University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS

THE BOARD FUNDRAISING CHALLENGE AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS:
AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Patton McDowell

_____________________________________________

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

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Patton McDowell
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 2

Dedication

I dedicate this work to my wife Cindy, who has been unwavering in her encouragement
to persevere throughout this process, even when my energy faltered. Cindy, I cannot thank you
enough for being with me in every possible way as I completed this academic journey.

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 3

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the support of many individuals who made the pursuit of a doctoral
degree and the completion of this dissertation a possibility. My dissertation chair, Dr. Helena
Seli, provided great support and guidance, as did my committee members, Dr. Kim Ferrario and
Dr. Will Sparks. Dr. Ferrario was one of the first faculty members with whom I encountered in
the OCL program and provided encouragement as I pondered several potential topics within the
nonprofit field. Dr. Sparks has been a friend and a mentor throughout my graduate education,
beginning with my pursuit of an MBA over a decade ago.
The support from my family has been an incredible source of strength. In addition to my
wife Cindy, I have three wonderful children - Katie, Lauren and Parker - who encouraged me
through their higher education journeys and motivated me to set a good example for them going
forward. Being able to participate in the commencement ceremony the same day as my daughter
Lauren finishes her USC undergraduate degree is especially rewarding. I also count myself
lucky to have a wonderfully supportive mother-in-law, Linda Sue Pinkston, who brought great
encouragement to this process with her thoughtful questions and genuine interest in what this
program is all about. In addition to family members, I have also been fortunate to have two close
friends, Clay Hodges and Chris Delisio, who share my enthusiasm for professional development
and academic pursuit. Clay and Chris, thanks for being an ongoing source of motivation and
encouragement.
Finally, I want to thank my parents, Dianne and Pat McDowell, for being the educational
inspiration throughout my life. Mom and Dad, you have always been active educators for your
children and for your community. I find it a fitting tribute to both of you that my doctoral degree
is in education. Thank you.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 3

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................7

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction to the Problem of Practice ..........................................................................................9

Organizational Context and Mission ..............................................................................................9

Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................................10

Organizational Performance Goal................................................................................................ 11

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal..................................................................... 12

Purpose of the Project and Questions ...........................................................................................12

Methodological Approach ............................................................................................................13

Review of the Literature ...............................................................................................................15

Growth of the Nonprofit Sector.................................................................................................... 15

Efforts in the Sector to Encourage Nonprofit Mergers..............................................................16

Successful Nonprofit Models after Merging............................................................................. 17

Current Practices in Individual, Corporate and Foundation Philanthropy................................ 17

Typical Models of Stakeholder Engagement............................................................................ 18

Strategic, Fiduciary and Board Governance Responsibilities................................................... 19

Engagement in Annual, Capital and Legacy Giving ................................................................ 19

Board Member Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences..................................... 20

Knowledge Influences ...............................................................................................................20

Motivation Influences............................................................................................................... 24

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 5

Organizational Influences.......................................................................................................... 26

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Board Members’ Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context ................................................................................................................ 30

Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruitment ...............................................................32

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale................................................................................32

Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .......................................................32

Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................33

Interviews.................................................................................................................................. 33

Data Analysis............................................................................................................................... 34

Documents and Artifacts…....................................................................................................... 35

Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 35

Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................46

Recommendations for Practice .....................................................................................................48

Knowledge Recommendations ................................................................................................. 49

Motivation Recommendations................................................................................................... 52

Organization Recommendations................................................................................................ 55

Training Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................................ 57

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 59

References..................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix A: Protocols...................................................................................................................69

Appendix B: Credibility and Trustworthiness.............................................................................. 73

Appendix C: Ethics....................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix D: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan Implementation and Evaluation
Framework ................................................................................................................................... 77

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 6

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Instrument (Instructor) ........................................................90

Appendix F: Immediate Evaluation Instrument (Facilitator)........................................................92

Appendix G: Post Evaluation Instrument .................................................................................... 94

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals.....................11
Table 2 Board Members’ Knowledge Influences .....................................................................................23
Table 3 Board Members’ Motivation Influences ........................................................................26
Table 4 Board Members’ Organizational Influences ..................................................................29
Table 5 Nonprofit Organizations and Professional Backgrounds of Board Members................36
Table 6 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations..........................................48
Table 7 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations...........................................52
Table 8 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ......................................55
Table 9 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .........................79
Table 10 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ..............................80
Table 11 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ...........................................................81
Table 12 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ........................................84
Table 13 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ......................................................85

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 8

Abstract

This qualitative study examined the fundraising effectiveness of nonprofit boards following a
merger. The research questions explored the knowledge and motivation of individual board
members, and the organizational influences that affect their ability to raise charitable funds. The
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) was utilized, and the results and findings from
the study revealed five themes related to the board members and their effectiveness. As the
board members sought to demonstrate competency in fundraising, gaps were revealed with their
factual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge. While board members recognized the
benefits of fundraising for their nonprofit, their motivation was largely intrinsic, as their
organizations did not provide extrinsic motivators that would positively influence their
fundraising effectiveness. Board members noted gaps in their organization’s culture, board
structure and staff support, and emphasized the need for additional training as well as modeling
of the fundraising practice. The results and findings from the research study provided a
framework for developing a recommended training program. Utilizing the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a training and evaluation program was
developed as the recommended action for reducing the gaps and aiding in the achievement of the
stakeholder and organizational goals.

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 9

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
As the nonprofit sector grows at a rapid pace, many charitable organizations are
considering merging with other nonprofits. Between 2003 and 2013, the number of public
charities grew nearly twenty percent, and by 2015, there were 363,771 active nonprofits in the
U.S., nearly double 1995's tally of 188,714 (McKeever, 2015; Lecy & Van Slyke, 2013).
Successful mergers offer the potential for greater community impact, expanded programmatic
services, and the ability to generate additional revenue (Austin, 2010; Yankey & Willen, 2005).
However, these mergers do not guarantee greater revenue proportionate to the larger staff
structure and increased number of board members that the merger creates (Seaman, Wilsker, &
Young, 2014). While most board members are enthusiastic about the mission of their nonprofit
organization, their knowledge and motivation for the critical aspect of fundraising is often
lacking (Connelly, 2004; Leipsitz, 2013), and nonprofit mergers do not diminish this reluctance
to raise funds. Given the critical role volunteer board members play in assuring funding success
for a nonprofit, ineffective board members limit the potential for successful mergers between
charitable organizations (Brown & Guo, 2010, LaPiana & Hayes, 2005).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Central Community Foundation (CCF, a pseudonym) has served the region of a mid-
major southern city as a catalyst for charitable good, connecting individuals, companies and
organizations to the needs and philanthropic opportunities across its region and beyond. As one
of 750 community foundations in the United States, the mission of the CCF is to inspire
philanthropy and strengthen the 13-county region it serves through innovative community
initiatives including alliance-building, affordable housing, protection of green space and
education for lower socio-economic communities. The Foundation is dedicated to the collective
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 10

strength of its communities, and works in close partnership with donors, civic leaders and
nonprofits to help achieve a wide variety of charitable goals and to inspire philanthropy that will
benefit generations to come. Many of the donors and civic leaders the Foundation supports are
current and former nonprofit board members, and bring corporate, governmental and
entrepreneurial talents to the charities they serve. While many are philanthropic in nature, the
Foundation hopes to leverage their individual philanthropy and position them as successful
fundraisers to their peers and other community leaders.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of board member fundraising after a merger is important for the CCF to
address for three reasons. The first is the lack of funding from the community at large for an
increasing number of charitable organizations, a challenge that is exacerbated during economic
downturns. The second reason is the concern raised by the Foundation’s individual and
corporate clients about the redundancy of nonprofit programming and the lack of efficiency in
meeting critical community needs. With limited funds and questions of duplication, the
Foundation also needs to address the third reason, which is the practical matter of actually
implementing mergers between nonprofits. As in the for-profit sector, mergers are not easy to
orchestrate, and the Foundation knew it could not mandate nonprofit alliances without providing
the resources and training for the board leaders who would make them happen.
Through its Merger Fund (a pseudonym) initiative from 2009-2012, the CCF invested
nearly three million dollars to help facilitate mergers between nonprofit organizations and
assumed the combined boards of directors would provide both leadership and enhanced ability to
raise charitable funds. A key goal of the initiative was to increase funding by 50% over the
funds raised by two organizations before their merger, many of which were in danger of
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 11

eliminating valuable community services because of diminished resources. Lack of funding
creates multiple challenges for a nonprofit organization and its ability to provide programs,
advocate for disadvantaged populations, and attract and retain talented staff. Without the
volunteer fundraising leadership by engaged board members, communities like those supported
by the CCF will be in further jeopardy of losing critical community programs.
Organizational Performance Goal
The mission of the Foundation’s Merger Fund was to provide financial support and
technical assistance to nonprofit organizations seeking a merger or formal alliance, and 18
merger projects were funded. The Foundation’s goal was that these merged organizations would
increase philanthropic support by 50% over the combined fundraising of the original merging
organizations. By establishing an aspirational goal that was more than simply adding the total
funds raised individually by the two organizations prior to the merger, the Foundation charged
the merged organization with a more thorough assessment of its fundraising program. This
assessment and more aggressive goal-setting encouraged the new organization to better utilize
the larger staff and board capacity and look for ways to generate revenue that neither nonprofit
considered before the merger.
Table I

Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Central Community Foundation’s Merger Fund is to provide financial

support and technical assistance to the staff and boards of nonprofit organizations seeking a

merger or formal alliance.
Organizational Performance Goal
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 12

By 2019, half of the cohort of 18 funded projects of the Merger Fund will demonstrate a 50%

increase in measurable outcomes as defined by their strategic and operating plans.

Funders
By December 2019,
philanthropic partners will
generate sufficient matching
gifts to motivate additional
nonprofit mergers in the
Foundation’s territory.
Staff
By December 2019, the staff
will develop an orientation
plan to assure board
members are provided clear
guidance for individual,
corporate and foundation
donors.
Board Members
By December 2019, the Board
will create conditions to grow
philanthropic support equal to a
50% increase of the combined
funding of the original
organizations in 2012.

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
Initiatives sponsored by the CCF depend on three distinct stakeholder groups to achieve
the organization’s mission. The first group of stakeholders is the board members that represent
nonprofit organizations by not only assuring their financial viability but also providing
governance and oversight of merger initiatives like those funded by the Foundation. The second
group is the staff representing each of the nonprofit organizations involved in this initiative. Not
only do they help assess the viability of nonprofit mergers, they also evaluate and manage the
implementation of the new organizations. Finally, the third stakeholder group is the funders,
who pool their charitable dollars at the Foundation and invest in initiatives like the one that
encouraged nonprofit mergers in 2012. Although a complete analysis would involve all
stakeholder groups (board members, staff, and the funders), for practical purposes, the
stakeholder group of focus for this dissertation was the board members.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to understand the critical knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors that contribute to a board member’s effectiveness as a fundraiser after a
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 13

merger of two nonprofit organizations. The analysis began with a review of the literature on
nonprofit mergers in the United States and the opportunities and challenges that emerge as a
result of such alliances. The study then focused on a select group of board members who have
experienced a merger by conducting interviews to gauge their experiences raising funds and
whether they had the information and organizational support they needed to be successful. Ten
board members were selected for individual interviews. By combining the research and
individual interviews, this qualitative study also identified best practices to help future board
members involved in fundraising activities following a nonprofit merger.
As such, the following questions guided the study:
1. To what extent is the merged organization meeting its goal of increased philanthropic
support?
2. What is the board members’ knowledge and motivation to create conditions that increase
philanthropic support?
3. What is the interaction between the nonprofit’s organizational culture and context and the
volunteer board members’ knowledge and motivation needed to create conditions for
greater philanthropic support?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Approach
The primary stakeholder group for this study were nonprofit board members who have
experienced a merger. Purposive sampling was employed, which entails identifying the
characteristics of a population of interest before locating individuals who have those
characteristics (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). A purposeful sample of ten volunteer board
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 14

members was selected for interviews from a consortium of organizations that have experienced a
merger within the last ten years and are within the geographic territory of the Central
Community Foundation. The consortium included 18 organizations with an average board size
of 11 members, allowing for approximately 200 board members from which to select. The
sample group had at least two years of experience on a nonprofit’s board before the merger and
at least two years on the board following the merger. The selection process identified a cross-
section of nonprofit sectors including healthcare, arts and culture, and human services. Finally,
the sample group served in a leadership role on their board with fundraising as an identified goal.
Merriam and Tisdell (2009) noted that a purposeful sample can be useful to provide a deeper
understanding of the phenomena being studied. The purposeful sample of board members used
in this study allowed for an exploration of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that affect the board member’s goal to create the conditions for greater fundraising
success. Given the criteria outlined above, less than one third of the current board members in
this total population had specific board experience before and after their merger, as well as
remained in the area and be accessible for an interview. To help identify eligible participants,
the study worked with current executive directors and fund development directors from these 18
organizations and sought their support in identifying current and former board members who met
the study’s criteria. The ten interviews yielded a rich array of insights and experiences that
helped better analyze merged organizations’ goal to increase fundraising, as well as an
understanding of the role board members play in that effort. Interviews typically provide an
opportunity to obtain rich data from participants (Maxwell, 2013), and the purpose of these
interviews was to get rich data from engaged board members who were confident enough to
share their experience without fear of judgment.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 15

Review of the Literature
This literature review outlines research that has previously explored issues of nonprofit
growth, initiatives to create mergers, and efforts to maximize fundraising following a merger.
The first section traces the dramatic growth of the nonprofit sector over the last few decades and
is followed by efforts nationally that have attempted to encourage nonprofit mergers. As more
mergers have occurred, the next section highlights some of the different models that have been
implemented and some of the key characteristics necessary for successful charitable fund
generation following a merger. Finally, the review identifies key stakeholders that must be
engaged for success and delves into the specific responsibilities to which nonprofit board
members commit with a particular emphasis on their fundraising obligations.
Growth of the Nonprofit Sector
History of Nonprofit Sector Growth in the United States
Growth in the nonprofit sector creates challenges and opportunities for the funding and
management of charitable organizations as they recruit board members and solicit funds.
Between 2003 and 2013, the number of public charities grew nearly twenty percent, and by
2015, there were 363,771 active nonprofits in the U.S., nearly double 1995's tally of 188,714
(McKeever, 2015; Lecy & Van Slyke, 2013). A number of theories have been explored to
explain the growth of the sector, and most fall in one of two categories.
The first category describes various rationales related to the government, either
responding to a perceived lack of service or opportunity, or in some cases opposition or
suspicion toward the public sector. Many nonprofits form as substitute or opposition to public
programs, accounting for the limitations and failures of government-provided services and more
reflective of the heterogeneity of demand for services (Lecy & Van Slyke, 2013; McKeever &
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 16

Pettijohn, 2011). The second category emphasizes the more complementary and collaborative
nature of nonprofit activities, focusing on the overlapping agendas of nonprofits and the state and
the mutual dependency that arises from partnership (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2011).
Efforts in the Sector to Encourage Nonprofit Mergers
As funding challenges increase with growth in the nonprofit sector, many philanthropists
and policy analysts seek mergers of nonprofits to increase efficiency and diminish funding
pressure (Austin, 2010; Cairns, Harris & Hutchison, 2003). Studies show a variety of reasons
nonprofit organizations consider merging, including internal benefits, external forces, and sector
growth factors. Internal benefits include preserving the mission, improving existing services,
and expanding services, cost savings, economies of scale, scope, synergies, and revenue
enhancement.
As organizations address external forces, some conclude that a merger might strengthen
their ability to conduct advocacy work, while other studies suggest an effective merger requires
the influence of a high-profile chief executive to achieve success with advocacy efforts (Cairns,
Harris & Hutchison, 2003). However, difficult economic conditions are chief among the
external factors that affect many organizations and create the need for a merger. Small agencies
often find they do not have the volume of programming or economies of scale and are unable to
compete when faced with financial distress (Singer & Yankey, 1991).
While research by Austin (2010) and Cairns, Harris and Hutchison (2003) suggest
continued growth in nonprofit mergers, a study from The Bridgespan Group (Bridgespan study,
n.d.) examined merger activity among nonprofit organizations and found that the overall rate of
registered mergers remained largely unchanged from 2007 to 2012, despite a significant drop in
giving and federal funding. The Bridgespan study found four "hard barriers" or gaps in the
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 17

sector that made it difficult for nonprofit organizations to successfully conduct mergers: a lack of
knowledge, funding and appropriate matchmakers; and the fact that mergers were not seen as a
strategy for growth.
Successful Nonprofit Models after Merging
As attempts at nonprofit mergers increase nationally, more evidence emerges about the
challenges (Haider, Cooper & Maktoufi, n.d.), opportunities (Owen, Pittman, Reed, & Kelly,
2012) and keys to success (LaPiana & Hayes, 2005). Assessment tools are emerging to help
nonprofit organizations determine whether to undertake merger negotiations, how to facilitate
these negotiations, and how to integrate organizations post-merger (LaPiana & Hayes, 2005).
While nonprofit board members often bring their for-profit experience to a merger opportunity,
there are critical differences between mergers in for-profit and nonprofit sectors during the
negotiations phase, which is where board members often play a key role. Volunteer board
members from the for-profit sector must be aware of the essential differences they face
facilitating mergers in the nonprofit sector (Haider, Cooper & Maktoufi, n.d.). This study
focused on twenty-five nonprofit merger attempts in the Greater Chicago area from 2004 to
2014, and it illustrated both the opportunities and the challenges. Optimistically, the study found
88% of the post-merger organizations felt they were better off than the acquiring or acquired
organization, but finding the right partner emerged as a key challenge, as well as staff and board
member retention. A study by the Wilder Foundation analyzed 41 nonprofit mergers in
Minnesota from 1999 to 2010, and it also found staff and board alignment as a key factor for
success (Owen, Pittman, Reed, & Kelly, 2012).
Current Practices in Individual, Corporate and Foundation Philanthropy
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 18

All forms of activity to generate charitable giving for a nonprofit organization require a
combination of staff, board and infrastructure to be successful. While the premise of improved
fundraising after a merger seems straightforward, a number of studies have attempted to
standardize the evaluation of fundraising effectiveness. Two alternative approaches for
evaluating nonprofit fundraising practices exist for nonprofits: simple financial ratios, and
adjusted performance measures. A study by Brooks (2004) attempted to neutralize the
uncontrollable outside forces that nonprofits face in their fundraising and guide them through a
process that measures fundraising ratios while Seiler and Tempel (2005) conducted a series of
interviews with staff and trustees to assess how board members engage in the fundraising process
and measured how they partner with the executive director and fund development staff.
Typical Models of Stakeholder Engagement
The board member is a critical component in all phases of organizational accountability,
community engagement and relationship management that leads to fundraising. How nonprofit
organizations manage their relationships with board members is key to how they are perceived as
far as organizational effectiveness. The nonprofits that were evaluated as most effective used a
consistent, thematic rationale in dealing with stakeholder issues: one organization discussed its
actions in terms of its mission and core values, the other based its actions in terms of building
relationships and networks (Balser & McClusky, 2005). Miller (2002) stated that individual
board members define their relationship with the chief executive and understand the scope of the
monitoring function influences how, or if, they monitor agency action. Nonprofit board
members tend to monitor in ways that reflect their professional or personal competencies rather
than paying attention to measures that would indicate progress toward mission-related goals and
initiatives (Aggarwal, Evans & Nanda, 2012). The authors also highlight that while board size is
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 19

associated negatively with managerial incentives, it usually has a positive association with
program spending and fundraising performance.
Strategic, Fiduciary and Board Governance Responsibilities
While fundraising is often identified as the priority responsibility for a nonprofit board
member, revenue-generating activity is actually one of three key objectives for a nonprofit
volunteer leader (Tomey & Tomey, 2009). The Corporate Fund's Nonprofit Board Self-
Assessment Kit (1992) highlights these three objectives, and while it originated in New
Hampshire and New England, it has had a positive impact across the United States and abroad.
The Board Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BSAQ) was also developed to assess board
performance in six areas that previous research has shown to characterize highly effective
boards. These competencies are in the contextual, educational, interpersonal, analytical,
political, and strategic areas (Jackson & Holland, 1998). Adding a challenge to the board
member’s fundraising responsibilities is the public skepticism fundraising professionals face
about the cause they serve and the roles they play in nonprofit organizations. Board members
must help their staff colleagues transform their work in philanthropic fundraising to help build
and sustain public trust (Tempel, 1999).
Engagement in Annual, Capital and Legacy Giving
Fundraising in the nonprofit sector has three distinct revenue sources on which the staff
and board must focus, and board member engagement is critical to all three sources (Preston &
Brown, 2004; Sargeant & Jay, 2009). Board members must also be involved in every important
aspect of the fundraising process, including planning, donor recruitment and development. Other
aspects of fund development include community fundraising, corporate fundraising, legacy
fundraising, trust and foundation fundraising (Sargeant & Jay, 2009). Preston and Brown (2004)
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 20

further examined the relationships between board member commitment and individual
performance. The strongest findings were between affective commitment and performance in
board roles. Committed board members reported more involvement and are perceived by the
executive to be more engaged and valuable.
Board Member Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The Clark and Estes (2008) analytical framework enables organizations to identify and
examine gaps between goals and performance utilizing influences of knowledge, motivation and
organizational resources. This framework is particularly relevant to the nonprofit sector and its
efforts to better achieve mission success. The following sections examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors influencing board members’ ability to meet their goal to
create conditions to grow philanthropic support equal to a 50% increase of the combined funding
of the original organizations in 2012. The first section examines the assumed influences related
to knowledge and skills that impact stakeholder performance. The second section discusses the
assumed motivational influences that impact stakeholder performance. The final section
addresses organizational influences on stakeholder goal achievement.
Knowledge Influences
Board members play a critical part in the fundraising process (Brown & Guo, 2010;
Jackson & Holland, 1998) and without their support, many nonprofits would be in jeopardy
(Connelly, 2004). While likely informed about their nonprofit’s mission and programming, a
board member’s knowledge about the critical aspect of fundraising is often lacking (Leipsitz,
2013). A gap analysis is the first step in determining whether individuals have the knowledge
and skills to meet their goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study will evaluate board members’
fundraising knowledge and skills to determine whether a gap exists.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 21

As volunteers, board members often bring limited knowledge of nonprofit management
and fundraising to their role on the board (Leipsitz, 2013), and the board activities most strongly
correlated with organizational effectiveness includes strategic planning, program monitoring and
resource development (Green & Griesinger, 1996; Jackson & Holland, 1998). The presence of
committed and knowledgeable board leadership is critical for all aspects of nonprofit success,
including fundraising (Owen, Pittman, Reed & Kelly, 2012). Krathwohl’s (2002) revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy categorized four different areas of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge includes things like terminology or details
one must be familiar with to understand and function. Conceptual knowledge includes
categories, classifications, principles and theories. Procedural knowledge refers to knowing how
to do something, while metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition and
cognitive processes (Rueda, 2011). For this literature review, three primary categories of
knowledge influence are explored and categorized: factual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Understanding prospective donors and their characteristics. There are two categories
of declarative knowledge a volunteer board member should understand to be an effective
fundraiser. The first is the different types of revenue on which the organization is reliant (Hodge
& Piccolo, 2005). Board members must understand the differences between individual,
corporate and foundation funding sources, and to assist the board member in this understanding,
the organization must provide clear reports of current and historical contributions by category
(Erwin, Hernandez & Shewchuk, 2011; Hodge & Piccolo, 2005). Successful fundraising
organizations help board members understand the importance of volunteer engagement for their
individual donors, branding and awareness for their corporate donors, and outcome measurement
for their foundation donors (Sargeant & Jay, 2009).
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 22

The board member must also understand the second category, which includes the
different types of funding appeals the organization uses to solicit funds from each of the revenue
sources identified in the first category. These funding appeals include annual giving, major or
campaign giving, and planned or legacy giving (Bray, 2013; Brooks, 2004). Successful
fundraising organizations help board members understand the importance of unrestricted giving
through annual fund appeals, the potential for major gifts through well-crafted campaigns, and
the ability to sustain charitable causes through planned or legacy giving (Sargeant & Jay, 2009).
This knowledge provides a factual basis from which a board member can best understand the
prospective donors he or she approaches, and the best means by which to make a fundraising
appeal.
Understanding relationship-building tactics and board expectations. In order to
assure board members’ fundraising role is clear, nonprofit organizations must clearly define the
overall responsibility and procedural knowledge required to serve on the board (Preston &
Brown, 2004). When overall expectations are clear, specific responsibilities regarding the
relationship-building tactics for working with their executive director and developing
relationships with prospective donors is easier to manage (Bernstein, Buse & Slatten, 2015;
Brown & Guo, 2010; Inglis & Alexander, 1999). This procedural knowledge will help them
identify donor characteristics and tendencies to which they can best respond. Many nonprofit
boards have failed to define their roles and therefore struggle to correctly identify and recruit
top-notch board members, which leads to their struggles to effectively fundraise (Brown,
Hillman & Okun, 2012; Gibelman, Gelman, & Pollack, 1997).
Self-assessment of comfort level to make face-to-face solicitation calls, and
awareness of concerns and reservations about increasing funds raised by 50%. The most
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 23

effective fundraising board members develop the metacognitive knowledge base to understand
their fundraising abilities and seek to improve them. Confident board members have shown a
consistent connectivity to fundraising structures supporting the staff (O’Regan & Oster 2005;
Preston & Brown, 2004; Sargeant & Shang, 2016), and utilize that partnership to enhance their
own abilities to call on prospective donors. This confidence helps a board member persevere
through any concerns that might inhibit their ability to achieve the nonprofit’s fundraising goal
and creates a board structure that focuses on greater effectiveness and efficiency in all
operational areas including fundraising (Aggarwal, Evans & Nanda, 2012; Brown & Iverson,
2004; Callen, Klein & Tinkelman, 2010).
Table 2 shows the knowledge influences and knowledge types for board members to
meet their goal of increasing funds raised by 50%.
Table 2
Board Members’ Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Declarative

Board members should understand the definition of annual, major and
planned giving and the primary sources of each.
Procedural Board members should know the relationship-building tactics for
developing a prospective donor.
Metacognitive Board members should self-assess their comfort level and skill in
making face-to-face solicitation calls.
Metacognitive Board members should be aware of their own concerns and
reservations about increasing funds raised by 50%

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 24

Motivation Influences
While knowledge provides a basis on which successful nonprofit board members solicit
funds for their organization, motivation is a critical factor in determining their ultimate success.
Motivation influences an individual’s willingness to start a task, persist in a task, and invest
mental energy in the task (Rueda, 2011). For nonprofit board members, two motivational
theories are explored in this literature review: self-efficacy and goal orientation.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy can be defined as the judgments that individuals hold
about their capabilities to learn or to perform courses of action at designated levels (Bandura,
1997). According to Pajares (2006), self-perceptions that individuals hold about their
capabilities are self-efficacy beliefs. In an activity that many find uncomfortable, fundraising
self-efficacy is an important prerequisite for success in the nonprofit sector (Sargeant & Jay,
2009).
Board member self-efficacy. Board member self-efficacy and the factors that influence
their confidence in fundraising are worth examining (Aggarwal, Evans & Nanda, 2012;
Bernstein et al., 2015; Sargeant & Shang, 2016). While board member confidence is crucial to
nonprofit success, board members often underestimate the cost in terms of time and fundraising
that is required of their volunteer commitment (Cairns, Harris & Young, 2005). Two key
influences regarding board member confidence are the quality of the executive director (Peters,
Wolfred, Allison, Chan & Masaoka, 2001; Seiler & Tempel, 2005) and an understanding of the
partnership role between the board and the executive director, especially as it relates to
fundraising (Aulgur, 2013; Tamar & Nichols, 2016). A third influence is the frequency of staff
turnover at the nonprofit organization, as high turnover not only damages board member morale,
but also compromises the quality of services of a nonprofit (Kim & Lee, 2007; Stewart, 2016).
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 25

Board members can become confused or upset when their key contact at a nonprofit organization
leaves and they are passed from fundraiser to fundraiser, especially if their person has left
unhappily (Schwinn & Sommerfield, 2002).
Confidence to solicit charitable funding. Individual board members must determine
the factors that affect their confidence in soliciting funds and develop the self-efficacy to help
them actually make the appeal. Two significant influences on each board member’s confidence
in the fundraising sphere are the organization’s staff and the other board members also serving
the nonprofit (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, Hillman & Okun, 2012). Strong organizations with
confident board members have shown a consistent connectivity to the staff and the structures
supporting the staff (O’Regan & Oster 2005; Preston & Brown, 2004; Sargeant & Shang, 2016),
as well as a board structure that focuses on greater effectiveness and efficiency in all operational
areas including fundraising and assures board members are working well together (Aggarwal,
Evans & Nanda, 2012; Brown & Iverson, 2004; Callen, Klein & Tinkelman, 2010).
Expectancy value motivational theory. Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele (1998)
developed a comprehensive theoretical model linking achievement-related choices to an
i n d i vi dua l ’s beliefs. The first set of beliefs relates to the individual's expectations for success
and the importance or value the individual attaches to the various options perceived by the
individual as available. In this model, they also specified the relation of these beliefs to cultural
norms, experiences, aptitudes, and to those personal beliefs and attitudes that are commonly
assumed to be associated with achievement-related activities.
Board member value orientation. For a board member to find success, a key factor is
finding intrinsic value in the effort required to fundraise and building their confidence (Jackson
& Holland, 1998; Miller, 2002). Nonprofit organizations should reinforce the value their board
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 26

members feel about increased funding (Miller-Millesen, 2003; Reid & Turbide, 2012). If the
motivation for their initial nonprofit board interest can be enhanced, further involvement in fund
development will reinforce its priority status (Bradshaw, Murray & Wolpin, 1992; Miller-
Millesen, 2003).
Table 3 shows the assumed motivational types and influences for board members to meet
their goal to increase funds raised by 50%.
Table 3
Board Members’ Motivation Influences
Motivation Influences
Self-Efficacy Board members should believe they are capable of raising funds
from different funding entities and have the confidence to solicit
charitable funds.
Value Board members should find intrinsic value in achieving their
fundraising goals and understand their importance to the
organization.

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are work processes and material resources that can facilitate or
prevent a board member’s achievement of their fundraising performance goals. Whenever
volunteer support structures are changed, board members’ roles are also changed, as they are
directly affected by the new processes. A combination of knowledge, skills, and motivation to
operate successfully are required in order for organizational goals to be achieved (Clark & Estes,
2008). Organizational processes will determine how the board members, staff, and fundraising
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 27

materials will interact, so that the desired goal is achieved. If these processes are not aligned
with the organizational goals, the likelihood of failure is significantly increased. Deficient work
processes will prevent board members with sufficient knowledge, skills, and high motivation
from successfully achieving organizational fundraising goals or closing performance gaps.
While procedures instruct individuals how to execute tasks, processes inform people how to use
their individual skills to work collectively (Clark & Estes, 2008). In order to improve board
member performance, gaps must be identified, and processes must be redesigned to be more
efficient. Fundraising performance gaps tend to be connected. It is also vital for nonprofit
organizations to provide material resources, such as the necessary environment, materials, and
current donor-related information for board members to succeed meeting their goals. The most
important work process is organizational culture, because it dictates how everyone within the
organization will work as a team to achieve the set goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural models and settings. Culture is a system of the shared values, beliefs, goals,
learned processes, and a shared understanding of what the organization does. The cultural model
is the cultural profile that those within the organization would use to describe the organization.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), a cultural profile can be developed by aligning
organizational culture with organizational behavior, as well as with policies and procedures. The
cultural model is usually dependent on the cultural setting. The cultural setting is the type of
organization or industry that makes up the workplace. For example, the cultural model would be
different for a business than it would be for a charitable foundation, because the cultural settings
are very different (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural model influences and nonprofit organizational emphasis on board member
fundraising responsibility. Seiler and Tempel (2005) suggested that clarity of the board
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 28

member’s role and responsibility directly affects fundraising success. Many nonprofit
organizations’ culture is based on a historical board member role that is focused on management
and programmatic oversight. This emphasis can diminish the responsibility for board members
to fundraise and weaken the nonprofit’s collective effort to raise funds. The organization must
clarify board members’ responsibility to fundraise in addition to other governance and volunteer
duties (Sargeant & Jay, 2009). Successful board education in fundraising begins as the member
is oriented to their role and continues in partnership with staff throughout their term (Miller,
2002).
Cultural setting influences and the role of staff support on board member
fundraising responsibility. The second cultural model which determines fundraising
effectiveness is the role staff play (particularly the executive director) in the support and
education of the board members. As noted by Miller (2002), this organizational influence sets
the tone for the board member’s experience and significantly affects fundraising success during
their board tenure. If the organizational setting is not one to support the board’s fundraising
responsibility, the board member is likely less motivated to do so (Jackson & Holland, 1998). If
the staff does not provide sufficient information about the organization’s fundraising efforts and
the prospects from which funding is likely to come, the board member is also less motivated to
reach out to funders and be successful (Sargeant & Jay, 2009). From a motivational perspective,
the organization’s staff affects the board member in two distinct ways. First, the board
member’s self-efficacy toward fundraising often comes a direct result of the combination of
organizational and knowledge influences provided by the staff, as is their confidence to
undertake activity that leads to fund generation (Preston & Brown, 2004). Second, the staff’s
influence and encouragement has a direct impact on the board member’s motivation around goal-
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 29

orientation (Sargeant & Jay, 2009). If the staff is not clear as to the funding model within which
the nonprofit operates, it is difficult for the board member to appreciate the value of
philanthropic support, and thus be less likely to be motivated by the fundraising goal which will
help the organization reach its ideal state.
Table 4 shows the assumed nonprofit cultural model and cultural setting influences
needed to support board members in meeting their goal to increase funds raised by 50%.
Table 4
Board Members’ Organizational Influences

Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1 The organization should clarify board members’ responsibility
to fundraise in addition to other governance and volunteer
duties.
Cultural Model Influence 2 The organization and its staff should demonstrate effective
fundraising through training and resource materials.
Cultural Setting Influence 3 The organization and its staff should set expectations for board
performance in fundraising through internal mentors and
external peer references.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 30

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Board Members’ Knowledge, Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to provide a graphic component which
represents the relationships between the key variables, factors, and influences of the study.
Maxwell (2013) notes the significance of a conceptual framework outlining the plan for the
study, the current factors at play and any theories developed in relation to the study goal. Board
member knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences do not function independently
within their spheres of influence, but rather affect the influences of the other spheres. Most
importantly, all spheres of influence must play their part to achieve the stakeholder goal.

Consortium of Merged Nonprofits
Cultural Setting that diminishes board fundraising
responsibility and Cultural Model that assumes staff
responsibility for fundraising support

Board Members
Knowledge regarding the approach
to individual, corporate and
foundation prospects; Self-Efficacy
to approach donors and Goal
Orientation to achieve the goal

Goal
Increase funds raised by 50%
compared to pre-merger
organizations
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 31

Figure 1. Conceptual framework addressing the interconnection of board member knowledge
and motivation to the organizational culture to support increased fundraising.
Figure 1 illustrates how this study’s primary stakeholder group, volunteer board
members, fit in the structure of the larger nonprofit organization as they combine to achieve their
collective goal represented by a “concept map of a theory” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 54). Structurally,
Figure 1 is centered on the orange circle representing the nonprofit board of directors. This
group sits within the larger blue circle representing the nonprofit organization for which the
board members serve. This concentric circle graphic represents the interaction between the
organization and its cultural influences (within the larger circle) on the board members and their
knowledge and motivational influences (within the smaller circle). Below the concentric circles
is the gold rectangle which represents the goal of the consortium of board members in this study,
which is to increase funds raised annually by 50% over the combined total of the two pre-merger
organizations. Simply put, if these three influences interact in a collaborative manner, the
likelihood of fundraising success dramatically improves (Owen, Pittman, Reed, & Kelly, 2012).
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 32

Participating Stakeholders: Sampling and Recruitment
The population of interest for this study are nonprofit board members who have
experienced a merger and are responsible for essential governance and fundraising functions for
their organizations. These board members come from different nonprofit sectors and bring a
variety of personal and professional experiences to their board roles. The goal of these board
members by December 2019 is to create conditions to grow philanthropic support equal to a 50%
increase of the combined funding of the original organizations in 2012.
This study examined the knowledge and motivation of board members in relation to their
goal, and the interaction of that knowledge and motivation with the nonprofit organizational
culture and context. Board members were identified as volunteers who served in a leadership
capacity that included a primary responsibility to raise charitable funding support. Using these
criteria, the population size for this study was approximately 200 current and former board
members within the Central Community Foundation’s designated geographic territory.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. A purposeful mix of interviewees were selected from different nonprofit
organizations, and from different sectors within the nonprofit community, in order to provide the
broadest possible range of perspectives.
Criterion 2. Participants agreed to participate in a 30 to 45-minute interview.
Interviewees were purposefully selected and invited to participate, and they were assured their
participation was voluntary.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Johnson and Christenson (2015) suggest a nested sequential sampling design orientation
to purposively select participants that can represent the larger population. This study employed
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 33

such an orientation to identify a subset of the board member population from all of the merged
organizations identified through the study. Purposive sampling is used to select a representative
group from which the most insights and understanding can be gained (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews of 30 to 45 minutes were conducted, using questions that explored interviewee
perceptions of nonprofit mergers and board member engagement in fundraising. The objective
of the interviews was to gain a deeper understanding of any gaps in knowledge, motivation or
organizational resources in relation to the stakeholder performance goals that were identified
previously in this study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study gathered data by interviewing nonprofit board members about their
knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of organizational models and settings related to the goal
of increased fundraising following a nonprofit merger. The interviews sought to evaluate board
member’s conceptual knowledge of their nonprofit’s funding sources, as well as their
understanding of different types of fundraising methods. The interviews also sought to evaluate
board member’s procedural knowledge of how to obtain funds from individual, corporate and
foundation sources, and motivational strategies to overcome potential discomfort in asking for
funds. The interviews also measured their perceptions of the organizational environment related
to training, resource material and support from the organization’s staff.
Interviews
I conducted ten one-time interviews with board members purposefully selected to
represent nonprofit organizations that have gone through a merger. The pool of potential
interviewees was identified through board rosters from the identified merged organizations and
conversations with staff and nonprofit community leaders. I purposefully selected interviewees
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 34

with the broadest possible representation from healthcare, arts and culture and human services
nonprofit sectors. Additional consideration was made to assure a mixture of their time with the
organization and gender.
I offered to meet each interview participant in person or by phone. I used a semi-
structured interview format (Patton, 2002) by asking the same questions in the same sequence to
all interviewees and used follow-up probes as needed to clarify responses. My purpose in
selecting this approach was to use a conversational style that allowed individual perspectives to
emerge, while keeping the interview sessions systematic and focused (Patton, 2002). The
interview questions were designed to explore each board member’s knowledge and motivation in
relation to the goal to create conditions that would help grow philanthropic support equal to a
50% increase of the combined funding of the original (pre-merger) organizations. My interview
protocol included an explanation of the study’s purpose and planned use, an assurance of privacy
and confidentiality for the interviewee, a request for permission to record the session, an
opportunity for the interviewee to ask questions, and a reminder that the interviewee can stop the
interview at any point. The detailed Interview Protocol is included in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. I wrote analytic memos after
each interview to document my thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in
relation to my conceptual framework and research questions. Interviews were transcribed and
coded. In the first phase of analysis, I used open coding, looking for empirical codes and
applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework. The second phase of analysis was
conducted where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the
third phase of data analysis I identified pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 35

conceptual framework and study questions. I also analyzed documents and artifacts for evidence
consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.
Documents and Artifacts
An audit trail and document review can enhance the rigor and transparency of qualitative
research and can serve as a means of holding up to scrutiny the methodological and theoretical
decisions made throughout the research process (Bowen, 2009). In order to recognize if board
members were provided sufficient fundraising resources during their term of service, it is
important to understand what information they were provided when they agreed to serve on the
board. A review of externally facing documents and material that was part of their orientation
and training programs was important for this study. None of the ten board members shared
exactly the same material and training experience during their board service, but where available,
I compared the documents to see if the information provided was consistent with what they
recalled about their training experiences and what they utilized in their fundraising activities. I
was looking for any information that defined the board member’s responsibilities in general, and
the expectations to fundraise in particular. I also looked for evidence of information that would
help a board member distinguish between individual, corporate and foundation funding sources,
and information that defined their organization’s annual, capital and planned giving initiatives.
Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand the critical knowledge, motivation and
organizational factors that contribute to a board member’s effectiveness as a fundraiser after a
merger of two nonprofit organizations. The study focused on nonprofit board members who
have experienced a merger by conducting interviews to gauge their experiences raising funds and
whether they had the information, motivation and organizational support they needed to be
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 36

successful. Ten board members were interviewed, representing arts and culture, human services,
children and families and healthcare supporting nonprofits. The study was guided by the
following questions:
1. To what extent is the merged organization meeting its goal of increased philanthropic
support?
2. What is the board members’ knowledge and motivation to create conditions that increase
philanthropic support?
3. What is the interaction between the nonprofit’s organizational culture and context and the
volunteer board members’ knowledge and motivation needed to create conditions for
greater philanthropic support?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
The participants of this study represent a diverse set of professional and nonprofit
backgrounds. Table 5 provides the gender, profession, and type of nonprofit each board member
interviewed.
Table 5
Nonprofit Organizations and Professional Backgrounds of Board Members
Gender/Label Profession Nonprofit Sector Years of Service
Female (A) Accountant Arts & Culture Six
Female (B) Community Volunteer Arts & Culture Four
Female (C) Marketing Professional Human Services Six
Male (D) Attorney Children & Families Six
Female (E) Community Volunteer Healthcare Four
Male (F) Financial Advisor Human Services Seven
Male (G) Attorney Children & Families Eight
Male (H) Marketing Professional Human Services Six
Male (I) Financial Advisor Children & Families Eight
Female (J) Realtor Healthcare Three
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 37

The data were collected through individual interviews with ten participants, followed by
a review of board orientation and various fundraising documents utilized before and after the
various nonprofit mergers. This section presents the findings. The main themes that emerged
from the data were as follows:
1. Board members have insufficient knowledge of fundraising, and limited understanding of
the role philanthropy plays within their organizations.
2. Board members have not received adequate training in fundraising, nor clarification of
their specific fundraising responsibilities, before or after the merger.
3. Board members are primarily intrinsically motivated as their organizations seldom
provide the information, goals, metrics and rewards to drive performance.
4. Board members note the influence of the board’s committee structure and culture on their
fundraising success before and after the merger.
5. Nonprofit staff support (or lack thereof) significantly influences board members’
fundraising success, and board members report a lack of training and resource material
provided.
In the following section, these themes are presented, and evidence is provided in the form
of raw data collected in interviews with ten board members and corresponding document
analysis.
Theme 1: Board Members Have Insufficient Knowledge of Fundraising, and Limited
Understanding of the Role Philanthropy Plays Within Their Organizations
Of the ten board members who participated in this study, only two reported having any
significant fundraising experience through volunteer work with other nonprofit organizations.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 38

The other eight noted a willingness to learn but admitted a deficiency in knowledge about the
process for generating charitable funds, and even less about the distinctions between annual,
major and planned giving strategies. While their responses indicated both limitations in
knowledge and experience, they all shared an enthusiasm for learning. For example, board
member B noted, “I'm the first to admit I'm not a very good fundraiser but obviously that is part
of the commitment and I'm happy to do it because I see value in the organization I’m serving.”
Another, (A), replied, “I don't really like fundraising! But I feel more comfortable because the
organization feels a little more elevated since the merger. . . maybe it's easier for other people to
get behind it now and that makes my job easier.” The relationship-building elements inherent in
fundraising was a concept most of the board members could relate to, and simply telling the
story of their nonprofit was less intimidating than what they interpreted as fundraising. Though
nearly every board member shared their limitations as they approached fundraising, there was a
repeated concern over the lack of information provided to support their efforts. “My board
orientation wasn’t memorable,” board member G shared (a comment made by three other board
members), “and I had to learn on the job.” Similarly, another (A) suggested, “It was learning as I
go. I realize my responsibility as a board member is an advocate in the community and helping
with fundraising. But I'm the first to admit I'm not a very good fundraiser and needed help.”
Another shared, “We never really differentiated between individual and corporate donors, the
staff just relied on our contacts and just tried to maximize the best ones without really educating
us on the nuances of pursuing either.” A board member (B) from an arts organization noted her
understanding of fundraising was not based on information specific to generating philanthropic
dollars but simply an optimism for success through sharing the good works of her nonprofit. As
she put it, “I just focus on the mission and value of arts education and hope that people will
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 39

recognize that value as well.” Several board members noted their fundraising knowledge was
based less on the actual practice of philanthropy, but through an awareness of the financials. As
one board member (A) shared, “Since I served as treasurer, I wasn’t really asked to fundraise,
but I knew the challenges we faced if we didn’t meet our budget.” The pressure of meeting
operational budget goals was the primary concern and fear raised by board members as they
contemplated their goal of increasing funds by 50%. In fact, most board members only focused
on the goal of meeting existing expense requirements and few suggested they targeted any
fundraising growth beyond simply meeting budget. As board members contemplated their
knowledge of fundraising before and after the merger, it was clear more information was
provided after the merger. One board member (F) noted, “we were much more strategic after the
merger, still hands on a little bit, but I felt better prepared and informed. It's better because, I
don't know, you don't feel as responsible and pressured to fundraise. I felt like I can now operate
at a higher level,” and another (E) said, “We had so much more clarity after the merger; our
mission and vision were so much easier to explain in the classic elevator speech style!”
It is evident from the responses of the board members that while most of them lack a
formal and comprehensive understanding of fundraising and philanthropy at their organizations,
they have managed to construct working definitions of fundraising and used their enthusiasm and
understanding of their cause to make the case for philanthropy. Two board members did confirm
a level of fundraising understanding based on multiple nonprofit board experiences and a more
robust training experience. While this lack of knowledge from the majority represents one of the
key challenges to persistence in fundraising identified in the literature, it is evident that the
personal experiences of some of these board members have helped make them effective
fundraisers. Board members reported the limitations of their knowledge was much more acute
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 40

prior to their mergers, but after that, information, infrastructure and financial stability helped
create a more effective platform on which they could fundraise.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggested the way individuals organize knowledge
influences how they learn and apply what they know. Board members indicated they have
constructed their knowledge of fundraising through a variety of informal and personal contexts
which has affected the way they approach their responsibility to raise funds and the value they
place on the information available to support their efforts. This suggested gaps in both their
understanding of the specific strategies to approach different types of funders and the
informational resources available to them to support more effective fundraising.
Theme 2: Board Members Report They Have Not Received Adequate Training in
Fundraising, Nor Clarification of Their Specific Fundraising Responsibilities, Before or
After the Merger
All ten board members reported limitations in their fundraising training, both in their pre-
merger board service and after their organization merged with another nonprofit. Two of the ten
board members acknowledged better training as a result of multiple efforts across several boards.
This lack of training was evident in both their initial board orientation experience and in
subsequent trainings, if it occurred at all. Much of their initial training experience had little to do
with fundraising, despite their expectation that it would be important. Board member F noted his
orientation was, “really just a huge binder of organizational material, fairly overwhelming. As I
recall, it had a lot of financial and strategic planning material. But nothing memorable about
fundraising.” This type of response was repeated several times and reinforced the fact that a
clear expectation for the board member to help with fundraising was not explained as part of
their general governance and oversight responsibilities. Another board member (G) recalled,
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 41

“They did not really do any training to help us,” while another (E) shared, “There's been no in-
depth training after the original manual. We had an orientation . . . filled out all the forms, but I
don't remember it really telling me how to do my job as a board member.” Board member G
concluded, “I joined in a way I would not want someone else to go through. They were very
nice, and I was given a nice manual, but there was no discussion of fundraising. Was not even
told about any expectation for my giving.”
While multiple board members stated their orientations were largely inadequate to
prepare them for fundraising, they also noted their ongoing training was limited as well. Board
member C shared that “I really don’t remember any orientation or training. I remember my first
year on the board just being, like, very tired. We met at 6 o’clock and everyone seemed tired and
hungry!” Another (B) said, “I don't feel like we got any specific fundraising instruction. Would
it have helped? Yeah it certainly would have. A lot of other board members had already
developed those skills but someone like me would have benefited.”
With limited training, board members were unclear about what their exact fundraising
responsibilities were. Board member C noted, “There was not really a formal explanation or
process. The staff asked us to fill out a form which told them what we would do during the year,
but I’m not sure what came of it.” Another (A) shared that “There was really no plan for
fundraising. We never got a handle on articulating our value proposition to donors,” while a
third board member (J) added, “Our board role seemed to be defined as ‘oversee financials’ and I
did not have clear understanding of what else I was supposed to do.”
It is clear from the responses that board members’ do not receive sufficient training in
fundraising and lack a clear definition of their fundraising responsibilities. Combined with their
lack of knowledge as reflected in the first theme, this certainly inhibits their ability to help their
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 42

organization. As Denler, Wolters and Benzon (2009) noted, modeling to-be-learned strategies or
behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and performance. Nonprofit organizations have an
opportunity to provide strategies and behaviors through their existing orientations and through
training sessions that can have a significant impact on their organization’s ability to generate
revenue, utilizing talented community leaders who want to help.
Theme 3: Board Members Are Primarily Intrinsically Motivated as Their Organizations
Seldom Provide the Information, Goals, Metrics and Rewards to Drive Performance
While board members reported genuine motivation to serve their nonprofit organizations,
the motivation to fundraise was almost entirely internally driven. They reported few examples of
the organization providing external motivation that would help guide their fundraising efforts,
except for sharing budgetary challenges in hopes board members would simply fundraise having
learned about the challenge. By only looking at the internal budgetary drivers that determined
the organization’s viability, these nonprofits failed to distinguish the external revenue sources
needed nor help motivate board members to successfully solicit them. As board member G
admitted, “It was hard to get board members motivated,” and another (C) added, “There was
always concern about where money was coming from . . . nothing you could count on. It was
deflating. We struggled with our time allocation and I was wondering, ‘where is the impact?’
Felt like we were busy instead of productive.” Board member A summarized the motivational
challenge by noting, “Goals for fundraising seemed to be simply covering the rest of whatever
operating cost we were trying to manage. I knew the staff needed help, but they never
specifically asked for our help.”
Two board members noted their motivation came from fellow board members. As one
(E) shared, “I was fortunate to come in with a great group of fellow board members. Weaker
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 43

board members began to leave. The new board was more passionate for the mission and were
not interested in being seat warmers.” Another board member (G) also noted the importance of
fellow board members to drive motivation to fundraise. “I could tell we needed greater support
from other board members to take leadership roles, to make fundraising happen.” While several
board members shared that financial and budgetary goals provided an external motivator, half of
the board members interviewed cited the lack of a fundraising goal as a factor that dampened
their motivation. Board member C stated, “Fundraising goals just were not clear. We talked
about ways to get corporate partnerships, helping [the Executive Director] get in front of
corporate partners. We’d end up with vague goals, but it was not really clear who was going to
do what.” Another (A) shared, “I knew I was expected to reach out to my contacts, but it was
never related to a tangible goal.”
Not one of the board members who participated in this study shared any hesitation to
serve as a volunteer for the organization for which they became a board member. While the
enthusiasm was evident, their respective organizations, even after the mergers, seldom were able
to build upon the organizational enthusiasm and use that as a platform to build fundraising
confidence and ability. While board members used enthusiasm for their cause as an internal
motivator to drive fundraising, they reported a lack of external drivers to influence their success,
outside of the two organizations whose board members reported the positive peer influence of
fellow board members. As Pajares (2006) noted, learning and motivation are enhanced when
learners have positive expectancies for success. Those nonprofits who can provide this positive
expectancy through external motivators to their board are going to have the greatest successes in
fundraising.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 44

Theme 4: Board Members Note the Influence of The Board’s Committee Structure and
Culture on Their Fundraising Success Before and After the Merger
While multiple factors influence board members’ fundraising success before and after a
merger, most of the respondents reported their board’s structure and culture had a direct
influence on their effectiveness and confidence in seeking funds. In addition to the fatigue board
member C noted in her earlier response, she continued, “I remember a lot of board members in
their fifth and sixth year being burned out and somewhat cynical. It not only set a negative tone
for the board, but also - and I'm not sure if it was passive aggressive resistance or what - but the
staff just did not want to help in fundraising.” In several cases, board members acknowledged
that the difficult culture that existed before the merger may have positively contributed to their
eventual merger with another organization. Board member H noted “all of our planning
processes felt like déjà vu until the merger topic was on the table,” and another (A) admitted,
“the board was clearly ready for a change.”
Several board members noted the value of an effective process to assure a successful
board culture, especially after their merger. Board member E reported, “We changed the nature
of board meetings to be more effective and efficient. It created more time to be strategic and
board members were clearly more engaged.” Board member A noted improvements in the
committee structure after the merger, particularly the one focused on fundraising. “Within a
month after the merger, we had more extensive committees in general, and the one focused on
fundraising brought us a more intentional process.” Board member E, who had been frustrated
with pre-merger staff-versus-board antagonism, noted, “the board was no longer the enemy.”
Structure and improved processes certainly were top of mind for board members who
were considering the best way to describe the positive culture necessary for board engagement
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 45

and successful fundraising. Three board members noted the importance of recruiting and
retaining good board members in the first place. Board member G suggested that “the key is
having the right board members in the first place, especially on the executive committee,” and
shared further that “you need to be intentional in the nominating process. Don’t let people roll
off the board if they have fundraising skills and connections.” It was evident from the responses
that these board members had experienced both good and bad cultures during their board
experiences, and many acknowledged unproductive, if not toxic, board cultures as a factor in
their pursuit of a merger. Structural elements like an effective fund development committee
certainly contributed to the positive culture of a successful board, but multiple respondents
agreed that structure could not overcome bad culture. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested the most
important work process was organizational culture, as it dictates how everyone within the
organization will work as a team to achieve their goals.
Theme 5: Nonprofit Staff Support (Or Lack Thereof) Significantly Influences Board
Members’ Fundraising Success and Board Members Report A Lack of Training and
Resource Materials Provided
No topic elicited as much reaction and discussion than the subject of the nonprofit staff’s
role in board members’ fundraising success. Representative of most of the board member’s
response was board member A who noted, “It was hard to get the staff motivated for any kind of
change. ‘If it ain't broke why fix it?’ We had a hard time getting the staff to think differently.”
Another (C) said, “The staff were more program people, not relationship managers. They saw
the board’s job as fundraising. We were all willing to meet with corporate contacts if the
executive director would help give us the instruction.” Board member E remarked, “Our
development director did some board training in fundraising, but I fear it fell on deaf ears.”
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 46

With what board members perceived as ineffective or unwilling staff to help them
fundraise, several noted efforts to improve the situation before their merger. “We tried one year
to hire a full-time development director but don't even think we raised enough to cover her
salary,” board member C shared, while another (E) said, “We had to push for better staff
communication, requiring a weekly update from the executive director.” Despite these efforts’
pre-merger, the continuing lack of staff support remained a key factor in the mind of many board
members who participated in this study. As board member A noted after their merger, “We’ve
really got a great staff now, and the executive director sets the right tone,” and another (B)
shared, “After the merger, we’ve now got a staff member who can focus exclusively on
fundraising.” Board member H even highlighted improvements in fundraising processes
including the board orientation, noting, “the new binder is not just a thick stack of paper! It has
clear information and resources that help us do our job.”
Responses from these board members clearly highlighted the importance of the staff
supporting the board’s fundraising activities. In several instances the staff was an inhibiting
factor not just for fund development, but also for the evaluation and pursuit of a potentially
beneficial merger. The board members interviewed clearly aspire to have a healthy partnership
with their staff colleagues and acknowledge the difficult responsibilities the staff must assume to
keep an organization afloat financially in many of the pre-merger environments. However, when
the staff was able to provide the board sufficient information and training, set ambitious and
specific goals with adequate support, the likelihood for success greatly improved.
Summary of Findings
The data collected indicates that many board members begin their tenure on the board
with a lack of understanding of fundraising and the importance and specific role of philanthropy
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 47

at their organization. In most cases they have managed to construct working definitions of
fundraising and used their volunteer enthusiasm and understanding of their organization’s
mission to make the case for philanthropy. Very little evidence of the different types of
fundraising was expressed, nor was their much distinction of the different types of fundraising
most often described in the literature: individual, corporate and foundation. Board members
reported the limitations of their knowledge was much more acute prior to their mergers, after
which information, infrastructure and financial stability helped create a more effective
informational platform on which they could fundraise.
It is clear from the responses that much of board members’ lack of fundraising
knowledge results from their lack of any formal or informal training in fundraising, and a
surprising lack of clarity around their specific responsibilities as a board member. Nonprofit
organizations have an opportunity to provide strategies and behaviors through their existing
orientations and through subsequent training sessions that can have a significant impact on their
organization’s ability to generate revenue, and better utilize talented community leaders who
want to help as more effective board members.
Motivation to serve their nonprofit was not an issue for the board members surveyed in
this study. While the enthusiasm was evident, their respective organizations, even after the
mergers, seldom built upon the organizational enthusiasm and used that as a platform to increase
fundraising confidence and ability. While board members used enthusiasm for their cause as an
internal motivator to drive fundraising, they reported a lack of external drivers to influence their
success, outside of the two organizations whose board members reported the positive peer
influence of fellow board members. No examples were cited of a nonprofit organization giving
board members a clear goal around which to fundraise or providing other extrinsic motivators.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 48

Nonprofits that can provide this positive expectancy through external motivators and goals to
their board members are going to have the greatest successes in fundraising.
Finally, it was evident form the responses that these board members had experienced both
good and bad cultures during their board experiences, and many acknowledged unproductive and
negative board cultures as a factor in their pursuit of a merger. Structural elements like an
effective fund development committee certainly contributed to the positive culture of a
successful board, but multiple respondents agreed that structure could not overcome bad culture.
Recommendations for Practice
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors are influences that impact
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study incorporated principles found in the literature,
qualitative data collected from interviews of board members, document review, and experiential
knowledge. Each of these informed the decisions of the specific influences on which to apply
proposed recommendations for practice. The proposed implementation and evaluation package
is described in the following section. The package includes recommended activities and
programs to address gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that limit the
fundraising performance of board members following a nonprofit merger.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation

Board members should
understand the
definition of annual,
major and planned
giving and the primary
sources of each.

Acquiring skills for
expertise frequently begins
with learning declarative
knowledge about individual
procedural steps (Clark et
al., 2008)

Provide job aids to board members
prior to and during their orientation
and training sessions that include
definitions and examples of annual,
major and planned giving sources.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 49

Board members should
understand the various
appeals utilized to
solicit funds from each
of the philanthropic
sources of revenue.

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and performance
(Denler, Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).

Provide role play exercises that
illustrate the different steps of
appeal utilized to solicit funds from
an individual donor versus a
corporate donor versus a foundation
donor

Board members should
know the relationship-
building tactics for
developing a
prospective donor.

Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the
model is credible, similar
(e.g., gender, culturally
appropriate), and the
behavior has functional
value (Denler et al., 2009).

Seek actual individual, corporate
and foundation donors to meet with
the board and discuss good and bad
tactics that have been used on
them. Model the steps of best
practice approaches through role
play and active discussion.
Knowledge Recommendations
The data revealed gaps in knowledge which may create barriers to the board member’s
ability to understand and execute different fundraising practices. Provided in the table are also
the key theoretical principles associated with the assumed knowledge influences. Using the
Clark and Estes (2008) framework, strategies for addressing gaps in performance caused by
absence of the prioritized knowledge influence are suggested through the provision of
information, jobs aids and training.
Declarative or factual knowledge refers to details or elements one must know to
understand and function effectively in a given area (Rueda, 2011). Board members should
understand the definition of annual, major and planned giving and the primary sources of each.
Clark et al (2008) found that acquiring skills for expertise frequently begins with learning
declarative knowledge about individual procedural steps, and Kirshner, Kirshner and Paas (2006)
noted that managing intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pre-
training, among other strategies, enables learning to be enhanced. This would suggest that
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 50

providing job aids to board members prior to and during their orientation and training sessions
would help them acquire the skills necessary for fundraising. Specifically, this study
recommends the typical orientation manual provided to board members include printed material
with definitions and examples of annual, major and planned giving sources.
Sargeant and Jay (2009) describe the importance of board members understanding every
aspect of fund development in a nonprofit organization and note the particular distinctions a
board member must be able to make between individual, corporate and legacy fundraising.
Tempel (1999) also confirms the importance of board members understanding the “business” of
philanthropy and not simply labeling all types of fundraising the same. This evidence confirms
the importance of providing board members a clear job aid that defines and details the
differences between annual, major and planned or legacy giving.
Increasing board member’s knowledge of fundraising tactics in general, and
differentiating individual, corporate and foundation sources in particular. Procedural
knowledge defines how to do something (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Board members
should also understand the various appeals utilized to solicit funds from each of the philanthropic
sources of revenue, and interview data demonstrated that board members still struggle to make
this distinction. Denler, Wolters and Benzon (2009) suggest modeling to-be-learned strategies or
behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and performance. Clark et al (2008) also suggest that
procedural knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to perform the skill is
available or known. This study recommends that board training also include role play exercises
that illustrate the different steps of appeal utilized to solicit funds from an individual donor
versus a corporate donor or a foundation donor. Most of the board members interviewed had
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 51

limited training experiences to which they could compare, and most of their expectations
centered on traditional classroom-style content delivery.
LaPiana and Hayes (2005) note the importance of board members getting sufficient
training as they provide both leadership and fundraising support for their individual nonprofits,
and not relying on their past for-profit experience and training. Brooks (2004) also suggested
different tools may be employed and demonstrated for board members to assure they understand
the different types of fundraising appeals. Based on the evidence, this study recommends role
play exercises that illustrate the different steps of an appeal utilized to solicit funds from an
individual donor versus a corporate donor or a foundation donor.
Board members should also know the relationship-building tactics for developing a
prospective donor. As Denler et al (2009) noted, modeled behavior is more likely to be adopted
if the model is credible, similar (e.g., gender, culturally appropriate), and the behavior has
functional value. For effective board training to take place at a nonprofit organization, the most
credible model comes from individual, corporate and foundation donors themselves. Nonprofit
organizations should seek representatives from these donor groups and have them meet with the
board and discuss good and bad approaches that have been used on them, and model best
practice approaches through role play and active discussion.
Preston and Brown (2004) emphasize the importance of active engagement between
nonprofit board members, their executive directors, and the funding community with which they
must interact. Jackson and Holland (1998) further suggest that nonprofit board performance is
strongly correlated to its engagement with the donor community. Given the importance of board
members getting to know their prospective donors and learning how to build relationships, this
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 52

study recommends fundraising training include the specific inclusion of funders themselves and
the opportunity for board members to interact with them.
Motivation Recommendations
While knowledge provides a basis on which successful nonprofit board members solicit
funds for their organization, motivation is a critical factor in determining their ultimate success.
Motivation influences an individual’s willingness to start, persist, and invest mental energy in a
task (Rueda, 2011). For nonprofit board members, two motivational theories are highlighted in
Table 7: self-efficacy and intrinsic value/goal orientation.
Self-efficacy can be defined as the judgments that individuals hold about their
capabilities to learn or to perform courses of action at designated levels (Bandura, 1997).
According to Pajares (2006), self-perceptions that individuals hold about their capabilities are
self-efficacy beliefs. In an activity that many find uncomfortable, fundraising self-efficacy and
goal orientation are important prerequisites for success in the nonprofit sector (Sargeant & Jay,
2009).
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context Specific Recommendation
Board members should believe
they are capable of raising funds
from different funding entities.
(self-efficacy).
Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).
Partner new board members with
experienced ones in fundraising
settings to provide input, practice,
and targeted feedback so they
experience success together

Board members should find
intrinsic value in achieving their
fundraising goals and
understand their importance to
the organization (intrinsic value
interest).
Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for choice
and control can increase
motivation (Eccles, 2006).
Provide examples of successful
programs and recipients of services
that will bring joy to board
members in pressing on to execute
their fundraising efforts
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 53

Increasing board member’s fundraising self-efficacy through peer support and
training. Board members should believe they are capable of raising funds from different
sources of charitable support, and those interviewed for this study noted a general lack of
confidence when contemplating fundraising endeavors. Learning and motivation are enhanced
when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006). This would suggest that
partnering new board members with experienced ones in fundraising settings will increase self-
efficacy. The recommendation therefore is to provide input, practice, and targeted feedback so
board members experience success together.
Board member self-efficacy and the factors that influence their confidence in fundraising
are worth examining so that effective methods can be replicated, and challenges can be avoided
(Aggarwal, Evans & Nanda, 2012; Bernstein, Buse & Slatten, 2015; Sargeant & Shang, 2016).
Board members often underestimate the cost in terms of time and fundraising that is required of
their volunteer commitment (Cairns, Harris & Young, 2005). Their confidence can also be
negatively affected if the quality of the executive director is poor (Peters, Wolfred, Allison, Chan
& Masaoka, 2001; Seiler & Tempel, 2005).
Poor leadership creates challenges for nonprofit board members, but staff turnover also
makes it difficult to maintain a consistent and effective volunteer experience. The frequency of
staff turnover creates also damages board member morale, as well as compromising the quality
of services of a nonprofit (Kim & Lee, 2007; Stewart, 2016). Board members can become
confused or upset when their key contact at a nonprofit organization leaves and they are passed
from fundraiser to fundraiser, especially if their person has left unhappily (Schwinn &
Sommerfield, 2002).
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 54

Increasing board members’ motivation through aspirational examples of successful
fundraising programs. Through better illustration of what fundraising success looks like, board
members should find greater intrinsic value in achieving their fundraising goals and understand
their importance to the organization. Higher expectations for success and perceptions of
confidence can positively influence learning and motivation and activating personal interest
through opportunities for choice and control can increase motivation (Eccles, 2006). The
recommendation is to provide relevant examples of successful programs and recipients of
services that will bring joy to board members and fuel their intrinsic motivation in pressing on to
execute additional fundraising efforts.
Individual board members must determine the factors that affect their confidence in
soliciting funds and identify metacognitive strategies that help them actually make the appeal.
Two significant influences on each board member’s confidence in the fundraising sphere are the
organization’s staff and other board members also serving the nonprofit (Bernstein, Buse &
Slatten, 2015; Brown, Hillman & Okun, 2012). Board members interviewed confirmed these
two influences, noting largely negative influences from staff and occasionally positive influences
from fellow board members. Strong organizations with confident board members have shown a
consistent connectivity to the staff and the structures supporting the staff (O’Regan & Oster
2005; Preston & Brown, 2004; Sargeant & Shang, 2016), as well as a board structure that
focuses on greater effectiveness and efficiency in all operational areas including fundraising and
assures board members are working well together (Aggarwal, Evans & Nanda, 2012; Brown &
Iverson, 2004; Callen, Klein & Tinkelman, 2010).
Organization Recommendations
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 55

Performance is affected by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The assumed organization influences for this study were identified through a
review of the literature, interviews of board members, and a review of relevant documents.
Cultural settings and cultural models were the influences that were selected as needs for
development officers in the organization. Table 8 summarizes these organization influences and
provides context-specific recommendations for nonprofit organizations in order to better
facilitate board members’ fundraising performance.
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization Influence Principle and Citation Context Specific Recommendation
The organization should
prioritize board members’
responsibility to fundraise in
addition to other governance
and volunteer duties.
While procedures instruct
individuals how to execute
tasks, processes inform people
how to use their individual skills
to work collectively (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
The organization must invest
in annual training processes
which include written job
descriptions that clarify
fundraising responsibilities for
board members
Through training and resource
materials, the organization and
its staff should set expectations
for board performance in
fundraising through internal
mentors and external peer
references.
The most important work
process is organizational culture,
because it dictates how everyone
within the organization will
work as a team to achieve the
set goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Nonprofit organizations
should provide board
members collateral material to
support meeting their goals.

Increasing nonprofit organization’s clarity in defining board member fundraising
responsibilities and expectations. Particularly after a merger, nonprofit organizations should
prioritize board members’ responsibility to fundraise in addition to other governance and
volunteer duties, or risk having these other duties take precedence over their revenue-generating
obligation. While procedures instruct individuals how to execute tasks, processes inform people
how to use their individual skills to work collectively (Clark & Estes, 2008). Given the
importance of processes that are embedded within an organization, nonprofits should invest in
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 56

annual training processes which include written job descriptions that clarify fundraising
responsibilities and priorities for board members. Nearly all of the board members interviewed
for this study cited a lack of fundraising training and limited definition of their actual fundraising
responsibilities.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that when policies and procedures are aligned and
communicated from the top with all stakeholders, organizational performance increases. This is
certainly the case in nonprofit organizations that often combine paid staff and volunteer board
resources. Seiler and Tempel (2005) suggested that clarity of the board members’ role and
responsibility directly affects fundraising success. Many nonprofit organizations’ culture is
based on a historical board member role that is focused on management and programmatic
oversight. This emphasis can diminish the responsibility for board members to fundraise and
weaken the nonprofit’s collective effort to raise funds. The organization must clarify board
members’ responsibility to fundraise in addition to other governance and volunteer duties
(Sargeant & Jay, 2009).
Through training and resource materials, merged nonprofit organizations should set
expectations for board performance in fundraising that are reinforced by internal mentors and
external peer references. The most important work process is organizational culture, because it
dictates how everyone within the organization will work as a team to achieve the set goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008). To best achieve this type of organizational culture, nonprofits should provide
board members collateral resources that are delivered by board leaders and aspirational peers to
help them succeed meeting their goals.
Creating a successful board culture geared toward fundraising begins as the member is
oriented to their role and continues in partnership with staff throughout their term (Miller, 2002).
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 57

Another significant cultural influence that determines fundraising effectiveness is the role staff
play (particularly the executive director) in the support and education of the board members. As
noted by Miller (2002), this organizational influence sets the tone for the board member’s
experience and significantly affects fundraising success during their board tenure. If the
organizational setting is not one to support the board’s fundraising responsibility, the board
member is likely less motivated to do so (Jackson & Holland, 1998). If the staff does not
provide sufficient information about the organization’s fundraising efforts and motivate through
peer and aspirational board members helping deliver the message, the board member is also less
motivated to reach out to funders and be successful (Sargeant & Jay, 2009).
Training Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards and that, by doing
so, the “leading indicators” that bridge recommended solutions to the organization’s goals are
both easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational goals. Further, this “reverse
order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three other actions: a) first,
the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors, b) next, the
identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation, and c) finally, the
emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with implementation
strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections
between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal “buy in” to ensure
success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 58

The Central Community Foundation (CCF, a pseudonym) has served the region of a mid-
major southern city as a catalyst for charitable good, connecting individuals, companies and
organizations to the needs and philanthropic opportunities across its region and beyond. As one
of 750 community foundations in the United States, the mission of the CCF is to inspire
philanthropy and strengthen the 13-county region it serves through innovative community
initiatives including alliance-building, affordable housing, protection of green space and
education for lower socioeconomic communities. The Foundation is dedicated to the collective
strength of its communities, and works in close partnership with donors, civic leaders and
nonprofits to help achieve a wide variety of charitable goals and to inspire philanthropy that will
benefit generations to come. Many of the donors and civic leaders the Foundation supports are
current and former nonprofit board members, and bring corporate, governmental and
entrepreneurial talents to the charities they serve. While many are philanthropic in nature, the
Foundation hopes to leverage their individual philanthropy and position them as successful
fundraisers to their peers and other community leaders.
The mission of the CCF’s Merger Fund is to provide financial support and technical
assistance to nonprofit organizations seeking a merger or formal alliance, and so far, 18 merger
projects have been funded. The CCF’s goal is that after five years, these merged organizations
can increase philanthropic support by 50% over the combined fundraising from the original
merging organizations. By establishing an aspirational goal that is more than simply adding the
total funds raised individually by the two organizations prior to the merger, the CCF charged the
merged organization with a more thorough assessment of its fundraising program. This
assessment and more aggressive goal setting encouraged the new organization to better utilize
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 59

the larger staff and board capacity and look for ways to generate revenue that neither nonprofit
considered before the merger.
The purpose of the CCF Merger Fund is to improve nonprofit fundraising by
strengthening board member performance after a merger. If board members are given the
knowledge, motivation and organizational support they need following a merger, the
opportunities for greater charitable contributions increases. This project examined the
knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational barriers that prevent board members from
becoming effective fundraisers after a merger. The proposed solution, including a clear
orientation, a comprehensive training program, and related on-the-job supports, should produce
the desired outcome: an increase in the number of funds raised by the merged nonprofit.
Conclusion

The nonprofit organizations represented in this study are fortunate to have committed and
intrinsically motivated board members. Despite the identified gaps in board member knowledge,
external motivators and staff and organizational support that emerged as a result of this study,
these organization’s board members are intrinsically motivated to persist in their fundraising –
even through a merger – to assure these organizations can achieve mission success and make
demonstrable progress in achieving their fundraising goals. This enthusiasm, however, cannot
entirely alleviate the gaps created by the absence of formal fundraising knowledge that are
affecting the opportunity for these organization to better reach their revenue goals. These
organizations must recognize the role of a board member is much more than simply, “keeping an
eye on the financials,” as one board member noted. Nonprofit organizations must see their board
members as more than just fiduciaries, and look for ways to engage them in appropriate areas of
the organization including fundraising. This includes giving them key prospect and donor
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 60

information that will help them develop the processes and policies that best support a consistent
and sustainable fundraising model. Nonprofits can do this by investing in more fundraising
training for their board members, beginning with their orientation and continuing with regularly
scheduled sessions to keep them engaged in the nuances of individual, corporate and foundation
philanthropy. Nonprofit organizations must also set individual and aspirational goals for their
board members so they understand the importance of their efforts and see what greater fund
development can mean for their mission. It is clear from this study that volunteer board
members did not understand or embrace the goal to double their previous organizations’
fundraising measures. While not all nonprofit organizations are suited for a merger, the board
members in this study certainly reinforced the value of exploring such an endeavor, and the
potential benefits for both staff and board, and most importantly, the opportunity for the
organization to better serve the individuals, families and programs their communities need.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 61

References
Aggarwal, R. K., Evans, M. E., & Nanda, D. (2012). Nonprofit boards: Size, performance and
managerial incentives. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(1-2), 466-487.
Aulgur, J. J. (2013). Nonprofit board members' self-perception in the role of organizational
governance and the balanced scorecard. Theses and Dissertations, 861.
Austin, J. E. (2010). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed
through strategic alliances (Vol. 109). John Wiley & Sons.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.

Bernstein, R., Buse, K., & Slatten, L. A. (2015). Nonprofit board performance: Board members’
understanding their roles and responsibilities. American Journal of Management, 15(1),
24–36.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods. New York: Pearson.
Bowen, G. (2009). Supporting a grounded theory with an audit trail: an illustration. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12:4, 305-316.
Bradach, J., & Grindle, A. (2014). Transformative scale: The future of growing what works. The
Bridgespan Group.
Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An
exploration of the relationships among board structure, process, and
effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(3), 227-249.
Bray, I. (2013). Effective fundraising for nonprofits: Real-world strategies that work. Effective
Fundraising for Nonprofits (4th edition, pp. 319–366). Berkeley, Ca.: NOLO.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 62

Brooks, A. C. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit fundraising. Policy Studies
Journal, 32(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00070.x
Brown, W. A., & Chao Guo. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009334588
Brown, W. A., Hillman, A. J., & Okun, M. a. (2012). Factors that influence monitoring and
resource provision among nonprofit board members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 41(1), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011402510
Brown, W. A., & Iverson, J. O. (2004). Exploring strategy and board structure in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 377–400.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004265428
Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Hutchison, R. (2003). Key findings on voluntary sector mergers. Centre
for Voluntary Action Research, Aston Business School, [Online, accessed 17th June
2009] URL: http://www. ivar. org. uk/Findings/archive. shtml.
Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Young, P. (2005). Building the capacity of the voluntary nonprofit
sector: Challenges of theory and practice. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 28(09),
869–885. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200067377
Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2010). The contextual impact of nonprofit board
composition and structure on organizational performance: Agency and resource
dependence perspectives. Voluntas, 21(1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-
9102-3
Connelly, M. D. (2004, March). The sea change in nonprofit governance: A new universe of
opportunities and responsibilities. Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.5034/inquiryjrnl_41.1.6
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 63

Cortez, A., Foster, W., & Milway, K. S. (2009). Nonprofit M&A: More than a tool for tough
times. Boston, Massachusetts: The Bridegspan Group.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (pp. 151-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Droppa, D. C., & Giunta, C. (2015). Factors in the failure of seemingly successful human service
collaboratives. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance,
39(2), 125-138.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of Child Psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Erwin, C. O., Hernandez, S. R., & Shewchuk, R. M. (2011). Fundraising characteristics of
nonprofit organizations: An institutional theory perspective. In AoM 71st Annual
Meeting (Vol. 54, p. 40). Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/research/no-title-
avail/
Fink, A. (2013). Chapter 2: The Survey Form. In How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide
(5th ed.) (pp. 29-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Fletcher, K. B. (1992). Effective boards: How executive directors define and develop
them. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(3), 283-293.
Gibelman, M., Gelman, S. R., & Pollack, D. (1997). The credibility of nonprofit boards: A view
from the 1990s and beyond. Administration in Social Work, 21(2), 21-40.
Giffords, E. D., & Dina, R. P. (2003). Changing organizational cultures: The challenge in forging
successful mergers. Administration in Social Work, 27(1), 69-81.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 64

Golensky, M. (1993). The board ‐executive relationship in nonprofit organizations: Partnership or
power struggle? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4(2), 177-191.
Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in
nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4),
381–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130060407
Haider, D., Cooper, K., & Maktoufi, R. (n.d.). 2016 Report from the Metropolitan Chicago
Nonprofit Merger Research Project. Retrieved November 1, 2016,
from http://chicagonpmergerstudy.org/
Hodge, M. M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2005). Funding source, board involvement techniques, and
financial vulnerability in nonprofit organizations: A test of resource
dependence. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2), 171-190.
Inglis, S., & Alexander, T. (1999). Roles and responsibilities of community nonprofit
boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(2), 153-167.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.10204
Jackson, D. K., & Holland, T. P. (1998). Measuring the effectiveness of nonprofit
boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 159–182.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764098272004
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Chapter 9.
Kim, S. E., & Lee, J. W. (2007). Is mission attachment an effective management tool for
employee retention? An empirical analysis of a nonprofit human services agency. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 227-248.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 65

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Lecy, J. D., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2013). Nonprofit sector growth and density: Testing theories of
government support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 189–
214. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus010
Leipsitz, M. (2013, January). Catalyst Fund for Nonprofits: An Interim Assessment. Retrieved
October 15, 2016, from http://www.nonprofitfinancefund.org/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKeever, B. S. (2015). The nonprofit sector in brief 2015: Public charities. Giving, and
Volunteering, Copyright October.
Mendel, S. C. (2013). Achieving meaningful partnerships with nonprofit organizations: A view
from the field. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 3(2).
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. L. (2002). The board as a monitor of organizational activity: The applicability of
agency theory to nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 429–
450. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12407
Miller-Millesen, J. L. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A
theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521-547.
O’Regan, K., & Oster, S. M. (2005, April). Does the structure and composition of the board
matter? The case of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Law, Economics, and
Organization. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewi009
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 66

Owen, G. (2011). What do we know about nonprofit mergers? Leadership. Retrieved November
15, 2016, from http://www.wilder.org/
Owen, G., Pittman, B., Reed, R., & Kelly, L. M. (2012, July). Success Factors in Nonprofit
Mergers. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from http://www.wilder.org/
Patton, M. Q. (1987). Chapter 4: Fieldwork and Observation. In How to use qualitative methods
in observation. Newbury Park: SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (No. 4). Sage.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Peters, J., Wolfred, T., Allison, M., Chan, C., & Masaoka, J. (2001). Daring to lead: Nonprofit
executive directors and their work experience. Management, 46.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–
104.
Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board
members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2), 221–239.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.63
Proulx, K. E., Hager, M. A., & Klein, K. C. (2014). Models of collaboration between nonprofit
organizations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 63(6), 746. Retrieved
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 67

from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docv
iew/1660701699?accountid=14749
Reid, W., & Turbide, J. (2012). Board/staff relationships in a growth crisis: Implications for
nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 82–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011398296
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2009). Fundraising management: analysis, planning and practice:
Second Edition, 11(2), 1–168. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866351
Sargeant, A., & Shang, J. (2016). Outstanding fundraising practice: how do nonprofits
substantively increase their income? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 21(1), 43-56.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing
theory. Retrieved from http:// www.education.com/reference/article/information-
processing-theory/.
Schwinn, E., & Sommerfield, M. (2002). Revolving door dilemma. The Chronicle of
Philanthropy, 14.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 68

Seaman, B. A., Wilsker, A. L., & Young, D. R. (2014, October). Measuring concentration and
competition in the US nonprofit sector: Implications for research and public policy.
In Nonprofit Policy Forum (Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 231-259). De Gruyter.
Seiler, T. L., & Tempel, E. R. (2005). Trustees and staff: Building effective fundraising
teams. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2005(47), 89–106.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pf.96
Stewart, A. J. (2016). Exploring nonprofit executive turnover. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 27(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21225
Nichols, R. T. J. (2016). Nonprofit board chair and executive director perceptions of board and
management staff roles and responsibilities in fundraising (Doctoral dissertation,
Catholic University of America).
Yankey, J. A., & Willen, C. K. (2005). Strategic alliances. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of
Nonprofit Leadership and Management, 2, 254-74.

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 69

Appendix A: Protocols
Interview Protocol
Interview Opening Remarks
I want to thank you for taking time out of your schedule to meet with me and agreeing to
participate in my study by answering some questions. This interview will take about 30 to 45
minutes, although we have allocated an hour in case we need extra time.
I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and am conducting an evaluation
study on the impact on board member fundraising after a nonprofit merger. I am not here as an
employee of any organization or to make a professional assessment or judgment of your
performance as a board member. I would like to emphasize that today I am only here as a
researcher collecting data for my study. The information you share with me will be placed into
my study as part of the data collection. This interview is completely confidential, and your name
will not be disclosed to anyone or anywhere outside the scope of this study and will be known
only to me specifically for this data collection. While I may use a direct quote from you in my
study, I will not provide your name specifically and will make the best effort possible to remove
any potentially identifying information. I will gladly provide you with a copy of my final
product upon request.
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may skip any questions you don’t want to
answer, and you may stop this interview at any time. During the interview, I will be using a
recording device to help me capture all of your responses accurately and completely. This
recording will not be shared with anyone outside the scope of this project. If you would like me
to stop recording at any point, I will do so. The recording will be transferred to my password-
protected files on a cloud file storage account and will be deleted from the recording device
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 70

immediately upon transfer. I will be using a third party to transcribe the recording and all files
will be returned to me upon finalization of the transcription. The recording and all other data
will then be destroyed after three years from the date my dissertation defense is approved.
With that, do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If not, please
review and keep the information sheet.
I would like your permission to begin the interview. May I also have your permission to
record this conversation? Thank you.
Interview Questions
1. Tell me how you first came to serve on the board for this nonprofit?
• Probe: What first motivated you to get involved with this charitable cause?
• Probe: What type of volunteer roles did you have?
2. Were you involved as a fundraiser or donor before joining the board?
• Probe: What motivated you to make your initial contribution?
• Probe: What was your donor experience?
3. As a donor, what did you perceive to be the organization’s fundraising goals?
• Probe: How prominent were their fundraising efforts in the community?
• Probe: How did the merger affect community awareness?
4. What motivated you to join the board of directors before the merger?
• Probe: How was the role initially described to you?
• Probe: How did you expect to contribute as a board member?
5. Were there specific fundraising goals assigned to the board?
• Probe: How did these goals change after the merger?
6. What kind of fundraising information did you receive when you joined the board?
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 71

• Probe: What were the expectations about how much money you were supposed to give?
• Probe: What were the expectations about how much you were expected to help raise?
7. What kind of fundraising training occurred when you joined the board?
• Probe: Describe the setting and duration; who conducted it?
• Probe: Was there additional training after the merger?
8. What do you most remember about this training?
• Probe: Most helpful information provided?
• Probe: Anything in particular you were able to put into practice?
9. How confident were you about fundraising before and after this training?
• Probe: Before joining the board, what was your mindset around asking someone for
money?
• Probe: Did your approach change after joining the board?
• Probe: How would you rate yourself as a fundraiser?
10. Did the organization help you become a better fundraiser?
• Probe: Tell me about you first meeting with the fundraising staff. How did they explain
your fundraising role as a board member?
• Probe: How did this compare with the staff after the merger?
11. What type of information would have helped you be a more effective fundraiser, if any?
• Probe: On what type of funding source did the board most focus? Individuals, companies
or foundations? Which type of funder were you most comfortable engaging?
• Probe: Did the board discuss different types of fundraising such as annual giving, major
gifts or legacy (estate) gifts?
12. Describe the most effective board fundraisers you’ve encountered.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 72

• Probe: Why were they so effective? Did they help you?
• Probe: Did they help you?

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 73

Appendix B: Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase the credibility of the study, individual interviews from multiple organizations
should be conducted to assure a broader perspective, as a researcher’s careful design makes
qualitative studies more credible and trustworthy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By analyzing
multiple nonprofit mergers, this study attempted to determine if the data were congruent with
reality and that the study measured what it intended to measure. The interview protocols were
peer reviewed by colleagues with content expertise in the nonprofit sector to maintain credibility
of the questions. Interview questions were designed to be open-ended and neutral, and to gather
rich data about board members’ opinions, experiences, and feelings in relation to the goal to
create conditions to grow philanthropic support equal to a 50% increase of the combined funding
of the original (pre-merger) organizations. I presented myself as neutrally as possible during the
interviews, and as recommended by Maxwell (2013), I prepared verbatim transcripts from the
recorded interviews to demonstrate that data was not selective based on what I felt was
important.
After the data was collected, I searched for negative cases that did not follow typical
findings. Negative cases can be particularly helpful when examining to what extent the
researcher’s biases or assumptions impacted the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Two of the board members interviewed had a generally different – and more positive –
experience as a fundraising board member.
As a consultant who works with nonprofits and their board members, I had certain biases
and assumptions about the fundraising practices utilized by the nonprofit organizations studied.
One bias was an assumption that most volunteer board members are uncomfortable raising funds.
To counter this bias, I also sought examples of board members who excel at fundraising and had
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 74

colleagues in the nonprofit sector review the findings of the study to ensure that they were both
credible and trustworthy.

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 75

Appendix C: Ethics
To ensure high ethical principles were upheld related to this study, a number of principles
were applied. First, the study proposal required approval by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) of the Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) at the University of Southern
California. To comply with IRB requirements, informed consent was obtained from all
participating board members prior to the start of the study. Each participant was notified that
their participation in the study was voluntary and assured of the confidentiality of their
participation. They were also offered an assurance that the collection and storage of data would
be maintained in a confidential manner. Each participant was explicitly asked for permission to
record the conversation, reviewed potential risks, and acknowledged that they could stop
involvement in the study at any time without penalty (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
The individual qualitative interviews for this study were audio recorded and permission
was obtained from the participants prior to the interview, granting permission to record. The
confidentiality and privacy of the board members and their respective organizations was critical
to the interview process. Participants in any research study should be protected and assured the
information they provide is held in the highest level of confidentiality (Glesne, 2011). The
qualitative data is presented with no unique identifiers tied to the respondents. Pseudonyms for
the interviewed board members was also used to protect the confidentiality and privacy of the
interviewees. When using pseudonyms, it is important to ensure that the identity of the
respondents is not evident through the organizational description and other information provided
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). A legend of the participants was documented and stored, and a separate
legend of the participants was maintained and held confidentially in a place separate from the
interview notes, to allow the researcher to identify a participant if needed (Maxwell, 2013). It
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 76

was important that participation in the study caused no harm to the participating board members,
which included not publishing information that could be detrimental to their professional lives,
including the loss of their jobs (Rubin & Rubin, 2012) or more likely their community standing.
As an independent consultant in the same community with many of the board members
interviewed, certain considerations were made if a board member was familiar with my work in
the nonprofit community and that knowledge might bias their participation, especially if the
board member is considered a friend (Glesne, 2011). Similarly, my familiarity with a board
member or the organization they represented was acknowledged for potential bias, and I
attempted to find board members with whom I had limited interaction in the past. A final
consideration was whether the interviewer and interviewee relationship led to any reciprocity, or
the exchange of favors, which is often used in research studies to encourage participation
(Glesne, 2011). To date, no such expectation exists. The topic of board member fundraising was
of significant interest to these community-minded board members that were interviewed, but
potential work with any of their organizations in the future, whether it be pro bono or
compensated, was not discussed.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 77

Appendix D: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards and that, by doing
so, the “leading indicators” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) that bridge recommended
solutions to the organization’s goals are both easier to identify and more closely aligned with
organizational goals. Further, this “reverse order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows
for a sequence of three other actions: a) first, the development of solution outcomes that focus on
assessing work behaviors, b) next, the identification of indicators that learning occurred during
implementation, and c) finally, the emergence of indicators that organizational members are
satisfied with implementation strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in
this manner forces connections between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits
proximal “buy in” to ensure success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The Central Community Foundation (CCF, a pseudonym) has served the region of a mid-
major southern city as a catalyst for charitable good, connecting individuals, companies and
organizations to the needs and philanthropic opportunities across its region and beyond. As one
of 750 community foundations in the United States, the mission of the CCF is to inspire
philanthropy and strengthen the 13-county region it serves through innovative community
initiatives including alliance-building, affordable housing, protection of green space and
education for lower socioeconomic communities. The Foundation is dedicated to the collective
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 78

strength of its communities, and works in close partnership with donors, civic leaders and
nonprofits to help achieve a wide variety of charitable goals and to inspire philanthropy that will
benefit generations to come. Many of the donors and civic leaders the Foundation supports are
current and former nonprofit board members, and bring corporate, governmental and
entrepreneurial talents to the charities they serve. While many are philanthropic in nature, the
Foundation hopes to leverage their individual philanthropy and position them as successful
fundraisers to their peers and other community leaders.
The mission of the CCF’s Merger Fund is to provide financial support and technical
assistance to nonprofit organizations seeking a merger or formal alliance, and so far, 18 merger
projects have been funded. The CCF’s goal is that after five years, these merged organizations
can increase philanthropic support by 50% over the combined fundraising from the original
merging organizations. By establishing an aspirational goal that is more than simply adding the
total funds raised individually by the two organizations prior to the merger, the CCF charged the
merged organization with a more thorough assessment of its fundraising program. This
assessment and more aggressive goal-setting encouraged the new organization to better utilize
the larger staff and board capacity and look for ways to generate revenue that neither nonprofit
considered before the merger.
The purpose of the CCF Merger Fund is to improve nonprofit fundraising by
strengthening board member performance after a merger. If board members are given the
knowledge, motivation and organizational support they need following a merger, the
opportunities for greater charitable contributions increases. This project examined the
knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational barriers that prevent board members from
becoming effective fundraisers after a merger. The proposed solution, including a clear
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 79

orientation, a comprehensive training program, and related on-the-job supports, should produce
the desired outcome: an increase in the number of funds raised by the merged nonprofit.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 9 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for the CCF Merger
Fund. If the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and organizational
support for board members following a nonprofit merger, then the external outcomes should also
improve.
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Corporate partners report
stronger relationships with
board members
Number of positive survey results
from corporate sponsors and
donors
Distribute and review annual
survey to sponsors
Foundation staff and board
members report stronger
relationships with board
members
Number of positive survey results
from key Foundation staff and
board contacts
Distribute and review annual
survey to Foundation contacts
Major donors report stronger
relationships with board
members
Number of positive interview and
survey results from key donors
Interview and survey key
donors regarding their
interaction with board
members
More community interest in
board service for the nonprofit
Number of qualified community
volunteers who reach out to the
board’s nominating committee
Request information from
nominating committee chair
Internal Outcomes
Increased revenue from
corporate sources
Percent increase in corporate
sponsors from previous year
Compile data from gift
processing software
Increased revenue from
foundation sources
Percent increase in grant
revenues from previous year
Compile data from gift
processing software
Increased revenue from
individual donors
Percent increase from previous
year
Compile data from gift
processing software

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 80

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are nonprofit board members who have
experienced a merger, and the critical behaviors required to achieve their fundraising goals are
directly aligned with the knowledge and motivation influences identified in this study. The first
critical behavior that will assure their fundraising success is they must study and understand the
organization’s “case for support” which articulates the need for philanthropic funding. The
second critical behavior is the identification of the type of funding source they are approaching.
The third critical behavior is that they must assess the feasibility of an annual, capital or legacy
giving instrument is most suitable to the funding source. The specific metrics, methods, and
timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 10.
Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Board members will
understand the organization’s
“case for support” which
articulates the need for
philanthropic funding.
Ability to correctly
articulate majority of
organizational talking
points related to case for
support
Role play training in which
senior board members
model prospective donors
and allow newer board
member to practice talking
points on video
Twice
annually
2. Board members will be able
to identify the type of funding
source they are approaching.
Ability to correctly
identify majority of
funding sources from
staff driven prospect
reports
Active review session
during quarterly board
meetings or development
committee
Quarterly
3. Board members will be able
to distinguish between the
feasibility of an annual, capital
or legacy giving instrument as
the most suitable to the funding
source.
Ability to correctly
match the majority of
funding sources to the
appropriate fundraising
collateral
Active review session
during quarterly board
meetings
Quarterly

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 81

Required drivers. Nonprofit board members require the support of their fellow board
members and the organization’s staff to reinforce what they learn in training and to encourage
them to apply what they have learned to be effective fundraisers. Rewards should be established
for achievement of fundraising goals to enhance the organizational support of board members in
this effort. Table 11 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of board
members.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Job aid that includes collateral material and key talking
points that support the organization’s case for support
Part of each board
member’s orientation,
then Ongoing
1
Job aid that includes definition, differences and examples
of individual, corporate and foundation funders
Ongoing 2
Job aid that includes definition, differences and examples
of annual, capital campaign and legacy giving appeals
Ongoing, with
particular emphasis
prior to annual
campaigns
3
Encouraging

Collaboration and peer modeling during board meetings Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from board leaders and
fundraising staff
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement of successful board members,
such as a mention at the organization’s special events and
print/electronic media
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
In-person visit from recipients/beneficiaries of the
nonprofit's funds raised
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Board leadership can create opportunities at board
meetings to share success stories
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 82

Board and staff fundraising leaders can assess the
performance and confidence of board members through
frequent, quick checks
Monthly 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. To assure fundraising success by board members,
recommendations must be supported by the nonprofit to be effective over the long-term.
Accordingly, a successful organization will encourage critical behaviors by providing job aids to
assure clear understanding, provide peer modeling to teach and train, and provide
acknowledgement at board meetings and in public settings to motivate.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably an
orientation and ongoing training, board members will be able to:
1. Describe the different characteristics of individual donors (D)
2. Describe the different characteristics of corporate donors (D)
3. Describe the different characteristics of foundation donors (D)
4. Correctly interpret the types of fundraising appeals that would apply to each type of
donor (D)
5. Apply the procedures to respond to questions and objections by a donor prospect. (P)
6. Create an appropriate timeline for the identification, communication, cultivation and
solicitation of a donor prospect. (P)
7. Plan and monitor board fundraising work to conform to staff guidelines. (P, M)
8. Indicate confidence that board members can prepare for and solicit funds from a donor
prospect. (Confidence)
9. Value the accuracy and timeliness of the donor solicitation process. (Value)
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 83

Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, will be achieved with an
orientation and training program that helps nonprofit board members explore the types of funders
available to their organization and the best approaches to acquire philanthropic support. Over
the course of the training sessions, board members will study a broad range of topics pertaining
to the identification and assessment of different funding sources. The training program will
provide job aids to assist board members with the knowledge required to be comfortable and
confident in fundraising settings and will be blended with in-person sessions that allow board
members to observe examples of individual, corporate and foundation donor interactions. The
job aids will be distributed in printed format as well as made available on the board’s web portal
with other resource material. After the job aids have been shared and the in-person session have
allowed board members to observe techniques in action, the board members will be provided the
opportunity to practice using their knowledge by accompanying veteran board members to a
fundraising meeting. This actual experience will allow the new board member to reflect on their
effectiveness in a fundraising setting as well as receive feedback from the more senior board
member.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge
related to fundraising topics is often necessary as a precursor to board members’ applying the
knowledge to actual solicitation activities. Thus, it is important to evaluate learning for both
declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that board members
value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills when they
engage in fundraising. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in applying
their knowledge and skills and be committed to using them in that task. As such, Table 12 lists
the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 84

Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Create knowledge checks opportunities using multiple
choice “fun quizzes”
Periodically during board and
development committee meetings.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think,
share” and other individual/group activities.
Periodically during board and
development committee meetings.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Role play exercises designed for individual, corporate
and foundation donor settings
As part of new board member
orientation and periodically during board
and development committee meetings.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Board chair’s observation of participants’ statements
and actions demonstrating that they see the benefit of
what they are being asked to do on the job.
During orientation and training sessions
Discussions of the value of what board members are
being asked to do as fundraisers.
During orientation and training sessions

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback.
Periodically during board and
development committee meetings.

Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback.
Periodically during board and
development committee meetings.
Create an individual action plan.
Beginning at orientation and updated
during board and development
committee meetings.

Level 1: Reaction
Demonstrating declarative fundraising knowledge is often necessary as a precursor to
applying the knowledge to actually solicit funds from a donor. Thus, it is important to evaluate
board member learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also
important that board members value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned
knowledge and skills when they are raising funds for their nonprofit. However, they must also
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 85

be confident they can succeed in applying their knowledge and skills and be committed to using
them when fulfilling their fundraising goals. As such, Table 13 lists the evaluation methods and
timing for these components of learning.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Observation by board instructor/facilitator During the orientation/training
Attendance During the orientation/training
Evaluation Two weeks after the orientation
Relevance
Brief pulse check with participants via
discussion (ongoing)
After each section of the orientation
Evaluation Two weeks after the orientation
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse check with participants via
discussion (ongoing)
After each section of the orientation
Evaluation Two weeks after the orientation

Evaluation Tools

Immediately following the program implementation. During the board orientation,
the facilitator will conduct periodic brief pulse-checks by asking board members about the Level
1 relevance of the content to their fundraising work with each type of donor to the organization
(Appendix A). The facilitator will prompt participants to indicate their reaction, relevance of the
material to their board work, and overall satisfaction with the content and delivery of the
program. To evaluate Level 2 responses, the facilitator will conduct periodic brief pulse-checks
with participants through surveys (Appendix B) and discussions about the relevance of the
content, the delivery, and the learning environment, checks for understanding using games or
role plays in response to questions and scenarios drawn from the content related to different
types of donors. Immediately following the orientation, the facilitator will administer an
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 86

evaluation instrument (Appendix C) in which board members can indicate their retrospective
pre- and post-program ratings and comments about the program’s content and relevance (Level
1), their confidence and value of applying their new learning to their work (Level 2), and their
plans and commitment for application on the job (Level 3).
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six weeks
after the orientation/training, and then again at 15 weeks, board leadership will administer a
blended evaluation instrument (Appendix D) containing open and scaled items to measure, from
the board member’s perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence
and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of the training to their interaction with
individual, corporate and foundation donors (Level 3), and the extent to which their fundraising
performance has become more accurate and timely (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of new board members is measured by the effectiveness of their
orientation and the value of subsequent trainings. The dashboard below will report the data on
these measures as a monitoring and accountability tool. Similar dashboards will be created to
monitor Levels 1, 2 and 3.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 87

Figure 2 Presentation of survey results immediately after end of a board orientation or “boot
camp”.

Figure 3 Presentation of delayed evaluation results.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 88

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to plan,
implement, and evaluate a recommended learning program for board members within a nonprofit
organization. This program was designed with a goal of maximizing the fundraising success of
board members as they engage individual, corporate and foundation donors. The targeted
outcomes for board members guided the program’s design in a cascading manner. Level 4
results were aligned with the appropriate Level 3 behavior and Level 2 learning as well as Level
1 reactions of participants to increase the likelihood of board member engagement with the
program throughout its implementation and monitor for improvement during and after execution.
Return on expectations is a fundamental tenet of the Kirkpatrick Model and points to the
leading indicators identified for Level 4 results. A program can be evaluated on its return on
expectations, which is the degree to which a program meets the expectations of its key
stakeholders (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In addition to informing the planning and
implementation of a learning program, the Kirkpatrick framework incorporates a blended
evaluation approach. Blended evaluation instruments are used to measure multiple levels of the
program within each evaluation tool and can be used at multiple points during and after
implementation of the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Rather than wait to evaluate
participants’ reactions and learning after a program is completely implemented, the Kirkpatrick
framework integrates implementation and evaluation throughout the learning process. This
framework therefore provides an additional advantage of conducting formative and summative
evaluations during and after implementation. When participants’ reactions at Level 1 and
learning at Level 2 are measured during the program, training facilitators will have immediate
opportunities to adjust aspects of the program and enhance participants’ engagement with the
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 89

program before completing implementation. The Kirkpatrick framework also allows for delayed
evaluation in order to evaluate Level 3 behavior for on-the-job application and support. Finally,
evaluation of Level 4 results will occur sometime after completing the program. These
evaluations will provide feedback about the value of the program by indicating the degree to
which participants have sustained the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they acquired through the
program and whether the program has met the expectations of key business stakeholders about
improving targeted outcomes.

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 90

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Instrument (Instructor)
Q1 The board members were engaged in the topics.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q2. The board members asked lots of questions.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q3 The board members provided constructive feedback to each other.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q4 The board members participated in discussions.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q4 The concept checks were completed by all board members.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q5 The board members were enthusiastic in their role play activities.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q6 The board members were candid in their reflections.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 91

• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q7 Were there areas with which the board members seemed more or less comfortable?

Q8 How was conflict handled (if there was any)?

Q9 If there was a lack of engagement or interest, where did it seem prevalent?

Q10 What were some of the most common questions?

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 92

Appendix F: Immediate Evaluation Instrument (Facilitator)
Q1. The orientation/training was well organized.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q2. The orientation/training content was relevant to my current role.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q3 The orientation/training format was engaging.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q4 The orientation/training facilitator was knowledgeable about the topic areas.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q4 The concept checks helped reinforce the material learned during the instruction.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q5 The role-playing activities we effective in reinforcing the knowledge taught during the
training.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q6 The training topics were interesting and informative.
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 93

• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q7 I am confident in my ability to apply the knowledge and skills learned today in my board
work.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 94

Appendix G: Post Evaluation Instrument
Q1 I have implemented new practices to my fundraising role since attending the orientation.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q2 I understand the differences between individual, foundation and corporate donors.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q3 I refer to resource material related to our nonprofit:
• Daily (1)
• Weekly( 2)
• Monthly (3)
• Never (4)

Q4 I see value in continuing regular training sessions on various fundraising topics.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q5 Since the orientation, I have attended the following trainings.
• Individual Donors
• Private & Family Foundations
• Corporate Sponsors

Q6 The topics offered in the trainings have been relevant to my board fundraising work.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
• Strongly Agree (5)

Q7. The trainings are offered at convenient times to my schedule.
• Strongly Disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Neutral (3)
• Agree (4)
BOARD FUNDRAISING AFTER NONPROFIT MERGERS 95

• Strongly Agree (5)

Q8 IF you have not attended any trainings since the orientation, what are the major factors that
have prevented you from attending?

Q9 What other topic areas would you recommend?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined the fundraising effectiveness of nonprofit boards following a merger. The research questions explored the knowledge and motivation of individual board members, and the organizational influences that affect their ability to raise charitable funds. The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework (2008) was utilized, and the results and findings from the study revealed five themes related to the board members and their effectiveness. As the board members sought to demonstrate competency in fundraising, gaps were revealed with their factual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge. While board members recognized the benefits of fundraising for their nonprofit, their motivation was largely intrinsic, as their organizations did not provide extrinsic motivators that would positively influence their fundraising effectiveness. Board members noted gaps in their organization’s culture, board structure and staff support, and emphasized the need for additional training as well as modeling of the fundraising practice. The results and findings from the research study provided a framework for developing a recommended training program. Utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a training and evaluation program was developed as the recommended action for reducing the gaps and aiding in the achievement of the stakeholder and organizational goals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

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

PDF

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

PDF

International school director tenure: an evaluation study

PDF

Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Mandatory reporting of sexual violence by faculty and staff at Hometown University: an evaluation study

PDF

Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives

PDF

A customer relationship management approach to improving certificate completion

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

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

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

Violence experienced by registered nurses working in hospitals: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

Asset Metadata

Creator McDowell, William Patton (iv)

Core Title The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/24/2019

Defense Date 04/22/2019

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

Tag Fundraising,nonprofit,nonprofit boards,nonprofit mergers,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Sparks, William (committee member)

Creator Email cindypmcd@aol.com,pm@pattonmcdowell.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-187137

Unique identifier UC11663122

Identifier etd-McDowellWi-7596.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-187137 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McDowellWi-7596.pdf

Dmrecord 187137

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights McDowell, William Patton, IV

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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