You are at least 18 years old,
• You completed at least 12 units at Long Beach City College, and
• You are not a current student or employee of Long Beach City College.
• Yes, the above statements are all true.
• No, the above statements are not all true.
125
2. As a student at Long Beach City College (LBCC), were you a member of the
following groups or clubs? *Check all that apply
• Student Government
• Service Club (including Fraternities and Sororities)
• Honor Society
• Student Athlete
• President’s Ambassadors
• Other *Please share in the box below
__________________________________________________
• I did not participate in any activities outside of classroom instruction.
3. As a student at LBCC, did you utilize any student support activities and/or programs?
*Check all that apply
• Student Worker (Work study or paid)
• Student services such as the Career Center, tutoring, etc.
• Aid programs such as food pantry, EOPS, DSPS, Childcare, etc.
• Attended extracurricular events, such as career fairs, athletic events, social,
etc.
• Scholarship and/or grant recipient
• Other *Please share in the box below
__________________________________________________
• I did not utilize any student support services outside of classroom instruction.
126
4. As a student at LBCC, did you have a mentor or someone you trusted to help you
succeed? *Check all that apply
• Faculty/Instructor
• Staff Member
• Fellow Student
• Other *Please share in the box below
__________________________________________________
• N/A
5. When you were a student at LBCC, did you experience a sense of belonging?
• Yes
• No
6. Overall, how do you describe your time as a student at LBCC?
• Very Positive
• Positive
• Neither Positive nor Negative
• Negative
• Very Negative
7. Do you experience a sentimental feeling, or feelings of affection, when you think of
your time as a student at LBCC?
• Yes
• No
8. Do you feel a connection with fellow LBCC alumni?
• Yes
127
• No
9. Do you live within what you consider a comfortable travel distance to LBCC?
• Yes
• No
10. Are you aware of the Long Beach City College Foundation and Alumni Association,
and are you familiar with its mission?
• Yes
• No
11. In the past 10 years (or since leaving LBCC if less than 10 years), have you
participated in or attended any LBCC activities or programs?
• Yes
• No
12. In total (or since leaving LBCC if less than 10 years), have you donated money (any
dollar amount, including planned gifts) to LBCC?
• Yes
• No
13. Please share below why you do not participate or attend LBCC activities and
programs.
________________________________________________________________
14. Which LBCC activities or programs have you or currently participate? *Check all
that apply
• Attend Events (lectures, sporting events, performances, exhibitions, etc.)
• Board Member
128
• Guest speaker at events or classroom
• Scholarship application/resume reviewer
• Volunteer (assist at Commencement, sporting events, etc.)
• Workforce Development (Advisory Council, host internships, etc.)
• Utilize LBCC services (Library, Career Center, etc.)
• Other *Please share in the box below
__________________________________________________
15. Please share below any other motivations to participate in LBCC activities and
programs.
________________________________________________________________
16. Please share below why you do not donate money to LBCC.
________________________________________________________________
17. In total, approximately how many individual donations have you made to LBCC?
• 1–4
• 5–14
• 15–24
• 25 +
18. In total, approximately how much money have you donated to LBCC?
• Up to $99
• $100–$999
• $1,000–$2,499
• $2,500–$4,999
• $5,000–$9,999
129
• $10,000–$24,999
• $25,000–$49,999
• $50,000–$74,999
• $75,000–$99,999
• $100,000 or more
Table A1
What Motivates You to Donate to LBCC?
Not
influential
at all
Somewhat
influential Neutral Influential Very
influential
My positive student
experience.
My positive alumni
experience.
I want to help others in turn.
I believe higher education
contributes to a better
society.
I approve of the work taking
place at LBCC and want to
support its mission.
The financial benefits of
philanthropic giving.
19. Please share below any other motivations to donate money to LBCC.
________________________________________________________________
130
Part 2
The word “affinity” describes an interest that unifies people together. Some examples are
Dodger fans, weekend trail hikers, and new mothers. Please share your level of interest in the
following affinities.
Table A2
Affinities
Not
Interested Interested Very
Interested
Professional development learning (panel discussions,
workshops, job shadowing, etc.)
Networking and learning by industry (real estate,
medicine, finance, education, etc.)
Career center services (job fairs, resume review, mock
interviews, etc.)
Social events (tailgates, picnics, reunions, etc.)
Service opportunities (beach cleanup, food drive,
mentorship, etc.)
Campus volunteer opportunities (athletic events,
commencement, special events, etc.)
Cultural and affinity groups (including allies, Black
alumni association, retired alumni, LGBTQIA+,
women’s group, faculty, and staff emeriti, etc.)
131
20. Is there anything else you’d like to share about your LBCC student or alumni
experiences? *Please share in the box below.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
21. Please choose your age.
• 18–29
• 30–44
• 45–59
• 60–74
• 75 or older
• Prefer not to share
22. How many years has it been since you were a student at LBCC?
• 1–9
• 10–19
• 20–34
• 35–49
• 50 +
• Prefer not to share
132
23. Please describe yourself. *Check all that apply
• American Indian or Alaskan Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latino
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• White
• From multiple races and ethnicities
• Prefer to self-describe or Other
• Prefer not to share
24. Which of the following best describes your gender identity? *Check all that apply
• Man
• Woman
• Non-binary / Third gender
• Prefer to self-describe or Other
• Prefer not to share
Conclusion
Thank you for completing this survey. Once you hit the submit button, you will have the
option to enter your email address for a chance to win a $100 Amazon gift card and/or share your
contact information if you’d like to discuss this survey further -- you will not be solicited for a
gift.
Please consider forwarding this survey to your fellow LBCC alumni donors. (link)
133
25. Would you like to be entered in a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card? *Drawing
will take place when the survey closes.
• Yes, please enter me in the drawing. Email address _____________________
• No, please do not enter me in the drawing.
26. I am open to follow-up communication about the survey -- you will not be solicited
for a gift.
• Yes, please contact me. Email address ____________________Phone #
_____________________
• No, please do not contact me.
27. Thank you for completing this survey. You have the option below for a chance to win
a $100 Amazon gift card and/or share your contact information if you’d like to
discuss this research further -- you will not be solicited for a gift.
• Yes, include me in the drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card AND/OR I want
to discuss this research.
• No, do not include me in the drawing AND do not contact me about this
research.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study explored the drivers for Long Beach City College alumni, a 2-year California community college (CCC), to engage with and donate to their alma mater. Due to the widespread decline in enrollment post-COVID-19 pandemic, institutions face increasing financial insecurity. They must now explore new funding streams. By modeling the success of alumni engagement at 4-year schools, beginning with the student experience, CCCs can strengthen their budgets while simultaneously providing an improved experience for their students, alumni, and campus communities. With this research, advancement professionals and college administrators will recognize the value of integrating a framework for alumni affinity programming in their strategic planning. Chapter One includes an introduction to the study, its significance, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms utilized in the fundraising and alumni relations fields. Chapter Two explores prior research, the organization of CCCs, their funding needs, and alumni engagement and fundraising practices. Chapter Three describes the methodology of the study. Chapter Four provides the results of the data analysis. Chapter Five presents recommendations and suggestions for future study.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students
PDF
Effective engagement of minority alumni: an innovation study
PDF
CalWORKs’ role in increasing success among immigrant students
PDF
Understanding international graduate engineering students’ engagement with DEI initiatives
PDF
Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams
PDF
Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions
PDF
The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders
PDF
Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition
PDF
The impact of campus closures: experiences of first-generation college students at a 4-year private university in southern California
PDF
A call for transparency and accountability: continuous improvement in state education agency policy implementation
PDF
Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence
PDF
Civic engagement of Teach For America alumni in Los Angeles
PDF
Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college
PDF
Community college leadership for student success
PDF
Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…
PDF
Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction
PDF
Applying Schlossberg’s transition theory to the student veteran transfer experience at the University of Southern California: a qualitative case study
PDF
Influence of mentorship on career development for underrepresented minoritized students in STEM undergraduate research experiences
Asset Metadata
Creator
Adolph, Tanya Inthapanti
(author)
Core Title
Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2023-12
Publication Date
12/19/2023
Defense Date
08/30/2023
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
advancement,alumni,alumni relations,Development,engagement,Fundraising,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Canny, Eric (
committee chair
), Hirabaysahi, Kimberly (
committee member
), Krop, Cathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
tanyaiadolph@gmail.com,tanyamor@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113797582
Unique identifier
UC113797582
Identifier
etd-AdolphTany-12576.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AdolphTany-12576
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Adolph, Tanya Inthapanti
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20231221-usctheses-batch-1117
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
advancement
alumni relations
engagement