University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sustaining historically black colleges and universities: an exploration of organizational outcome achievement by leaders at public HBCUs

(USC Thesis Other)

Sustaining historically black colleges and universities: an exploration of organizational outcome achievement by leaders at public HBCUs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Sustaining Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
An exploration of organizational outcome achievement by leaders at public HBCUS
by
Derrick William Harris

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

May 2022

© Copyright by Derrick William Harris 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Derrick William Harris certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair
Dr. Douglas Lynch, Committee Co-Chair
Dr. Michèle Turner Committee Co-Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
While there is extensive research on the historical development and impact of Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the United States, there remains limited research focused
on the current condition of public HBCUs, and strategies used by their leaders to achieve
organizational outcomes. In addition, research has not often included the perspectives of leaders
at public HBCUs responsible for ensuring their success and sustainability. This research study
was designed to help address this gap in research through the exploration of understanding the
(1) external factors that influence or constrain the decision-making of leaders at public HBCUs
and (2) what strategies leaders at public HBCUs use to achieve their organizational outcomes.
Due to the rising expectations and costs from state governments, this study focused on
organizational outcomes related to increasing their endowments, increasing their research
productivity, and reducing their tuition dependence.
Six senior leaders representing five public HBCUs were interviewed and responded to the
research questions that guided this study using a qualitative research design. Furthermore, the
factors and strategies were examined using Resource Dependence Theory. The findings of this
study revealed the importance of public HBCUs moving away from a dependence on
government funding to a more sustainable and independent approach. This approach emphasizes
building organizational infrastructure and capital, increasing fundraising capacity, and leveraging
their Board of Trustees to engage in mutually beneficial relationships with public and private
sectors. These recommendations were followed by recommendations for future research in this
area.

v
Dedication
To my ancestors, who have guided and watched over me and every person still here with us that
has supported me on this journey. I felt your love, encouragement, and presence, and I am
grateful.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to praise and honor God, who remains at the forefront of my life and who
has been the ultimate source of strength and perseverance throughout this journey. Without God,
this would not be possible.
For as long as I can remember, obtaining an education was instilled in me. It was not an
option; it was a priority. To my parents, Derek and Wanda, there aren’t words that could ever
articulate my sincere gratitude for all the sacrifices you made, prayers you prayed, and the
support you’ve given me. I know you are proud of this achievement, and I am proud to be your
son. I love you.
To my first role model and big sister, Lateefah, thank you. Your example is one that I’ve
always looked to and respected. I love you.
To my niece, Lena, thank you for making your uncle rise to the occasion. When you
came into the world, I knew I had to work twice as hard so you would have an example that you
can do and be anything you want, and I know that you will. I love you.
To my immediate, extended, and adopted family, thank you for your support, prayers,
and encouragement over the years. To my Tier One Crew, thank you for keeping me focused and
reminding me that this journey was not an option but a part of my destiny. I love you all.
I would like to thank all of my professors in the Organizational Change and Leadership
Doctoral program at USC. To my Committee Chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy, thank you for
stepping in to help carry me across the finish line. To my Committee Members, Dr. Michele
Turner and Dr. Douglas Lynch, thank you, thank you, and thank you.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………...v
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………...vi
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice……………………………………….1
Background of the Problem………………………………………………………………..2
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions…………………………………………......5
Importance of the Study……………………………………………………………………5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology………………………………......7
Definitions……………………………………………………………………………….....8
Organization of the Dissertation…………………………………………………………...9
Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………………………………………………...10
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….10
The History of HBCUs in Higher Education……………………………………………..10
The Economic Value of HBCUs………………………………………………………….15
Higher Education Funding Policies and Revenue Generation…………………………....16
Organizational Outcomes in Public Higher Education…………………………………...23
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………...31
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………...34
Summary………………………………………………………………………………….37
Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………………………….38
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………38
Overview of Methodology……………………………………………………………….38
The Researcher…………………………………………………………………………...39
Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..41
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….45
Credibility and Trustworthiness………………………………………………………….46
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………..47
Chapter Four: Results and Data Analysis………………………………………………….....49
Participants……………………………………………………………………………….49

viii
Research Findings………………………………………………………………………..51
Research Question (RQ1)………………………………………………………………..51
Research Question (RQ2)………………………………………………………………..60
Additional Insights……………………………………………………………………….72
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………74
Chapter Five: Recommendations……………………………………………………………...75
Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………………...75
Recommendations for Practice…………………………………………………………..77
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….82
Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………84
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….85
References……………………………………………………………………………………….86
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………….118
Interview Protocol………………………………………………………………………118

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for how external factors influence organizations 36

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The nature of higher education's financial stability is uncertain due to its dependency on
funding sources outside of its control (ASHE Higher Education Report, 2010). Sigritz (2015)
suggested the current landscape of higher education is troubled by a continued decrease in state
and federal funding. The author noted that since 1990, state allocations for higher education have
decreased by 20% nationwide. However, since the first Historically Black College and
University (HBCU) was founded in 1837, HBCUs have lacked financial support (Tindall &
Waters, 2010). In addition, since the beginning of federal and state support for public institutions
of higher education, HBCUs have been underfunded by federal and state agencies, in comparison
to their predominantly White peer institutions (PWIs) (Drezner, 2012, 2010; Green, 2004; Jones,
2004; Kujovich, 1994, Minor, 2008; Sav, 1997, 2000). However, HBCUs have remained
consistent in their mission to provide affordable and accessible education, specifically by serving
African American students regardless of their income or academic preparedness (Arroyo &
Gasman, 2014; Harper, Patton & Wooden, 2009; Hodge-Clark & Daniels, 2014). These
institutions remain critical in addressing access to higher education for students from lower
socioeconomic classes due to their relatively lower tuition costs compared to their PWI
counterparts (Betsey, 2008).
According to the National Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (2013),
HBCUs classified as land-grant institutions disproportionately received less state land-grant
matching funds than PWIs due to the state’s continued failure to match federal dollars one-to-
one. This funding disparity between public HBCUs and public PWIs is significant at the state
level. On average, for each federal dollar a PWI receives, the state distributes between $5 and $7
to the institution (Drezner & Gupta, 2012; Glanton, 2012). From 2010-2012, 61 percent of 1890
2

land-grant institutions didn’t receive 100 percent of the one-to-one matching funds from their
respective states for extension or research support. In addition, Lee and Keys (2013a) highlighted
that between 2010 and 2012, the 18 HBCU land-grant institutions lost more than $57 million and
did not receive more than $25 million in research funding due to states not meeting the one-to-
one match. Unfortunately, few public HBCUs have the resources to support student success and
maintain low tuition costs without adequate state and federal funding (Richards & Awokoya,
2012).
According to the American Council on Education (2019), public HBCUs rely on federal,
state, and local funding more heavily than their non-HBCU counterparts. Philanthropic dollars
can reduce public HBCUs dependence on government funding, enhance their financial security
and provide funding for programs that enhance campus life for students (Proper, Caboni, Hartley
& Willmer, 2009). However, many HBCUs are forced to implement budget cuts that reduce
faculty, staff, and programming without alternative funding strategies in place, and some HBCUs
have been forced to close their doors (Belkin, 2013; Martin, 2013). Leak & Reid (2010) suggested
that as HBCUs address changes in their funding sources, the development of funding strategies is
crucial to their fiscal health and institutional well-being. Therefore this study explored the existing
strategies of leaders at public HBCUs and the external factors that influence or constrain their
decision-making.
Background of the Problem
The federal government and state government are the two primary public sources of
funding that American higher education institutions receive, and these funding sources can
potentially impact the way higher education institutions operate (Coupet, 2017; Leslie, Slaughter,
Taylor & Zhang, 2012; Andrews, Boyne, Meier, O’toole, & Walker, 2005; Bozeman, 1987).
3

HBCUs receive both state and federal funding (Coupet, 2017). HBCUs are defined by the Higher
Education Act of 1965 as “…any historically black college or university that was established
prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans…”.
HBCUs were founded specifically to educate Black Americans, who, at the time of their
founding, were being denied admission into PWIs (Allen & Jewell 2002). HBCUs collectively
represent a small proportion of all post-secondary institutions in the United States. However,
they educate 14% of African-American undergraduate students and confer approximately 24% of
all undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees annually (Esters & Strayhorn, 2013;
Stewart, Wright, Perry & Rankin, 2008).
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2020), there are 101 HBCUs
located in 19 states, with 51 classified as public institutions and 50 as private nonprofit
institutions. Public HBCUs make up 51% of the 101 HBCUs. More than 50% of the
predominantly African American student population at these institutions are low-income or first-
generation college students (Jones, 2016; National Center for Education Statistics, 2011;
Thurgood Marshall College Fund, 2010). 87% of HBCUs are four-year institutions, 51% are
public universities, 17% are land grant institutions, 10% are research institutions, 23% are
master’s universities, 47% are baccalaureate universities, 4% are seminaries, and 2% are medical
schools; altogether enrolling over 300,000 students (NCES, 2020). In 2018, the total revenue for
all HBCUs combined was $8.7 billion, with $1.9 billion from student tuition and fees, with total
expenditures at $8.0 billion and $2.3 billion being spent on instruction (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2020).
All 101 operating HBCUs serve a student population composed of at least 40% Pell
Grant recipients (Nichols & Evans-Bell, 2017). Pell Grants are awarded to undergraduate
4

students with low socioeconomic status to assist tuition and other expenses. Arroyo & Gasman
(2014) highlighted that 70% of all HBCUs students are eligible for Pell Grants compared to other
institutions with similar populations of Pell Grant recipients. In addition, a majority are first-
generation college students, many of whom attend school part-time to take care of other
responsibilities outside of their time in school. Shorette & Arroyo (2015) suggested that due to a
decline in resources and HBCUs being relatively tuition-dependent, it is critical they understand
the enrollment behavior of various student populations to support the institution's financial
stability. Researchers have noted that affordability is an essential factor for the college-decision
making of African American students (Gasman & Commodore, 2014; Freeman, 1999).
A key source of revenue for many HBCUs is enrollment, and many HBCUs are facing
enrollment challenges, in addition to a continued decline in support from local state, federal and
private funders (Stuart, 2017). Fowles (2014) suggested a long-standing trend across the majority
of public higher education institutions is an “increased reliance on net tuition (tuition minus
institutional financial aid)” as a primary source of revenue. Williams and Davis (2019) noted
that public HBCUs are more dependent on federal, state, and local funding at 54 percent than
their counterparts at 38 percent. In addition, the author notes that public HBCUs are more
tuition-dependent at 45 percent, compared to their PWI counterparts at 37 percent. Gasman
(2010) reported only a tiny fraction of federal research and development (R&D) funds are
allocated to HBCUs. For example, from 1945 to 1960, Huffman (1981) noted that public land-
grant PWIs received 99% of the total funding designated for research in the southern land-grant
institutions. Declining financial support to HBCUs has resulted in numerous mergers and
closings of these institutions (Lee and Keys, 2013a; Coupet and Barnum, 2010).
5

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand what external factors support and or
constrain the decision-making of leaders at public HBCUs. In addition, learn more about the
strategies used by leaders at public HBCUs to achieve organizational outcomes. Specifically, this
study sought to learn about these leaders' strategies to increase endowment size, increase
research productivity, and decrease tuition dependency. Gasman and Commodore (2014) noted
there had been limited research regarding administrative leadership at HBCUs, and some studies
have called into question their leadership (Gasman & Commodore, 2014). In addition, the
authors noted that HBCUs lack financial resources that don’t position them well to compete with
PWIs for students, faculty, and funding. However, there is limited research on this topic. The
study explored these questions:
1. What external factors support and/or constrain leaders in their decision-making at public
HBCUs?
2. What are the strategies leaders at public HBCUs use to increase their endowment size and
research productivity and limit tuition dependence?
Importance of the Study
This study is critical because it aims to understand how present-day decision-making is
happening among public HBCU leaders and how they prioritize the greatest needs of their
institution. In addition, this study provided a better understanding of the current landscape of
public higher education finance and its connection to these leaders' management and strategic
approach. Currently, there is a gap in the published literature that explores leaders' strategies at
public HBCUs and how they navigate the legacy of higher education funding policies and
practices to increase the institutions’ endowment, increase the institutions’ research productivity,
6

and limit tuition dependence. In addition, it has been noted that some attempts have been made to
study leaders at HBCUs but have lacked a comprehensive approach (Gasman & Commodore,
2014; Gasman et al., 2010).
Since public institutions of higher education are not considered for-profit organizations, a
surplus in revenues can provide an opportunity for revenue to be generated and shifted within the
organization to subsidize other activities that don’t generate revenue to self-sustain (Fowles,
2014). Bolman & Gallos (2011) suggested that higher education budget concerns have increased
the pressure on institutional leaders to become more “entrepreneurial…in order to keep pace
with rapidly evolving conditions…”. In addition, these budget concerns and scrutiny on leaders
come from students and parents’ complaints about tuition increases due to budget cuts,
stakeholders’ demands for institutions to produce students for the workforce, and faculty who
emphasize that academic programs within institutions should be exempt (Lum, 2008). In
addition, Nelms (2010) noted that many public HBCUs recognized their institution’s
infrastructure as a barrier to attracting students. Gasman & Palmer (2008) highlight barriers
related to infrastructure, including declining building infrastructure, limited technology, and
outdated academic curriculum.
The historical impact of underfunding to public HBCUs have been significant compared
to the funding of their PWI counterparts, which can make more substantial financial and capital
investments in infrastructure (DuBois, 1982). Johnson et al. (2015) noted that although tuition
tends to be lower at HBCUs than their PWI counterparts, tuition increases have been used at
HBCUs to compensate for declining state support. In addition, without improved strategies to
supplement revenue, tuition-dependent HBCUs will continue to be fiscally unsustainable
(Goldstein, 2005; Johnson et al., 2015; Townsley, 1993). This study will be most significant to
7

those individuals who are current and future leaders at HBCUs, who can gain a better
understanding from other leaders working to sustain their institutions and navigate inequities
within the public higher education landscape.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework used to frame the problem was Resource Dependence Theory
(RDT). RDT explores the role that factors outside of an organization’s control play in shaping
the behavior of an organization (Coupet, 2013; Levin & white, 1961; Thompson, 1967). RDT
suggests that an organization can engage in resource exchange with organizations in their
environment and form dependencies based on the relationship and source of these resources
(Coupet, 2013; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The behaviors of organizations can be influenced by
the organization’s access to, and availability of external resources needed for their survival
(Fowles, 2014; Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). In the context of this study, RDT assisted in
exploring factors within the higher education environment, outside of leaders’ control, that
influence their leadership behaviors. (Fowles, 2014).
This study used qualitative research. Qualitative research is used to understand how
people interpret their experiences and roles within society. (Creswell, 2014; Petty, Thomson &
Stew, 2012). Using qualitative methods allowed the institutional leaders to reflect upon and share
their lived experiences as current leaders of public HBCUs. In addition, interviews provided a
more in-depth holistic picture and informed understanding of what drives their decision-making
and how they achieve organizational outcomes at their institution.
8

Definitions
Endowment – An endowment is a portion of an institution’s income, usually from a significant
gift, that is invested and used to generate general income and capital appreciation over time
(Newman, 2005).
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) – Defined by the Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended, it is “…any historically black college or university that was established
prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is the education of black Americans, and that is
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the
Secretary [ of Education ] to be a reliable authority as the quality of training, offered or is,
according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.”
Leader – An individual(s) taking the organization or some part of it to a new direction; solving
problems, being creative, initiating new programs, building organizational structures, and
improving quality (Davis, 2003).
Land-Grant University - A land-grant college or university is an institution that its state
legislature or Congress has designated to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862, 1890,
and 1994 (The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, 2020).
Predominately White Institutions (PWI) - Predominately White Institutions are colleges and
universities where 50% or more of the overall student population is White (Brown & Dancy,
2010).
Public Institution/HBCU – Public institutions/HBCUs in higher education are established,
supported, and controlled by a public entity, usually the state government. While these
institutions charge student tuition, a significant funding source is supported by public funds,
typically tax dollars (NCES, 2017).
9

Research Productivity – The number of original research and review publications submitted
and accepted in peer-reviewed journals (Quimbo & Sulabo, 2014).
Tuition Dependence – Peruso (2010) defines tuition dependence as the reliance of higher
education institutions on revenue generated from student tuition and fees. The greater the
percentage of an institution’s operating budget is generated from student tuition and fees, the
more tuition-dependent that institution is.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation highlights external factors that influence or constrain leaders' decision-
making at public HBCUs. Specifically, this study sought to learn the strategies public HBCU
leaders use to increase their endowment size and research productivity and limit tuition
dependence. Chapter 1 introduced the problem and background of public HBCUs within higher
education and highlighted funding inequities by the federal and state government. Chapter 2
reviews the scholarly literature, research, and data on public higher education policies and
practices. In addition, Chapter 2 describes the economic value of public HBCUs, how they
generate revenue, and a brief history of how they achieve organizational outcomes. Chapter 3
focuses on the researcher's research methods and questions that guided this study. This chapter
also describes the interview protocol for participants interviewed for this study, how the
researcher collected data, and their positionality. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on data compiled and
highlights key findings through the lens of the proposed research questions. In addition, those
findings will help frame future discussions for leaders within public HBCUs and higher
education at large.

10

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
This literature review focuses on extensive empirical and theoretical studies, articles, and books
that address the history of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) within the
context of U.S higher education. Specifically, this review will address the higher education
funding policies and practices that have historically impacted the economic value of public
HBCUs, how they generate revenue, and their fundraising capacity. In this context, the literature
review will explore organizational outcome achievement through the lens of Resource
Dependence Theory.
The History of HBCUs in Higher Education
It would be nearly three decades before African Americans could benefit from the First
Morrill Act, by Congress enacting the Second Morrill Act in 1890. The Morrill Act of 1890
required states to either admit African American students to existing land grant institutions or
finance schools to which African Americans had access (Redd, 1998; Museus, Ledesma, and
Parker, 2012; Harper, Patton & Wooden, 2009). It was an extension of the First Morrill Act,
mandating that funding for education be dispersed in an equitable way to African Americans in
seventeen states (Harper, Patton & Wooden, 2009; Brazzell, 1996; Bowles & De Costa, 1971).
The Act also prohibited racial discrimination in admissions policies for colleges receiving this
federal funding. However, states could escape this provision by creating separate institutions and
dividing the funds, which led to the establishment of 17 land-grant institutions for African
Americans and the 54 other Black institutions founded under the First Morrill Act (Rudolph,
1990).
11

However, differences existed between the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, including the
availability of 30,000 acres of land granted to public land-grant PWIs and not to public land-
grant HBCUs (Jenkins, 1991; Sharpe, 2005; Wolanin, 1998). Bracey (2017) suggested that since
the southern states wanted to maintain the continuous flow of federal dollars to the states, they
created a segregated higher education system. Using the creation of public land-grant HBCUs,
the states received federal funding while ensuring African Americans did not attend PWI land-
grant institutions. From then on, the number of HBCUs increased over the 20
th
century,
particularly the number of public land-grant HBCUs, better known as the “1890” universities
(Esters & Strayhorn, 2013). The first land-grant HBCU created was Alcorn State University,
which opened in 1871 (Lee & Keys, 2013; National Research Council, 1995, Sorber & Geiger,
2014). However, funding determined by the state legislatures resulted in public land-grant
HBCUs receiving far less funding than their PWI counterparts (Sharper, 2005; Wolanin, 1998).
Due to this creation of a new segregated higher education system, public land-grant
HBCUs continued to remain disproportionately funded compared to public land-grant PWI’s,
who, according to Harper, Patton, and Wooden (2009), still received state appropriations at a
rate of 26 times greater than that of HBCUs. In addition, it provided limited funding to HBCUs,
only providing operational support but not financial endowments equivalent to those given to
predominantly White land-grant institutions (Esters & Strayhorn, 2013; Harris & Worthen,
2004). Public HBCUs founded during this time operated in inadequate instructional facilities and
with minimum resources available to train and support staff (Harper, Patton & Wooden, 2009).
The federal government would establish other laws to support the land-grant model, including
the Hatch Act of 1887, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and later the Food and Agriculture Act of
1977.
12

According to the National Research Council (1995), the acts are explained as The Hatch
Act of 1887 authorized funds to establish agricultural research and experiment states at land-
grant institutions. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established funding for cooperative extension
through the land-grant colleges to develop and distribute scientific information related to
agriculture, human economics, and technology. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 provided
a mandated formula to allocate funding from the United States Department of Agriculture for
public land-grant HBCUs. Furthermore, these laws determined the type of funding public land-
grant HBCUs were eligible for, the research they could produce at these institutions, and their
academic focus. In addition, the Purnell Act of 1925 provided additional federal funding for
research with an emphasis on economics, home economics, and sociology (National Research
Council, 1995).
Throughout history, it has been noted that some HBCUs have faced difficulties due to
political policies and practices (Esters & Strayhorn, 2013; Allen & Jewell, 2002). For example,
even when states do not meet the one-to-one matching requirement, public land-grant HBCUs
are still required by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to match 50% of the
funds or risk losing funding. As a result, 70% of public land-grant HBCUs have requested
waivers from the UDSA to avoid penalties that will result in the loss of their federal funding
(Lee & Keys, 2013). However, the most noteworthy accomplishment of HBCUs is remaining
successful and sustainable, with only a fraction of budget received in comparison to PWIs
(Brady, Eatman, & Parker, 2000; Brown & Burnette, 2014; Gasman, 2010; Kee & Keys, 2013;
Sav, 1997, 2010).
Tegene et al. (2002) noted that no federal funds were available exclusively for 1890
institutions until 1967, two years after the Higher Education Act of 1965, providing funding for
13

HBCUs. In addition, it was required for all land-grant institutions to work collaboratively
through extension services; however, state governments only funded public PWI land-grant
institutions. Federal funding designated for public HBCU land-grant institutions was left in the
PWI land grant institutions' control. Comer et al. (2006) noted that for the first 75 years of their
existence, public land-grant HBCUs received $2.8 million annually; however, states ensured that
they received significantly less funding.
The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education intended to increase
African Americans' access to an equal education. (Allen, Jewel, Griffin & Wolf, 2007).
However, in the years following the case, HBCUs began to experience financial deficits,
challenges with raising supplemental funding, and low endowments due to post-segregation
arguments over the need for Black colleges (Drezner & Gupta, 2012; Gasman, 2009). However,
the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 radically shaped access and affordability for post-
secondary education students in the United States. Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson,
HEA implemented federal funding for financial aid and student loan programs. The legislation
intended to strengthen the educational resources for higher education and provide financial
assistance to students. HEA requires periodic reauthorization, which takes place about every five
years (Lowry, 2009).
Federal funding for HBCUs’ was not established until Title III, Part B of HEA, which
passed to assist HBCUs with facility and academic costs (Gasman, 2009). Title III, Part B
passed legislation geared towards programming for minority-serving institutions. Title III-B
authorizes two programs to award grants to eligible HBCUs to “assist them in strengthening their
academic, administrative, and fiscal capabilities” (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
However, it would be nearly two decades before federal policies that recognized HBCUs as
14

credible institutions within American higher education were enacted. President Jimmy Carter
signed an Executive Order in 1980 to provide additional funding to HBCUs to compensate for
African American students being discriminated against at PWIs (Harper, Patton & Wooden,
2009). In 1989 President George H. Bush was the only other President to provide additional
funding for HBCUs until President Barack Obama launched the White House Initiative on
HBCUs in 2009 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016; Gasman, 2009).
President Obama invested more than $4 billion to support HBCUs, increasing direct
HBCU funding in Title III and increasing federal student aid programs, which gave HBCUs over
$300 million in additional Pell Grant Dollars (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Following
his presidency, in 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that recognized
HBCUs' importance; however, his administration limited federal financial support to HBCUs.
The Executive Order he signed significantly reduced federal student aid programs by more than
$143 billion over ten years, a significant funding source for HBCUs (Office of Management and
Budget, 2017; United Negro College Fund, 2017). The Department of Education (2016) reported
that through programs like the Federal Pell Grant and Federal Work-Study programs, and direct
institutional support, approximately $164.2 billion of federal financial assistance was provided in
2015 to colleges and universities. However, Urhan & Conroy (2015) suggested that the Higher
Education Act of 1965 increasingly used federal funds to reduce state funding.
As states struggled with unstable economies and increasing costs for healthcare,
discriminatory practices within state governments had a disproportionate impact on reduced
funding to HBCUs (Sigritz, 2015; Boland & Gasman, 2014, Minor, 2008). Drezner & Gupta
(2012) suggested that public HBCUs experience inequalities in funding and financial support
than their PWI peers, resulting in them relying heavily on state funding, student tuition, and fees.
15

Vedder (2010) raised significant concerns about HBCUs' continued support and their relevance
within higher education. For example, he noted how not a single highly ranked HBCU appeared
in the top half of the Forbes ranking of 610 schools. However, multiple researchers have found
although HBCUs make up only 3% of colleges and universities in the United States, they
produce more than 20% of all African American college graduates (Gasman, Baez, Drezner, et
al., 2007). Although researchers have studied HBCUs historically, Esters & Strayhorn (2013)
suggested that there has been a lack of consideration for the contributions of HBCUs to society
and their most senior campus leaders.
The Economic Value of HBCUs
McMahon’s (2009) research discussed the contribution of education to the public good,
including the positive influences on local income and new job creation. The author also
suggested that higher education can be measured in ways not directly linked to economic impacts
but as a positive impact on communities, through volunteer work, charitable giving, higher civic
engagement, meaningful research contributions to society, and an enhanced awareness of
broader social issues and increased racial tolerance. In the case of HBCUs, Saunders and Nagle
(2018) noted a study conducted by The United Negro College Fund that found for every dollar
spent on, and by, an HBCU and its students, there is a positive influence on economic activity,
increased job creation, and higher wage potential for graduates. In addition, HBCUs annually
generate 134,090 jobs and $14.8 billion in total economic impact for their local and regional
economies. Looking at 21 states where HBCUs are located, it was noted that HBCUs provide on
average 6,385 jobs in each state and generate an average of $704.7 million in total economic
impact (Humphreys, 2017). In addition, the value of these public institutions of higher learning
16

comes from their presence in communities and their impact on local and state economies
(Hensley, Galilee-Belfer & Lee, 2013).
Higher Education Funding Policies and Revenue Generation
Over the last three decades, there has been increased pressure for public higher education
to be held more accountable for institutional performance and results (Alexander, 2001; Bogue,
1997; Zumeta, 2001). Performance funding in higher education is defined as a financial incentive
and an accountability mechanism that links state appropriations directly to institutional outcomes
(Hagwood, 2019; Hearn, 2015). It is used as a mechanism to drive institutional, behavioral
changes that improve student outcomes (Hagwood, 2019). Tandberg & Hillman (2014) noted
that states measure the performance of institutions in various ways, including but not limited to:
student retention, graduation rates, student scores on licensure exams, job placement rates,
faculty productivity, and campus diversity. Performance-based funding is a concern to HBCUs in
states where it has been adopted because the HBCUs rely significantly on state allocations as a
percentage of their revenues (Boland, 2016; Brady, Eatman, & Parker, 2000). These institutions
experience the difficulty of navigating the increased accountability, assessment measures, and
state mandates while managing the challenges of organizational outcomes, such as declining
budgets and small endowments (Andrews, D.R. et al., 2016; Duderstadt & Womack, 2003;
Gasman, 2013; Hirsch & Weber, 2002; Keller, 1983).
Umbricht, Fernandez, and Ortagus (2017) noted three trends in performance funding in
U.S. higher education: its rapid adoption across states; performance funding formulas
determining more significant percentages of funding; and a shift from performance funding used
as a supplemental award to it determining base funding allocations to institutions. Doughtery &
Reddy (2013) noted that since 1979, 30 states had adopted performance funding policies. The
17

authors suggested that performance funding became a convenient way to gather data on
institutional performance and attach financing to it. At the state level, policymakers can use cost
measures to determine whether funding into institutions is appropriate based on the institutional
outcomes (Tsang, 1997). However, Hillman, Tandberg & Fryar (2015) noted that even though
attention is mainly focused on the funding and policy aspect of performance funding, these
policy reforms are characterized as performance accountability. As a result of state performance-
based funding, declines in state funding have deeply impacted four-year public institutions
(Powell & Rey, 2015; Duderstadat and Womack, 2003).
External forces such as the economic environment of an institution’s respective state are
deeply connected to how an institution is supported (Powell & Rey, 2015; Brown and Gamber,
2002; Duderstadt and Womack, 2003). Powell and Rey (2015) found that public support for
higher education declined in the late 1970s. The decline was due to the reallocation of public
resources to other areas such as healthcare, crime prevention, and K-12 education. In response,
public universities developed strategies that included cutting back on spending, cutting
programs, and increasing productivity (Brown and Gamber, 2002; Duderstadat and Womack,
2003). However, as the national economy began to weaken again in 2001, state appropriations
for public higher education declined once again (Duderstadt and Womack, 2003).
More recently, public funding policies have reemerged as states have limited resources
for higher education and increased demand for accountability and transparency for all public
spending (Jones, 2016; McLendon, Hearn & Deaton, 2006). It has been noted that currently, 25
states have performance funding policies in place, five states that were transitioning to
performance funding policies, and most recently, 12 states conducted legislative hearings to
determine how to design and implement performance funding policies (Jones, 2016; Ferguson,
18

2014; Friedel, Thornton, D’Amico, & Katsinas, 2013). Duderstadt and Womack (2003)
highlighted that institutions that quickly respond to rapid environmental changes are rewarded,
and those who can’t promptly have the potential to experience difficulties. However, some
researchers suggested a lack of quantitative analysis to highlight the unintended consequences of
performance funding policies (Dougherty et al., 2014; Hillman Tandberg & Fryar, 2015).
Using a 5-year panel of financial and organizational data from HBCUs to determine if
revenue sources had a relationship with efficiency, Coupet (2017) found the efficiency of
HCBUs negatively impacted when state revenue portions are higher and positively impacted
when federal revenue increases. Rutherford & Rabovsky (2014) used the Integrated
Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) to analyze the effectiveness of performance funding
as a mechanism for improving student outcomes. Focusing on the graduation, persistence, and
degree attainment of more than 500 postsecondary institutions in all fifty states for over 18 years,
the authors found that current performance funding policies did not improve student
performance, but in fact, contributed to lower performance over a long period. In addition, a
study conducted by Umbricht, Fernandez, and Ortagus (2017) on public universities in Indiana
found that performance funding did not increase the number of graduates. Instead, it led to
declining admission rates and increased selectivity at Indiana’s public universities.
Boland and Gasman (2014) suggested that critiques of HBCUs fail to acknowledge that a
majority of HBCU students come from low-income backgrounds and struggle with financial
problems that potentially can impact their academic success. The authors noted the necessity for
HBCU students to have more resources and support, precisely equivalent to their PWI
counterparts. In addition, those in favor of performance funding highlight the lack of external
pressure for institutions to improve their student success and emphasize a need for incentivizing
19

institutions to strengthen their institutional performance (Aldeman and Carey 2009; Burke and
Minassians 2003; Kelly and Lautzenheiser, 2013). In addition, research conducted has had
difficulty with finding a significant relationship between performance funding and improved
organizational outcomes (Dougherty & Reddy, 2013; Fryar, 2011; Liefner, 2003; Sanford and
Hunter, 2011; Shin, 2010; Shin and Milton, 2004; Volkwein and Tandberg, 2008).
Sanford and Hunter (2011) highlighted that in addition to a growing number of states
adopting performance-funding programs, there is an increase in the percentage of state
appropriations tied to performance measures. The authors noted the percentage tied to state
appropriations remained around 5% (Sanford and Hunter, 2011; Petrides, McClelland, &
Nodine, 2004). However, by 2014 Louisiana, Indiana, and Tennessee had over 25% of their
appropriations tied to outcomes. Dougherty and Reddy (2013) highlighted that performance
funding is associated with campus planning and organizational strategies to improve academic
and student support services. However, research conducted in past studies has been limited by
data and methods used to explore the relationship between performance funding and outcomes
used to measure “performance” (Tandberg & Hillman, 2014).) Sandford and Hunter (2011)
suggested that there needs to be a better understanding of the validity of linking state
appropriations to institutional performance
Revenue Generation in Higher Education
According to Bok (2003), public universities in the United States generate revenue from
several commercial and non-commercial activities. However, the most significant avenues of
revenue are tuition and fees, state appropriations, endowment incomes, and federal funding. It is
essential to put into context that public higher education funding is significantly generated from
student tuition fees and state appropriations, which are funds that the institutions have discretion
20

in allocating ( Fowles, 2014; Wellman et al., 2009). It has been estimated that HBCUs obtain
90% of their operating revenue from tuition and fees (Chabotar, 1999). However, in comparison,
it has been noted that at more than 70% of PWIs, only 19.4% of tuition and fees make up their
operating revenue. However, Toutkoushian (2001) suggested that an institution’s increased
dependence on tuition dollars as revenue increases tuition costs that exceed inflation and the
median household income.
Sav (2010) continued highlighting these disparities, noting the average tuition for a PWI
was 20 percent of its revenue compared to public HBCUs, where tuition is on average 30 percent
of revenue. In addition, at the individual state level, Florida and Tennessee’s PWIs relied less on
student tuition as a source of income compared to HBCUs. Examining HBCUs’ funding on a
per-student cost basis, Sav (1997) highlighted how heavily HBCUs rely on federal funding like
grants and student aid programs as sources of revenue. He also documented substantial revenue
streams to institutions in 15 states where HBCUs' funding policies differed from PWIs.
Continuing to use the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Sav (2010)
confirmed a decade later that HBCUs still received less federal and state funding than PWIs.
However, 13 percent of the disparities between HBCUs and PWIs were discriminatory fiscal
practices.
Sav (2010) noted that federal grants, contracts, and appropriations, including Pell grants,
accounted for the second-largest revenue source for public HBCUs, averaging 22% of their
funding. In addition, he noted that federal funding varied significantly from state to state and
among individual institutions. For example, Florida’s PWIs received 53 percent of their revenues
from the state compared to HBCUs, which received 42 percent. In Texas, PWIs received 51
percent of their revenues from the state compared to HBCUs, which received 41 percent (Sav
21

2010). However, Jones 2016 highlighted in her study that federal support provided a combined
75% of all financial support received by public HBCUs (Jones, 2016).
In the mid-2000s, performance funding regained popularity and was advocated for by
many influential organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Hillman,
Tandberg & Fryar, 2015). Performance funding policies link-state appropriations to institutional
outputs, and state policymakers view performance funding as a way to align colleges with state
policy goals (Hillman, Tandberg & Fryar, 2015) broadly. However, Dougherty & Reddy (2011)
suggested that performance funding is an easy way of reducing state funding for higher
education. This reduction in state funding might indicate that some policies implemented have
created inequities in funding that favor institutions over one another (Hagwood, 2019; Rabovsky,
2012). Boland (2020) noted that a total of 35 states currently distribute various amounts of
funding to colleges and universities based on outcome measures. The authors’ study assessed the
impact of performance-based funding on public HBCUs and found little evidence that it
improved 4-year degree attainment, which tied back to state performance-based funding metrics.
In addition, Dougherty & Natow (2015) noted the importance of accountability for higher
education institutions but suggested that incentive mechanisms like performance-based funding
are evaluated to ensure it doesn’t negatively affect institutions. Boland (2020) highlighted that
this is especially important for less-resourced public institutions such as HBCUs.
Fundraising
Since their establishment, U.S. higher education institutions have relied on philanthropic
support to achieve their missions (Shaker & Nathan, 2017). Many postsecondary institutions rely
on philanthropic support to supplement a lack of public funding and tuition. With continued
increases in the cost to educate students and the decrease of state support and federal grant support
22

for higher education, philanthropic dollars are critical in assisting leaders in achieving
organizational outcomes (Drezner, 2006). Evans et al. (2002) highlighted that public HBCUs had
experienced significant circumstances related to the funding of these institutions. The authors
stated that inequitable state funding practices had forced HBCUs to lean heavily on student tuition
grants and corporate and individual donations. The Council for Aid to Education [CAE] (2017)
reported $41 billion of philanthropic giving to higher education in the United States, a 1.7%
increase from the prior year. The report noted that two gifts of $100 million or more were included
in that total, representing collective philanthropic giving to 20 institutions. However, that only
made up less than 1% of colleges and universities but 27.1% of the total (Shaker & Nathan, 2017).
CAE (2018) reported that philanthropic support makes up about 10% of college and
university expenditures. However, this is down from 2000 when philanthropic support represented
15.7 percent of an institutions’ expenditures. Coupet and Barnum (2010) suggested that after
looking at HBCUs' efficiency, it is critical that fundraising and endowment-building be an
institutional priority and more resources support its function within the institution. However,
Bowman (2010) highlighted that fundraising practices at public HBCUs are relatively new, noting
their existence of fewer than 20 years. Drezner (2010) suggested that universities cannot solely
rely on tuition to fund operations and institutional growth. Public HBCUs must secure additional
funding from alternative sources such as alumni, corporations, foundations, and philanthropists.
Due to declining enrollment and low fundraising outcomes, advancement leaders at
HBCUs have to fundraise additional funds to meet the institution’s general operating expenses
(Leathers & Okpala, 2020). Leathers & Okpala (2020) conducted a qualitative study to explore
how advancement leaders perceived their leadership roles in generating funds to sustain private
HBCUs in the southeastern region of the United States. They found that participants perceived
23

their leadership role in fundraising as critical to the survival of private HBCUs. Gasman and
Commodore (2014) supported their findings, noting that an advancement leader’s role is essential
to meet the institution’s ever-changing needs. In addition, Shaker & Nathan (2017) highlighted
that as institutions look to grow private support, there is a need to recruit and retain successful
fundraising professionals.
Tindall and Waters (2010) surveyed 87 HBCU fundraisers and found that fundraisers
primarily use one-way fundraising strategies rather than interactive relationship-building
strategies. Fisher (1985) suggested that a significant part of an advancement leader’s role is
building relationships with internal and external constituents of the institution. In addition, the
individual must feel comfortable enough to generate funds through friends, alumni, donors, and
corporations. Glass and Jackson (1998) suggested that advancement leaders must be motivated
and have confidence that attracts funders. In addition, researchers highlighted that for HBCUs to
survive the twenty-first century and beyond, they must develop and implement creative and
innovative fundraising methods (Johnson, Gray, Richardson, et al., 2017; Carter, 2008, Thorton,
2016, Gallardo, 2012; Kujovich, 1993-1994). Evans et al. (2002) highlighted that state funding
for public HBCUs is insufficient and made up of student tuition, grants, and corporate and
individual donations.
Organizational Outcomes in Public Higher Education
Organizational outcomes or performance has not been frequently defined and used
according to the context and is challenging to define and measure (Hussein et al., 2014; Erbisch,
2004; Stainer, 1999). Stankard (2002) defines organizational outcomes as the product produced
from the interaction of different parts or units within the organization. In the context of this
study, organizational outcomes refer to the outcomes achieved by public higher education
24

institutions, precisely those outcomes of publicly funded HBCUs. This study’s organizational
outcomes of focus are endowments, research productivity, and tuition dependency due to the
lack of research on how leaders at publicly funded HBCUs achieve these specific outcomes.
Endowments in Higher Education
According to the American Council on Education (ACE) (2000), endowments have been
a part of the financial support for colleges and universities for more than 300 years. Financial
support derived from alumni, foundations, corporations, religious groups, and other sources has
enabled the United States higher education system to grow and develop endowments. Baschab
and Piot (2010) defined endowments as a pool of funds in perpetuity, set aside to support an
institution’s operating budget and future financial security. As a result of endowments, some
universities with large endowments have become wealthy institutions (Lee, 2009). Drezner &
Gupta (2012) suggested endowments create opportunity, and historically, HBCUs did not receive
early investments that have contributed to current inequities in funding support and limited
access to additional investments and interventions
By the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling that effectively desegregated schools,
31 private HBCUs were operating with deficits totaling $7.5 million (Drezner & Gupta, 2012;
Holsendolph, 1971; Thompson, 1973; Trent, 1971). The total endowment for those private
HBCUs was $72,250,000, with five of the private HBCUs holding 62 percent of the endowment
funds (Drezner & Gupta, 2012; Trent, 1971). However, In 1963 the average endowment size of
an individual PWI was $63 million, $9 million less than the combined total private HBCU
endowments (Drezner & Gupta, 2012; Wingerd, 1993). It has been well documented in the
literature that in comparison to PWIs, HBCUs find it more challenging to obtain funding from
25

the government and other institutions to increase their endowments (Coupet & Barnum, 2010;
Gasman & Sedgwick, 2005; Hale, 2007).
Morrell (2000) suggested that high-quality education is expensive, and a large
endowment and high student fees need to exist at the same time to maintain a high-quality
academic status. However, HBCUs traditionally have lower endowments than PWIs. They
become less competitive than PWIs, which have the resources to invest in their students, faculty,
staff, alumni, operations, and facilities (Drezner & Gupta, 2012). In the competitive environment
of higher education, barriers to financial stability like state and federal funding continue to
contribute to inequity in endowment size at HBCUs in comparison to their PWI counterparts
(Andrews, No, Powell et al., 2016; Duderstadt & Womack. 2003; Gasman, 2013; Hirsch &
Weber, 2002; Keller, 1983). However, Lee (2009) raised questions regarding how endowments
grow, differences in endowment values, size, stability, and institutional patterns and disparities
related to endowments at institutions of higher learning.
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2017 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, 48 out of the 101 HBCUs submitted data on their endowments, which
combined, totaled $2.7 billion. For context, that same year, the three lowest-ranked institutions
out of the 120 institutions with the largest endowments had a combined total endowment of $2.4
billion (U.S Department of Education, 2017). Sav (2010) documented key relationships between
revenue streams that disproportionately disadvantage HBCUs. One relationship showed that as
endowments at HBCUs increased, state funding decreased for HBCUs compared to PWIs, where
the opposite was true. In a study conducted by Drezner and Gupta (2012), the authors looked at
the factors that influenced endowment funding at public four-year higher education institutions
and what differences existed in endowment support at HBCUs compared to comparable public
26

four-year institutions. In particular, they looked to see if fiscal management influences
endowment funding. They found no difference in the budgetary management of endowments at
public HBCUs compared to public PWIs.
Cheslock and Gianneschi (2008) reported that institutions must include alternative
revenue sources to support operations and overall sustainability. Johnson (2016) suggested that
without supplemental funding and access to large endowments, HBCUs become more dependent
on student tuition and fees to fund their operating budgets. Coupet and Barnum (2010) found
endowments to be significant determinants of efficiency for HBCUs and PWIs, suggesting
society should reconsider their perception of HBCUs as inefficient in achieving organizational
outcomes. However, Swensen (2000) suggested that endowment size is strongly related to
institutional quality, based on a survey of major private institutions categorized as research
universities.
Lee (2009) highlighted the relationships between institutional characteristics and
endowment growth. She compared 147 private and public institutions and found that institutional
factors determine endowment growth. Those factors include but are not limited to a decrease in
state funding, how tuition-dependent the university is, and how much research and development
the institution outputs. Smaller endowments contribute to the limited budget available for
operating costs and institutional financial aid at HBCUs (Gasman, 2009).
Faculty Research Productivity in Higher Education
Over time, there has been an immense amount of pressure for universities to secure
leading faculty and research funding to produce and elevate the institution, therefore making
them more competitive (Johnson & Taylor, 2018; Gonzales, 2013, 2014; Gonzales & Nunez,
2014). The faculty’s status is often important regarding an institution’s classification as private,
27

public, semi-public, etc., and often emphasizes the institution's research, teaching, service, and
outreach initiatives (Jacob, 2020). The Carnegie Foundation (2005) classifies colleges and
universities into different categories based on the institution's academic mission and the amount
of federal research funding received. These inputs and outputs of research and research-related
activities contribute to a competitive research ecosystem in academia where leaders of
institutions seek to be funded and distinguished in their field (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
Faculty face many challenges in conducting their research, including lack of research
funding, time constraints, limited access to appropriate research materials, and adequate and
efficient support within the institution's academic structure (Phoenix & Henderson, 2016).
However, discriminatory practices within federal research and development have led to the
underrepresentation of HBCUs in federal research support (Gasman, 2010; Harper, Patton &
Wooden, 2009). Matthews (2012) noted in their assessment of federal support for research that
60% of funding for academic research comes from the federal government. However, HBCUs
receive less than 2% of that funding, which has declined to 1.4% in the most recent years
reported. Toldon (2017) highlighted that in 2014, 89 HBCUs collectively received $1.2 billion in
grants and contracts from federal, state, and local governments as well as private foundations.
However, this amount is minimal compared to the $1.6 billion John Hopkins University alone
received (Deng et al., 2020).
HBCUs continue to face challenges in enhancing their academic and research capabilities
and developing programs that compete with other institutions within higher education. Many of
these institutions deal with challenges that include aging infrastructures, limited access to
technology and resources, state-of-the-art equipment, small endowments, and limited funding for
faculty and student development programs (Phoenix & Henderson, 2016; Matthews, 2012).
28

Toldson and Cooper (2014) report that 95% of HBCUs are considered Baccalaureate Colleges
that do not engage in a high level of research, and most do not grant doctoral degrees. In
addition, a study of community-based participatory research in HBCUs conducted in 2010 found
that the workload required for teaching and advising is a barrier to faculty research. Furthermore,
the study cites that historically underfunded research at HBCUs has created a barrier to providing
the necessary infrastructure for researchers to conduct research (Phoenix & Henderson, 2016;
Sydonor, Hawkins & Edwards, 2010).
Tuition Dependence in Higher Education
In their book, Taylor and Cantwell (2019) suggested that public universities are
significantly impacted by the absence of sustainable state funding opportunities and are
vulnerable to dependence on tuition revenue. Delaney and Doyle (2011) highlighted that tuition
increases over the last decade showed a relationship to a decline in state aid. As appropriations to
public colleges and universities have declined, tuition and fees have become an increasingly
important mechanism for addressing funding gaps (Allen & Wolniak, 2019). Most public
institutions can supplement government funding by increasing tuition fee revenues. However,
HBCUs provide affordable higher education to their students, therefore constraining the extent to
which they can raise tuition fees (Coupet, 2013; Hrebeniak & Joyce, 1985; Titus, 2004). Palmer
et al. (2009) highlighted that increases in tuition at HBCUs often do not compensate for
declining state support but contribute to a student’s ability to pay tuition.
Most public colleges and universities have two factors most responsible for tuition
growth, a rise in expenditures and a greater dependency on tuition as a source of revenue (
Noorbakhsh & Culp, 2000). While 35% of a private nonprofit’s income is from tuition and fees,
public four-year institutions' tuition, and fees account for only 22% of revenue. Webber (2017)
29

suggested that there are two ways that institutions can make up for a decline in state funding, by
increasing revenue (e.g., tuition) or by cutting spending. Webber, in his research, found that for
every $1,000 deducted from state appropriations per student, the average student might pay $257
more per year in college costs. However, at public HBCUs, the average out-of-pocket cost for
students receiving any grant or scholarship aid was $9,500 compared to $11,500 at other public
institutions (Johnson, Bruch & Gill, 2019).
Crawford (2017) noted that most HBCU students depend on Pell Grants and often come
from a lower economic background. The U.S. Department of Education’s student financial aid
programs promote access to higher education for disadvantaged students (St. John & Noell,
1989). The Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, known commonly as the Pell Grant, was
developed in 1972 to ensure need-based financial aid dollars are available for students (St. John
& Noell, 1989). However, the program covers less than one-third of tuition, fees, room, and
board charged to students at public four-year colleges (Kelchen, 2017; Goldrick-Rab & Kendall,
2014). In contrast, institutional and federal grant aid expenditures have increased over time but
have been unable to keep up with the continued rise of student tuition (Kelchen, 2017). However,
HBCUs tend to have lower tuition, with the average in-state tuition and fees for students at
public HBCUs being $6,000, compared to $7,400 at comparable four-year public institutions.
(Johnson, Bruch & Gill, 2019).
Barr (2002) noted that any slight decline in enrollment at institutions that tend to rely
heavily on tuition dollars and student fees for operating expenses has the potential to lead to
significant budget concerns for institutions. Gasman (2014) noted that in the 1950s, African-
Americans made up nearly 100% of students enrolled at HBCUs. However, by the early 1960s,
the number of African-American college students attending HBCUs had decreased from 90% to
30

70% (Albritton, 2012). Segregation led to the creation of HBCUs; however, some researchers
suggest that the fight for Civil Rights and desegregation led to unforeseen competition with
PWIs for African American students (Closson & Henry, 2008; Gasman et al., 2010; Schexnider,
2013). This competition was attributed to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which required
PWIs to increase minority enrollment, resulting in administrators at PWIs offering financial
incentives such as scholarships and other aid used to recruit African-American students. As
African-American students gained access to PWIs, the number of African American students at
HBCUs continued to decline, and by 1980 only 20% of African Americans who attended college
were enrolled in HBCUs (Albritton, 2012; Freeman and McDonald, 2004).
Schexinder (2013) found that 80 percent of African American college students enrolled in
PWIs, suggesting that HBCUs compete with PWIs for high-achieving African American
students. In addition, he noted that some researchers suggest institutional challenges are
heightened because most HBCUs are underfunded, have small endowments, and lack the
necessary infrastructure of facilities, technology, and scholarships to compete for high-achieving
students. Due to an era of declining resources, HBCUs are impacted by budget reductions and a
decline in student enrollment (Coverley, Jackson, Valentine, 2014). Researchers have suggested
that decreases in direct support from governments at all levels have increased dependence on
student tuition (Fowles, 2014 & Wellman et al., 2009).
The effects of enrollment decline on higher education institutions can vary by type of
institution; however, it poses a critical financial threat to tuition-dependent institutions
(Townsley, 1993). Before the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, 90 percent of
African American college students attended HBCUs (Albritton, 2012; Roebuck & Murty, 1993).
However, Albritton (2012) noted that the Brown decision resulted in PWIs gradually offering
31

admission to African American students. As a result, the number of African American college
students attending HBCUs decreased from 90 to 70 percent. In 1980, only 20 percent of African
Americans attending colleges enrolled in HBCUs (Freeman and McDonald, 2004). However,
that has been reduced significantly, with only 9 percent of African Americans enrolling at
HBCUs in 2011 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The Association of Governing
Boards of Colleges and Universities (2014) suggested that student enrollment competition is a
critical issue facing HBCUs.
Decreasing HBCU enrollment has been attributed to affordability (Association of
Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, 2014). Breneman (1994) highlights the average
costs of attending college began to increase in the 1980s, which offset the impact on revenue of
having fewer students attending college rapidly. Gasman & Bowman (2011) noted that public
and private HBCUs are at a competitive disadvantage against institutions that are selective, better
funded, or have large endowments. Researchers have pointed out that institutions have been
forced to implement budget cuts that reduce faculty, staff, and programs budgets without
alternative funding strategies or close the institution indefinitely (Belkin, 2013; Martin, 2013).
Researchers have suggested reducing tuition is possible if the institution strengthens the
institution’s fundraising efforts (Proper, Caboni, Hartley, & Willmer, 2009).
Theoretical Framework
Resource Dependence Theory
Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) recognizes the impact of external factors on
organizational behaviors and how organizations respond to those factors (Pfeffer & Salancik,
1978). In addition, it focuses on how individuals within those organizations might feel limited in
their roles and explores how to reduce environmental uncertainty while reducing dependence
32

(Hillman, Winthers, & Collins, 2009). RDT is appropriate as a theoretical framework for this
study because public universities rely on external funding sources for their survival (Fowles, J.,
2014; Davis & Cobb, 2010; Toma, 2002). Organizations build administration and governance to
manage the expectations associated with these dependencies (Coupet, 2013). Powell & Rey
(2015) introduced RDT and its linkage to public higher education to understand an institution’s
interdependence with the external environment.
According to Powell and Rey (2015), applying RDT in the context of higher education
can help explore the elements needed to acquire essential resources for capacity building at
institutions. The authors suggested that universities are linked to their environments for critical
resources such as funding. It has been noted that the government provides generous funding to
public institutions. However, the funding is often received with accountability requirements that
interfere with administrative structure (Coupet 2013; Froelich, 1999; Peterson, 1986). Pfeffer &
Salancik (1978) suggested that this dependence might negatively impact organizations like
HBCUs by creating organizations with limited capacity to respond to changing environments. In
addition, the authors suggested that organizations take part in direct resource exchange with
organizations in an environment and form dependencies based on the sources of these resources.
Powell & Rey (2015) highlighted the need for a strategic framework that better
understands the higher education environment and resources. Pfeffer and Salancik (2003)
suggested that RDT serves as the best fit because of its three primary themes: (1) environmental
effects on organizations; (2) organizational efforts to manage environmental constraints; and (3)
how environmental constraints affect internal organizational dynamics. Pfeffer and Salancik
(1978, 2003) suggested that actions executed by organizations can be better understood. The
authors suggested that institutions become more informed about the environment that influences
33

their effectiveness, environmental challenges, and contingencies and constraints for obtaining
resources. It has been noted that external funding for HBCUs is limited compared to PWIs and
has undeveloped systematic fund-raising strategies (Gasman, 2009).
Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) suggested that organizations are linked to environments by
relying on other organizations for resources needed. Coupet (2013) highlighted that although
federal funding is critical to the operations of HBCUs, navigating the policy environment is
challenging for HBCU leaders who deal with unpredictable resources and policymakers who
require accountability structures. Birnbaum (1988) suggested that public universities need
systems-level thinking to understand inputs and outputs. He indicated that a university should
view itself as an organization or system made up of subsystems that interact among themselves
and with the university’s external environment. Powell and Rey (2015) utilized RDT to
understand how institutions strategically can secure more significant resources and how
administrators and leaders can use their discussions as a guide when engaging in strategic
planning.
As environments change and become more competitive, organizations must adapt and
evolve quicker than their counterparts (Powell & Rey, 2015; Birnbaum, 1988; Terreberry, 1968).
International research applying RDT, such as Machado (2005), used RDT to understand better
why federal universities in Brazil look to private institutions to generate revenue. In another
international research study conducted by Huisman (1991), the author conducted a critical
analysis on higher education studies that resulted in a theoretical framework utilizing RDT to
analyze differentiation and diversity in the Dutch higher education system. Fowles (2014) used
RDT to investigate the relationship between an institution’s dependence on net tuition dollars as
a source of revenue for institutional expenditures at public four-year institutions of higher
34

education in the United States. Using an 11-year panel of university-level data and guided with a
knowledge of institutional revenue structure, they found that institutional expenditures changed
in response to revenue patterns. However, Powell and Rey (2015) and Pfeffer and Salancik
(1978, 2003) suggested that organizational survival depends on the organization’s ability to
acquire resources in an uncontrolled environment.
Although numerous researchers have explored connections between formal governance
and institutional behaviors in higher education (Fowles, 2014; Nicholson-Crotty and Meier,
2003; Lowry 2001a, b; Hern et al., 1996; Toma, 1990; Moody, 2007, Volkwein, 1986, 1989;
Volkwein and Malik 1997; Knott and Payne, 2004), the results from these studies are
individualized and dependent upon variables, which ranged from a strong connection to no
connection at all. For example, Knott and Payne (2004) found that differences in individual
states' political culture and economic conditions can play a critical role in determining a
university’s performance. McAllister-Spooner and Kent (2009) explored RDT in higher
education. However, their research focused on community colleges. Their study aimed to
understand how organization and stakeholder information needs are met by effective web design
in highly resource-dependent environments. Their study found that higher education institutions'
success is attributed to how effectively they maintain mutually beneficial relationships with their
local communities.
Conceptual Framework
When trying to understand the theory of action behind public higher education funding
policies, Tandberg & Hillman (2014) suggested that we must understand how policies shifted
from regulatory compliance, rudimentary reporting of inputs and accounting for expenditures, to
one that focused on measuring performance and accounting for outcomes or results (McGuinness
35

1995; McLendon, 2003; Volkwein 2007; Volkwein and Tandberg, 2008). Due to performance
funding programs focusing on outcomes instead of institutional actions or inputs, institutions are
left with the autonomy to decide if and how they respond to state funding incentives. However,
policies makers are disconnected from the realities and complexities of managing colleges and
universities and negate potential benefits that distort institutional mission, resulting in incentives
and unintended consequences that negatively impact students and institutions (Tandberg &
Hillman, 2014; Dougherty and Reddy, 2013; Hunt, 2008; McLendon, Hearn and Deaton, 2006;
Wellman, 2001; Zumeta, 2001).
Moving from left to right in Figure 1, the circle reflects the external factors represented in
relation to the higher education environment. In addition, the tenants of RDT are represented by
the color blue and reflected by arrows that connect the external environment or external factors to
the internal institutional environment in the square. The external environmental factors identified
in the circle and represented by the color red (Morrill Acts, Higher Education Act of 1965, State
Performance Funding, etc.) are the external higher education funding policies that influence the
environment of public institutions. The environment at publicly funded HBCUs is represented by
the color blue, influenced by external higher education funding policies, which impacts what is
taking place inside the institution.

36

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework for how external factors influence organizations

Applying RDT suggests that these inequities then influence the management of these
institutions, but specifically the management of public HBCUs. The management of these
institutions includes their leadership, ability to make decisions, and fundraise. These
management pieces work together and potentially lead to environmental constraints, which
hinder the achievement of organizational outcomes at public institutions. In addition, the
organizational outcomes of endowment, research productivity, and tuition dependence are
impacted by inequitable funding. These management and organizational outcomes challenges
lead institutions to become dependent on resources from the external environment. However, the
dependencies are bidirectional because organizational outcomes can depend on external factors
related to higher education funding policies. Those higher education funding policies can also
depend upon the organizational outcomes of an institution, therefore creating environmental
constraints that impact the institution's management.

37

Summary
This chapter presented a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the research
topic and expanded upon issues surrounding the identified problem in the previous chapter. This
literature review highlights the gaps in current literature and the importance and value of how
this research will contribute to the existing body of literature. In addition, this literature review
intended to show the intersectionality between policy, public higher education, higher education
leadership, and higher education outcomes. The following chapter will present the selected
research design of this qualitative study. The researcher’s selection of the qualitative research
method will be explained and supported by cited empirical research. The chapter identifies the
participants, selection process, data collection procedures, data analyses, reporting, limitations,
delimitations, ethical issues, and a summary of the researcher.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study aimed to understand external factors influencing leaders' decision-making at
public HBCUs. In addition, this study explored leaders' strategies at public HBCUs for achieving
organizational outcomes, specifically on their strategy for increasing their endowment,
increasing research productivity, and decreasing tuition dependency. In this chapter, the
researcher presented research questions that helped guide this study and described the
methodology applied to this research.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What external factors support and/or constrain leaders in their decision-making at public
HBCUs?
2. What are the strategies leaders at public HBCUs use to increase their endowment size and
research productivity and limit tuition dependence?
Overview of Methodology
This research utilized a qualitative approach to explore the strategies of public HBCU
leaders, such as those who hold senior administrative positions involved with institutional
operations, fundraising/development, faculty affairs, and student affairs, to achieve
organizational outcomes at their institutions. The mentioned leaders were the unit of analysis for
this study (Patton, 2002). Lodicio et al. (2010) defined qualitative research as collecting
information by observation, interviews, document analysis, and summarizing discoveries by
narrative or verbal methods (p.15). McMillian (2012) added that qualitative research
characteristics include (a) natural setting, (b) direct data collection, (c) rich narrative
descriptions, (d) inductive data analysis, and (e) participant perspectives. Utilizing these
39

characteristics of qualitative research, the researcher empowered individuals to tell their own
stories, share their own experiences, and have their voices heard (Creswell, 2007).
The researcher intended to interview participants in a “natural setting” of their choice,
where they were most comfortable. Still, due to the COVID 19 pandemic, interviews were
conducted via virtual communication such as Zoom or by telephone. Applying the
phenomenological method, the researcher used interviews with leaders at public HBCUs to gain
firsthand knowledge of their experiences. In addition, the researcher used purposeful sampling, a
technique that intentionally identifies individuals who can provide a broader and greater
understanding of research interest (Tindall & Waters, 2010; Patton, 1990; Stacks, 2002). The
goal of this qualitative project was to highlight emerging themes from participants' responses
(Saldana, Leavy & Beretvas, 2011). In addition, inductive data analysis allowed the researcher to
utilize the conceptual and theoretical frameworks to understand the participant’s experience. The
goal of using interviews to answer the research questions was to explore their experience in
terms of the phenomenon (leaders navigating how to achieve organizational outcomes) and the
context and situations (higher education funding policies) that influence the experience of the
phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994; Creswell, 2013). The Participants section of this chapter will
discuss the sample population.
The Researcher
I am an African American male with over a decade of combined experience in nonprofit
management and higher education. My current occupation is fundraising, and I have experience
fundraising in state-funded public universities and private universities. As a fundraising
professional, I’ve had experience navigating higher education funding policies to secure funding
that has been critical to achieving organizational outcomes - related to increasing endowment
40

and research productivity and relieving tuition dependency. However, I have not had experience
fundraising at public HBCUs. In addition, I have no direct relationship with HBCUs, specifically
public HBCUs and any of the institutions included in this research. My focus on this research is
to contribute to the lack of literature and research on HBCUs and raise awareness of how leaders
at HBCUs work to sustain their institutions.
My curiosity with this research began after multiple conversations with close friends of
mine, who are HBCU graduates, about their experiences as students at HBCUs. Through their
experiences, I learned first-hand some of the challenges HBCU students experience while
attending these institutions. Most of their experiences highlighted their frustrations with leaders
at their institutions and decision-making. Their experiences sparked my curiosity about what
leaders at HBCUs are doing to sustain these institutions and how they make decisions. However,
after reflecting on their frustrations with their individual institution’s leaders, I realized that their
actions are potentially influenced by external factors such as systemic racism, which is deeply
rooted in the United States' higher education system (Cabrera, 2014).
Going into this research, I assumed that others interested in HBCUs and who understand
their importance would agree with me that systemic racism in higher education impacts HBCUs.
In addition, I am assuming that HBCU leaders would share my perspective that inequitable
funding policies within higher education affect their work and the public’s perception of their
leadership. However, this research was to learn the perspectives of public HBCU leaders
regardless of whether the respondents’ views challenged or supported my own mentioned biases
toward this research. Often the experiences of HBCU leaders are excluded from research on
HBCUs. To understand how policies and practices might support or constrain these leaders in
41

their roles, the researcher must hear and better understand those experiences to create change or
build better support systems.
Klenke (2008) suggested that a researcher’s viewpoint and impact on the research are
critical to the qualitative research process. I recognized that I might be considered an outsider
because I have never worked or attended an HBCU. In addition, I had never interacted with any
of the leaders I interviewed. With no prior relationship established, I needed to develop trust
quickly. As an outsider with no direct affinity to HBCUs, I didn’t know about existing or past
strategies and practices implemented to address inequities in funding. In addition, I wasn’t aware
of any active conversations that were taking place regarding this subject matter and if HBCU
leaders themselves were already working together to address these presumed challenges.
Working in higher education gives me prior insight into how higher education institutions
generally operate. However, because I’ve only had experience fundraising at predominately
white institutions, it might have limited my scope in the context of this research. I came into this
research under the assumption that leaders at public HBCUs have unique experiences related to
how they go about accomplishing the goals of their role and organizational outcomes for their
institutions. In addition, I’ve never been in a leadership role at a higher education institution,
which might also narrow the scope of my view as a general staff member at my institution.
Data Sources
To conduct this study, the researcher developed a list of public HBCUs and respective
leaders from these institutions, with perceived affinity or responsibility for the selected
organizational outcomes related to this study. Participants in this study were current public
HBCU leaders who hold formal administrative titles related to the mentioned organizational
42

outcomes. The criteria used to select participants focused on professional designations or a
variation of the professional titles below:
President, Chancellor, Vice President, Provost; Vice President of Advancement, Vice
President of Development, Vice President of Institutional Giving; Vice President of
Research, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, Vice President of Academic Affairs;
Vice President of Student Affairs, Vice President/Director of Financial Aid, Director of
Admissions, Vice President/Director of Enrollment Management
Once leaders were identified, the researcher contacted them using the contact information
available through the respective institution’s public website and directories. The research sent an
initial pitch to identified participants containing a brief description of the researcher’s study.
Since the researcher had no previous relationship with identified participants, he had to “cold-
call” and reach out and introduce himself and the research.
However, the researcher knew individuals who had relationships with leaders at public
HBCUs and used that as a mechanism to connect with leaders at selected institutions. In
addition, the researcher announced the study via social media to leverage their network to secure
interviews. These mechanisms assisted the researcher with connecting with selected leaders
quickly. Once the potential interviewee agreed to participate, the researcher followed up to
schedule interviews. However, before beginning this process, the researcher obtained approval
for this study from the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Participants
For the context of this study, the researcher restricted the participant sample to
individuals in leadership or administrative positions with the titles mentioned above at public
HBCUs. Purposeful sampling was used to identify those individuals and research sites that can
43

“purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in the
study” (Creswell, 2007, p. 15). This study was limited to leaders with at least five or more years
in higher education to understand how leaders achieve organizational outcomes at public
HBCUs. This specific criterion ensured that individuals had a depth of knowledge with higher
education. The researcher secured six participants to participate in this study. Due to the high-
level capacity and role of participants identified at these institutions, there were challenges with
securing additional participants, scheduling interviews, or scheduling interviews that met the
length of time indicated in the research protocol.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in collecting information from participants was an open-ended semi-
structured interview protocol, which allowed the researcher to respond to the situation at hand
and respond to the emerging worldview of the respondent or new ideas surrounding the topic
(Merriam, 1998). For convenience, interviews were conducted via telephone or video
conference. The telephone or video conference interviews were recorded using the recording
mechanism on the respective device. Once interviews were complete, the researcher began
transcribing the recordings to develop transcripts used for data analysis.
In addition, there were document reviews done both print and electronically. Initial
documentation was public information collected from online sources such as IPEDs, institutional
websites, and news media articles. These articles were categorized and logged by type of
document, title, author, date, and place of publication and secured in the researcher’s office on
the researcher’s laptop.
44

Data Collection Procedures
Moon et al. (2016) suggested that this study must underscore dependability,
transferability, credibility, and confirmability to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research.
In particular, the author highlighted how dependability refers to the documentation of research
procedures, which can allow someone outside this research to follow, audit, and critique the
research process. The researcher used a data collection plan as Creswell (2013) recommended
capturing the breadth of data needed to make this an informed study. The data collection plan
highlighted how the data was collected and remained confidential. In addition, it included an
expected timeline for data to be collected.
The researcher recorded interviews to decrease the potential for error in data
interpretation and analysis, and the researcher obtained approval for recording from participants
before interviews. Interviews were conducted at a date and time convenient for participants,
lasting on average 45-60 minutes. The researcher started contacting individuals in late June 2021
and concluded in late November 2021. Due to the sensitivity of this research topic and
confidential institutional information shared, the only written identifiers were the Researcher and
the Participant. Participants were identified by their abbreviated title, an assigned number
corresponding with the order of their interview, and an assigned letter corresponding with their
respective institution. For example:
● ParticipantPres1(A) = James Smith, President, 1
st
Interview, Samsung University
● ParticipantVPAdmissons2(D) = Mary Smith, VP of Admissions, 2
nd
Interview, Nokia
University
The researcher noted reactions, comments, and preliminary thoughts on emerging themes and
recorded them in a log suggested by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014). The researcher
45

recorded in the log while reviewing and analyzing transcripts and revisiting audio or video
recordings. Participants had the opportunity to withdraw their participation or interview without
consequence. However, participants were not compensated for their participation in this study.
Video and audio recordings are stored in a file folder on the researcher’s computer and
encrypted and password protected. The researcher is the only person with access to the computer
and the passwords needed to access the computer and the encrypted files. The folders were coded
using the method described above. The code included their abbreviated title, an assigned number
corresponding with the interview order, and an assigned letter corresponding with their
respective institution. The researcher created a separate file to store and identify participants'
information. The file used was coded and encrypted with password protection, and the researcher
was the only person accessing that file.
Data Analysis
Bryman & Burgess (2002) noted that qualitative research usually yields complex,
extensive, and unstructured data. Merriam (2014) suggested that qualitative data analysis should
be done concurrently with data collection to avoid being overwhelmed with digesting data. All
interviews were transcribed and read at least twice during the data collection and analysis
process. The researcher conducted the first reading to understand and pull major themes from
participants’ responses (Patton, 2002). The researcher used the second reading to pull quotes or
ideas presented by participants. Participants included in this analysis had pseudonyms to ensure
confidentiality, and information that might identify them or that was sensitive was masked.
Following the suggestion of Creswell (2002), participants were contacted during data analysis to
ensure that the interpretation of the data accurately represented the participants’ thoughts. This
method was to try and limit and control any of the researcher's personal biases.
46

Throughout the data collection and analysis process, the researcher used reflective
memos to retain ideas and themes that arose during the analysis process. Reflective memos
allowed the researcher to reflect on how leaders made decisions, interpreted, and categorized the
data, and reached conclusions when conducting the study. In addition, the memos served
strategically as an analysis tool that allowed the researcher to develop and track meanings within
the data and gain a deeper understanding of trends and patterns within the data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested methods for preserving the credibility and
trustworthiness of this study, including dependability and confirmability. Credibility in
qualitative research depends on the researcher’s ability to convey consistency, plausibility,
authenticity, and meaningfulness in the study (McMillan, 2012). The researcher applied
strategies for promoting credibility and trustworthiness as described by Merriam (2009), such as
providing detailed descriptions of leaders’ perceptions. These detailed perceptions will enable
readers to understand the research context and determine whether the researcher’s findings are
relatable and applicable to individual situations or other institutions within public higher
education.
The researcher conducted member checks, an opportunity to connect with participants,
and correct and clarify any misconceptions the researcher has of their views. To create
transparency, the researcher had each participant review their analysis via email communication
and allow them to suggest comments or corrections they deemed appropriate. This time was
separate from the set interview time. The researcher used NVivo qualitative software to help
analyze the data collected in this study. NVivo enabled the researcher to manipulate data to
47

conduct searches easily. The purpose of utilizing software was to manage, access, analyze data,
and better understand the transcripts while extracting statements to develop thematic labels.
Ethics
Creswell (2013)) suggested that the researcher of a study should “clarify bias to create an
open and honest narrative that will resonate well with the reader”(p. 202). Therefore the
researcher of this study needed to build a solid foundation of trust with participants and be
mindful of his positionality as an outsider to public HBCUs. Since this study asked public HBCU
leaders to share their leadership style, experiences, and strategies, it required them to make
references to people with whom they have worked with or places at which they have worked. In
addition, the leaders’ actions and decisions might be judged or taken out of context by readers.
The researcher recognized that there could be psychological harm in asking participants to
critique or explain failures throughout their careers or current roles. Asking these leaders to
reflect on their experiences might have brought up negative feelings or made them relive a
negative experience they’ve tried not to remember or discuss.
During the interview process, the researcher checked in with participants to gauge their
mental and emotional well-being. The researcher offered a break if the participant seemed to
need one and was attentive to that throughout the interview. If the research took the leader’s
actions out of context, the researcher allowed the participant to elaborate or clarify their initial
response. In addition, the research took care to ensure that all parties involved in this study were
informed of this study’s purpose and procedures for collecting, analyzing, and sharing
information. The researcher did not obtain consent forms, but all participants consented via email
and verbally to be recorded. The researcher maintained locked files with assigned pseudonym
48

names to protect their identity. The locked files are located on the researcher’s password-
protected personal computer and kept safely in the researcher’s home.

49

Chapter Four: Results and Data Analysis
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to understand what external factors
influence the decision-making of leaders at public HBCUs and their strategies for achieving
organizational outcomes. This study specifically explored leaders' strategies at public HBCUs to
achieve organizational outcomes related to increasing their endowment, research productivity,
and limiting tuition dependence. For this population, leaders were positioned at the institution to
speak directly to issues encountered in their roles as leaders, challenges with revenue generation
and fundraising, increasing the economic and research value of public HBCUs and securing
resources to enhance the student experience. The conceptual framework for this study helped
shape the following research questions:
1. What external factors support and/or constrain leaders in their decision-making at public
HBCUs?
2. What are the strategies leaders at public HBCUs use to increase their endowment size and
research productivity and limit tuition dependence?
To answer the research questions for this study, the researcher collected qualitative data via
interviews. This chapter presents the findings related to the two research questions. The chapter
will describe the study participants and findings organized by research questions, as associated
with the conceptual framework, and conclude with a brief summarization of the findings.
Participants
Through Zoom, the research interviewed six leaders at public HBCUs during the
Summer 2021 and Fall 2021 semesters. These leaders represented five different schools, with
two participants employed with the same institution. Participants ranged from having extensive
experience in higher education to extensive experience in the government and private sectors.
50

Four out of the six participants transitioned into higher education from the government and
private sector. The researcher used pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the institutions they
were currently employed or associated with, including the names of institutions they referenced
during their interview.
Participants also held positions that had an assumed connection to the organizational
outcomes focused on in this study. Three participants identified as leaders in fundraising at their
institution, two participants identified as leaders in finance at their institution, and one participant
identified as a leader in research at their institution. One participant noted their role was a hybrid
role that oversaw one other area, including fundraising. Other participants also indicated they
managed several areas outside what might be assumed by their current title. The researcher
reached out to over 40 leaders at public HBCUs to engage them in this study. However, many
potential interviewees did not respond, and a small handful responded but didn’t move forward
with scheduling a time to be interviewed.
Research Findings
RQ1: External factors influencing the decision making of leaders at public HBCUs
The researcher identified external factors influencing decision-making at public HBCUs
through the narrative of those public HBCU leaders interviewed for this study. RDT suggests
that external factors outside of the control of the organization impact that organization’s
environment for decision making and strategies at institutions like public HBCUs. The
researcher identified eight external factors supporting or constraining the decision-making of
public HBCU leaders 1) the legacy of inequitable funding policies and practices within higher
education 2) the limited fundraising capacity at public HBCUs 3) the lack of a shared
understanding of strategic fundraising 4) the limited giving capacity of public HBCU alumni 5)
51

the economic undervalue of public HBCUs 6) challenges with recruiting and retaining faculty 7)
the threat of tuition dependence and 8) threats to organizational outcome achievement of public
HBCUs.
The legacy of inequitable funding policies and practices within higher education
An external factor influencing the decision-making of public leaders discussed by
participants was the legacy of inequitable funding policies and practices within higher education.
One participant placed that inequity in historical context by stating, “There is no debate or
argument to the fact that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been significantly
and deliberately underfunded by this country, and we're still suffering the ravages of that. We
will never be able to catch up financially because of the underfunding…”. Participants noted
how historical inequities such as the intentional underfunding of public HBCUs through state
funding policies had tasked public HBCU leaders with the responsibility of generating additional
resources and revenue for their institutions. In addition, participants referenced that the
continuance of inequitable state support to not just public HBCUs but to any public institution
“...sends a signal to the residents of the state that their future well-being is not under strong
consideration.”
Furthermore, there was a shared understanding and, in some cases, shared experiences of
the ramifications of inequalities created by funding policies and practices due to apparent
differences in their institution’s campus infrastructure, curriculum, and overall operations
compared to their counterpart institutions in their state. One participant responded with criticism
of their publicly supported college system by describing it as:
52

“...just out of whack...the funding disparity between us and the public PWI...and the
other white institutions, is the difference between peanut butter and mustard. I mean, it is
just scary.”
Participants expressed the need for additional resources from their state government
“...the state has an obligation to invest in its public universities, and I think it should be more.”
For example, participants shared the differences in their campus’ infrastructure and physical
appearance compared to public PWIs supported by the state and its influence on recruiting
prospective students. One participant described those differences through a visual context for
their institution’s physical appearance, in comparison to their counterpart public PWIs
“…you've got all these other universities that have popped up since the founding of public
HBCU A, that are a beautiful oasis. They’ve got every bell and whistle you can imagine. These
glorious, beautiful campuses that have student centers that look like hotels, they’ve got dorms
that would rival, you know, the Conrad Hilton or Holiday Inn. And then you got Public HBCU
A; we're struggling, for the most part, to keep the grass cut. We're struggling to keep water pipes
repaired. We're struggling to keep the dorms looking decent. It's just horrible.”
There was a shared belief among participants that the disparities created by inequitable
funding practices influence the decision-making of public HBCU leaders. In addition,
participants referenced how it shifts leaders’ decision-making and strategies to focus on the
constant immediate need for survival and to remain competitive. All participants suggested that
state governments must continue increasing funding to public HBCUs to remain competitive and
have adequate resources for budget-relieving efforts like capital and student support. Participants
shared an understanding of how increased state funding can help sustain key budget areas like
capital projects and allow public HBCU leaders to strategically focus their fundraising on
53

increasing and diversifying revenue and resources for students, faculty, and programming.
However, participants referenced recent efforts of their state governments, addressing issues of
inequitable funding practices to public HBCUs “...thankfully, there are several states and several
people of goodwill who have filed suit and demanded that the United States government, if you
will make good on its check, the promissory note, as Dr. King referred to it.” One participant
referenced how an increase in their states financial support and change in state funding policies,
positively impacts their institution “...Public HBCU B’s state is unique to the other 50 states, in
that the state of Public HBCU B invests heavily in the public universities in this state, and we get
tremendous capital support...the state has invested almost $800 million at Public HBCU B to
build new academic buildings. That's almost unheard of across the country.”
The limited fundraising capacity at public HBCUs
The researcher asked some participants to respond to a common belief that an increase in
an institution's fundraising efforts decreases the amount of state support. Participants did not
identify a direct correlation. However, one participant shared that they “... know that there is
pressure from state legislatures for public universities to raise more money.” However, all six
participants shared that many public HBCUs, including the institutions they represented, are
limited in their capacity to fundraise because of the limited number of fundraisers and resources
to support fundraising activities. Suppose state legislatures are putting pressure on public
universities to raise more money. In that case, this might make a case for public HBCUs to see
the value in increasing their fundraising resources and capacity.
Two of the fundraising professionals referenced the size of the advancement function at
their institutions, “We’re a small shop here, so we’re a centralized development shop, meaning
we’re one office on campus, and we serve everybody.” In addition, another participant stated,
54

“...most HBCUs have one fundraiser. When I went to Previous Employer, I had a staff of 27/28
people. There was one fundraiser out of 28, 1 gift officer...it wasn't because the rest of the
fundraising slots were vacant; they didn't even exist. They had all these other people in Alumni
Affairs planning homecoming…”.
The lack of a shared understanding of strategic fundraising
In addition, an external factor noted by participants influencing the decision-making of
public HBCU leaders was that the advancement or fundraising function of their institution is
undervalued and not comprehensively understood by all HBCU leaders. One participant stated,
“...they don't understand advancement... you have the leaders of these institutions who
understand academics and academia, but they have no clue about institutional advancement.”
Furthermore, leaders who oversaw fundraising at their institutions expressed that senior
leadership at public HBCUs need to have a better understanding of advancement’s role in the
operations and stability of the institution:
“One of the big challenges with HBCUs is that HBCU leadership doesn't understand
advancement. They think their advancement staff is supposed to plan homecoming. So what they
do is they spend so much time planning the biggest homecoming events in the history of the
planet for alum to come back, and the alumni come back...and they won't raise 87 cents.”
As one participant explained, “ … fundraising should complement and provide assistance to the
university’s future long-term sustainability and financial sustainability.”
The limited giving capacity of public HBCU alumni
The researcher asked leaders whether fundraising is done differently at public HBCUs
than PWIs. Participants responded by referencing the mechanism of alumni giving as an external
factor influencing their decision-making, specifically those who oversee fundraising.
55

Furthermore, participants agreed that they don’t have the alumni base to secure large
philanthropic donations to their institutions. One participant explained in context the challenge
that public HBCU fundraisers have with alumni giving at public HBCUs:
“If you are an HBCU grad and you are 50 to 75, you most likely are going to be either a
school teacher or a high school principal or a social worker because of the time in which
you graduated; because those were the good jobs that Black folk got. Or you're going to
be a postal worker, or you're going to be retired from the military. Your household
income is going to be likely somewhere between 50 and 80,000 dollars, which means
you're going to have significantly less income to give back to the University. Which
means that if you’re at Private PWI University, a typical gift from an alum is going to be
somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 125,000 dollars. If you are Public HBCU A, a
typical gift is going to be between 1,000 and 5,000 dollars. That's the challenge.”
In this context, the participant noted that it’s not that alumni don’t want to support their alma
mater, but they are limited in the type of support they can give. One leader expressed how this
influences their decision-making by stating, “...you realize that only about half of your money is
going to come from your alumni. And you realize that is not going to be enough to sustain
you…”.
The economic undervalue of public HBCUs
In addition to that, one participant noted that public HBCUs are often geographically
located in parts of the United States that aren’t the most appealing for alumni to live and secure
employment. State legislators are looking at the economic value of public institutions like public
HBCUs to understand how these institutions add value to the economy through workforce
development. One participant who is an alum of a public HBCU and now a leader at a public
56

HBCU shared that “...For our campus, a lot of our state legislators are very interested in that
equation for a variety of different reasons, obviously keeping economic impact in the state of
Public HBCU D. The state has a very transient culture for those who obtain a college degree
when you think about the opportunity. When I graduated...armed with an accounting degree,
there were no Fortune 500 companies outside of energy that were recruiting actively for new
accounting graduates...I'd love to have an opportunity to stay in the state, but the jobs were not
there.”
In addition, participants had a shared belief that public HBCU leaders must be equipped
with the skills to articulate the institution's mission, value, and innovation and its past, ongoing,
and future contributions to society at large. All participants recognized the value in a public
HBCU education and believe that public HBCU leaders have to work closely with state and
federal government officials to take a deeper look at how policies and practices built on a
foundation of inequity continue to create obstacles for these institutions to achieve their
organizational outcomes. One participant echoed those sentiments by responding with “...the
biggest threat to public universities is maintaining that public support from the state and lobbying
state legislatures to continue to invest in public higher education. And I think that's investment
from the state; it's truly what is required to enhance long-term financial sustainability of public
higher education.” All participants echoed that the current support that public HBCUs are
receiving from the state, even with policies being reviewed and discriminatory funding practices
being called out, is not enough to sustain public HBCUs.
Challenges with recruiting and retaining faculty
HBCU leaders noted being tasked with understanding how to support and retain existing
faculty while recruiting new faculty that broaden the institution's academic and intellectual reach
57

within the higher education landscape. Another theme emerged from public HBCUs' challenges
with recruiting and retaining faculty. One participant explained it as “...the challenge for all of
us, especially HBCUs right now, because everyone is trying to diversify their faculty. So some of
our best folks are targets for majority universities, and that's just a fact of life…”. In addition,
one challenge described by a participant was the “legacy problem,” meaning that faculty at
public HBCUs focus on being such a great teacher in the classroom, they don’t focus on building
their legacy by writing “a grant” and also potentially don’t want to “ deal with the rejection or
putting my whole heart and soul into this, and it’s not getting accepted…biased against me
because I’m from an HBCU.”
The threat of tuition dependence
Leaders had a shared belief that maintaining affordable tuition at public HBCUs is a
factor that influences their decision-making and means there is a critical strategic effort to limit
their institution's tuition dependence. In addition, public HBCU leaders recognize that they must
“ensure we can grow the state appropriation so that we don’t have to depend as much on net
tuition revenue.” All participants were asked to respond to whether or not their institution was
tuition-dependent and what strategies were in place to ensure that their institution’s budget was
not solely dependent or driven by tuition revenue. One participant explained it as “...you want
your net tuition to be around 70 percent of your total revenue sources. That’s what I call tuition-
dependent.” Another participant explained their definition as “ would we be able to sustain our
current operating level without tuition...and so in that definition, yes, we are dependent upon
tuition.” One participant responded and contradicted suggestions in the literature that public
HBCUs are tuition-dependent institutions “...I would not say we’re tuition-dependent...a public
58

university and specifically a public HBCU, receives more money from the state appropriation
than we do from net tuition revenue.”
All leaders seemed to be building their strategies around the question that one participant
posed during their interview “what do we do to create a new model for the way we look at
revenue on our campuses?” Participants noted this question is essential as the competition for
student talent has become increasingly competitive, particularly for students from
underrepresented backgrounds. One leader suggested that as public HBCU leaders think about
tuition and the rising cost of higher education, “the center of that conversation has to be how we
compete for student talent.” Participants noted that Public HBCUs must remain competitive in an
ever-changing landscape of public higher education and compete for a student population that
was once exclusive to HBCUs. In addition, participants indicated that public HBCUs no longer
attract the “best and brightest African-American students” and compete with PWIs to recruit
those students. Two different participants noted, “...it's critical for us to be a competitive
institution. Since I've been in the industry, I'm constantly seeing the best and brightest African
American students be picked off one by one by majority institutions only because they have
dollars…”. Another participant added, “...White institutions now are literally paying Black
students to go to school there...and now it's a competition between PWIs, they're competing with
one another…”. In addition, some participants echoed how critical it is for institutions to commit
resources to the strategic priorities they set in place.
In addition, if state legislatures suggest that public HBCUs need to raise more money
through their fundraising efforts, then one participant elaborates that this threat around
fundraising is critical to the survival and sustainability of public HBCUs. The participant
responded that the greatest threat in that aspect is “ affordability… and I think it just continues
59

on today, 90% of our students today are on financial aid, and we're seeing consistent cut back
from the federal and state government. So as those cutbacks continue, it is more and more
incumbent on us to fill the gap through increased scholarship dollars. So a gap will maintain and
grow if we don't increase our ability/capacity to raise more dollars because I don't see more
federal or state dollars coming to higher ed.”
Threats to organizational outcome achievement at public HBCUs
The researcher asked each participant to respond to the same question to conclude their
interview, which was “In your opinion, what is the greatest threat to the sustainability of public
HBCUs?” Each participant had unique but similar responses regarding the need for innovative
leadership and additional resources. One participant spoke to the need for more decisive
leadership by stating that the biggest threat to the sustainability of public HBCUs is a “lack of
inspired leadership.” When asked to elaborate on their response, the participant stated, “we have
to be fiscally solvent. We have limited resources, but we have to manage those more effectively
than I think happens in a number of cases…more than anything, you need to have leaders with
vision and find ways to have your University be a destination choice for students…”.
Collectively all participants seemed to believe that leadership at public HBCUs have to continue
to strive for excellence and not become complacent “ I don't know if this is the greatest threat,
but I can tell you…we have to understand that if we're seriously serious about supporting
HBCUs, not only do we have to give back, but we also have to challenge the acceptable norms of
mediocrity that tend to creep.” This seemed to be a shared experience amongst leaders that have
worked with the previous leaders who became stagnant in driving their institutions forward,
primarily due to them constantly working to address the day-to-day challenges of the institution
and not being able to focus on executing the strategic vision for their university.
60

There was a consensus amongst participants that leaders have to be aware and become
strategic in positioning the institution to show that it is innovative and proactive in responding to
society’s challenges and creating an avenue for students to succeed after they complete their time
with the institution. Another participant shared that public HBCU leaders need to develop
strategies beyond what has been done and focus on what leaders within the institutions can be
doing to change the narrative and increase the stability of public HBCUs. “... our lack of
awareness that we are under pressure…and that business as usual will do, status quo will do.
We've existed for 100 plus years. We'll always be here and not to live in this pessimistic sense of
the sky is falling, but if we don't have healthy conversations about what is happening in the
marketplace, what is happening to higher ed, and if we don't proactively manage that with a
sense of acute awareness that we've got to do business differently and all these wonderful things
that we've spoken about strategically have to get done on the campus level. And so the public
HBCU, who is resting on the laurels and not proactively trying to reengineer the way they do
business, will find themselves behind the card. And unfortunately, at some point, not able to
sustain or maintain the institution's viability going forward. And so we've got great leaders in
place. You're always going to have a certain sense of change in the environment. But if we're not
operating under this sense of, let's be proactive, let's do something different. Then that, to me, is
the greatest threat.”
RQ2: Strategies used by leaders at public HBCUs to achieve organizational outcomes
The researcher identified strategies leaders at public HBCUs use through the narrative of
those public HBCU leaders interviewed for this study. RDT suggests that strategies developed by
leaders at institutions are influenced by external factors presumed to be outside of the
organization's control. There were six strategies identified by interviewees: 1) increasing
61

endowments through the development of financial structure 2) increasing endowments through
strategic engagement of their donor base and increasing fundraising capacity 3) focusing
endowment use and management toward programmatic support and enhancing the student
experience 4) repositioning public HBCUs as premier research institutions 5) increasing research
productivity by securing resources and developing incentives that recruit and retain faculty and
6) developing diverse revenue streams and securing resources to maintain low tuition costs and
increase student enrollment. The researcher highlights additional insights from participants'
personal and lived experiences as African American professionals in higher education reflected
in their approach and development of strategies to achieve organizational outcomes at their
respective institutions.
Increasing endowments through the development of financial structure
Participants who were able to speak to strategies for increasing their institution’s
endowment mainly were leaders in finance or fundraising at their institutions “... as the Chief
Financial Officer, I'm deeply involved in all aspects of funding and managing revenues and
expenditures...to ensure that the institution works towards long term financial sustainability.” In
support of driving their institutions to financial stability, one participant noted that public
HBCUs must build the necessary infrastructure to support their long-term financial stability.
Another participant shared similar thoughts and strategies for their institution, focusing on
building the appropriate internal financial “ structure.” The participant emphasized the
importance of making the proper financial structure by pointing out that they didn’t “have an
investment officer at their institution.” When they hired that position, they strategically
“structured” it within the financial infrastructure of the institution so that the position would
“…have a relationship with the CFO.” An additional strategy noted by participants was to
62

support the development of efficient financial infrastructure, including supporting a collaborative
working environment to limit the amount of siloed work within their institution. Building an
efficient financial infrastructure is a strategy that public HBCU leaders are also using to help
support “...the diversification of revenue streams”, which is a critical strategy used by public
HBCU leaders as a response to their“...environment of decreased state funding.” In addition,
leaders involved with the financial management of their institutions expressed the importance of
fundraising to their institutions' financial and overall stability.
Increasing endowments through strategic engagement of their donor base and increasing
fundraising capacity
Public HBCU leaders are thinking about how to increase collaboration by effectively
integrating advancement or fundraising leaders into the strategic planning of their institutions to
develop best practices for generating, diversifying, and increasing revenue, including the growth
of their endowment. One participant expressed that this integration should become standard
practice and noted that fundraisers could contribute to strategic conversations for generating
revenue “... I'm on the fundraising side, so I think I see things a little differently than my
colleagues who are on the other side if you will. There are Vice-Chancellors at Public HBCU
A...they see things a little differently than I do because they're constantly confronted with the
shortage.” This participant's response highlighted that public HBCUs leaders who are making
decisions are constantly dealing with issues at their institutions that need immediate attention and
often cannot think about long-term strategies, particularly for increasing the endowment revenue
or fundraising for the institution. All participants also shared that fundraising, although often
limited by capacity and resources, is not approached much differently at public HBCUs than at
public PWIs, as one participant explained:
63

“I utilize the same strategies at Public HBCU A that I actually used to use when I was at
Private PWI 1. Same strategies when I was at Private PWI 2 . Same strategy at Public
PWI 1. The philosophical or the fundamentals of fundraising are all the same, whether
you're at Public HBCU A or whether you're at Private PWI 2, or whether you’re at Public
PWI 1. It's the same thing…”.
An overarching strategy shared by all participants was working with their fundraising teams to
understand strategy and mechanisms for increasing private philanthropic support:
“... I set up strategies here that train my team about how to find people with wealth. We
use the advanced system here...we have prospect mining and management. So we do the same
thing they do everywhere. It's just it has to be more targeted because they're less of them…”.
Additionally, the strategy shared by participants focused on other areas of fundraising, such as
philanthropic support from corporations and foundations. One participant stated that:
“one-third of our giving comes from corporations and foundations...at HBCUs, you spend
probably half of your time with corporations and foundations. You spend probably a third of
your remaining time writing grants...you're going to have to go to philanthropic allies. You're
going to have to go to foundations, and you're going to have to go to businesses and
corporations. That's the secret sauce, if you will, for fundraising at HBCUs”.
There was a shared strategy among those participants who identified with leading fundraising
efforts at their institution that public HBCUs are moving away from focusing solely on alumni
and private philanthropy and building deeper relationships with foundations, corporations, and
government.
Fundraising leaders are directing their hiring needs “to increase foundation support.” One
participant stated that because the priorities of their institution going forward are in better
64

alignment with soliciting foundations for support, they are actively in the process of recruiting
“to bring on a foundation person.” Another participant shared that they recently hired “a
corporate and foundation relations officer” and the role’s primary responsibility would be to
“secure...support from corporations and foundations''. Fundraising leaders also seemed to utilize
their past experience with building fundraising capacity at other institutions to highlight the
differences in fundraising capacity at other institutions in comparison to their current institution.
“ We don't have an office of contracts and grants. At Former Employer, I had a whole
department, and all they did was write grants in the tens of millions...we’re turning out grants
here now in the one- hundred fifty thousand range, every now and then we’ll get a million…”.
Fundraising leaders seemed to share an understanding that their strategies need to have a
“balanced approach” which includes building the capacity of the fundraising function of their
institution, to increase the amount of support to their institution.
Focusing endowment use and management toward programmatic support and enhancing the
student experience
The use of endowment funds varied from participant to participant, but a common
explanation was that endowment funds are used more strategically than operationally. For
example, to address the issue of remaining competitive, many public HBCUs strategically use
their endowments as financial support to recruit and retain students. One participant explains the
success of this strategy by sharing that “...the inclusion of more endowment dollars especially for
us to recruit, attract and retain higher profile scholars...also enabled us to attract and retain more
students from in and around the local community…”. An example used to provide
programmatically how endowment funds are used to support these efforts were “...we kind of
recently implemented a presidential scholars program, which is trying to kind of give full-ride
65

scholarships to top-performing students.” Another participant shared their recent success with
raising “... over about $110 million in the last ten years, which provides financial aid
scholarships or institutional aid scholarships for our students”.
Another participant explained that their institution’s endowment is used from an “...
operational perspective...we typically don't draw a lot for operations outside of the endowed
professorships and their annual contributions that they need for travel, miscellaneous expenses,
etc... on an annual basis...”. In addition, their current case use for endowment funding was “...
between athletics and scholarships and professorships''. Based on the participants' responses,
endowment growth and fundraising support the institution's strategic priorities. In addition, those
strategic priorities are focused on securing additional resources to support operational budgets
for programs that enhance the student experience and make available other resources to faculty.
As a strategy, current public HBCU leaders utilize state resources to direct funding to specific
targeted areas for endowment growth. One participant highlighted at their institution, “...we've
been able to take advantage of some of our state Board of Regents matches that historically we
didn't take advantage of, as well as the federal title three endowment matches…”.
In addition, the utilization of state resources seemed to have become more of a viable
option recently than it had been historically for public HBCUs. In some cases, leaders feel that
the state is supportive of their endowment growth efforts. To reiterate a point one participant
suggested as an influence, “Public HBCU B’s home state is unique to the other 50 States, in that
the state of Public HBCU B invests heavily in the 13 public universities in this state, and we get
tremendous capital support. When I mean capital support, the state has invested almost $800
million at Public HBCU B to build new academic buildings, that's almost unheard of across the
country…”. Participants noted that relief from state funding on public HBCUs operational
66

budgets is “critical” to the long-term stability of public HBCUs. With states beginning to
increase funding to HBCUs in support of operational areas like capital projects, the institution
can focus its fundraising efforts on increasing endowment for academic, student, and
programmatic needs.
Repositioning public HBCUs as premier research institutions
Participants noted that historically, public HBCUs were not founded to be research
universities. Public HBCUs “were founded to provide education to recently freed slaves…”, as
described by one participant. However, current public HBCU leaders are implementing strategies
that position their institutions as experts in research areas with economic and societal benefits to
their state and private industry. Participants expressed that these strategies focus on building and
expanding their research presence “...in the last 20 years, a number of us have decided that we
wanted to become research universities…”. Both leaders who oversee areas of research and
finance expressed the economic value that public HBCUs can bring to the research enterprise by
aligning the institution’s research interests and priorities with the interests of industry and
government. One participant stated:
“...currently there are no R1 HBCUs there are 11 R2’s, and not only am I working to
position Public HBCU B so that we're better poised to see R1 status, but I’m also
working behind the scenes with the legislature to try and provide some increased funding
and programs that would help all of us 11 R2 HBCUs, to better position ourselves for
research...”.
One strategy leaders are using is working internally at their institutions with respective
leadership and faculty to develop strategies for positioning their institutions locally, nationally,
and internationally as an expert. “I put together a 13-person blue-ribbon panel to provide input to
67

the President on what are those areas where Public HBCU B can develop a program that sets us
aside not only from other HBCUs but where there is a unique niche where we can develop a
national presence in this area…”. Similar to PWIs, public HBCU leaders are seeking to expand
their research “enterprise” and expertise in areas including “... data analytics, advanced
manufacturing, cyber security, things that everyone is looking at. Climate, climate science...we
are not going to be naive...we are going to have to find a unique niche in these areas that we can
pull aside and make more, and again, develop a program of national reputation.” In addition,
leaders believe that aligning themselves with credible partners increases their competitiveness
with other institutions.
Another strategy shared by participants was to focus time on relationship building with
government officials. All participants stressed the importance of how relationships can assist in
providing access to funding opportunities and potential partnerships. One leader shared an
example of how through a relationship, they developed industry and government-related
partnership “...one of the things that we're doing at Public HBCU E in relation to trying to
strengthen our research, we are one of two institutions in the state of Public HBCU E that have
been granted a license to grow hemp and medical cannabis. And so we are looking to identify
industry partners because we see this as probably a 100-million-dollar enterprise, and we have a
key to the game…we believe that this is a space that Public HBCU E can really be a major
player.” This strategy shows that public HBCU leaders are leveraging their institution’s mission
to align with the needs of government and industry, in this case, because the institution is like
“...most of the HBCUs [that] are in the South [ they are] agricultural institutions…”. Leaders at
public HBCUs aren’t looking to be recognized at a particular research status but to define and
expand areas of research that are unique to their institution’s unique mission.
68

One participant explains it as their approach to becoming a “research one” institution is
not defined by “the number of research dollars you bring in”; they are strategically approaching
research by seeking to become “a well-respected research university.” Their strategy for
positioning themselves as a leader is by identifying “ a finite number of areas where we are
going to excel.” In addition, leaders are using strategies for distinguishing themselves in unique
research areas in support of strategies that attract and retain the best students and faculty. With a
solid talent pipeline of students and innovative faculty, it positions the institution to be viewed
“...as a partner and a wise investment…”.
Increasing research productivity by securing resources and developing incentives that recruit
and retain faculty
Public HBCU leaders noted taking non-traditional approaches to measure organizational
outcomes, such as faculty research productivity. One participant’s strategy didn’t focus on
research dollars raised by faculty but suggested that public HBCUs might “... look at the service
component of your research, that is all their research ideas that address urban problems…we
want to have some of our research address the urban condition.” In addition, leaders are
developing strategies and internal mechanisms that support faculty research and their endeavors
as researchers “...in a variety of different ways, obviously, creating time incentives for faculty to
take creative time for expanding their work knowledge through travel…we created a particular
fund just for conferences and presentations and that was impactful for faculty...”. However,
participants agreed that there has to be some commitment of institutional resources to support
these opportunities for faculty and a strategy implemented at one institution was to “create space
for faculty specifically for research…within the new library...we'll also include a specific space
for faculty to do research as well as faculty presentations...there's this ongoing investment...”. In
69

addition, leaders suggested developing and implementing strategies that develop faculty and
provide them with professional development opportunities including “making sure that there's an
opportunity for faculty who want to go ahead and pursue additional education or
credentials…that has to be a part of our proactive strategy, to make the investment in faculty,
their careers and research.”
Another leader expressed the need for public HBCU leaders to think strategically about
putting together “an infrastructure” that supports faculty collaborating to think about broader and
innovative areas of research. One strategy involved supporting interdisciplinary work and
thinking about supporting “cross-disciplinary research,” which leaders suggested, “a lot of
institutions are doing.” However, public HBCU leaders are strategically aligning their research
priorities with potential areas of immediate success and using cross-disciplinary research as an
incentive for funding opportunities and retention of faculty. Public HBCU leaders seek to
“develop those programs that actually require that for success,” meaning programs that help
drive their organization forward as an expert and partner.
Another strategy introduced was the idea of developing consortiums that helped support
collaboration amongst faculty, not just at public HBCUs but other academic institutions. These
efforts can allow the opportunity for public HBCUs to “...grow and cultivate [and] allow us to
leverage our intellectual capital.” Public HBCU leaders are confident that by developing the
appropriate research mechanisms “going forward” like a “...consortium or something of that type
or those types of models where there's a number of industry partners engaged and focused in on
an area of research…” what strategically is suitable for advancing public HBCUs. Finding ways
to engage industry partners with research taking place at public HBCUs is not only critical to
diversifying revenue and elevating the institution's research status within the academic
70

community. Still, it supports a broader and long-term strategy and opportunity to “generate
additional resources.”
Developing diverse revenue streams and securing resources to maintain low tuition costs and
increase student enrollment
Participants noted that Public HBCU leaders are tasked with thinking strategically about
generating revenue and resources while providing affordable and accessible education for
students. In addition, Public HBCUs provide an education for students who otherwise might not
have the opportunity. Leaders are focusing their strategies on ensuring students have the
financial resources needed to graduate and graduate within 4-years. One leader shared, “...we're
trying to make HBCUs in a position that if you're accepted, it will not be an obstacle to your
graduation. If you're accepted, we'll make sure you graduate. So that's the goal of, I think any
institution, especially HBCUs at this given time.” When asked what strategies were in place to
address the issue of tuition dependence, some participants suggested their strategy was rooted in
increasing institutional support by fostering deeper relationships through “private philanthropic
support,” particularly with “foundations and corporations.” One participant explained “...we
work very hard to keep our tuition as low as possible, given that our mission is around access
and affordability.” Furthermore, to stay committed to their mission, when developing strategies
for diversifying revenue and decreasing tuition dependence, one leader suggested public HBCU
leaders should strategically “...look at ways to generate additional tuition, whether it's online
programs, certificate programs, or marketing your educational services to non-traditional
students.”
Participants stressed the importance of developing and implementing recruitment
strategies to attract students to public HBCUs and asserted that “... there are always some
71

resources you just have to prioritize. You have to establish some priorities...think about it
strategically. And I think that type of thinking has to come from the top of the institution because
that means we’re going to have to reallocate the resources that we have, whatever they are...we
decide that this problem is large enough that it requires the entire institution to be behind.” Most
participants agreed that recruitment strategies have to provide a memorable student experience
and provide the resources and opportunities necessary to develop students as future leaders and
professionals. One participant responded that the visible inequities created by the legacy of
higher education funding policies have an impact on student decision-making when choosing a
school “…we don't even have a track, although we have a track program and we’ve sent students
to the Olympics... we have no track. Our students have to practice at the local high school. So
you can imagine what a challenge it presents for us trying to recruit some of the top track stars
from high schools who have high school tracks that look better than ours…”.
In addition, leaders addressed the number of students who attend public HBCUs that are
from out-of-state and have no connection to the historical context of HBCUs. One leader shared
his institution's strategy is “... thinking through beyond the legacy...what connects the student to
the experience outside of generational connections, the opportunity to want to be at HBCUs,
specifically because of its culture and its impact in the context of society…”. Concerning that
challenge, a strategy shared by another leader was growing the online education component of
public HBCUs to increase student enrollment and draw non-connected students to the institution
“...student choice continues to grow, particularly with online education...we’ve got to
differentiate ourselves....”. Participants collectively suggested that “for our programs and for
our services and for our experiential things, whether that's the way you feel when you go into
72

your residence hall or the food you have in a dining hall, all of those things are becoming
increasingly more important as the competition is stiff for talent.”
Additional Insights
Professional experiences
Additional factors driving leaders' decision-making at public HBCUs included their
professional experience before joining their institution. Many participants had worked within
higher education institutions at both HBCUs and PWIs. Four out of the six participants worked
in higher education for over five years and were invested in using their skill sets to guide their
respective institutions forward. For example, one participant noted a three-decade career in
higher education “…but I have been in and around higher ed for 32 years now…”. Another
participant stated that they had worked in higher education for several years but “…all of my
higher education experience has been with HBCUs”. Lastly, there were participants who, before
working in higher education, had worked within the private sector “…I got into this industry in
2003…”. Participants who had worked in the private sector before changing their professions to
higher education administration seemed to have relevant experience related to their job functions
at the institution.
Those participants who worked in the private sector before a career in higher education
seemed to have been hired to bring best business practices and their connections to their
institutions.“… I was in corporate finance, so financial planning and analysis for large global
corporations. Did some time at tech start-ups and did some time in the NGO space.” One
participant who had worked in government before a career in higher education shared how their
knowledge from working in the government helped them navigate positioning their institution
with government officials and resources “…having been the Previous Title of Previous
73

Employer, I got to know my way around Capitol Hill and sort of understand how to work toward
it and make things happen.”
Lived experiences
Conducting a qualitative study allowed the researcher to get a glimpse into participants'
lived experiences and their influence on their strategies at their respective institutions. Many
participants reflected on their own time in school and interacting with the education system in
the United States. Their lived experiences contributed to their value on education and the value
and importance of public HBCUs and HBCUs in general. One participant shared:
“...when I was going to school in Participant’s home state primarily, there were not a lot
of opportunities for African Americans to go to college unless you attended the
Participants Employer A but interestingly enough, I came along right about the time
when integration was really starting to spread its wings if you will, integration hit the
United States in 1954 with Brown v Board, but it didn't hit Participant’s home state until
1972. So although Brown v. Board had happened in 54’ and the Supreme Court said that
you should integrate with all deliberate speed…Participants' home state did not integrate
until 1972. So by the time I was graduating from college, opportunities were really
opening up.”
This lack of access to educational opportunities drives how they view their work and, in many
ways, prepares and qualifies them to make the best decisions for students at their institutions and
address the many challenges that their institutions have related to organizational outcomes.
“…growing up the way I did, I expect stuff to be hard and I sort of like challenges, and I also
accept the fact that things aren’t always going to be fair, so I don't expect it...that's just not been
74

the reality that I've lived. So I look forward to taking on the challenges. I wish some of the ones
we currently have would go away so I can find others. But we are going to get there.”
Participants seemed to have a personal connection to the value and mission of public
HBCUs. One participant even described their transition as a professional out of the private sector
into higher education as “a call to serve.” The participant explained, “ I was having this
inflection in my career about wanting to get away from some of the cycles of a corporation... I
knew personally and professionally I wanted a shift.”
Summary
The focus of this qualitative study was to understand what external factors might
influence or constrain the decision-making of leaders at public HBCUs. In addition, this study
focused on understanding the strategies public HBCU leaders use to achieve organizational
outcomes at their respective institutions. Interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data
from current public HBCU leaders who hold leadership positions relevant to the organizational
outcomes focused on in this study. Several key findings, in alignment with the conceptual
framework for this study, about external factors influencing the decision-making within an
organization emerged from the data. Public HBCU leaders also developed their strategies based
on their experience with navigating external factors. In addition, their understanding of funding
inequities both personally and professionally allowed them to address these issues at their
respective institutions uniquely.

75

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to understand what external factors support and or
constrain the decision-making of leaders at public HBCUs. In addition, this study aimed to
understand strategies used by leaders at public HBCUs to achieve organizational outcomes.
Specifically, this study sought to learn about these leaders' strategies to increase endowment size,
increase research productivity, and decrease tuition dependency. This chapter discusses the
findings related to the data collected and analyzed. Furthermore, based on these research
findings, specific recommendations for practice at public HBCUs will be delineated along with
suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
This study’s findings suggest that the decision-making of public HBCU leaders is
supported and constrained by external factors. Eight emerging themes arose from participants
highlighting external factors that support and constrain their decision-making. Six strategies
arose from participants highlighting their strategy for achieving organizational outcomes. The
first emerging theme all participants highlighted related to external factors was the legacy of
inequitable funding policies and practices within higher education. The intentional underfunding
of public HBCUs by their states and weak federal policies supporting HBCUs' stability have
placed a significant burden on leaders at these institutions. Recently, there has been an uptake in
public HBCUs holding their states accountable for disparities in funding and inequities within
policies governing the states’ higher education system. For example, in 2021, a report conducted
by the Tennessee Office of Legislative Budget Analysis found that Tennessee owed between
$150 million and $544 million in unpaid land-grant funds to Tennessee State University
(Weissman, 2021).
76

Findings suggested that due to the intentional underfunding of public HBCUs by states,
public HBCUs are developing strategies that rely heavily on external stakeholders and
partnerships for financial support and additional resources. Public HBCU leaders know they
cannot be dependent on their states to correctly allocate funding unless they enhance their
economic value and build relationships with the legislature. Due to this awareness, these leaders
focus their strategies on generating revenue and philanthropic dollars from alternative revenue
streams such as private philanthropy, corporate, foundation, and government funding. In
addition, some public HBCUs have increased their economic value by partnering with other
higher education institutions and strategically re-engaging alumni. Overall, leaders have found
that implementing these strategies has positively impacted the organizational outcomes of their
institutions.
Findings also revealed that public HBCU leaders that participated in this study view their
institutions as committed to being mission-focused in a complex and competitive higher
education environment. In addition, they are committed to ensuring that the institutions they
represent are financially stable and continue providing affordable and accessible education,
specifically to African American youth. With that commitment in mind, leaders' strategies
seemed to focus on non-traditional higher education practices that embraced their institutions'
uniqueness, demographic of focus, and contributions to society. Participants recognize their
institutions' fiscal realities and their direct impact on institutional capacity and competitiveness.
Leaders in this study are strategic thinkers and exemplify strategic leadership as defined by
Pisapia (2009) as the “ability (as well as the wisdom) to make consequential decisions about
ends, actions, and tactics in ambiguous environments” (p.7).
77

This study's other significant findings were related to participants' personal and
professionally lived experiences. Some participants shared instances of their personal
experiences in being a student within the higher education landscape and understanding the value
and importance that public HBCUs and HBCUs at large had in ensuring they had opportunities
to access a meaningful and affordable education. As professionals at these institutions, leaders
understand the challenges public HBCUs face to remain competitive in a landscape where their
importance and value are often lost and regarded as a thing of the past. These lived experiences
influenced their decision-making and strategies and, in some sense, motivated them to continue
the critical work in sustaining these institutions to continue providing access to an education for
future generations to come. Furthermore, it represents the social qualifications these leaders have
to understand the challenges that public HBCUs are seeking to address and, more importantly,
their potential impact on public HBCU alumni, current public HBCU students, prospective
students, and communities.
Recommendations for Practice
As a result of understanding the external factors that support or constrain the decision-
making of public HBCU leaders, this study concludes with recommendations for practice for
leaders at public HBCUs and other higher education institutions. Based on the findings, there are
three recommendations for practice, including 1) expanding online degree programs to increase
student access and generate revenue; 2) implementing comprehensive industry engagement
programs that leverage public HBCUs’ diverse talent pool, unique research expertise, student
programming, and increases financial support and engagement from corporations; and 3)
developing a pilot consortium that brings together thought leaders in higher education and the
78

public and private sectors to share best practices for supporting public HBCUs in achieving
organizational outcomes.
Expand public HBCUs online degree and certification programs to increase student access,
broaden the reach of public HBCUs and generate revenue
This study adds to the body of knowledge regarding the influence that government
funding, particularly at the state level, can have on revenue generation and the sustainability of
HBCUs. In response to these challenges, leaders at public HBCUs might consider expanding
their online degree and certificate programs to increase student access and generate revenue.
Gasman (2010) noted that HBCUs enroll more low-income and underprepared students, typically
the first in their families to attend college. Due to the high need of students, limited resources
available at public HBCUs, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, public HBCUs might
consider using this unique time to enhance existing or develop online courses that students can
take remotely. The growth in online learning has increased significantly at colleges and
universities except at HBCUs (Amani, 2010; Beasley, 2014; Shropshire, 2010). In addition,
leaders might consider reframing conversations about student access with state legislators and
the private sector to address technology and budgetary issues, hindering their capacity to adapt or
enhance online learning.
The enhancement or development of online learning, degree, and certificate programs can
potentially assist in increasing the economic value of public HBCUs. Although further research
is necessary to determine the current impact of online learning at public HBCUs, leaders at
public HBCUs might continue thinking strategically about getting faculty buy-in and creating
incentives that counter past research, which highlights the lack of satisfaction HBCU faculty
experience from teaching online courses (Carthan, 2007; Miah & Imar, 2011). In addition, public
79

HBCUs should consider prioritizing resources to train and equip faculty with the knowledge and
resources necessary to teach in an online learning environment effectively. Enhancing existing or
developing new online courses also positions public HBCUs to attract and retain a diverse group
of faculty who might not have considered teaching in-person at an HBCU but might have more
flexibility or incentive to teach a course online. The benefits of expanding the online enterprise
of public HBCUs can yield positive results of increasing student access and broadening the reach
of public HBCUs and in addition, maintaining low-cost tuition for students, providing a
potential mechanism for the recruitment and retention of faculty, and increasing their economic
value by making these online courses available to professionals seeking to continue their
education.
Implement a comprehensive industry engagement program that leverages public HBCUs’
diverse talent pool, unique research expertise, student programming and increases
financial support and engagement from corporations
Arroyo (2010) states that public HBCU leaders need to articulate their effectiveness in
educating African American students and “transforming them.” However, leaders' inability to
expand fundraising efforts due to limited staff and resources available to execute fundraising
activities was one of many challenges. Leaders at public HBCUs might consider collectively or
individually at their institutions implementing a comprehensive industry engagement program
that leverages public HBCUs’ diverse talent pool, unique research expertise, and student
programming. Bowman (2010) and Gasman and Bowman (2011) support this recommendation
by highlighting the need for sufficient infrastructure at public HBCUs that can assist them in
achieving fundraising success. Furthermore, due to the lack of fundraising staff, developing
comprehensive programming as an engagement tool might allow public HBCUs to extend their
80

capacity and create programming that will enable them to strategically position their institutions
as a critical industry partner and properly cultivate relationships with corporations and relevant
government entities through benefits such as partnering with them to increase diversity within
the current workforce.
In addition, public HBCU leaders might consider focusing their fundraising efforts on
building deeper relationships with corporations and corporate foundations and working with
corporate leaders to align public HBCUs with the priorities and needs of the industry. As
corporations focus on making their corporate social responsibility efforts more visible and
impactful, specifically around diversity, equity, inclusion, and workforce development, there is
an opportunity for public HBCUs to align themselves as critical partners and drive the efforts of
corporations forward. Due to significant gaps in philanthropic investments from public HBCU
alumni, leaders at public HBCUs might consider approaching corporations to engage with their
institutions to provide student professional development and talent pipeline opportunities like
internships and direct full-time employment opportunities. Additionally, public HBCUs might
consider identifying key research areas where they have expertise that aligns with the challenges
that the industry is seeking to address. Through a mechanism like an industry engagement
program, public HBCUs can prepare to support sponsored research opportunities for faculty and
experiential learning opportunities for students, which are helpful tools for recruiting and
retaining top talent among students and faculty. More importantly, these philanthropic
investments from corporations could help enhance student programming that supports the
professional development of students and ensures the workforce pipeline for diverse talent is
adequately funded and sufficiently resourced.
81

Develop a pilot consortium or partner with existing platforms that bring together thought
leaders in higher education and the public and private sectors to share best practices for
supporting public HBCUs in achieving organizational outcomes
Governing boards like Trustee Boards play a critical role in higher education institutions
and are responsible for: setting mission and purpose, appointing and supporting the president,
monitoring the president's performance, ensuring that long-range planning occurs, reviewing
education programs, providing adequate resources, maintaining strong financial management,
serving as a bridge between the campus and community, and assessing its performance as a
board (AGB, 2010; Chait et al., 1991, Hendrickson et al., 2013; Ingram, 1993; MacTaggart,
2011). However, public HBCU leaders might consider developing a pilot consortium or
partnering with existing platforms that bring together a diverse group of thought leaders in higher
education and the public and private sectors to share best practices for supporting public HBCUs
in achieving organizational outcomes. By engaging thought leaders in a structured and organized
forum, leaders at public HBCUs have the opportunity to have a sounding board to talk about
issues within higher education and their impact on institutions like HBCUs. This group of
leaders has the potential to leverage one another’s networks, expertise, and connections to
resources that help support all institutions of higher learning and serve as a mechanism for
sharing best practices in addressing issues such as diversifying revenue to maintain low-tuition
costs, positioning them as premier research institutions and increasing philanthropic investments
from external stakeholders like corporations and foundations. A consortium or existing platform
can be used as a mechanism to increase the visibility of public HBCUs, recruit board members,
and increase access leaders at public HBCUs have to senior leaders at corporations and other
premier higher education institutions.
82

Leaders at public HBCUs might also consider partnering with existing professional
platforms that bring together leaders such as consulting groups like the Aspen Institute or the
Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) that brings together a community
of academic professionals who are seeking best practices and emerging trends for engaging with
corporations and corporate leaders. Unfortunately, these platforms don’t often have leaders from
public HBCUs participating due to the lack of marketing to recruit leaders from these institutions
or the lack of resources available at public HBCUs to provide professional development
opportunities for their staff. The HBCU Conference hosted by the White House Initiative on
Advancing Education Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity through HBCUs is critical
in connecting HBCU leaders. However, it is heavily supported and attended by federal
government agencies; there doesn’t seem to be significant involvement from corporations and
foundations. A pilot consortium might assist HBCU leaders with strengthening these cross-sector
partnerships by providing them an opportunity to connect with these leaders and engage in
meaningful and solution-oriented discussions regarding sustainable partnerships.
Recommendations for Future Research
As a result of this study and based on the themes highlighted, future research should
continue to explore the environmental influences of all HBCUs and gain a better understanding
of how those leaders navigate external factors outside of their control. In addition, it might be
helpful for state governments to look at the correlation between an increase in state support to
public HBCUs and its impact on their organizational outcomes. Due to the history of inequitable
state funding to public HBCUs, state governments should understand how this historical legacy
has influenced the decision-making and strategies of past and current public HBCU leaders.
Furthermore, research investigating how public service dollars indirectly benefit students at
83

public HBCUs could give insight into recruitment and enrollment issues. With the significant
contributions that HBCUs have made to society, particularly communities of color, governments
should want to focus their efforts on sustaining these institutions.
Based on information gathered from this study, future research should also examine the
correlation between fundraising capacity at public HBCUs and philanthropic dollars raised. In
addition, research should also aim to understand the influence of Board of Trustee members on
increasing philanthropic support and public and private sector partnerships for HBCUs. This
future research could ultimately explore the strategies of public HBCU leaders to engage in this
work, HBCU presidents' readiness to fundraise, and their understanding of best fundraising
practices. Additional research could provide a more comprehensive understanding of strategies
necessary to ensure that leaders at public HBCUs succeed and have the resources needed to
sustain their institutions.
Furthermore, while this research focused on a subset of HBCUs, future research should
look at the external factors that influence leaders at private HBCUs and the strategies they use to
achieve organizational outcomes. The more that is known and understood about the external
factors influencing decision-making and the strategies used to navigate those factors at these
institutions can assist the entire HBCU community in joining together to prioritize what issues
they have in common. In addition, collectively sharing these commonalities amongst institutions
can help develop a more holistic approach to engage external stakeholders in partnering with the
HBCU community to address their challenges and support their success in achieving
organizational outcomes. In addition, future research can look at how existing platforms that
support leaders in higher education engage leaders at public and private HBCUs to be a part of
conversations for best practices to sustain and grow their institutions. That research can
84

potentially highlight the assumed absence of many HBCU leaders in spaces where knowledge
and resources are exchanged to better higher education institutions.
Limitations and Delimitation
This study focused solely on the experiences and strategies of leaders at public HBCUs.
However, this limited the perspective of HBCU leaders by not including those HBCUs that are
classified as privately funded institutions. Furthermore, the researcher had difficulty connecting
with public HBCU leaders to participate or confirm their participation in this study. However,
due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, these leaders might have had limited availability. The
researcher assumed that public HBCU leaders have unique experiences and strategies, compared
to the experience and strategies of private HBCU leaders and PWI public institution leaders. This
study attempted to determine or predict the experiences of public HBCU leaders within their
institutions. In addition, this study was not meant to define or explore how effective or successful
these leaders are.
Due to the sensitivity of participants' work and to protect their confidentiality, the
researcher was limited in what information could be included and shared and its entirety.
Furthermore, utilizing a phenomenological approach highlighted the importance of addressing
the possibility of data that is subjective. Each public HBCU leader had their perspective, and the
researcher recognized how important each of these individual experiences is. In addition, the
researcher was mindful that participants could be susceptible to the researcher imposing their
subjective interpretations that represent the participant’s understanding. This interpretation can
potentially raise issues regarding who owns the data, how the data will be used, and how much
control participants have over the data findings. Even though participants are given a voice, the
85

researcher ultimately decides the research direction and the final interpretation of the data and
information reported.
Conclusion
This research aimed to understand the factors that support or constrain leaders' decision-
making at public HBCUs. In addition, the study aimed to understand the strategies that public
HBCU leaders use to achieve organizational outcomes. Specifically, this research focused on
understanding what strategies public HBCU leaders use to increase their endowment and
research productivity and limit their institution's dependence on tuition. Public HBCU leaders are
experts within their environments and lean on their professional and personal experiences to
guide decision-making. The study revealed that public HBCU leaders are supported and
constrained in their decision-making by external factors. In response to those external factors,
leaders develop strategies to navigate them, achieve organizational outcomes, and ensure their
institutions' stability. With additional support from the public and private sectors and
philanthropic allies, public HBCUs have the opportunity to continue repositioning themselves as
premier research institutions, increase and diversify their revenue sources, and remain committed
to their mission of providing affordable and accessible education to those who are often
underserved and underrepresented.

86

References

Albritton, T.J. (2012). Educating Our Own: The historical legacy of HBCUs and their relevance
for educating a new generation of leaders. Urban Review. Vol. 44, pp. 311-331.
Aldeman, C. & Carey, K. (2009). Ready to assemble: Grading state higher education
accountability systems. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
Alexander, F.K. (2001). The silent crisis: The relative fiscal capacity of public universities to
compete for faculty. The Review of Higher Education. Vol. 24(2), pp. 113-129.
Allen, D, & Wolniak, G.C.(2019). Exploring the Effects of Tuition Increases on Racial/Ethnic
Diversity at Public Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 60, pp.
18-43.
Allen, W.R., Jewell, J.O. (2002). A backward glance forward: Past, present, and future
perspectives on historically black colleges and universities. Review of Higher Education.
Vol. 25, pp. 241-261.
Allen, W.R., Jewell, J.O, Griffin, K.A., Wolf, D.S. (2007). Historically Black Colleges and
Universities: Honoring the Past, Engaging the Present, Touching the Future. The Journal of
Negro Education. Vol. 76(3), pp. 263-280.
Amani. (2010). Where Are All the HBCU Online Education Programs? Black Web 2.0.
Retrieved from http://www.blackweb20.com/2010/11/23/where-are-all-the-hbcuonline-
education-programs/#.UPchEGdS6uk
American Council on Education (2000). Retrieved. April 9, 2021.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Understanding-College-and-University-
Endowments.pdf
87

Andrews, D.R., No, S., Powell, K.K., Rey, M.P., Yigletu, A. (2016). Historically Black Colleges
and Universities’ Institutional Survival and Sustainability: A view from the HBCU
business deans’ perspective. Journal of Black Studies. Vol. 47(2), pp. 15-168.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A., Meier, K.J., O’Toole Jr., L.J., Walker, R.M. (2005). Representative
Bureaucracy, Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance: An Empirical
Analysis of English Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory.
Arroyo, A.T., & Gasman, M. (2014). An HBCU-based educational approach for Black college
student success: Toward a framework with implications for all institutions. American
Journal of Education. Vol. 121(1), pp. 57-85.
ASHE Higher Education Report. (2010). Fundraising. 35(5), pp. 55-60.
Association of Governing Boards (201). Board responsibility for institutional governance.
Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities. (2014). Top strategic issues
facing HBCUs, now and into the future. Washington, DC: Association of Governing
Boards of Colleges and Universities.
Barr, M.J. (2002). The Jossey-Bass academic administrator's guide to budgets and financial
management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baschab, J., & Piot, J. (2010). Outperform: Inside the investment strategy of billion-dollar
endowments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Basinger, J. (2003, Nov. 14). Closing in on $1-Million. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p.
S1.
88

Beasley. (2014). HBCU-Levers: HBCUs -- Online and Blended Degree Programs -- 2014.
Retrieved from http://hbculevers.blogspot.com/2014/07/hbcus-online-and-blended-
degree.html
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). “Cracking the code of change,” Harvard Business Review,
May/June, pp. 133-141.
Belkin, D. (2013, November 11). U.S. private colleges face enrollment decline: schools respond
with cutbacks. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com
/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579186153175094892.
Betsey, C.L. (Ed.). (2008). Historically black colleges and universities. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Birnabum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Birnabum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance. Looking ahead or looking back. New
Directions for Higher Education. Vol. 127, pp. 5-22.
Bogue, E.G. (1997). Improvement versus stewardship: Reconciling political and academic
accountability cultures. Paper presented at the Conference on Values in Higher
Education, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boland, W., Gasman, M. (2014) America’s Public HBCUs: A Four State Comparison of
Institutional Capacity and State Funding Priorities. Penn Center for Minority Serving
Institutions. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/340.
89

Boland, W.C. (2016). The Impact of Performance-Based Funding on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities: A comparative state analysis. In Prince, C.B., & Ford, R.L. (Eds.),
Administrative Challenges and Organizational Leadership in Historically Black Colleges
and Universities. pp. 151-178.
Boland, W.C. (2020). Performance Funding and Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
An assessment of financial incentives and baccalaureate degree production. Educational
Policy. Vol. 34(4), pp. 644-673.Bolman, L.G., & Gallos, J.V. (2011). Reframing
academic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowles, F., & DeCosta, F.A. (1971). Between two worlds: A profile of Negro education. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research
journal. Vol. 9(2), pp. 27-40.
Bowman, N. (2010). Fundraising during an economic downturn within the Historically Black
College and University environment. International Journal of Educational Advancement.
Vol. 9(4), pp. 266-272.
Bozeman, B. (1987). All organisations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, E.N. (2017). The Significance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
in the 21
st
Century: Will such institutions of higher learning survive? American Journal
of Economics and Sociology. Vol. 76(3).
Brady, K., Eatman, T., Parker, L. (2000). To Have or Not to Have? A Preliminary Analysis of
Higher Education Funding Disparities in the Post-Ayers V. Fordice Era: Evidence from
Critical Race Theory. Journal of Education Finance. Vol. 25(3), pp. 297-322.
90

Brazzell, J.C. (1996). Diversification of postsecondary institutions. In S.R. Komives & D.B.
Woodard (Eds). Student services: A handbook for the profession (3
rd
ed., p. 43-63). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Breneman, D. (1994). Liberal arts colleges: Thriving, surviving, or endangered? Washington
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Broussard, W. (2017). HBCU leadership hiring’s, firings, and resignations – A 2017-18 mid-
term report. Retrieved from https://hbcudigest.com/hbculeadership-hirings-firings-and-
resignations-a-2017-18-mid-term-report/.
Broussard, W., & Hilton, A. (2016). The unseen casualties of HBCU executive departures.
https://medium.com/hbcu-digest/the-unseen-casualties-of-hbcu-executive-departures-
b556e1b4c658
Brown, B.M., & Dancy, E.T. (2010). Predominantly white institutions. In K. Lomotey (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of African American education. (pp. 524-526). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Brown, W. & Gamber, C. (2002). External cost factors: Are states’ policies for higher education
institutions helping or hindering cost containment opportunities? Ashe-Eric Higher
Education Report. Vol. 28 (5), pp. 99-128.
Brown, W.A, & Burnette, D. (2014). Public HBCUs financial resource distribution disparities in
capital spending. The Journal of Negro Education. Vol. 83(2), pp. 173-182.
Brown, M.C., II, Davis, J.E. (2001). The historically Black college as a social contract, social
capital, and social equalizer. Peabody Journal of Education. Vol. 76., pp. 31-49.
Burke, J.C., Minassians, H.P. (2003). Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or
accountability “lite”? Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute.
91

Bryman, A., & Burgess, B. (Eds). (2002). Analyzing qualitative data. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cabrera, N.L. 2014). Exposing whiteness in higher education: white male college students
minimizing racism, claiming victimization, and recreating white supremacy. Race
Ethnicity and Education. Vol. 17(1), pp. 30-55.
Carnegie Foundation (2005). The 2005 revision of the Carnegie classification system. Stanford,
CA:
Carter, P. (2008, April 25). Black Colleges seeking more money from alumni. Associated Press.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-20-1043393146_x.htm
Carthan, E. (2007). An analysis of faculty’s attitudes toward online courses at selected
historically black colleges and universities. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-
Learning. Jackson State University. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=369
Chabotar, K.J. (1999). How to develop an effective budget process. New Directions for Higher
Education, Vol. 107, pp. 17-28.
Chair, R., Holland, T. P., & Taylor, B.E. (1996). Improving the performance of governing
boards. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
Cheslock, J.J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue
sources: The case of voluntary support. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 79(2), pp.
208-229.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2020). Almanac of higher education 2020-2021.
https://www.chronicle.com/package/the-almanac-2020-2021
Closson, R.B., & Henry, W.J. (2008). Racial and ethnic diversity at HBCUs: What can be
learned when Whites are in the minority? Multicultural Education, Vol. 15(4), pp. 15-19.
92

Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System
(1995). Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities. A Profile. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Commodore, F. (2018). The Tie That Binds: Trusteeship, values, and the decision-making
process at AME-Affiliates HBCUs. The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 89 (4), pp.
397-421.
Commodore, F., Freeman, S., Jr., Gasman, M., & Carter, C. (2016). “How it’s done”: The role of
mentoring and advice in preparing the next generation of historically Black college and
university presidents. Education in Science. Vol. 19, pp. 1-14.
Council for Aid to Education. (2017). Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey. New York.
Coupet, J.& Barnum, D. (2010). HBCU efficiency and endowments: An exploratory analysis.
International Journal of Educational Advancement. Vol. 10, pp. 186-197.
Coupet, J. (2013). Historically Black Colleges and Universities and resource dependence: A
Chow test production function. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.
Vol. 35:4, pp. 355-369.
Coupet, J. (2017). Strings attached? Linking Historically Black Colleges and Universities public
revenue sources with efficiency. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.
Vol. 39(1), p. 40-57.
Coverly, D., Jackson-Bowen, D., Valentine, P. (2014) A Call for Transformational Leadership at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Journal of the National Society of
Allied Health. Vol. 11 (1), pp. 25-30.
93

Crawford, J. (2017) HBCUs: Accreditation, governance, and survival challenges in an ever-
increasing competition for funding and students. Journal of Research Initiatives. Vol. 2
(3).
Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research method: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (Laureate Education Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4
th
ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
practice. Vol. 39 (3), pp. 124-130.
Davis, J. (2003). Learning to lead. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2011). State spending on higher education: Testing the balance
wheel over time. Journal of Education Finance. Vol. 36(4), pp. 343-369.
Deng, S., Lai, Y., Myers Jr., S.L., Xu, M. (2020). Foundation Giving and Economics Research
Productivity at HBCUs: Empirical evidence from the Kock Foundation. Journal of
Economics, Race, and Policy. Vol. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s41996-
020-00063-0
Dickeson, R.C. (2010) Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating resources to
achieve strategic balance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
94

Dougherty, K.J., & Natow, R.S. (2015) The politics of performance funding for higher
education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dougherty, K.J., & Reddy, V.T. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on
higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations.
Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/ impacts-state-funding-
higher-education.pdf
Dougherty, K.J., Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the
mechanisms? What are the impacts? ASHE Higher Education Report. Vol. 39(2).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Drezner, N.D. (2006). Recessions and Tax-Cuts: Economic Cycles’ Impact on Individual Giving,
Philanthropy, and Higher Education. International Journal of Educational Advancement.
Vol. 6(4), pp. 289-305.
Drezner, N.D. (2010). Fundraising in a time of economic downturn: Theory, practice, and
implications – An editorial call to action. International Journal of Educational
Advancement. Vol. 9, pp. 191-195.
Drezner, N.D., Gupta, A.(2012). Busting the Myth: Understanding endowment management at
public Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Journal of Negro Education.
Vol. 81(2), pp. 107-120.
Duderstadt, J., Womack, F. (2003). The Future of the Public University in America: Beyond the
crossroads. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
DuBois, P.M. (1982, February 17). The nation’s Black colleges: A noble past, a troubled present,
a questionable future. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 72.
95

Erbisch, P.S.M. (2004). Management Style, Organizational Climate, and Organizational
Performance in a Public Mental Health Agency: An Integral Model. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Esters, L.L., Strayhorn, T.L. (2013) Demystifying the Contributions of Public Land-Grant
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Voices of HBCU Presidents. Negro
Educational Review. Vol. 64, pp. 1-4.
Esters, L.T., Washington, A. Gasman, M., Commodore, F., O’Neal, B., Freeman, S., Jr., &fi
Jimenez, C.D. (2016). Effective leadership: A toolkit for the 21
st
century historically
Black college and university president. Retrieved from
https://www2.gse.upenn.edu/cmsi/sites/gse.upenn.edu.
cmsi/files/MSI_LdrshpRprt_R3.pdf
Evans, A.L., Evans, V., Evans, A.M. (2002). Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs). Education. Vol. 123, pp. 3-16.
Ferguson, D. (2014, January 17). Iowa Board of Regents considers performance-based funding.
Iowa State Daily. Retried from http:www.iowastaetdaily.com/news/article_1aacf0fe-
7f12-11e3-887b-0019bb2963f4.html
Figueroa, O. (2015). The Influences Impacting Staff Turnover in Higher Education. Journal of
Management and Sustainability. Vol. 5(4).
Fowles, J. (2014). Funding and Focus: Resources Dependence in Public Higher Education.
Research in Higher Education. Vol. 55, pp. 272-287.
Freeman Jr., S., Commodore, F., Gasman, M., & Carter, C. (2016). Leaders Wanted! The Skills
Expected and Needed for a Successful 21
st
Century Historically Black College and
University Presidency. Journal of Black Studies. Vol. 47(6), pp. 570-591.
96

Freeman, S., & Gasman, M. (2014). The characteristics of historically Black college and
university presidents and their role in grooming the next generation of leaders. Teachers
College Record, Vol. 116, pp. 1-34.
Freeman, K., & McDonald, N. (2004). Attracting the best and brightest: College choice
influences at black colleges. In M. C. Brown II & K. Freeman (Eds.), Black colleges:
New perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 53–64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Friedel, J.N., Thornton, Z.M., D’Amico, M.M., & Katsinas, S.G. (2013). Performance-based
funding: The national landscape. Tuscaloosa: Education Policy Center, The University of
Alabama.
Froelich, K.A. (1999). Diversification of Revenue Strategies: Evolving resource dependence in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 28(3), pp. 246-
268. Sage Publications, Inc.
Fryar, A.H, (2011, June) The disparate impacts of accountability – Searching for causal
mechanisms. Paper presented at the 11
th
Public Management Research Conference.
Syracuse, New York, 2011.
Gallardo, S. (2012). HBCU alumni fundraising ideas. HBCU Lifestyle, (Black College Living).
http://hbculifestyle.com/hbcu-alumni-fundraising-ideas/
Gasman, M. (2007). Envisioning Black Colleges: A history of the United Negro College Fund.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gasman, M. (2009). Historically Black Colleges and Universities in a time of economic crisis.
Academe, www.aaup.org.
Gasman, M. (2010). Comprehensive funding approaches for historically Black colleges and
Universities: A policy brief. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School
97

of Education & North Carolina Central University. Retrieved from
https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/331/
Gasman, M. (2010). Introduction to special issue: Fundraising and philanthropy within the
Historically Black College and University setting. International Journal of Educational
Advancement. Vol. 10(3), pp. 123-125.
Gasman, M. (2014). The changing face of historically Black colleges and universities. Retrieved
from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pdf/cmsi/Changing_Face_HBCUs.pdf
Gasman, M., Baez, B., Drezner, N.D., Sedgwick, K.V., Tudico, C., & Schmid, J.M. (2007).
Gasman, M., Bowman, N., III. (2011). How to paint a better portrait of HBCUs. Academe, Vol.
97(3), pp. 24-27. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/article/how-paint-better-portrait-
hbcus#.
Gasman, M. & Commodore, F. (2014). “The state of research on historically Black colleges and
universities.” Journal for Multicultural Education. Vol. 8(2), pp. 89-111.
Gasman, M., & Palmer, R. (2008). It takes a village to raise a child: The role of social capital in
promoting academic success for African American men at a Black college. Journal of
College Student Development. Vol. 49(1), pp. 52-70. Retrieved from. http://muse.jhu.edu
Gasman, M. & Sedgwick, K. (eds) (2005) Uplifting a People: African American Philanthropy
and Education. New York: Peter Lang.
Gelaidan, H.M., Al-Swidi, A. & Mabkhot, H.A. (2018). Employee Readiness for Change in
Public Higher Education Institutions: Examining the Joint Effect of Leadership Behavior
and Emotional Intelligence. International Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 41(2),
pp. 150-158.
98

Glass Jr., J.C. & Jackson, K.L. (1998). ‘‘A new role for community college presidents: Private
fundraiser and development team leader,’’ Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 22, pp. 575– 90; L. S. Miller (1994), ‘‘Community college resource
development: Foundations and fundraising’’ in G. A. Baker (Ed.), A Handbook on the
Community College in America: Its History, Mission, and Management, Greenwood
Press, Westport, CT, pp. 360–74.
Glanton, D. (2002, October 21). Black colleges fight to survive—Chicago Tribune, p.1.
Goldrick-Rab, S. & Kendall, N. (2014). Redefining College Affordability: Securing American’s
Future with a Free Two-Year College Option. Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation.
Goldstein, L. (2005). College and university budgeting: An introduction for faculty and
academic administrators (23
rd
ed.). Washington, DC: National Association of College
and University Business Officers.
Gonzales, L.D. (2013) Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalizing
ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. Review of Higher Education. Vol. 36, pp. 170-
209.
Gonzales, L.D. (2014) Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of
Bourdieu’s theory of practice. The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 85, pp. 193-218.
Gonzales, L.D. & Nunez, A.M. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge:
Impactions for academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Vol. 22 (31), pp. 1-24.
Green, P. (2004). Other things being equal: Federal aid and the politics for historically Black
colleges and universities. In M. C. Brown II & K. Freeman (Eds.), Black colleges: New
perspectives on policy & practice (pp. 65-95). Westport, CT: Praeger.
99

Hagwood, L.P. (2019). The Financial Benefits and Burdens of Performance Funding in Higher
Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 41 (2), pp. 189-213.
Hale, F.M. (2007). Introduction. In: F.M. Hale (ed.) How Black Colleges Empower Black
Students: Lessons for Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 5-13.
Hamilton, K. (2004). Are you presidential material? Black Issues in Higher Education. Retrieved
from https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-731115251/are-youpresidential-materias
Harper, S.R., Patton, L.D, Wooden, O.S. (2009). Access and Equity for African American
Students in Higher Education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The
Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 80(4), p. 389-414.
Harris, R.P, Worthen, H.D. (2004). Working through the challenges: Struggle and resilience
within the Historically Black land grant institutions. Education, Vol. 123, pp., 447-455.
Hearn, J.C. (2015). Outcomes-based Funding in Historical and Comparative Context. Lumina
Foundation For Education.
Hendrickson, R. M., Lane, J. E., Harris, J. T., Dorman, R. H., & Ikenberry, S. (2013). Academic
leadership and governance of higher education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and aspiring
leaders of two- and four-year institutions. Stylus.
Hensley, B., Galilee-Belfer, M., & Lee, J.J. (2013) What is the greater good? The discourse on
public and private roles of higher education in the new economy. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management. Vol.. 35(5), pp. 553-567.
Hillman, A.J., Winthers, M.C., & Collings, B.J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review.
Journal of Management, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.1177/0149206309343469
100

Hillman, N., Tandberg, D.A., Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the Impacts of “New” Performance
Funding in Higher Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 37(4),
pp. 501-519.
Hirsch, W.Z., Weber, L. (2002). As the walls of academia are tumbling down. London, England:
Economica.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Recent trends. Academe. Vol. 93(1)., pp. 69-77.
Hodge-Clark, K., & Daniels, B.D. (2014). Top Strategic Issues Facing HBCUs, Now and Into
the Future. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Holsendolph, E. (1971). Black colleges are worth saving. Fortune. Vol. 84(104), pp. 106-107.
Hrebinak, L.G., & Joyce, W.F. (1985). Organizational Adaption: Strategic Choice and
Environmental Determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 30(3), pp. 336-349.
Huisman, J. (1991) Differentiation, Diversity, and Dependency in Higher Education: A
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses database, UMI No. C471823.
Humphreys, J. (2017). HBCUs Make America Strong: The Positive Economic Impact of
Historically Black College and Universities. Washington, DC: UNCF Frederick D.
Patterson Research Institute.
Hunt, L.H. (2008). Grade Inflation: Academic Standards in Higher Education. New York, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Hussein, N., Mohamad, A., Noordin, F., & Ishak, N.A. (2014). Learning Organizational and its
Effect on Organizational Performance and Organizational Innovativeness: A proposed
framework for Malaysian public institutions of higher education. Social and Behavioral
Sciences. Vol. 130, pp. 299-304.
101

Ingram, R. T. (1993). Governing public colleges and universities. Jossey-Bass.
Jacob, J.W. (2020). Preferences of U.S. Faculty Members regarding the Teaching-Research
Nexus. Faculty Publications. 1504.
Jenkins, R.L. (1991). The black land-grant colleges in their formative years, 1890-1920.
Agricultural History. Vol. 65(2), pp. 63-72.
Johnson, G.S., Gray, V., Gray L.D., Richardson, N. L., Rainey-Brown, S.A., Triplett, K.L.,
Bowman, L.E. (2017). Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the
Twenty-First Century. Race Gender & Class, Vol. 24(3-4), Immigration, HBCUs,
Criminology, and Education Issues (2017), pp. 44-67.
Johnson, J. D. (2016). College Dollars and Sense: Exploring Financial Aid Innovations at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. In Prince, C. B., & Ford, R. L. (Eds.),
Administrative Challenges and Organizational Leadership in Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (pp. 179-198). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0311-8.ch010
Johnson, M., Bruch, J., & Gill, B. (2015, April). Changes in financial aid and student enrollment
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities after the tightening of PLUS credit
standards (REL 2015-082). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institution
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov /fulltext/ED555652.pdf
Johnson, M. T. , Bruch, J. & Gill, B. (2019). Changes in HBCU Financial Aid and Student
Enrollment After the Tightening of PLUS Credit Standards. Journal of Student Financial
Aid. Vol. 48 (2).
Johnson, J.A. & Taylor, B.J. (2018). Academic Capitalism and the Faculty Salary Gap.
Innovative Higher Education. Vol. 44(5).
102

Jones, B. A. (2004). Toward strategic planning: Issues and status of Black colleges. In M. C.
Brown II & K. Freeman (Eds.), Black colleges: New perspectives on policy and practice
(pp. 149-160). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Jones, T.(2016). A Historical Mission in the Accountability Era: A Public HBCU and State
Performance Funding. Educational Policy. Vol. 30(7), pp. 999-1041.
Kelchen, R. (2017) “The Distributional and Cost Implications of Negative Expected Family
Contributions. Journal of Student Financial Aid: Vol. 47 (1).
Kelderman, E. (2010, June 27). Black colleges see a need to improve their image. The Chronicle
of Higher Education.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher
education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kelly, A.P. & Lautzenheiser, D.K. (2013). Taking charge: A state-level agenda for higher
education reform. Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute.
Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and
leadership, or structures and formal processes? New Directions for Higher Education.
Vol. 127, pp. 35-46.
Khadaroo, S.T. (2008). Higher Education bill draws a bead on tuition costs. Christian Science
Monitor. August 1, p. 3.
Kimbrough, W.M. (2017). Trends of the HBCU presidency demand attention. Retrieved from
https://hbcudigest.com/trends-of-the-hbcupresidency-demand-attention/
Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership (1
st
ed). Bingley, United
Kingdom: Emerald Group.
103

Knott, J.H., & Payne, A.A. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management
and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol. 23(1), pp. 13-30.
Kolomitz, K. (2016). The New College President: A Study of Leadership in Challenging Times.
Doctoral Dissertation. Proquest Dissertations Publishing, 2016. 10252939.
Kujovich, G. (1993-1994). Public Black colleges: The long history of unequal funding. The
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Vol. 2(winter): pp. 173-82. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/pdf/2962573.pdf
Kujovich, G. (1994). Black colleges: The long history of unequal funding. The Journal of Blacks
in Higher Education, 17, 73-82.
Leathers, E., and Okpala, C.O. (2020) “An Exploration of the Perceptions of Institutional
Advancement Leaders on Their Role in the Survival of Private HBCUs: A Qualitative
Study. Journal of Research Initiatives: Vol. 5(2).
Leak, H.N., & Reid, C.D. (2010). Making something of themselves’: Black self-determination,
the church, and higher education philanthropy. The Journal of Education Advancement,
Vol. 10(3), pp. 235-244.
Lee, J.M., Keys, S.W. (2013a). Land-grant but unequal state one-to-one match funding for 1890
land-grant universities. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land Grant
Universities.
Lee, H. (2009). The growth and stratification of college endowments in the United States.
International Journal of Educational Advancement. Vol. 8(3/4), pp. 136-151.
Lee, J.M., Keys, S.W. (2013b). Repositioning HBCUs for the future. Access, success, research &
innovation. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land Grant Universities.
104

Legon, R., Lombardi, J.V., & Rhoades, G. (2013). Leading the university: The roles of trustees,
presidents, and faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Vol. 45(1), pp. 24-
32.
Leslie, L.L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B.J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect
expenditures within US research universities? Research in Higher Education. Vol. 53, p.
614-639.
Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems.
Higher Education. Vol. 46, pp. 469-489.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage Sons.
Liu, W. (2019). Higher Education Leadership Development: An international comparative
approach. International Journal of Leadership in Education.
Lowry, R. (2001a). The effects of state political interests and campus outputs on public
university revenues. Economics of Education Review. Vol. 20(2), pp. 105-119.
Lowry, R. (2001b). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and
spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science. Vol.
45(4), pp. 845-861.
Lowry, R.C. (2009). Reauthorization of the federal higher education act and accountability for
student learning: The dog that didn’t bark. The Journal of Federalism. Pp. 1-21.
Lowry, R.C. (2009). Reauthorization of the Federal Higher Education Act and Accountability for
Student Learning: The dog that didn’t bark. The Journal of Federalism. Vol. 39(3), pp.
506-526.
Lum, L. (2008). Forming a pipeline to the presidency. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. Vol.
25(7), pp. 12-14. Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/article/11152/.
105

Machado, M.V.V. (2005). Entrepreneurial Activities in the Brazilian Federal Universities: A
Case Study of the Federal University of Ceara. Doctoral dissertation. Available from
Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, UMI No. 3163432.
Martin, A. (2013, January 11). U.S. colleges hit by drop-in fees and enrollment. International
Herald Tribune, p. 15.
Matthews, C.M. (2012). Federal support for academic research. Congressional Research Service.
Report for Congress (Washington, D.C: Congressional Research Service, October 18,
2012): 9, 11-12.
McAllister, S.M., & Kent, M.L. (2009). Dialogic Public Relations and Resource Dependency:
New Jersey Community Colleges as Models for Web Site Effectiveness. Atlantic Journal
of Communication. Vol. 17(4), pp. 220-239.
McDaniel, E.A. (2002). Senior Leadership in Higher Education: An outcomes approach. Journal
of Leadership and Organization Studies. Vol. 9(2), pp. 80-89.
McGuinness, A.C. (1995). Prospect for state-higher education relations: A decade of grinding
tensions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1995. Vol. 85, pp. 33-45.
McLendon, M.K. (2003). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and
theories of the public policy process. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook
of theory and research. (pp. 57-143). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
McLendon, M.K., Hearn, J., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and
spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 28, pp. 1-24.
McMillian, J. (2012). Education research: Fundamentals for the consumer (6
th
Ed). Boston, Ma
106

MacTaggart, T. (2011). Leading change: How boards and presidents build exceptional academic
institutions. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publications.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Wiley, Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S.B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3
rd
ed.). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Miah, M., & Omar, A. (2011). A case study on awareness, willingness, and utilization of
resources by students at HBCU. International Journal of Education and Development
Using Information and Communication Technology. Vol. 7(2), pp. 56-67.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Minor, J.T. (2005) Faculty governance at Historically Black colleges and universities. Academe,
Vol. 91(3), pp. 34-37.
Minor, J.T. (2008). A Contemporary Perspective on the Role of Public HBCUs: Perspicacity
from Mississippi. The Journal of Negro Education. Vol. 77(4), pp. 323-335.
Moody, M. (2007). Do state debt policies and oversight affect how much public universities
borrow? Municipal Finance Journal. Vol. 28(3), pp. 1-17.
Morrell, L.R. (2000). The true purpose of your endowment. NACUBO Endowment Study.
Washington DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Morrill, R.L. (2007). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and
universities. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
107

Museus, S.D., Ledesma, M.C., Parker, T.L. (2015). Racism and Racial Equity in Higher
Education. ASHE Higher Education Report. Vol. 42(1). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals.
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (2020). Washington D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Use the data. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/UseTheData
National Research Council (1995). History and overview of the land-grant college system.
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land-Grant Universities: A profile. Washington, DC: The
National Academic Press. DOI: 10.17226/4980.
Nelms. C. (2010). HBCU reconstruction. The Presidency, pp. 14-18. http://www.acenet.edu/the-
presidency
Newman, D.S. (2005). Nonprofit essentials: Endowment building: Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Nichols, A., Evans-Bell, D. (2017). A look at Black student success: Identifying top-and bottom-
performing institutions. A report for The Education Trust. Retrieved from
https://edtrust.org/resource/black-student-success/.
Nichols, J.C. (2004). Unique Characteristics, Leadership Styles, and Management of Historically
Black Colleges and Universities. Innovative Higher Education. Vol. 28 (3).
Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. (2003). Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of
higher education. Educational Policy. Vol. 17(1), 80.
Noorbakhsh, A., & Culp, D., (2000). The demand for higher education: Pennsylvania’s
nonresident tuition experience. Economics of Education Review. Vol. 21, pp. 277-286.
Office of Management and Budget (2017, March). America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make
America Great Again.
108

Palmadessa, A.L. (2017). America’s College Promise: Situating President Obama’s initiative in
the history of federal higher education aid and access policy. Community College Review.
Vol. 45(1), pp. 52-70.
Palmer, R.T., Davis, R.J., & Hilton, A.A. (2009). Exploring challenges that threaten to impede
the academic success of academically underprepared Black males at an HBCU. Journal
of College Student Development. Vol. 50(4), pp. 429-445.
Palmer, R.T., & Freeman, S. (2020). Examining the Perceptions of Unsuccessful Leadership
Practices for Presidents at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education. Vol. 13(3), pp. 254-263.
Parker, L. (2003). Critical Race Theory and Its Implications for Methodology and Policy
Analysis in Higher Education Desegregation. Counterpoints. Interrogating Racism in
Qualitative Research Methodology. Vol 195, pp. 145-180.
Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Perna, L.W., Gasman, M., Gary, S., Lundy-Wagner, V., & Drezner, N.D. (2010). Identifying
strategies for increasing degree attainment in STEM: Lessons from minority-serving
institutions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010: 41–51.
Peruso, D.F. (2010). Fit, fat, or failing? The financial health of private higher education. Juniata
Voices, 11, 54-73. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/fit-fat-failing-financial-health-private-
higher/docview/931528181/se-2?accountid=1474
109

Peterson, P.A. (1986). From impresario to arts administrator. In P. DiMaggio (Ed.), Nonprofit
enterprise and the arts (pp. 161-183). New York: Oxford University Press.
Petrides, L.A., McClelland, S.I., Nodine, T.R. (2004). Using external accountability mandates to
create internal change. Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 33(1), pp. 44-50.
Petty, N.J., Thomson, O.P., & Graham, S. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2;
Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods. Manual Therapy. Vol.
17(5), pp. 378-384.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R.(2003). The external control of organizations. A resource
dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.
Phoenix, S., Henderson, M. (2016). Expanding Library Support for Faculty Research in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Journal of Library Administration. Vol.
56(5), pp. 572-594.
Pisapia, J.R. (2009). The strategic leader: New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Powell, K.K., & Rey, M.P. (2015). Exploring a resource dependency perspective as an
organizational strategy for building resource capacity: Implications for public higher
education universities. Management in Education. Vol. 29(3), pp. 94-99.
Power, R.L. (2013). Leader-Member Exchange Theory in Higher and Distance Education.
International Review of Research In Open and Distance Learning. Vol. 14(4), pp. 277-
284.
110

Proper, E., Caboni, T.C., Hartley III, H.V., Willmer, W.K. (2009). “More bang for the buck”:
Examining influencers of fundraising efficiency and total dollars raised. International
Journal of Educational Advancement. Vol. 9, pp. 35-41.
Quimbo, M.A.T. & Sulabo, E.C. (2014). Research productivity and its policy implications in
higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 39(10), pp. 1955-1971.
Rabovsky, T.M. (2012). Accountability in Higher Education: Exploring impacts on state budgets
and institutional spending patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory. Vol. 22 (4), pp. 675-700.
Redd, K.E. (1998). Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Making a Comeback. New
Directions for Higher Education. Vol. 1998 (102), pp. 33-43.
Richards, D.A.R., & Awokoya, J.T. (2012) Understanding HBCU retention and completion.
Fairfax, VA: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute, UNCF.
Roebuck, J. B., & Murty, K. S. (1993). Historically black colleges and universities: Their place
in American higher education. Westport, CT.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
Rutherford, A. & Rabovsky, T. (2014). Evaluating Impacts of Performance Funding Policies on
Student Outcomes in Higher Education. The ANNALS of the American Academy.
Saldana, J., Leavy, P., & Beretvas, N. (2011). Fundamental of qualitative research. Cary,
England: Oxford University Press.
Sanford, T., and Hunter, (20110). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation
rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Vol. 19(33).
111

Saunders, K.M. & Nagle, B.T. (2018). HBCUs Punching Above Their Weight: A State-Level
Analysis of Historically Black College and University Enrollment Graduation.
Washington, D.C. UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute.
Sav, T. (1997). Separate and Unequal: State financing of historically black colleges and
universities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Vol. 15, pp. 101-104.
Sav, T. (2000). Tests of fiscal discrimination in higher education finance: Funding historically
Black colleges and universities. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 157-172.
Sav. T.G. (2010) Funding Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Progress Toward
Equality? Journal of Education Finance. Vol. 35(3), pp. 295-307.
Schexnider, A., (2008, Winter). Executive leadership: Securing the future of black colleges and
universities. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior. Vol. 11(4), pp.
496-517.
Schexnider, A.J. (2013). Saving Black colleges: Leading change in a complex organization. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shaker, G.G., & Nathan, S.K. (2017). Understanding higher education fundraisers in the United
States. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4).
Sharpe, R.V. (2005). All land-grants were not created equal: the benefits of white privilege. The
Review of Black Political Economy. Vol. 32(3), pp. 29-38.
Shin, J.C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in
the U.S. Higher Education. Vol. 60(1), pp. 47-68.
Shin, J.C., & Milton, S. (2004). The effects of performance budgeting and funding programs on
graduation rate in public four-year colleges and universities. Education Policy Analysis
Archives. Vol. 12(22), pp. 1-26.
112

Shorette II, C.R. & Arroyo, A.T. (2015). A Closer Examination of White Student Enrollment at
HBCUs. New Directors for Higher Education. Vol. 170.
Shropshire, T. (2010). Get your HBCU Degrees Online; Tom Joyner Will Exceed Univ. of
Phoenix. Retrieved from http://wzakcleveland.com/921271/get-your-hbcudegrees-online-
how-tom-joyner-will-outdo-the-univ-of-phoenix/
Sigritz, B. (2015). State Expenditure Report Summary: Examining Fiscal 2013-2015
StateSpending. Washington, DC: NASBO.
Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state,
and higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Sorber, N.M., & Geiger, R.L. (2014). The welding of opposite views: Land-Grant historiography
at 150 years. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 385-422).
Springer Netherlands.
St. John, E., Noell, J. (1989) The Effects of Student Financial Aid on Access to Higher
Education: An analysis of progress with special consideration of minority enrollment.
Research in Higher Education. Vol. 30 (6).
Stacks, D.W. (2002) Primer of Public Relations Research. New York: Guilford Press.
Stainer, A. (1999). Productivity, performance, and paradise. Management Services, Vol. 43(6),
pp. 8-11.
Stankard, M.F. (2002). Management Systems and Organizational Performance: The Search for
Excellence Beyond ISO9000. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Stewart, G., Wright, D., Perry, T., & Rankin, C. (2008). Historically Black Colleges and
universities: Caretakers of precious treasure. Journal of College Admission. Vol. 201, pp.
24-29.
113

Stevens, M. A., ed. (2000). “Morrill (Land Grant College) Act of 1862.” Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Encyclopedia. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Stuart, R. (2017). Financial Anxiety. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 34(14), pp. 10-11.
Swensen, D. (2000). Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to
Institutional Investing. New York: The Free Press.
Sydnor, K.D., Hawkins, A., & Edwards, L. (2010). Expanding Research Opportunities: Making
the Argument for the Fit between HBCUs and Community-based Participatory Research.
The Journal of Negro Education. Vol. 79(1), pp. 79-86.
Tandberg, D.A. & Hillman, N.W. (2014). State Higher Education Performance Funding: Data,
outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance. Vol. 39 (3)., pp. 222-
243.
Taylor, B.J., & Cantwell, B. (2018) Unequal Higher Education: Wealth status and student
opportunity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Terreberry, S. (1968). The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science
Quarterly. Vol. 12(4), pp. 590-613.
The Council of 1890 Presidents/ Chancellors (2000). 1890 land grant system. A strategic plan
Washington D.C.: Author
Thompson, D. (1973). Private Black colleges at the crossroads. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Thorton, A. (2016). The role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities: The past, the
present and the future. HigheredJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/higheredjobs.
com/higheredcareers/interviews.cfm?ID=257
114

Tindall, N.T.J. (2009). Working on short-grass: A qualitative analysis of fundraiser roles and
experiences at public Historically Black Colleges and Universities. International Journal
of Educational Advancement. Vol. 9(1), pp. 3-15. doi:10.1057/ijea.2009.17
Tindall, T.J, Waters, R.D (2010) The relationship between fundraising practice and job
satisfaction at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. International Journal of
Educational Advancement. Vol. 10(3) pp. 198-215.
Titus, M.A. (2004). Examining the influence of institutional context on persistence at four-year
colleges and universities: A multilevel approach. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 45,
pp. 673-699.
Titus, M.A. (2006). Understanding the influence of the financial context of institutions on
student persistence at four-year colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher
Education. Vol. 77(2), pp. 353-375.
Toldson, I.A. & Cooper, G. (2014). Historically Black Colleges and Universities data dashboard.
Washington, DC: White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Toldon, I.A. (2018). Why Historically Black Colleges and Universities are Successful with
Graduating Black Baccalaureate Students Who Subsequently Earn Doctorates in STEM
(Editor’s Commentary). The Journal of Negro Education. Vol. 87(2).
Toma, E. (1990). Boards of trustees, agency problems, and university output. Public Choice,
67(1), 1-9.
Toutkoushian, R.K. & Conley, V.M. (2005). Progress for women in academe, yet inequities
persist: Evidence from NSOPF:99. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 46, pp. 128.
Townsley, M.K. (1993). A strategic model for enrollment-drive private colleges. Journal of
Higher Education. Vol. 8(2), pp. 57-66.
115

Trent, Jr., W. T. (1971). The future role of the Negro college and its financing, Daedalus, 100,
647-659.
Tsang, E. (1997). “Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between
descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, Vol. 50(1), pp. 73-89.
Umbricht, M.R., Fernandez, F., Ortagus, J.C. (2017). An Examination of the (Un)Intended
Consequences of Performance Funding in Higher Education. Educational Policy. Vol.
31(5), pp. 643-673.
United Negro College Fund. (2017). HBCUs make America strong: The positive economic
impact of historically Black colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author.
Urhan, S.K., Conroy, T.P., Schroeder, I., Stauffer, A., Oliff, P., Robyn, M., Theal, K., Goodwin,
M., & Hillary, K. (2015). Federal and State Funding of Higher Education: A changing
landscape. The Pew Charitable Trusts.
U.S. Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (2020).
U.S. Department of Education (2020) Higher Education Act.
U.S. Department of Education (2016). Fiscal Years 2015-2017 State Tables for the U.S.
Department of Education (2021, March 6). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/17stbyprogram.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2017). Fulfilling the Promise, Serving the Need. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/advancing-college-opportunity.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2020). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education (2020). Office of Postsecondary Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3b/index.html
116

U.S Department of Higher Education. The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future
of Higher Education (2006). Final Report.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf
Vedder, Richard (2010).“Why Do We Have HBCUs?” Chronicle of Higher Education,
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-do-we-have-hbcus/27506.
Volkwein, J. (1986). Campus autonomy and its relationship to measures of university quality.
The Journal of Higher Education, pp. 510-528.
Volkwein, J. (1989). Change in quality among public universities. The Journal of Higher
Education, pp. 136-151.
Volkwein, J., & Malik, S. (1997). State regulation and administrative flexibility at public
universities. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 38(1), pp. 17-42.
Volkwein, J.F. (2007). Assessing institutional effectiveness and connecting the pieces of a
fragmented university. In J. Burke (Ed.), Fixing the fragmented university (pp. 145-180).
Boston, MA: Anker.
Volkwein, J.F., & Tandberg, D.A. (2008). Measuring up: Examining the connections among
state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher
Education. Vol. 49, pp. 180-197.
Webber, D.A. (2017). State divestment and tuition at public institutions. Economics of Education
Review. 60:1-4.
Weismann, S. (2021, April 8). Tennessee State Owed Millions by State. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/04/08/tennessee-state-owed-millions-state
Wellman, J.V. (2001). Assessing state accountability systems. Change, Vol. 33, pp. 46-52.
117

Wellman, J., Desrochers, D., Leonian, C., Kirshstein, R., Hurlburt, S., & Honegger, S., (2009).
Trends in college spending: Where does the money come from? Where does it go?
Washington: Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and
Accountability.
Wingerd, D. (1993). The growth of college endowments 1960-1990. Westport, CT: The Common
Fund Press.
Wisniewski, M.A. (1999). Leadership Competencies in Continuing Higher Education:
Implications for leadership education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education. Vol.
47(1), pp. 14-23.
Wolanin, T.R. (1998). The federal investment in minority-serving institutions. New Directions
for Higher Education,1998(102), pp. 17-32.
Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past
and present for the new millennium. In The states and public higher education policy:
Affordability, access, and accountability, ed. Donald E. Heller, 155-97. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

118

Appendix
Interview Protocol
My name is Derrick Harris, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California. This study aims to learn and understand leaders' strategies at public HBCUs. I
sincerely value your opinions and insights because you are an experienced leader in higher
education. Our interview today will last approximately 45-60 minutes, during which I will be
asking you questions about your experiences at your current institution and as a leader in higher
education. I will be recording this interview to analyze your responses for data collection
purposes.
Are you ok with me recording our conversation today? ____Yes___No
If yes: Thank you! Please let me know if, at any point, you need me to stop the recording.
If no: Thank you for letting me know. I will only take notes of our conversation. Please let me
know if, at any point, you would like me to omit something from my notes or keep something
you said off the record.
Before we begin the interview, do you have any questions?
If any questions happen to arise at any point in this study, you can feel free to ask them at any
time. I would be more than happy to answer your questions.
Background Questions
1) Can you tell me about your current role, such as how long you’ve been in it and
what your responsibilities are?
Possible Probes
a) How long have you been working in higher education?
b) Did you work for an HBCU before joining this institution?
119

2) How would you describe your role at your current institution?
Possible Probes
a) Looking at increasing endowment size, increasing research productivity, and
relieving tuition dependency as organizational outcomes, what organizational outcomes
are related to your role?
Higher Education Funding Policy Questions
3) Which, if any, higher education funding policies impact/inform your work?
Possible Probes
a) Do these policies make it harder or easier for you to do your work?
b) Have there been any recent changes in higher education funding policies that
particularly impacted your institution?
4) How, if at all, is your role impacted by state performance funding policies?
Possible Probes
a) How do you navigate these policies when making decisions?
b) If not, are there other external factors influencing your decision-making?
5) How, if at all, have increases/decreases in federal/state funding impacted the institution’s
revenue/budget?
Possible Probes
a) In your opinion, what other factors can potentially impact the institution’s revenue
and budget?
Institutional Research Productivity
6) How is faculty research currently supported at your institution?
Possible Probes
120

a) What mechanisms and resources are available to the institution that help attract
and retain faculty?
7) How is research productivity among faculty measured at your institution?
Possible Probes
a) What strategies do you have in place to increase research productivity among
faculty at your institution?
Institutional Tuition Dependence
8) Would you consider your institution to be tuition-dependent?
Possible Probes
a) If yes, what strategies are in place to relieve tuition dependency for the
institution?
b) If not, how has the institution ensured that it’s not tuition-dependent?
9) How has fundraising affected your levels of tuition, student enrollment, and the
financial aid you offer to prospective students? Can you share some examples?
Institutional Fundraising
10) How important is fundraising to your institution?
Possible Probes
a) Can you share some examples of what fundraising has allowed your institution to
accomplish?
b) How is the institution’s endowment managed, and what is its primary use?
11) What, if any, strategies are you using to increase fundraising for the institution?
Possible Probes
a) How are you planning to increase alumni support?
121

b) How are you planning to increase support from corporations and foundations?
Interview Wrap–Up
12) In your opinion, what is the greatest threat to the sustainability of public HBCUs?
Thank you, that concludes our interview. If I have any additional questions, I’ll make sure to
reach out. Do you have any questions before we end?
I sincerely appreciate your participation and hope to share this study once completed.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

The nature of K-12 education news in the United States

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

We sant you! Kind of: Exploring the experiences of women pastors/leaders in Christian churches

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

Asset Metadata

Creator Harris, Derrick William (author)

Core Title Sustaining historically black colleges and universities: an exploration of organizational outcome achievement by leaders at public HBCUs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 02/28/2022

Defense Date 01/26/2022

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

Tag Fundraising,HBCUs,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas (committee member), Turner, Michele (committee member)

Creator Email dwharris@usc.edu,Harris.W.Derrick@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110765142

Unique identifier UC110765142

Legacy Identifier etd-HarrisDerr-10408

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Harris, Derrick William

Type texts

Source 20220301-usctheses-batch-914 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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