University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining donor engagement strategies: an exploratory study of the impact of performance gaps on donor retention and cultivation within higher education development offices

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining donor engagement strategies: an exploratory study of the impact of performance gaps on donor retention and cultivation within higher education development offices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

1

Examining Donor Engagement Strategies: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of Performance
Gaps on Donor Retention and Cultivation within Higher Education Development Offices

by

Brandon D. Kyle

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 Brandon D. Kyle
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

2
Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my grandparents, who continued to emphasize the value and
importance of higher education throughout my entire life.
I dedicate this dissertation to my amazing and extraordinary mother, whose invaluable
love and support helped to guide me through this entire process, and whose love and devotion
keep me motivated and inspired to try my hardest.
I dedicate this dissertation to my brilliant and multi-talented little sister, who is also a part
of the Class of 2019, and whose focus, love, and sibling-bond helped to push me through to the
finish line—I hope that I have made you proud.
I dedicate this dissertation to my high school guidance counselor, Ms. Houlemard, who
helped curate my love for education and whose initial support helped to drive me into college in
the first place. Her support and compassion afforded me the belief that I could do absolutely
anything I put my mind to in this life.
I dedicate this dissertation to my mentor and graduate school professor, Dr. Schockman,
who gave me support and sound advice during a time that I needed it most, and whose
inspiration encouraged me to go all the way regardless of what other people believed of my
limitations.
I realize now how much power is in my origin and identity; I will always be proud of my
zip code and the thousands of other kids that are growing up in my community with the biggest
and best ideas this world has ever seen. This one is for you!

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

3
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I have to thank my Cohort 7 crew for keeping me going and for
motivating me every single day to stay the course. Our constant line of communication and
support was absolutely key in getting me this far in the program. I will always consider it a
privilege and an honor to call you my friends and colleagues in the field. Fight On!
#OCLBF
I would like to wholeheartedly thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Frederick Freking, for his
patience, understanding, and consistent encouragement. He is truly one of the most positive and
optimistic people I had the pleasure of getting to know throughout this process. He proved to me
that I could finally trust myself as an expert in my field as well as helped me to, finally, trust the
process.
Thank you to Dr. Alison Keller Muraszewski, who inspired me to keep going during a
time that I felt like I wasn’t good enough to keep moving through this program. It was a call
from her on November 14, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. that convinced me to keep going after I had
changed my area of study for the third time. She encouraged me to refocus and reprioritize in
order to excel and achieve at a higher level both professionally and academically. She probably
didn’t realize it at the time, but it was the very motivation I needed to move forward and to not
give up.
Thank you to Dr. Patricia Tobey, whose active involvement and compassion gave me
hope and motivated me to try and try again. Dr. Tobey helped me to see that at this point in the
program, failure isn’t an option. Her willingness to spend additional time outside of lecture to
help me find my way was truly a gift, and I am forever grateful.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

4
Lastly, I want to thank every single supportive friend, faculty member, supervisor,
colleague, and Starbucks barista within a forty-five-minute drive for making this possible.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

5
Table of Contents

Dedication ........................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................3
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................8
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................9
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................10
Introduction to the Problem of Practice .........................................................................................12
Global Context and Mission ..........................................................................................................13
Importance of Addressing the Problem .........................................................................................14
Organizational Performance Goal ..................................................................................................15
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal .......................................................................15
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .............................................................................16
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................................16
The Importance of Fundraising in Higher Education ........................................................16
Motivational Factors for Giving ........................................................................................18
Marketing, Social Media, and Digital Influence of Giving ...............................................19
Program Development for Donor Inclusion and Access ...................................................21
The Impact of Parent Engagement and Giving ..................................................................23
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................................................24
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................24
Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................................25
Employee Awareness of Abilities ..........................................................................26
Employee Growth and Development .....................................................................26
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

6
Motivation ..........................................................................................................................27
Self-Efficacy Theory ..............................................................................................27
Expectancy Values Theory ....................................................................................28
Organizational Influences ..................................................................................................29
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings ...................................................................29
Transparency is Key ..............................................................................................29
Implementing Best Practices..................................................................................29
Summary ............................................................................................................................30
Interactive Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................31
Data Collection and Instruments ....................................................................................................32
Interviews ...........................................................................................................................32
Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................32
Interview Procedures .............................................................................................33
Data Collection Protocol ....................................................................................................34
Data Analysis and Findings ...........................................................................................................34
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................34
Findings..............................................................................................................................35
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................35
Knowledge Findings ..........................................................................................................35
Conceptual Knowledge ..........................................................................................37
Procedural Knowledge ...........................................................................................38
Motivational Findings ........................................................................................................39
Self-Efficacy ..........................................................................................................40
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

7
Expectancy Value ..................................................................................................41
Organizational Findings .....................................................................................................41
Cultural Model .......................................................................................................41
Cultural Setting ......................................................................................................42
Synthesis of Findings .........................................................................................................43
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................45
Knowledge Recommendations ..........................................................................................45
Motivational Recommendations ........................................................................................49
Organizational Recommendations .....................................................................................52
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................................55
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................55
References ......................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders and Sampling Criteria ...................................................62
Appendix B: Interview Questions ..................................................................................................63
Appendix C: Knowledge, Motivation, &and Organizational Influences ......................................65
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness ...............................................................................65
Appendix E: Ethics ........................................................................................................................67
Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan .......................................................69
Appendix G: Executive Dissertation Briefing Summary………………………………………...79

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

8
List of Tables

Table 1. Demographics Summary of Development Officers Interviewed ....................................36
Table 2. Synthesis of Aligned Comments for RQ1 (Global Goal Awareness) .............................44
Table 3. Synthesis of Aligned Comments for RQ2(Performance Influences) ...............................44
Table 4. Synthesis of Aligned Comments for RQ3 (Tools and Resources) ..................................45
Table 5. Synthesis of Aligned Comments for RQ4 (Strategies and Core Competencies) .............45
Table 6. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...........................................46
Table 7. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations............................................50
Table 8. Summary of Organizational Recommendations .............................................................53
Table C-1. Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on Donor Cultivation ..........65
Strategies for Alumni and Parent its impact on Donor Giving and Retention
Table F-1. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .......................70

Table F-2. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ..............................71

Table F-3. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................73
Table F-4. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .......................................77
Table F-5. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .....................................................78

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

9
List of Figures
Figure 1. The interaction of influences on effective donor cultivation strategies .........................31
Figures 2. Recommendations for Increased Donor Cultivation and Retention for higher ............56
education development officers

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

10
Abstract

At first glance, the traditional donor cycle has not changed very much over the full and
multifaceted lifespan of the development profession. Objectively, the donor cycle begins with
identification and prospect analysis, and is followed by qualification, cultivation, solicitation,
and then stewarding and renewal. With nearly $60 billion in donations going toward education in
2018 (Charity Navigator, 2019), charitable giving and philanthropy clearly remain a prominent
and integral source of support for service and mission-centered organizations seeking to create a
better tomorrow. However, as the landscape continues to change, and as generations ever evolve
in how they engage and interact with the world in which they live, shouldn’t our profession’s
approach to philanthropy grow as well?
In an age of digital influencers and social media, the options of support are virtually
endless. It has become increasingly apparent that the curation of our donor experience strategies,
particularly in higher education, must change organizationally and become not just competitive
but, more importantly, consistent and connected. The purpose of this study was to examine
development offices, employee aptitude, and performance gaps that may directly impact alumni
and parent donor cultivation strategies in private and public colleges and universities. This study
sought to explore the development, implementation, and evaluation of the complete donor
experience created by development (fundraising) offices, and to understand how that experience
impacts retention and connectedness to the institution. This study used Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis framework to evaluate development offices and officers to determine whether any
gaps existed in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that would affect donor
retention and alumni and parent participation. This study consisted of the literature review,
qualitative interviews, and document analysis to evaluate how development officers could better
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

11
connect their constituents to their institutions and how to increase the likelihood of gaining a
lifelong donor and supporter of the college and/or university.
Keywords: fundraising, development, donors, donor cycle, donor experience,
stewardship, connectedness, professional development; performance gaps; digital engagement,
digital influencer, donor participation, philanthropy

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

12
Examining Donor Engagement Strategies: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of Performance
Gaps on Donor Retention and Cultivation within Higher Education Development Offices
Introduction to Problem of Practice
Public and private universities and colleges from across the nation are becoming
increasingly reliant on multiple funding sources in order to meet the growing needs of their
institutions. Ranging from family foundations to individual donors, an intentional and strategic
effort is underway to provide financial support for what is seen as both basic necessity and
aspirational priority for the college. The research indicates that as government support declines
and private academic institutions continue to tighten their budgets, the institutional dependency
on funding sources other than tuition and fees will grow (Knapp, 2000). For the purpose of this
study, donor cultivation and retention—particularly cultivation and retention of alumni donors—
is defined as 1 to 15 years post-completion of an undergraduate degree. This commitment is
becoming increasingly indispensable. Across the landscape of fundraising, including within
higher education, donor retention is on the decline. The institution should view the retention and
stewarding of donors as an asset—by increasing both reach and access—as these efforts help
reduce budgetary exhaustion (Harris & Krishnan, 2012). Research indicated that nearly 40% of
donor attrition in the United States correlated to a fundamental lack of communication and
connection to the organization’s constituency (Holloway, 2013). As it relates to higher
education, the alumni community is often the target for all key fundraising campaigns.
Therefore, it becomes imperative for the institution to find new and effective ways to build bonds
with their existing alumni population. Implementing effective and timely communications
strategies in order to keep alumni donors tied to their alma mater must be implemented and
prioritized. Internal data show that, for many higher education institutions, donor fatigue can be
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

13
in part related to a lack of connection and understanding about the institution’s current matters,
goals, and aspirations. The goal of cultivating alumni relations to secure a steady donor base,
global in context, is critical for our field and must be examined and evaluated.
Global Context and Mission
Development and Annual Giving Offices have a unique responsibility to build and
sustain a bridge between their constituents and the institutions for which they have a life-long
connection. Development and Giving Officers have a wide range of responsibilities, including
volunteer management, cold-calling, traveling, collaborating with faculty and student affairs,
managing engagement and event activities, qualifying and researching prospective donors, and
even crafting gift proposals (CASE.org, 2018). Many officers also develop one-on-one
relationships with both existing and prospective donors of high-wealth or influence in order to
cultivate and steward a greater sense of connection to the institution. Organizationally, most
institutions prioritize their development efforts throughout the year, particularly during a
campaign (Education Advisory Board [EAB.org], 2018). With nearly 4,000 public and private
post-secondary institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019), each with its own
mission, vision, and approach, the consistent common denominator is a need and desire to
contextualize and connect constituents with the organization’s mission (EAB, 2018). Institutions
across the nation have committed to gathering individuals, in many cases regardless of their
financial circumstances, into academic communities that promote global objectives geared
toward changing the world for the better. Further, nearly all of the 4,000 colleges and universities
have a commitment to curating a strong sense of affinity for their institutions, highlighting the
shared experiences of alumni. Now more than ever, past and current parents of students and
alumni, respectively, are a focus as well, although only about 1,180 colleges and universities are
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

14
actually reporting their rankings for alumni and/or parent giving (CASE, 2018). For many
institutions nationwide with development offices, the objective remains to advance the college’s
mission by investing in external communications, fundraising, and engagement. These very
important strategic initiatives are what drive organizations forward.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Examining and evaluating the institutional approaches of alumni and parent donor
cultivation strategies within higher education is critical. While every organization dreams of
100% participation from every active and solicitable donor, in the context of the alumni giving,
the goal is to rank among the most successful institutions, somewhere around 40 to 50%.
According to US News (2017), however, only three colleges had alumni giving rates 50% or
greater. The annual participation percentage rate allows the institution to measure its ties to an
important community stakeholder, a stakeholder that partially impacts most college’s fiscal
security. Many 4-year colleges and universities are at risk of enduring a slow decline in alumni
donor contributions year-over-year if a significant shift in priorities and strategies does not occur.
Based on the nearly 1,200 ranked schools that reported data from their 2015–2016 and 2016–
2017 academic years, only three institutions showed alumni donor rates of 50% or higher. And,
only a very small number of schools were under that 50% mark (US News.com, 2018). From
that same list of the 10 colleges with the highest average alumni donation rates, eight were
private liberal arts colleges (US News.com, 2018). The average rate for alumni donations at all
other ranked schools was only 11.1%, according to U.S. News data (2018).
For many institutions, the alumni and parent constituent that makes an annual
contribution, regardless of amount, tends to have a favorable connection to the institution. Those
connections then build a stronger sense of community, which impacts both the donor and the
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

15
institution for years to come. This problem warrants close examination and evaluation because,
as private colleges become more reliant on alumni donors, academic institutions must gain a
better understanding of not only how to create stronger connections, but also why past strategies
have not been the most effective. By supporting their alma maters, external constituents like
alumni are able to continue affording the same, in many cases greater, opportunities for students
who are encouraged and poised to be the leaders of the world. In this study, a gap analysis
evaluation will enable development officers and giving officers to consider how to better
cultivate and retain alumni donors, which will positively impact the low rate of alumni donor
participation.
Organizational Performance Goal
The ultimate performance goal of most development and annual giving offices in U.S.
colleges and universities is to be, at the bare minimum, competitive with peers in their ranking of
alumni participation and to meet or exceed 50% alumni donor participation.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
In an effort to narrow the focus of organizational influence and evaluation, our
stakeholder group was comprised of development officers at the leadership, mid-level, and entry-
level status. Although each stakeholder group is important for the full scope and detail of the
global problem of practice, a targeted collection of stakeholders is important for proper
evaluation through the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). For the purpose of this
study, the aforementioned stakeholder focus will garner the relevant data needed to support the
stakeholder goal, which is to grow the majority of alumni donor rate contributions above 50%
over the next 5 academic years, while sustaining growth in parent involvement and giving.
Interviews with key development officers were conducted to better understand the current and
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

16
past organizational culture as well as the perceptions of the current organizational and
departmental goal and status.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of the project was to examine alumni and parent donor participation by
evaluating the global context of 4-year higher education institutions, both public and private, in
the United States. Analysis focused on the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
structures correlated to increasing alumni donor contributions, which directly impacts the
organization’s overall goal. The stakeholders of focus for this analysis were the development
officers and executive staff.
As such, the research questions that guided this study were the following:
1. To what extent are the majority of 4-year colleges and universities meeting their goal
of cultivating and retaining alumni and parent donors?
2. What is the development officer’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to achieving
organizational and departmental goals?
3. What marketing and communication strategies are development officers using to
increase donor cultivation and retention of alumni donors?
4. What are the recommendations for effective alumni and parent donor cultivation
strategies related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences?
Review of the Literature
The Importance of Fundraising in Higher Education
As colleges and universities seek to build and sustain new avenues for their fiscal
security, the effort to diversify their sources of funding must become a top priority (Gallo, 2011).
Now, more than ever, higher education institutions, particularly private liberal arts colleges that
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

17
are not receiving federal support, are understanding the importance of fundraising and
connecting to their alumni base. Recognizing the value of their alumni and their experiences
goes beyond donors and dollars, it provides a stronger foundation for effective strategic
planning. Institutions across the nation are developing more robust bonds with their alumni
because they are—and have always been—key stakeholders in the betterment of these
organizations. The empirical data show that applying institutional advancement strategies based
on cultivating alumni relations has a consistent positive return on investment both in terms of
philanthropy and public relations. The underlying reality of fundraising for most higher
education institutions is that tuition and fees are simply not covering the growing cost of the full
academic experience. Often colleges and universities that do not understand the importance of
fundraising, and the framework in which it thrives, will ultimately lead to organizational burnout,
a higher employee turnover, and general fatigue due to a lack of a share visual across the board.
(Barber & Levis, 2013). Data pulled from nearly two million people indicated that many
organizations that rely on public donations to achieve their missions without investing in the
“connections with the communities they serve” experience low retention rates. The same
research shows that expensive campaigns make little to no impact without true and accurate
representation of the donor, or alumni, experience (Barber & Levis, 2013).
Understanding the importance of fundraising in higher education is only half the battle.
The research shows that investing in fundraising is actually investing in the community as a
whole. Continuing engagement with alumni is critical (Osborn, Alkezweeny, & Kecskes, 2015),
and even more indispensable when it comes to asking those same alumni to support their
institutions. Academic institutions are thinking beyond their colleges and universities and
creating innovation solutions for continued engagement because of the direct and positive impact
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

18
it has on the institution and its mission. Researchers at Portland State University have shared
significant literature on creative thinking and action toward supporting the alumni community
experience (Osborn et al., 2015). This research affords a stronger, more deliberate understanding
of not only why fundraising is so important in higher education, but also the collective
motivations for giving through intentional community engagement.
Motivational Factors for Giving
In an effort to compete with the corporate sector for the time and support of a shared
consumer base, many colleges and universities are looking for new and innovative means of
connecting with their alumni in ways that motivate giving. From a consumer science perspective,
informational cues act as predictors of engagement and reengagement activity (Aruajo, Neijens,
Vilegnthar, 2015). In other words, consumers, or in the case of academic institutions alumni, are
willing to support and even advocate for organizations as long as the messages are rich in
informational content. Often when we think of what motivates consumer action, we think of the
multiple variants in the presentation; however, research by Theo Araujo, Peter Neijens, and Rens
Vilegenthart (2015) suggests that much more important to the audience are content, substance,
and having something valuable to say. And, although emotional cues like style, format, and even
timing are all relevant, informational cue indicators have been shown to reinforce the link
between retention and reengagement.
As organizations and academic institutions vie for more donor support, an increase in
pressure mounts to showcase their performance objectives and outcomes (Charles & Kim, 2016).
This pressing issue, coupled with the university’s need to better understand why alumni donors
are motivated to give, concerns the nexus between the desire to give and the desire—or perhaps
lack thereof—to understand why one gives in the first place. Although the direct correlation
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

19
between nonprofit performance and its ability to cultivation and retain donors has not been fully
constructed, it is true that the more seemingly successful an organization, the fewer contributions
they receive. Such is the case in many private colleges and universities across the country. More
research is needed to fully develop the link between the two outcomes, but in relation to
motivation factors for giving, donor consideration of performance results requires a deeper, more
meaning understanding of how and why there is a need in the first place. If an organization
allows its performance results, negative or positive, to speak on its behalf, donors, whether right
or wrong, will be left to make their own inferences.
Due to a decrease in aid/support and an increase in competition, colleges and universities
are working hard developing their brands (Stephenson & Bell, 2014). Although donor
motivations and the correlation to college/university brand is new territory, research from the
Stephenson and Bell study suggests that donor motivations often connect identification and
recognition to the count of alumni donations. Tying closely to trust and credibility of a brand,
consumers (including alumni donors) have been trained to recognize trustworthy causes and
products. The study further asserts that alumni who are able to identify with their colleges and
universities were 43% less likely to be non-donors and would find ways to support their
institutions through donation. In other words, alumni who understand and can connect to the
social identity of their institutions are far more likely to be donors.
Marketing, Social Media, and Digital Influence of Giving
Navigating the vast and multifaceted ways in which institutions and organizations
attempt to reach their audiences is important to cultivating alumni philanthropy (McAlexander,
Koenig, & DuFault, 2014). Development officers often rely on wealth and affinity to understand
and activate philanthropy, targeting those who have the capacity and willingness to give back to
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

20
the institutions and communities they wish to serve, which is why it is so important that
marketers invest in building affinity around shared interests and connections. These key points
are often overlooked but can have a lasting impact on achieving positive outcomes. A wide
variety of research continues to emphasize the importance of marketing as tool in fundraising
outreach. The research also indicates how non-profit donor cultivation marketing differs from its
commercial counterpart (Andreasen, 2012). Fundraising marketing requires a special skillset.
Andreasen claimed that approaching marketing in the same way as a major for-profit company is
one reason for low donor and retention rates. Effectively building philanthropy through
intentional marketing, offering alumni a glimpse into their alma matter and affording the
opportunity to build and repair relationships through segmented communications that focus on a
more holistic vantage of alumni, correlated to an increase in giving (McAlexander et al., 2014).
The deliberate practice of cultivating lapsed donors is a standard in most academic
institutions and non-profit organizations across the nation. However, many organizations wonder
how much time and effort should be spent trying to reengage these audiences (Feng, 2014). Of
equal consideration is what kind of marketing should be used to build and rebuild connection,
community, and credibility through those communication channels. Author Shafei Feng
suggested that answer lies in understanding the probability of the regaining analysis of lapsed
consumers across multiple disciplines. Her research shows that consistent, timely, and intentional
marketing communications had a positive influence on reviving lapsed donors; however, too
frequent and shallow communications may be counterproductive. Using data from large non-
profit agencies from across the nation, Feng’s research is consistent regarding the impact on
building authentic connection as a tool for positive cultivation and retention.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

21
As it relates to building connection and community, alumni financial support is often
based on the close ties each alumnae/us has with their institution. During a time when financial
support for individual alumni donors is increasingly important to higher education institutions,
alumni donors continue to decrease across the board (U.S. News Report, 2017). A strong sense
of loyalty and tradition is often tied to giving and giving frequency (Martin, Moriuchi, Smith,
Moeder, & Nichols, 2015). In the study by Martin et al. (2015), each author contributed to the
literature by examining the impact of alumni giving and loyalty. The findings of their study
indicate both theoretical and practical implications for the importance of tradition and ritual as
they relate to a donor’s motivation to contribute financially. This research is important in
elucidating how one builds connections though these mediums (traditions and rituals) and how
development officers can generate marking strategies for garnering alumni support.
Both nationally and internationally, low donor attrition rates are negatively impacting the
financial support necessary for many non-profit institutions. According to research, many
organizations are losing up to 60% of donors after their first donation due to a lack of
connections forged through impactful communication channels (Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2007).
The authors of the study, Sarah Sargeant and Dr. Lucy Woodliffe, determined that influences on
donor commitment must have a cause or rationale to increase loyalty. The researchers utilized
focus groups to determine a hypothesis, ultimately concluding that perceived service quality,
shared beliefs, perceived risk, personal connection, and trust all drove the act of charitable giving
on the part of the donor.
Program Development for Donor Inclusion and Access
As it relates to building a comprehensive and inclusive campaign, Drezner (2009)
examined philanthropy practices within the African American millennial demographic, asserting
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

22
that engaging alumni early and connecting them to experiences that actually mattered to them as
students had myriad, not just for the current fiscal year but for years to come. In an effort to
provide context on targeted and affinity-based marketing strategies, it is important to understand
the origins of this best-practice. The word affinity describes someone’s level of experience,
identification, and cohesiveness. Marketing based on one’s identity or shared interest affords a
unique opportunity to build connection based on important social classifications and awareness.
Performed tactfully and intentionally, using various affinity markers to tailor communication and
marketing strategies can be extremely effective (Macchiette & Roy, 1993).
Researchers have promoted moving fundraising staff away from a “one size fits all
approach,” and asserted that creating a strategic and intentional method—inclusive from
conception—helped the entire team create new best practices and identify approaches to avoid
(Gasman & Bowman, 2013). Alumni across the nation are giving back to their alma maters at a
lower rate than ever before. A study conducted at the University of Tennessee concluded that it
was imperative that the institution integrate the university experience as best it could into the
lives of graduated students/alumni (Atchley, 2014). Significant statistical data point to what
could be the logical reason for such dismal donor rates—such as low or no employment or new
and competing priorities—however, a deeper dive into the research revealed that alumni had a
whole host of reasons for giving or not giving to their alma mater. The same study addressed the
need for re-engaging and nostalgic pieces of marketing and communication to remind alumni
about their experiences. In cases where their student experiences were less than ideal or even
negative, connecting them to other students who may be experiencing similar struggles and could
use support and/or perspective had the potential to increase alumni volunteerism and giving
(Atchley, 2014).
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

23
The Impact of Parent Engagement and Giving
Research has finally begun to acknowledge the importance and value of parent
engagement and giving programs. Over the last decade, colleges and universities have focused
high-impact fundraising efforts on a constituency group that is often just as involved and
connected as their student and/or alumni (EAB, 2015a). Researchers have asserted that parents
are giving nearly one billion dollars a year to their student’s institution. Indeed, parent
engagement and relations programs have been incredibly impactful to the fundraising efforts of
colleges and universities—so much so that between 2011 and 2017, nearly a third of all parent
programs moved their reporting structure from Student Affairs to Advancement/Development
(Savage, 2017).
Research has suggested that alumni were more likely to donate time, talent, and resources
to their institutions if they were philanthropically active as students (McDonough, 2017). Studies
examining social exchange theory also asserted that the connection between perceived cost-
benefits analysis of alumni impacted how and why they gave. For many alumni, volunteering for
their college or university had a direct correlation to giving, which may suggest a need for
stronger marketing around volunteer engagement as a vehicle for garnering financial support.
Alumni trends toward giving charitable donations to organizations they trusted, and
understanding volunteering afforded a stronger connection and motivation for giving. Inclusivity,
opportunities for active and meaningful engagement, and affinity acknowledgement also had a
direct correlation to donor cultivation and retention of alumni donors (McDonough, 2017).
To provide additional context, it is important to explore other affinity-based groups
around the topic of marketing as it relates to philanthropy and donor attrition. Research has
shown that African Americans donated a significant amount of their deposable income to
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

24
charitable organizations, in fact more than any other racial group in the united states (Drezner,
2009). Noah Drezner, the author of “Why Give?: Exploring Social Exchange and Organization
Identification Theories in the Promotion of Philanthropic Behaviors of African-American
Millennials at private-HBCUs,” asserted in his 2009 study that the common thread in all giving,
particularly for young and millennial donors, is connection, education, and self-relevance.
Researchers have also maintained how invaluable creating trust and formal coordination is to
developing interorganizational relationships (Vlaar, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007). Evident
in Drezner’s findings as they related to organizations favored by African American donors was a
consistent and deliberate priority to identify the needs of the organization by promoting
transparency and connection, which in turn afforded a deeper understanding of the mission and
purpose of the organization, and thus a stronger inclination to donate—particularly for millennial
donors.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Creating a campus culture that embraces and encourages diversity and inclusion goes far
beyond the organization’s mission statement. Developing and implementing a framework that is
representative of a community’s diversity and core values takes applied knowledge and skill
(Cox, 1991). Creating systems of change can be a difficult process to navigate, made even more
challenging when approaching diversity of any kind, but in particular racial diversity. Assessing
performance problems and evaluating next steps are key benchmarks in organizational change
management. However, the first step to approaching a problem of practice within an organization
is to assess whether its employees possess the right knowledge and skills for actualizing and
managing change of any kind (Clark & Estes, 2008). Performing in the development phase, and
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

25
being successful in the implementation, is largely based on whether the organization and its
employees have the right tools, resources, and knowledge to create proactive improvements. It is
important to fully uncover not only what a contributor knows, or has the ability to achieve, but
also what those outcomes and deliverables might impact.
Knowledge Influences
As they relate to the information needed to apply knowledge and skill, varying types of
knowledge influences can impact the overall process of creating organizational change. The four
main types of knowledge influences can be categorized as factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Pickard, 2007). Factual
knowledge is readily available; it is basic information that is clear and easily accessible. Factual
knowledge is straight, to the point, and often the starting point for understanding complex issues
within an organization. An example of factual knowledge is when an employee understands the
basic bylaws or mission statement of the organization. Conceptual knowledge is whether
someone is able to make the necessary and appropriate connections and comparisons between
various approaches or objectives. An example of conceptual knowledge is how a governance
board interprets an organization’s core values and how it accesses that interpretation for creating
a strategic plan. Procedural knowledge is how employees utilize what they know in order to
solve a problem or complete a task. An example of procedural knowledge would be an
information technologist supporting the new computer software for the organization.
Metacognitive knowledge is whether a person knows what they know as well as what they do not
yet understand and how to go about gaining the knowledge they do not currently possess. An
example of metacognitive knowledge is when an employee receives job performance feedback
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

26
and reflects on his/her own awareness of his/her kills and abilities; that employee begins to
uncover what they know and what they may not understand.
Employee awareness of abilities. When trying to develop a strategy for diversity within
an organization, it becomes increasingly crucial to encourage a culture among employees that
promotes transparency, collaboration, and—most importantly—reflection. It can also be said that
learning styles are not innate, having the ability to fully understand the learning styles and
processes that are impactful and effective are invaluable traits for creating and encouraging
change. Knowledge types like metacognitive knowledge provide the kind of leverage and
wherewithal needed for navigating pitfalls and finding the opportunity for growth. By
understanding employee performance gaps, strengths and weakness alike, and how those
attributes contribute to the overall organization, the institution is able to create a more solid plan
for how the organization confronts threats and unfolds opportunities. For example, as it relates to
the problem of practice, if the organization or institution is dealing with a colleague’s gap in
performance, it would be important to understand how employees engage in their work with
others and how the key stakeholders assess a problem. By developing tools that evaluate the
employee’s behaviors and thoughts about diversity before committing to the development phase
for the global goal, one can better shape the outcomes of the strategic plan.
Employee growth and development. Using the various knowledge types is a practical
approach to understanding the level of an employee’s engagement, ability, and commitment to
the process. The growth and development of employees are connected to their level of
engagement in the process, and their engagement in the process is connected to how they
continue to make connections between themselves and the task at hand. According to the
research, the more an individual knows about who they are and how they contribute, the higher
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

27
their level of commitment, engagement, and productivity (Parjares, 2006). As such,
organizations have an obligation to support the personal and professional development of their
employees. In the case of most colleges and universities struggling to make that connection, the
knowledge influence gap may be in professional competencies across four main areas: diversity
and inclusion, marketing and public relations, strategic planning, and project management. These
gaps in the knowledge must be addressed in order to realize positive and impactful outcomes.
The gap identified here might be a lack of proper training and insufficient training in how to
succeed (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation
According to researchers, employees are motivated to excel by making a conscious effort
to be consistent and impactful in order to be successful and reach a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Having motivated employees within an organization often creates a catalyst for change.
Understanding how motivational factors affect goal-setting, desires, ability, and mental effort
should be taken into consideration prior to establishing a project plan. In fact, a variety of
motivational factors can impact how an organization approaches problem solving; in particular,
how self-regulation and social behaviors relate to understanding what encourages employees to
operate at high or low levels of productivity The research has also identified key factors to
motivational influences including, but not limited to, self-efficacy, expectancy value theory, and
emotions (Bandura, 1991).
Self-efficacy theory. One of the key factors of motivational influence for donor retention
and cultivation is self-efficacy. As described in the research, self-efficacy is how an individual
perceives his/her own abilities based on their experiences, environments, peers, and
understanding of the world (Bandura, 1991). Self-efficacy theory acknowledges that your own
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

28
unique perception becomes your own unique reality. Employees develop self-efficacy by
observing and performing tasks and by identifying a concept of self-effectiveness and
importance. Bandura (1991) has asserted that as individuals become more engaged with their
own self-efficacy, they become more connected and committed to how they deliver, implement,
strategize, and succeed. Having an awareness of self creates better boundaries, strengthens
professional and personal relationships, and allows for an increase in effectiveness and
efficiency. The opposite can occur when individuals are not aware of their own self-efficacy—
these kinds of employees tend to be less productive and less focused on producing successful
outcomes (Bandura, 1991).
Expectancy values theory. This theory points to the level of value one places on
completing a given task (Wigfield, 2014). The high (or low) expectations prior to starting a
project directly correlates to the level of impact one initiates or engages at the time of
performance. Employees tend to increase their level of contribution when they fully believe in
their ability to be successful and improve outcomes, according to the Wigfield study (2014). An
employee’s expectancy values can be measured by the degree of confidence an employee shows
as it relates to their knowledge, skill, or experience in a certain area (Clark & Estes, 2008). For
example, as an employee realizes that their unique abilities will help the organization be
successful, they are motivated to exert the mental effort and skill needed to successfully
complete the project. One will place a significant amount of value on something if they feel that
completing the tasks fulfills their goals.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

29
Organizational Influences
Cultural models and cultural settings. According to Schien (1985), organizational
culture can be defined as a shared understanding of assumptions that are observed and repeated,
becoming the cultural normative over time, regardless of merit, consideration, or effectiveness.
Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that culture is a powerful and prudent part of any organization’s
framework and impacts the beliefs, core values, and emotions of its employees and the cultural
setting that surrounds them. Organizational culture influences nearly every aspect of how well or
how poorly an organization does depending on how the organization’s employees are affected
and aware of said setting-event impacting how individuals think and behave.
The cultural setting of an organization or academic institution provides a dynamic and
unique understanding of how the overall work-climate functions, operates, and adapts (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). Organizational culture is often identified through the procedures, policies,
and even habits and behaviors inside of the organization. Cultural settings are how the
organization’s culture is sourced and implemented on any given day (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001).
Transparency is key. Transparency within an organization is imperative; particularly
within a non-profit organization or academic institution. (Auger, 2014). Also essential is
community stakeholders’ desire to fundraise. Transparency serves in rebuilding and reengaging
trust. Auger cited two types of transparency: reputation and communication. As it relates to the
effective cultivation and retention of donors, the organization must prioritize its ability to be
forthright in the connections it builds with its community.
Implementing best practices. One of the most important factors in being able to produce
improvement models based on the findings from an evaluation analysis—or from best
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

30
practices—is an organization’s ability to support its employees in creating those necessary
improvement strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research suggests that interrogational trust, or
lack thereof, negatively impacts an organization outcomes (Kroeger, 2011). The research
outlined in F. Kroeger’s study might also apply to academic institutions. Higher education’s
academic environment has multiple stakeholders, departments, and—in theory—separate goals,
all attempting to impact one larger mission. However, lack of trust can directly inhibit the
organization from reaching it goals. Understanding that an organization operates as one unit is
essential to rebuilding interorganizational relationships and organizational culture.
Summary
The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate whether there were gaps in performance
impacting donor participation goals, and if so, to apply donor cultivation strategies starting with
competency training for all development staff. This training was in direct alignment with their
intended goal of raising the overall alumni donor participation rate. The vast majority of extant
research describes the connection among experience, identity, and even organizational
perceptions of alumni as key stakeholders. However, this study examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences of development officers and development staff. This
analysis used the relevant literature to conduct a gap analysis evolution study between
institutional marketing strategies and the retention and cultivation of alumni donors at four-year
colleges and universities.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

31

Figure 1. The interaction of influences on effective donor cultivation strategies.
Global Goal: Increase the national average of Alumni Participation from 11% to 50% by 2028.

Interactive Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework focuses on research-based approaches specific to identifying
and clearly articulating the concepts and variables that correlate to the research question and
form the main focuses of the study (Maxwell, 2013). The interactive conceptual framework ties
key pieces of data and information from various case studies and experiences and allows the
researcher to develop a concept map that will aid the study as a whole (Maxwell, 2013). It
creates a portrait of theory about how important or impactful significant pieces of information or
experiences are and just how critical they are as they relate to supporting the research or study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As it relates to this study, the conceptual framework showcased the
importance of assessing competency levels and motivational factors of obtaining the college’s or
university’s goal of raising donor participation and building connections with alumni and parent
constituents.
The problem of practice for this study was to discover the barrier or barriers of
competencies involved in increasing donor participation as it related to development offices and
Cultural Model
Understanding of the Impact of
donor retention, including a
willingness to improve
Organizational and departmental
support of fundraising team’s
new ideas and best practices
Conceptual Knowledge
Understanding the vital role of
intentional and effective
marketing strategies, particularly
for a young alumni audience
Understanding one’s own role in
effectively contributing to the
success or failure of the overall
goal
(Motivation) Self-Efficacy
and Expectancy Value
Feeling confident to increase
alumni donor participation
within the allotted time frame
Feeling value in accomplishing
an increased alumni donor
participation rate
Feeling that the benefits of achieving
an increased alumni donor
participation rate outweigh the cost
of trial and error or remaining
stagnant
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

32
giving officers across the field. The common goal of most colleges and university is to build
lasting connections with their constituents in order to gain support for a mission and a common
goal. This study utilized the framework of Clark and Estes (2008) in an effort to better
understand how organizational performance influences, including knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influence, impacted overall performance.
Data Collection and Instruments
For the purpose of this study, I chose to conduct interviews for my data collection
approach. The qualitative data collection methods were individual interviews with 10
development officers from private and public colleges. This approach was selected in an effort to
target and address the aforementioned research questions directly—which helped guide the
analysis and assist in a post-evaluation recommendation for the organization. In addition, a Clark
and Estes (2008) gap analysis was utilized to determine a conceptual framework that would help
to establish the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences within the institution. For
example, the interview questions verbally administered to the development officers helped to
examine knowledge and organizational factors contributing to current outcomes and aspirations.
These methods are based on knowledge obtained regarding the environment and its constituents.
Research has shown that the most effective data selection requires careful consideration of the
setting and the human participants (Maxwell, 2013).
Interviews
Interview protocol. Each interview was structured in its approach. According to
Maxwell (2004), structured interview protocol, as opposed to semi structured interview protocol,
allows for a much stronger comparability of data across individuals, times, and varied settings.
This approach was useful when fundraising officer participants were answering questions
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

33
dealing with differences between cultural and social identity as they related to giving and
engagement. This study conducted interviews in order to explore motivational factors for
achieving higher rates of alumni donor participation. In an effort to implement an effective study
that can be communicated and examined by others, it is imperative to create a reliable and
logical mythology, connecting each method to the research (Maxwell, 2013). By linking the
appropriate methods to each research questions there was a greater chance for viability and
accurate assessment, which is necessary when establishing a problem of practice.
Interview procedures. All interviews were conducted between April 16 through May 3
of 2019. This window allowed for greater flexibility within the facilitator’s schedule and was
prior to many of the alumni fundraisings and engagement activities that happen throughout the
year that could have potentially skewed the evaluation results. There was a total of 10 individual
interviews, with each participant being interviewed no more than once. Each participant
(development officer/fundraising professional) was required to have a minimum of 24 months of
professional development experience and be working full-time in a 4-year college or university,
public or private, in order to qualify. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes, with a
maximum time-allotment of one full hour—for a total of one hour per human participant. The
interviews were formal in structure allowing for timely control of the overall process. The
interviews were conducted in private, non-shared offices, limiting distractions. Keeping in mind
that the settings, timing, and process all play a key role in data collection, it is important to align
those factors with methods and questions (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Once the interview began,
I captured the responses with an audio recorder while taking hand-written notes directly across
from each fundraising officer/participant.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

34
Data collection protocol. The data collected from the interview evaluations of 10
participants were be compiled by the interviewer/administrator during the final session of the
program, and all interview participants remain anonymous. After the data were compiled, the
information was measured to the internal and external outcomes that aligned to the original and
intended stakeholder goal. As previously mentioned, a variety of metrics were identified,
including relevance, satisfaction, and engagement. These factors were grouped, accessed, and
itemized according to the research question it aligned to most. The recommendations framework
for college or university was then developed and implemented as the new strategic plan and
vision for increasing alumni and parent donor participation as a direct response to the gaps
determined based on feedback from 12 questions and 10 individuals as well as document
analysis to support those findings.
Data Analysis and Findings
Data Analysis
For the entirety of the data collection, the research was conducted through a primary
source of participant stakeholder interviews, followed by document analysis and reflection.
Detailed notes were prepared immediately following each interview and key words were pulled
from each session in order to find, if any at all, consistent themes in concepts, ideas, and
observations. These notes were found to be crucial in identifying common influences driving
performance gaps. The post-interview notations were also utilized in two phases for data
analysis. The first was for identifying concepts that were aligned with the Clark and Estes Gap
Analysis Conceptual Framework and the second for deriving keywords and phrases that would
prove to be important elements for highlighting and/or clarifying the commonality between key
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

35
influences, both in relation to and in relation with the knowledge, motivational, and organization
findings found in this qualitative study.
Findings
The primary focus of this evaluation was to uncover consistent themes related to the
performance gaps found across the higher education development field as they related to donor
participation. The literature review not only sourced primary evidence of the importance of
individual giving within public and private colleges and universities, but also identified the
conceptual framework utilized to evaluate development officers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences as they related to increasing annual donor participation. Appropriately,
for this evaluation study, the primary research question (RQ1) was, “To what extent are the
majority of four-year colleges and universities meeting their goal of cultivating and retaining
alumni and parent donors?” The study found common themes and key indicators as to why most
higher education institutions were not meeting this goal due to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps. The following corresponding research questions also guided this analysis:
 RQ2. What is the development officer’s knowledge and motivation as they relate to
achieving organizational and departmental goals?
 RQ3. What marketing and communication strategies are development officers using to
increase donor cultivation and retention of alumni donors?
 RQ4. What are the recommendations for effective alumni and parent donor cultivation
strategies related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences?
Participating Stakeholders
For the purpose of this evaluation study, the stakeholder population was 14 development
officers. Purposive sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2015) resulted in inviting 10 participants
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

36
to join in the study. All 10 qualifying participants accepted and were interviewed over a 2-week
span of analysis. In order to qualify, all interview participants were required to have at least 24
months of development experience and be working full-time in a 4-year college or university,
public or private.
All participants were from the State of California; 70% of the participants had worked in
at least one additional state; 30% of participants had worked in two or more states, with one of
the participants having worked internationally. Three of the 10 participants were male and six of
the 10 participants were female. One participant identified as non-binary or gender-neutral. They
represented a wide variety of experience and administrative levels as well as strong mix of public
and private institutions. Regarding ethnicity, 40% of participants identified as White; 20%
identified as Black/African American; 20% identified as Latino; 10% identified as Asian
American; and another 10% identified as mixed with (two or more races). All participants held at
least one degree (including associate’s and bachelor’s), three of the 10 participants held a
master’s degree, and one participant held a doctorate degree. Six of the 10 participants were
employed by private colleges while four of the 10 participants were employed by public
universities.
Table 1

Demographic Summary of Development Officers Interviewed
Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average
(Mean)/Total
Public or
Private
PB PV PV PV PB PV PV PB PV PB 6PV, 4PB
Years of
Experience
7 6 12 5 6 11 3 5 14 9 M: 7.8 years

Highest
Level of
Education
B M D B B M B A M B T: 1A, 5B, 3M, 1D
Gender M F M F F F NB M F F T: 6F, 3M, 1NB
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

37
Ethnicity B W B W W MX L W L A T: 4W, 2B, 2L, 1A,
1M
Length
Interview
(Minutes)
39 42 47 51 40 37 58 42 44 49 M: 44.9

Key:
 Gender: (M) Male, (F) Female, (NB) Non-binary
 Ethnicity: (A) Asian, (B) Black, (L) Latino, (MX) Mixed, (W) White
 Degrees: (A) Associate’s, (B) Bachelor’s, (M) Master’s, (D) Doctorate
 Institutions: (PB) Public, (PV) Private
Knowledge Findings
Clark and Estes (2008) have asserted that initiating an assessment and evaluation within
an organization can serve to uncover gaps that prevent desired goal-outcomes By aligning the
research questions with the conceptual framework and methodology, the evaluation found
through data analysis that the majority of development officers required additional and shared
conceptual and procedural knowledge to efficiently and effectively meet their intended and
aspirational goals of increasing donor participation.
Conceptual knowledge. Research has indicated that to efficiently move an individual or
team from acclimation to competency—and ultimately to expertise—requires building a solid
foundational core of knowledge, as outlined in the Model of Domain Learning theory
(Alexander, 2004). As it relates to this study, the conceptual knowledge findings were fairly
consistent across the board and revealed that seven of the 10 participants had no formal training
in strategic planning, implementation, and evaluation as they related to fundraising. The majority
of the participants could not clearly articulate the singular top-level goal of their department or
their organizational ranking among peer institutions; however, all 10 participants could clearly
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

38
articulate their own individual goals and daily functions. For example, responding to interview
question number one, regarding identifying their department’s most significant goal, P2 stated:
It changes fairly frequently, depending on so many factors, sometimes it’s hard to define
what our most significant goal is, but I know that my role is keep the ball rolling and to
remain as flexible as possible throughout the year.
Similarly, P9 asserted, “We tend to base our goals on a variety of key metrics, it’s hard to say,
but our leadership is responsible for setting goals, and sometimes those goals change depending
on who’s running the monthly meeting that day.” P5 explained:
Our goals are different in each department, which is kind of a source of frustration around
here, but we make sure we’re doing our jobs based on our direct-supervisors regardless of
whether it aligns with what someone else in a different division may be working on.
Procedural knowledge. The research shows that procedural knowledge—the knowledge
of specific skills, methods, approaches, procedures, and timely and appropriate application—is a
critical and invaluable component of achieving organization and global goals (Krathwohl, 2002).
The evaluation study found that development officers needed better procedural knowledge from
the organization’s leadership in order to better understand and implement impactful and intended
goals. This approach will allow future work to be more intentional and afford opportunities for
self-reflection regarding personal goals within the framework of a project (Rueda, 2011). For
example, in response to question five regarding how they believed marketing impacted donor
cultivation and retention, P10 stated:
“I know that if implemented properly marketing can be a very important tool, however,
sometimes I think we spend too much time on how to segment our constituents and far
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

39
less time on the actual technique and tool of marketing . . . like, what are we actually
saying to our audience?”
Similarly, P4 maintained:
“Marketing impacts cultivation and retention much more now than ever before, but in
some ways we lack the best-practices to keep up with the changing landscape, we could
be doing more on social media, but because we don’t have time to learn and adapt, we
keep doing the same old thing day in and day out, which is effective, but not nearly as
impactful as we could be.”
Similarly, P3 also asserted:
“I believe there’s a disconnect between what we’re saying and what our alumni
community is receiving. I think that’s because we aren’t listening more carefully and
adapting to the change that’s happening all around us. Regardless of generation, people
are receiving messages differently now – it’s personalized, and consistent, and
intentional. We need to get with the program, or we’ll be left behind.”
In short, our findings indicate that Our Development Officers need to know how to build
strategic marketing and engagement plans, specifically for affinity-based audiences; they must be
open to learning, and adapting to, national trends and best-practices within the field.
Motivational Findings
The research has been consistent in indicating that motivational influences are a critical
and impactful component of performance, accounting for nearly half of an outcome’s successes
and/or failures (Rueda, 2011). Aligning both the research and interview questions related to
motivation, the study found that development officers, particularly those with fewer than 5 years
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

40
of experience in fundraising, could benefit from an increase in self-efficacy and the expansion of
expectancy value as they related to progress and growth.
Self-efficacy. The research indicates that self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own
capabilities and skills as they relate to achieving goals and are often influenced by one’s world
view, environment, and/or personal beliefs. Without the belief that one will be able to achieve
the desired outcomes, there is often a lack of motivation to even take on the project or task in
order to avoid failure or disappointment (Bandura, 2006). In this study, 50% of participants
reported a lack of self-efficacy in their ability to achieve or exceed a performance goal of
increasing donor participation. For example, responding to question nine, regarding what kind of
strategies were used at work to keep them motivated and inspired, P6 stated:
“Our donor participant has been decreasing slowly for a few years now, I’m not sure
there’s anything that any one of us can do individually, it will take the entire team, I
think, surely I don’t have the magic answer—I’ve also never been asked directly for my
opinion.”
Likewise, P8 stated “My institution does a good job at leveling the playing field, when we don’t
meet our goals, we’re reminded that the decrease is a national trend and then I feel better . . .
temporarily.” Similarly, P7 also stated: “It sometimes feels like some people have completely
given up on trying, over the years, I’ve seen employees attempt to develop great ideas but are
met with an unenthusiastic response or talk themselves out of presenting it to leadership, its
disappointing and frustrating, they just aren’t motivated.
In short, the findings assert that our Development Officers need to believe that goal-
setting, strategic planning, and innovation will lead toward positive outcomes; they must feel
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

41
confident that their individual and collective contributions could drive an increase in donor
participation through more intentional and inclusive approaches.
Expectancy value. As indicated by the research, expectancy value is the likelihood that
one’s behavior, as it relates to goal-setting for a project or task, will result in a successful
outcome (Eccles, 2006). This evaluation study found that development officers, while having a
strong sense of their own personal and professional ability, had limited belief that their
individual behavior would significantly impact the greater goal without collective belief across
the peer-to-peer and leadership landscape. For example, in response to question eight, regarding
self-motivation, P1 stated, “I try not to compare myself to others, but I do wish that we were on
the same page as far as goals and accountability.” Comparably, P3 offered, “When I see other
members on my team also working hard and being creative that motivates me, it’s not as often as
it should or could be, but when it happens it’s an incredible motivator.”
Organizational Findings
Another invaluable method for discovering gaps in performance comes through the
assessment and evaluation of organizational processes and resources (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Outlined by both the research and interview inquiries, the evaluation found that the majority of
development officers would, indeed, benefit from a more consistent and holistic work
environment through the cultural model and setting. Such an arrangement would help
development officers fulfill their potential and increase donor participation. This finding was a
consistent data point across the board during participant interviews.
Cultural model. The research has revealed a common belief that if an individual
employee believes that they are getting the support needed to be successful in their position, they
are much more inclined to have positive outcomes (Cherniss, 2004). By extension, the research
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

42
shows that a shared or collective understanding of information or procedures that can be
observed and implemented are a crucial part of the overall cultural model (Schein, 1985). In
addition, the research has suggested that morale can be directly and negatively impacted in an
organization when employees are not respected for their skill, intelligence, or ability; under such
circumstances, they become less motivated and therefore less determined to meet organizational
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, in response to question number 11, regarding
organizational factors impacting their ability to be successful, P8 stated, “Sometimes it’s like we
aren’t trusted to do our jobs, and micro-managing sometimes impacts the way I feel, and that’s
not uncommon here, it brings down the energy of our entire team.” P2 also explained:
There tends to be a lack of consideration about how we’re getting our work done, we do
the very best we can in this field with often limited resources, but the lack of
acknowledging that some of us may need training or new resources or a workshop can
sometimes be frustrating.
Cultural setting. The research indicates that cultural settings are how an organization’s
culture is sourced and implemented on any given day (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This
evaluation study, based on a wide variety of research within the literature review, assumed that
development officers across both public and private 4-year colleges and universities did not
share a unifying source of knowledge and best-practices and were lacking consistent
opportunities for professional development within their field as a standard and a means of
growing donor participation. The participant interviews confirmed that there is not a consistent
source of best-practices training across the field, and that while organization for professional
development within the higher-education fundraising field exists, many organizations, including
development officers, are not afforded consistent and recommended access in significant and
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

43
meaningful ways. For example, only 20% of participants reported having attended professional
trainings encouraged by their respective organizations. P3 stated, “I had never been encouraged
to attend a workshop or training to better improve our outcomes, I was just encouraged to use
what I have and what I know to do a better job in the meantime.” Similarly, P7 acknowledged,
“I’ve only attended one online workshop when I first started and it wasn’t very helpful, during
my first year of fundraising for a private institution, I was hoping to better understand how to
work with a new population.” P4 also asserts, “It would have been great to have received a basic
education in philanthropy and donor cultivation, but those programs are rare, so we rely on
professional development workshops and conferences, but due to budget those are few and far
between and only afforded to a select few employees once or twice a year.”
In short, the findings assert that the Development Office must acknowledge (and be ready
to rectify) the issues of a lack of trust in a collaborative process where skill-levels, foundational
knowledge, desired approaches and, in some cases, shared goals are not in alignment. The
Organization needs to have a common and consistent understanding of team and organizational
goals.
Synthesis of Findings
The framework for this qualitative study allowed the researcher to examine the
commonality and knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to better understand the
gaps in performance related to achieving an increase in donor participation through professional
ability and resources regarding donor relations strategies used at 4-year public and private
colleges and universities. Overall, the feedback was fairly consistent, indicating a lack of shared
goals, understanding, and access to professional development for best practices. These findings
shaped the recommendations for increasing donor participation rates to a competitive average
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

44
standard of, ultimately, 50% alumni donor participation within the next decade. In relation to the
interview questions, the findings were also consistent with the research questions and comments
from each interview.

Table 2
Synthesis of Aligned Comments with RQ1 (Global Goal Awareness)
Interview Comments Aligned with Research Question 1
To what extent are the majority of 4-year colleges and universities meeting their goal
of cultivating and retaining alumni and parent donors?

P#1: “Some are, but the majority of colleges are struggling to get above 20 to 25 percent, some
even have less than 10 percent . . . let alone attempting to reach something like 50 percent and
above…”
P#4: “I have no idea how we rank with some of our peer institutions, but I think the other schools
must be struggling to get people engaged, especially with social media…”
P#9: “It’s complex in nature, right? Because every college is doing what they think is best, in
their own way, to appeal to their communities.”
Keyword Findings: struggling, reach, peer institutions, complex, appeal, communities

Table 3
Synthesis of Aligned Comments with RQ2 (Performance Influences)
Interview Comments Aligned with Research Question 2
What is the development officer’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to achieving
organizational and departmental goals?

P#4: “I have a strong background in sales, so fundraising comes naturally to me . . . I enjoy
meeting goals, and get excited about doing it for a great cause.”
P#6: “I went to school for marketing, my graduate degree is in public relations, although
appealing to alumni and parents is a little different, because they’re already connected to the
mission. It’s not like we’re introducing a new product.”
P#9: “We all approach professional development differently . . . I’m motivated by meeting and
exceeding our goals . . . but, not everyone is motivated by the same goals.”
Keyword Findings: background, goals, cause, connected, professional development, motivated

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

45
Table 4
Synthesis of Aligned Comments with RQ3 (Tools and Resources)
Interview Comments Aligned with Research Question 3
What marketing and communication strategies are development officers using to increase donor
cultivation and retention of Alumni donors?

P#2: “Well, we use Instagram, sometimes, but we really haven’t done much in that area . . .
we’re just too busy supporting our Facebook groups . . . that we never really have the time.”
P#10: “We try a bunch of different outlets for communication with our constituents, a mix of
emails, and social media, and sometimes handwritten letters for a large donors and prospects...
we try it all . . . sometimes with very little return on investment.”
P#5: “It honestly depends on the time of program or time of year, we try to be flexible so that
we aren’t just using one tool all the time, however, we have also been criticized for not be
consistent . . . so we haven’t found the magic bullet, yet.”
Keyword Findings: social media, Facebook, Instagram, investments, flexible, tools, consistent
Table 5

Synthesis of Aligned Comments with RQ4 (Strategies and Core Competencies)
Interview Comments Aligned with Research Question 4
What are the recommendations for effective alumni and parent donor cultivation strategies
related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences?

P#3: “It would be great if we were all on the same page, you know, when it comes to the
direction that we are going . . . I think we all just want to be speaking the same language.”
P#8: “Sometimes, I feel like we’re not working on the same shared goals. . . . I just come in and
do what I’m asked, because there’s never enough time to think strategically, we are constantly
turning out work.”
P#6: “It is leadership’s responsibility to make sure we have the right people, in the right places,
working on the right projects. . . . I’m not always sure that’s happening.”
Keyword Findings: direction, shared goals, leadership, responsibility, right places, right people

Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge recommendations below are based on the assumed knowledge, all of
which is common and shared knowledge of the stakeholder group, within each organization.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

46
Each assumed influence delivers a probability of validation and is based on the knowledge
influences gathered in preliminary data collection and research. Research indicates that
procedural knowledge increases when the declarative knowledge required to perform the skill is
available or known (Clark & Estes, 2008). The research has also shown that the ability to reflect
on and adjust necessary skills and knowledge—including general strategies, assessing, planning,
and monitoring—is metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Once a gap in performance is identified,
there are guidelines for selecting context-specific recommendations and tools. For example,
fundraisers need to know how to build affinity-centric engagement strategies to broaden
awareness, thus raising participation. As shown in Table 6, this assumed knowledge is validated
and highly probable and may benefit from a recommended evaluation of performance or role and
should be based on theoretical principles.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Development officers
need to know how to
build a strategic
marketing and
engagement plan
specifically for
affinity-based
engagement strategies
as well as to evaluate,
develop, and manage
their approach to
meeting and
exceeding that goal.
(M)
V Yes Metacognitive:
The ability to
reflect on and
adjust necessary
skills and
knowledge
including general
strategies,
assessing demands,
planning one’s
approach and
monitoring
progress
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Development officers
reflect on their
performance ability,
knowledge, and
benchmarks during
the development,
implementation, and
evaluation of the
engagement strategic
plan for raising donor
participation.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

47
Development officers
need to know how to
engage (and
communicate) with
alumni donors as well
as how to utilize the
knowledge gained in
order to complete
goal-oriented tasks
related to raising
donor participation
among the targeted
constituency. (P)
HP Yes Procedural:
Knowledge of the
skills and
procedures
involved with the
task, including
techniques,
methods, and
necessary steps.
(Pajares, 2006).
Development officers
apply the appropriate
steps during
individual interviews,
to determine whether
their daily task-
oriented
responsibilities are in
alignment with the
overall goals of the
organization.

The development officers interviewed were lacking procedural knowledge about how to
connect to, communicate with, and cultivate alumni donors of varying affinity groups, including
but not limited to alumni, regardless of background. This gap greatly impacted the rate of
participation among alumni donors and continues to be determinant of the greater goals of the
organization and mission. A recommendation to close this gap in performance has been
identified based on the research aligned with the validated knowledge influence. Based on
Krathwohl’s (2002) findings, the recommendation is to evaluate development officers’
performance ability, knowledge, and benchmarks during the development, implementation, and
evaluation of the engagement strategic plan for raising donor participation. This effort would
provide the necessary training, coaching, and accountability to support their learning. This
recommendation would also provide a greater sense of clarity on next steps and how each step is
aligned for achieving greater results.
The recommendation is to find an effective alternative solution for addressing the gap in
performance. Doing so could allow for the creation of possible solutions through the lens of a
social cognitive approach (Bandura, 2001). For example, having an evaluator and training aid
would provide a holistic and beneficial approach to learning (Griffin, 2012). This
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

48
recommendation also systematically provides a benchmark for learning a complex concept and
would allow each officer to improve based on personal performance growth over time and
evaluation (Hatry & Newcomer, 2004). This recommendation is an integrative approach and
closely aligns with the previous consideration of transparency, context, and clarity—affording
one of the greatest potential impacts on closing knowledge-based performance gaps for
development officers.
Based on Pajares’s (2006) findings that describe procedural knowledge as the skills and
procedures involved in a task—including techniques, methods, necessary steps—the
recommendation is to evaluate the role and responsibility of each fundraising officer. Through
individual interviews, I was able to determine whether their daily task-oriented responsibilities
were in alignment with the overall goals of the organization. This recommendation affords the
opportunity to “procedure check” and verify that the input matches the intended outcome. This
effort would provide development officers with more than just knowledge gained; it would
provide an objective way to track successes, failures, strengths, and opportunities related to
achieving higher alumni donor participation rates. Pajares found that providing many
opportunities of instructional support and feedback increased performance, productivity, and
self-efficacy.
According to the research, the more individuals know about who they are and how they
contribute, the stronger their level of commitment, engagement, and productivity (Parjares,
2006). As such, the organization has an obligation to support the personal and professional
development of its employees—especially when tasked with a challenging and sensitive project
that involves multiple stakeholders. The gap analysis applied in this project can detect a lack of
proper training and insufficient information being shared about how to succeed (Clark & Estes,
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

49
2008). In addition, the research shows that effective learning involves supporting stakeholders
during the initial implementation process, while interacting during systems of collaboration (Van
Velsor, 2009). Therefore, the following recommendation is even more invaluable for each
fundraising officer in order to be successful: learn a new skill and approach, and have the
support, guidance, and analytical involvement from their supervisors and through professional
development.
Motivational Recommendations
The data collected for this research indicated at least two key motivational influences
verified as highly probable. These influences directly impact organizational goal attainment and
reduce the likelihood of stability and effectiveness throughout the organization. Table 7 shows
the motivational influences as well as their respective probability of validity. These influences
are based on common motivational indicators and are then prescribed recommendations aligned
with each factor. One such influence relates to expectancy value: the belief that a given behavior
will or will not lead to a given outcome; also beliefs about the future expectancy of success.
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The other principal and motivational influence directly related to this
research is self-efficacy, which explains how individuals often perceive their own abilities based
on their experiences, environments, peers, and understanding of the world. (Bandura, 1991). The
gap in performance was identified and assigned as high priority with a high probability and was
aligned to context-specific recommendation that will enable development officers within the
organization to strengthen their performance.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

50
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Fundraisers need to
believe that goal-setting,
strategic planning, and
innovation will lead to
positive and impactful
results in their efforts to
raise Alumni engagement
and participation. (EV)
HP Y Expectancy Value
The belief that a
given behavior will
or will not lead to a
given outcome;
also beliefs about
the future
expectancy of
success. (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Provide models who are
credible peers and
varying institutions that
can foster the positive
value of personal effort in
goal-setting, strategic
planning, and innovation
for alumni donor
retention.
Development officers
need to feel confident that
they can drive and
increase participation
through increased
targeted messaging and
engagement. (SE)
HP Y Self-Efficacy
Individuals often
perceive their own
abilities based on
their experiences,
environments,
peers, and
understanding of
the world.
(Bandura, 1991).
Allow development
officers opportunities for
guided practice and
targeted feedback during
each strategic planning
meeting in order to build
and/or maintain
confidence in ability to
meet/exceed goals.

I chose a recommendation rooted in expectancy value to close this gap in performance;
this would suggest that modeling behavior could indeed serve as a method for improved
effectiveness and efficiency (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, providing models in the form of
credible peers and varying institutions can foster the positive value of personal effort in goal-
setting, strategic planning, and innovation for alumni donor retention. This recommendation is
aligned to the influence and allows the organization to provide a demonstration of ideal
performance as it relates to cultivating alumni donors and raising alumni participation rates,
particularly among alumni donors and other affinity groups.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

51
When tackling a problem or project, one of the best motivational influences is how well
an employee believes in his or her own ability. This theory points to the level of value one places
on completing the task. High (or low) expectations prior to starting a project directly correlate to
the level of impact one initiates or engages in at the time of performance. Employees tend to
increase their level of contribution when they fully believe in their ability to be successful. An
employee’s expectancy values can be measured by the amount of confidence an employee
showcases as it relates to their knowledge, skill, or experience in a given area (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Clark and Estes (2008) have stated that “beliefs are almost everything.” This assertion
suggests that individuals who have optimistic and positive beliefs about their skills and talents
are more inclined to pursue goals and achieve intended performance outcomes. Based on self-
efficacy indicators, each fundraising officer would need supportive measures in place to
encourage a dynamic change in belief as it relates to their ability to create a positive impact
through innovation and change (e.g., communication segmentation). In addition, the belief that a
given behavior will or will not lead to a given outcome, or expectancy outcome, is equally
pivotal for utilizing motivation to improve the outcomes (Wigfield, 2014). Expectancy value, is a
critical component for evaluating outcomes—not merely one's own ability. For example,
development officers will be able to narrow their focus on meeting and exceeding goals because
leadership and executive staff will re-prioritize this approach as a key factor in creating
organizational change. The aligned and context-specific recommendation for this motivation
influence is to allow development officers opportunities for guided practice and targeted
feedback during each strategic planning meeting in order to build and/or maintain confidence in
their ability to meet/exceed goals. Based on this aligned recommendation, there should be an
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

52
increase in performance and a direct benefit to the donor and thus to the organization’s goals.
Regular feedback strengthens self-efficacy and promotes a stronger sense of skill-level and
quality of work.
A key factors of motivational influence for donor retention and cultivation is self-
efficacy. As described in the research, self-efficacy is how an individual perceives his/her own
abilities based on his/her experiences, environments, peers, and understanding of the world
(Bandura, 1991). The theory acknowledges that, as it relates to motivational factors, your unique
perception becomes your unique reality (Pintrich, 2003). Employees develop self-efficacy by
observing and performing tasks and identifying a concept of self-effectiveness and importance.
Organization Recommendations
The data collection for this research defined organization influences that measure gaps in
performance for attaining the overall mission, vision, and goal of the institution. Organizational
influences predict how the environment in an organization directly contributes to work
performance and effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research has shown that social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships—such as reciprocal teaching—facilitate
construction of new knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). Evidence from that same literature
suggests that through organizational culture, targeting training and instruction for the
individual’s independent performance level and level of assisted performance promote optimal
learning. Having sourced the gap in performance when conducting interviews with development
officers (staff) as well as examining protocol and policy documents over the past 2 years, I found
that two influences seemed to have the most significant impact on organizational behaviors tied
to goal attainment. As indicated in Table 8, the influence of cultural modeling and lack of trust is
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

53
validated and highly probable. Table 8 also shows an aligned recommendation based on the two
factors and is context specific to each influence.
Table 8
Summary of Organizational Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The development office
must acknowledge (and
be ready to rectify)
issues of low morale
and hostility stemming
from lack of trust in the
collaborative process,
particularly around new
knowledge and
innovation. (CM)
V Y Social interaction,
cooperative learning,
and cognitive
apprenticeships (such
as reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction
of new knowledge
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006).
The development office
must acknowledge and
provide resources for issues
related to low morale and
lack of trust by having
individual contributors
perform task-oriented
projects with other
development officers.

The organization needs
to have a common and
consistent
understanding of team
and organizational
goals. It also needs to
gain a common and
consistent
understanding of team
and organization goals.
(CS)

HP Y Targeting training and
instruction between the
individual’s
independent
performance level and
their level of assisted
performance promotes
optimal learning (Scott
& Palincsar, 2006).

The development office
must develop a
comprehensive strategic
planning process with a
priority-focus on goal
setting based on both
individual and assisted
performance, incorporating
feedback and evaluation
along the way.

Approximately 70% of the full-time development officers expressed a lack of trust in the
organization’s ability to provide the necessary tools and strategies to be successful. The lack of
trust led to a dearth of efforts toward strategic redesign, which could lead to improvement. Clark
and Estes (2008) indicated that organizational performance increase when employees
communicate and are transparent about their process. However, without trust, these attributes are
hardly ever revealed, and therefore are never benefited from in application. This finding suggests
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

54
that development officers would profit from the aligned recommendation to provide resources
for issues related to low morale and a lack of trust by having individual contributors perform
task-oriented projects with other development officers; for example, initiating a “think-tank”
collaborative development process for problem solving that would include weekly dedicated
project time with a cohort of peers in order to build trust and transparency.
According to Schein (1985), organizational culture can be defined as a shared
understanding of assumptions that are observed and repeated, becoming the cultural norm
overtime, regardless of merit, consideration, or effectiveness. Clark and Estes (2008) asserted
that culture is a powerful part of any organization’s framework and impacts the beliefs, core
values, and emotions of its employees and the setting that surrounds them. Organizational culture
influences nearly every aspect of how well or how poorly an organization does depending on
how the organization’s employees are affected and aware of the setting-event impacting how
individuals think and behave.
Clark and Estes (2008) explained that when procedures and protocols are aligned and
communicated across all levels, organizational performance increases. In the case of this study,
development officers in higher education must allow room for fostering a better, more effective
cultural model built from trust and communication. Sixty percent of participants in this study
believed that the organization did not have a common and consistent understanding of team and
organizational goals. Based on these findings, the most aligned recommendation for
improvement is for the development office to develop a comprehensive strategic planning
process with a priority-focus on goal setting based on both individual and assisted
performance—incorporating feedback and evaluation along the way(Scott & Palincsar, 2006).
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

55
Transparency within an organization is imperative; particularly within a non-profit
organization or academic institution (Auger, 2014). Coupled with a desire to fundraise from
community stakeholders, transparency is essential, as it aids in rebuilding and re-engaging trust.
Auger (2014) identified two types of transparency: reputation and communication. As it relates
to the effective cultivation and retention of donors, the organization must prioritize its ability to
be forthright in the connections it builds with its community.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of this study was the threats to internal validity from inadequate responses
and/or dishonesty on the part of an individual participant.
Conclusion
The purpose of the project was to evaluate alumni and parent donor participation by
examining current donor cultivation fundraising strategies for alumni and parents across the
higher education development field. Analysis focused on the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational structures correlated with achieving an increase in alumni donor contribution,
which directly impacts the organizational overall goal. Applying the conceptual framework of
the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model (2008), I was able to identify gaps in performance
based on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences as well as provide insight into
analyzing current outcomes, accessing the need for intervention, providing a programmatic and
strategic solution, and implementing and evaluating organizational change.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

56

Figure 2. Recommendations for increased donor cultivation and retention for higher education
development officers. (Consistent and shared professional development practices in three key
areas.)
The recommended areas of focus for improving core competencies are through
professional development training in the following areas marketing and public relations, strategic
planning, and project management. By building a performance gap conceptual framework, this
study was able to identify the four key areas of need for development offices struggling to meet
or exceed high-performance in donor cultivation and retention. The hope is that by implementing
the recommendations of this study, development officers can increase the rate of donor
participation, thus building life-long donor connections.

Strategic
Planning
Profject
Management
Marketing
and Public
Relations
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

57
References

Achor, S. (2010). The happiness advantage: The seven principles of positive psychology that
fuel success and performance at work. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a
multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation,
emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and
development (pp. 273–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Andreasen, A. R. (2012). Rethinking the relationship between social/nonprofit marketing
and commercial marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 36–41.
Araujo, T., Neijens, P., & Vliegenthart, R. (2015). What motivates consumers to retweet
brand content? Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 284–295.
Atchley, K. (2014). Who gives a dollar? A qualitative study of alumni donors (Unpublished
honors thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Auger, G. A. (2014). Trust me, trust me not: An experimental analysis of the effect of
transparency on organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4), 325–343
Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287. doi10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Barber, P., & Levis, B. (2013). Donor retention matters. Urban Institute: Center on Nonprofits
and Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/research/publication/donor-
retention-matters
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

58
CASE. (2015). Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.case.org/
CASE. (2019). Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. Research Brief.
Voluntary Support of Education. Retrieved from http://www.case.org/
Charity Navigator. (2018). U.S. charitable giving for education. Retrieved from
https://www.charitynavigator.org/
Charles, C., & Kim, M. (2016). Do donors care about results? An analysis of nonprofit arts
and cultural organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(4), 864–884.
Cherniss, C. (2004). Intelligence, emotional. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 315–321). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2004.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing;
Cox, T. H. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness.
Academy of Management Executive, 5(3) 45–56.
Drezner, N. D. (2009). Why give?: Exploring social exchange and organization identification
theories in the promotion of philanthropic behaviors of African-American millennials at
private HBCSs. International Journal of Education Advancement, 9(3), 147–165.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Education Advisory Board (EAB). (2015a). The meteoric rise of parent giving programs: A new
source of fundraising revenue.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

59
Education Advisory Board (EAB). (2015b). Reorienting toward the top: Targeted strategies for
high-value parent fundraising. Retrieved from https://www.eab.com/research-and-
insights/advancement-forum/studies/2015/reorienting-toward-the-top
Education Advisory Board (EAB). (2018). The new rules of engagement: Five strategies for
building the next generation of alumni leaders and volunteers. Retrieved from
https://www.eab.com/research-and-insights/advancement-forum/infographics/new-rules-
of-engagement
Feng, S. (2014). Getting lapsed donors back: An empirical investigation of relationship
management in the post-termination stage. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 26(2), 127–141.
Fisher Liu, B. (2012). Toward a better understanding of nonprofit communication management.
Journal of Communication Management, 16(4), 388–404.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gallo, M. (2012). Beyond philanthropy: Recognizing the value of alumni to benefit higher
education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 1–15.
Gasman, M., & Bowman, N. (2013). Engaging diverse college alumni: The essential guide to
fundraising. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kroeger, F. (2012). Trusting organizations: The institutionalization of trust in interorganizational
relationships. Organization, 19(6), 743–763.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

60
Macchiette, B., & Roy, A. (1993). Affinity marketing: What is it and how does it work? Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 2(1), 55–66.
Martin, M., Moriuchi, E., Smith, R., Moeder, J., & Nichols, C. (2015). The importance of
university traditions and rituals in building alumni brand communities and
loyalty. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 19(3), 107–118.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McAlexander, J., Koenig, H., & DuFault, B. (2014). Advancement in higher education:
the role of marketing in building philanthropic giving. Journal or Marketing for
Higher Education, 24(4), 243–256.
McDonough, K. (2017). Alumni perspectives about philanthropically supporting their
alma mater (Unpublished dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moody, J. (2018). 10 universities where the most alumni donate. U.S. News Report.
Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-
college/articles/universities-where-the-most-alumni-donate
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Common Core of Data, CCD. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_105.50.asp
Osborn, D., Alkezweeny, J., & Kecskes, K. (2015). Beyond the university: An initiative
for continuing engagement among alumni. Metropolitan Universities, 26(2), 171–187.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http:/www.education.com/reference
/article/self-efficacy-theory.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

61
Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Building donor loyalty: The antecedents and role of
commitment in the context of charity giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 18(2), 47–68
Savage, M. (2017). National Survey of College and University Parent Programs. University of
Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.aheppp.org/assets/parent-program-
research/2017.pdf
Stephenson, A., & Bell, N. (2014). Motivation for alumni donations: a social identity
perspective on the role of branding in higher education. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(3), 176–186.
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J, & Volberda, H. W. (2007). On the evolution of trust,
distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships. Group
and Organization Management, 32(4), 407–428.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

62
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders and Sampling Criteria
Participating Stakeholders
In an effort to streamline and narrow the focus of organizational influence, assessment,
and evaluation, the stakeholder group consisted of development officers from several public and
private colleges and universities within the United States. This group served the effort to garner
the relevant data needed in order to build and propose a solution to address the problem of
practice (e.g., a low participation rate overall, particularly among alumni and parent
populations). The participating stakeholders’ group shared the same overall field, but ranged in
position, location, and experience. A total of 10 interviews was conducted.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
 Criterion 1. Development staff with a minimum of 2 years (24 months) of employment
at an accredited 4-year public or private university or college.
 Criterion 2. Development staff with objectives/goals pertaining to donor participation.
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
For this qualitative study, it was imperative that the collection of data represent the
realities of the research. Data were collected or analyzed for the sole purpose of this study.
According to research, it is important that the participants selected for the study are relevant to
the research itself (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The rationale for the selection was that the
participants within the criteria had a collective and unique experience that allowed them to
directly address the purpose of the study. The strategy consisted of a data collection in the form
of 12 interview questions. Each interview lasted approximately 30–45 minutes, not to exceed 1
hour.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

63
Appendix B: Interview Questions
Interview Questions

Interview Questions (Development Officers/DO)

1. How would you describe or identify your departments most significant goal?

2. What is your organization’s alumni donor participation rating?

3. How would you describe your organization’s alumni donor participation rating
compare to similar/peer institutions?

4. What are your strategic challenges and advantages related to increasing alumni and
parent donor retention?

5. What is your understanding of how marketing impacts donor cultivation and retention?

6. How does your organization measure the success of donor retention?

7. How would you define or describe “affinity groups”?

8. How do you motivate yourself to do your best work?

9. What kinds of strategies does your organization use to keep you motivated and inspired
to do your best work?

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

64
10. What would you say is your organization’s greatest strength and weakness in
motivating you to reach goals, learn new things, and be innovative? Does your
organization encourage or require professional development training?

11. In your opinion, what organizational factors impact your organization’s ability to be
successful?

12. What additional information can you provide regarding marketing strategies you use to
increase donor retention of young alumni donors?

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

65
Appendix C: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Table C-1
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on Donor Cultivation Strategies for

Alumni and Parent its impact on Donor Giving and Retention.

Influence Influence Type
Development officers need to understand
effective communication strategies.

Knowledge: Declarative conceptual
Development officers need to understand role
expectations and how to engage alumni and
parent donors.

Knowledge: Declarative conceptual
Development officers need to understand
effective marketing strategies.

Knowledge: Metacognitive
Development officers need to feel there is value
in participating in team culture.

Motivation: Expectancy Value
Development officers need to feel confident that
they can drive and increase participation through
increased targeted messaging.

Motivation: Self-Efficacy
Development officers need to feel that the entire
team benefits from having a shared goal.

Motivation: Expectancy Value
The organization needs to understand
connection, transparency, and engagement
positively impact alumni support

Cultural Model
The organization needs to support the
fundraising culture and invest in marketing
innovative strategies.

Cultural Model
The organization needs to have a process to
implement and support the best practices to
increase alumni donor participation.

Cultural Setting

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

66
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Based on the qualitative components for this data collection, it was extremely important
that all measures applied work collaboratively in order to increase and maintain the credibility
and trustworthiness of the study. The methodology approach that was applied was a combination
of two important components: managing research bias and reactivity. Maxwell (2013) described
two threats to the credibility and validity of any participant study: research bias and reactivity.
Credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research suggest that the findings are
reliable, clear, and accurate regardless of bias or preexisting ideologies that may exist for both
the researcher and participant(s) (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Due to the fact that the researcher
was also a development officer and connected to the marketing strategy used to direct alumni
and parent donor participation in one of the offices assigned for research and analysis, it was
important to address any potential bias that could cause a disruption in the data collection
process. In an effort to monitor and manage any pre-existing bias, the researcher included a
statement that outlined the commonalities of subject matter and positionality as well as their
personal connection to the sensitivity of the collected data. In addition, due to the subject matter,
reactivity could not be completely eliminated, but it was monitored and managed by practicing
self-reflection before conducting each interview and by taking mental notes of the thoughts and
personal experiences that could lead to research bias and defusing them prior to conducting the
survey. These two important components, in conjunction, increased the credibility and
trustworthiness of the data collection and of the overall study.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

67
Appendix E: Ethics
In an effort to streamline and narrow the focus of organizational influence, assessment,
and evaluation, the stakeholder group only focused on alumni and parent donors from 4-year
private and public colleges and universities. The researcher’s responsibility to this research was
bound by an ethical set of guidelines in place to ensure respectful and equitable treatment for all
human participations. The guidelines acted as an agent in governing the protection of welfare
and dignity of each individual asked to contribute their ideas, experiences, and beliefs.
For the purposes of this research, informed consent was a verbal and written voluntary
agreement, in which the contributor (development officer) had a basic understanding of the
research design and potential outputs and outcomes. The researcher ensured that participation
was voluntary by reminding the participants that their decision to take part in this study was at
their own discretion and free will. The participant’s confidentiality was held in confidence and
the approach was always geared to ensuring that their identity will be withheld in all future
reporting. In fact, as with most qualitative data, it was the researcher’s responsibility to
determine the difference between all of the information that was collected over the course of the
study and that which became data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher was a member of one of the organizations and was in a position of
program management. Be that as it may, the researcher had no direct governance, or influence
over, the stakeholder group participating in this study. The stakeholders/participants did not
report to researcher/administer, and the administer/researcher did not report to the stakeholder;
therefore, there were fewer conflicts of interest related to obligation and expectation based on
intimidation. The study took place both on campus and online (via survey and virtual classroom
focus groups). As a member of the engagement team within the institution, this researcher was
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

68
able to provide a stronger understanding of what our alumni consider measurable increases in
engagement and connection to the institution and how that connection may/or may not influence
participation and giving. This research might also help the study uncover the social
constructivism that exists within the development field of higher education, both internally and
externally. Social constructivism refers to when individuals seek understanding of the world in
which they live and work and how they develop subjective meaning (Creswell, 2017).
Potential assumptions and biases that were the researcher’s affiliation to the organization
as well as his/her own natural ties to existing affinity groups—including race, sexual orientation,
and socioeconomic status, which were part of the affinity groups chosen for this study.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

69
Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Developing the evaluation and implementation plan was a key component to furthering
the organization’s goal and strategic process. The framework that best activated and integrated
this plan was the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This step-
by-step process is based on a series of levels of evaluation. The framework asserts a practice of
goal setting with the “end in mind.” By understanding the organization’s vision, mission, and
goal—the model creates a connector from point Z to point A—recommending approaches that
not only fit with the organization but that would ultimately further their external and internal
outcomes. The framework of the Kirkpatrick Model is completed in three parts, assessment,
identification, and implementation. Developing the implementation and evaluation procedure
allows for a stronger connection to the organization’s goals and its strategic plan.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The purpose of the project was to evaluate alumni and parent donor participation by
examining multiple higher education development offices’ current and pre-existing donor
cultivation strategies. The analysis focused on the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational structures correlated to achieving an increase in alumni donor contribution, which
directly impacts each organizational overall goal. The benchmark was set to above 50% alumni
participation by three unique institutions. The stakeholders of focus for this analysis was
development officers at 4-year colleges and universities.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In an effort to align our intended outcomes with our strategic vision and leading
indicators, development officers need to ensure that both the outcome and the metrics and
method are integrated, implemented, and evaluated properly. Table F-1 outlines the desired
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

70
external and internal outcomes, the way in which they were measured, and how data were
collected and evaluated. There were three external outcomes including an increase in the number
and alumni donors, improved sensitivity and prioritization of alumni of color as well as a
significant increase in the feeling of connection to the college. The external outcomes were
geared to an increase in motivation, morale, innovation, and creativity as well as collaboration,
with a belief that this arrangement is closely tied to an increase in alumni donor contribution and,
therefore, in alignment with the overall stakeholder goal for the organization.
Table F-1

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased number of alumni
donors.
Percentage of alumni donors who
gave in the current fiscal year as
opposed to the previous.
Capture donor analytics from the
college’s database (net-community
software) and compare with previous
years.
A significant increase in the
feeling of connection and
affinity for the college as a
whole by alumni.
Alumni participants indicating an
increase in positive connection to the
institution.
Annual and Quarterly Alumni
Satisfaction Survey.
Improved sensitivity and
prioritization of alumni of color
and alumni with diverse
backgrounds.
The number of dissatisfaction notes,
emails, calls, and comments
decreasing regarding the “alumni
portrayal” in communications
materials.
Alumni correspondence regarding
institutional assessment regarding
outreach and external relations into
the constituent services database.
Internal Outcomes
Increased motivation to be
creative and innovate when
working on targeted marketing
campaigns.
An increased number of strategic
campaign proposals being presented
during team meetings.
Review of current strategic planning
document and the input column.
Increased level of collaboration
across teams/departments
working on annual giving.
An increase in number of project
meetings with multiple stakeholders
present.
Track quarterly meeting invitations
housed in via the Asana Software and
compare all meeting invitations from
the previous quarter to current day.
Increased morale of employees
working on raising development
and fundraising projects.
The number of reports of increased
morale and satisfaction
Track and compare all employee
feedback related to satisfaction and
morale through End-of-Term Survey.
An increased level of alumni
donor contributions.
Number of dollars given Review of quantitative data retrieved
from previous and current results.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

71
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
Development officers across the department, regardless of tenure or division, were the
key stakeholders for this study. The critical behaviors necessary for the greatest impact are based
on metrics, method, and also timing for evaluation, with timing and consistency, perhaps, being
the most critical component (Kirkpatrick, 2016). For example, (CB1) development officers must
develop a knowledge of best practices in engagement and marketing specific to their area and
apply said skill-set in their daily application, which can be measured through professional
development workshops (Inclusive Development Engagement Approaches in Leadership). The
success of Professional Development can then be measured through attendance and evaluation
bi-weekly for the length of the program. Table F-2, below, lists those key critical behaviors,
metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation.
Table F-2

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Development officers develop
knowledge of best practices in
engagement and marketing to
donors and apply skill in daily
practice.
Number of
professional
development
workshops attended
Workshop sign-in
sheet
Bi-
Weekly
(for 3
months)
2. Development officers develop
knowledge of
previously ineffective
approaches taken to improve
donor outcomes, and document
that for future strategic planning.
Development officers
go through strategic
planning workshop
that focus on cost-
effectiveness analysis
and learn how to write
impact reports post
campaigns.
Departmental
strategic planning
regarding developing
campaign proposals
based on best
practices and failed
attempts.

Once a
month
3. Development officers know
how to collaborate across all sub-
divisions to meet donor rates
goals.
Number of cohort
meetings with external
departments that result
in goal-setting.
Update from
department lead,
attendance sheet, and
outcome.
Twice a
month
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

72
Required Drivers
In additional to input, outcomes, and evaluation metrics, another important accountability
measure is reinforcement and support for those recommended drivers. That support then needs to
align, as intentionally as possible, to our key metrics. Required drivers provide an effective and
impactful way to promote the implementation of the desired solution by emphasizing and
prioritizing reinforcement, encouragement and motivation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The study showcased the importance and need for the professional development workshop
designed for development officers. The crucial and required drivers for support of key critical
behaviors is staff accountability during the launch, implementation, and evaluation of the
program. Another important driver will be regular and promoted recognition of staff program
achievements, collaboration and community (cohort-based), check-ins and motivational
communication as well as observation and active listening division and experience across levels.
Table F-3 outlines those recommend drivers to support critical behaviors of development officers
and the timing of each deliverable method.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

73
Table F-3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3, etc.
Reinforcing

Fundraising Leadership Staff provide a workshop session dates and
options.
Launch of program. 1
Development officers meet regularly to discuss strategy and
complete SWOT analysis.
Weekly 2
Development officers will collaborate with campus partners to
discuss overall community programming and map out next steps.
Bi-weekly 2, 3
Fundraising 0fficer reflective sessions with one another on their
performance ability, knowledge, and benchmarks during the
development, implementation, and evaluation of the engagement
strategic plan for raising donor participation.
Weekly 2
Development officers apply job aids on the appropriate steps
during individual interviews, to determine whether their daily task-
oriented responsibilities are in alignment with the overall goals of
the organization.
Daily, Weekly, and
Monthly
(benchmarks)
2, 3
Encouraging

Fundraising leadership meet to share workshop and collaboration
successes across the division.
Monthly 1, 3
Development officers create digital bulletin board to acknowledge
peers growth and successes.
Monthly 2, 3
Provide development officers models who are credible peers of
varying institutions and can foster the positive value of personal
effort in goal-setting, strategic planning, and innovation for alumni
donor retention.
Bi-Weekly 2, 3
Provide development officers opportunities for guided practice and
targeted feedback during each strategic planning meeting in order
to build and/or maintain confidence in ability to meet/exceed goals.

Bi-Weekly 2, 3
Rewarding

Fundraising leadership staff share digital bulletin-board to publicly
acknowledge officers achievements.
Monthly 2, 3
Monitoring

Officers observe and evaluate learning outcomes and strategies for
donor cultivation during workshops
Bi-Weekly 1
The development office must develop a comprehensive strategic
planning process with a priority-focus on goal setting based on
both individual and assisted performance -- incorporating feedback
and evaluation along the way.

Periodically,
Monthly
1, 2

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

74
Organizational Support
The development office must acknowledge and provide resources for issues related to
low morale and a lack of trust by having individual contributors perform task-oriented projects
with other development officers. In addition, the organization must provide development officers
with the proper tools, resources, strategies, and support necessary to promote an increase in
alumni donor participation and connectedness to the institution as a whole. These priorities and
resources must be agreed-upon and established at the executive leadership level and made to be a
clear expectation for all fundraising and development staff. The professional development
workshop must be made a premier focus with clear and consistent communication about its
intended direct connection to stakeholder goals (e.g., raising the rate of alumni participation and
donors). All organizational support must be aligned to meeting the expectations of the program
and providing impactful tools from that experience in an effort to create organizational change
throughout the institution.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Development officers must have the proper resources, knowledge, and skills to close the gap
in performance and support their goals (Krathwohl, 2001); in this instance, increasing alumni
donor participation. Following implementation of the recommended solutions, development
officers will be able to:
 Learn the skills necessary to better connect and engage with their external audience (e.g.,
alumni donors) through the professional development workshop (procedural).
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

75
 Clearly articulate confidence in their ability to integrate professional development
teachings into their strategic plan for communication and engagement with young and
diverse alumni donors (self-efficacy).
Program
The program will be geared to identifying gaps in performance related to the
communication and engagement practices of development officers and supporting the
organization in its effort to increase knowledge and motivation of the development (fundraising)
department. The professional development program and workshop is a professional development
group that offers in-person and online courses ranging from hours to day-long activities. The
program is broken into two parts: (a) Diversity and inclusion trainings applicable to college
campuses and external relations officers, and (b) Collaborative learning strategies for
fundraisers, including strategic planning, communications strategies, and external relations
practices, and covers a variety of areas, including bias, grouping syndrome, microaggressions,
stereotyping, progressive prejudice, and inequity. The PD also enforces a need for creating a new
or refined values statement, which should be created by the entire group during and/or directly
following the training. The value statement would then be used as an accountability tool for the
executive leadership team.
In theory, a collective understanding of these principles will foster a stronger sensitivity
to exclusionary programming and outreach practices. Next, the professional development
program will spend a significant amount of time with executive leaders, our major gift officers,
and alumni development officers to begin evaluating our external constituents (alumni). Once the
evaluations begin, the firm will work on reporting significance impact reports from the alumni
board, regional volunteer leaders, and event attendees to capture a holistic perspective on the
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

76
alumni engagement experience to uncover their giving and participation patterns and interests. In
the final weeks of the program, a report detailing their results will be delivered with three
possible alternative solutions for programing and the framework to implement a new strategic
plan based on the collaborative exercises developed during the program.
Development officers will receive in-person support, check-ins with both program staff
and executive leadership, and the full program training timeline. Following the workshop
training, development officers will receive feedback and encouragement from leadership staff
who serve as direct advisors to the fundraisers.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
According to Kirkpatrick (2016), there are five elements to learning: knowledge, attitude,
confidence, commitment, and skill. These critical elements are closely aligned to the Gap
Analysis conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table F-4 illustrates that development
officers must be able to showcase procedural and declarative knowledge of their tasks and ability
in order to be most effective in the program and, therefore, in meeting or exceeding their
intended outcome or goal. Development officers must also believe and find value in their
performance and have the confidence and committee to successfully complete the program, task,
and evaluation.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

77
Table F-4
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge benchmarks through active “sharing-
times” and workshop exercises.
During the Professional Development
Workshop Trainings
Use qualitative data (survey evaluations) during
Professional Development Workshop Trainings.
Immediately following the Professional
Development Workshop Trainings
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Showcase efficiency level during training
implementation.
During the Professional Development
Workshop Training/Benchmarks
Demonstrate proficiency and mastery during the
Professional Development Workshop Training
Evaluation.
During Professional Development
Workshop Training/Benchmarks and
Final Assessment
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Complete a preliminary and conclusive
assessment evaluation
Before and After Professional
Development Workshop Training
Capture a sense of “value-added” through
behavioral survey to better understand
significance.
During Professional Development
Workshop Training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Discussions during “group sharing” Workshop
Exercises
During Workshop Training
Discussions with Fundraising Leadership Staff
and Workshop Facilitator/Administrator
Monthly
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Create a strategic plan in collaboration with the
division by developing your areas essential
components and expected outcomes.
During Workshop Final Training
(Implemented Post-Training and
Periodically measured each annually.)

Level 1: Reaction
Observing and measuring the reaction of development officers to the Professional
Developments training is also critical. Identifying and evaluating the reaction of development
officers will afford a clearer portrait of their level of engagement during the professional
development workshops and trainings. The observations will garner a level of interest as well as
perceived relevance and value. Reactions can be evaluated through formal and informal
observations of the program administrator or lead, feedback, and/or surveys (Kirkpatrick, 2016).
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

78
Table F-5 outlines the methods used to determine level reactions and level of engagement by
development officers during the workshops provided by the professional development program.
Table F-5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Workshop Sessions Attendance Weekly
Individual Assessment Check-Ins Bi-Weekly
In-person workshop evaluations Bi-Weekly
Observations from workshop facilitators and Fundraising
Leadership Staff
Monthly
Cross-campus cohort collaborative meetings Monthly
Relevance

Workshop evaluations and surveys Post-Workshop Training
Observations from Workshop facilitators Monthly
Customer Satisfaction

In-Person Workshop Evaluations (Survey) Monthly and then Post-Workshop
Training
Digital Workshop Evaluations from Leadership Staff Post-Workshop Training

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
It is critical to evaluate the program based on both the original desired outcomes and
expected deliverables. Surveys will be administered to executive leadership and development
officers in the department. The survey will consist of a total of 22 questions and will cover
implementation, relatability, feasibility, and overall added value to daily practice. The evaluation
survey will showcase the overall satisfaction, commitment level, and level of confidence in
applying the tools and strategies developed through the professional development workshop and
training. The development officers will be able to express their level of mastery of what was
covered as well as their intended next steps toward meeting the goals of the organization and
department.
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

79
Appendix G: Executive Dissertation Briefing Summary

Problem of Practice
A national trend in the declining rates of Alumni Donor philanthropic support
Currently, there is a need for philanthropic support for Higher Education
 A declining affinity for providing financial support for academic institutions
 A lack of trust and connectedness with one’s own alma-mater
 A changing generational landscape impacted by digital communications
 An increase in the visibility of alternative charities and causes
 Exploring: Stakeholder’s Impact and Influences on Outcomes

Literature Review
Main Areas of Focus:
The Importance of Higher Education
 (Gallo, 2011), (Barber & Levis, 2013), (Osborn & Kecskes, 2015)
Motivational Factors for Giving
 (Aruajo, Neijens, Vilegnthar, 2015), (Charles & Kim, 2016), (Stephenson & Bell, 2014)
Stakeholder’s Program Development for Inclusive Donor Retention and Cultivation
 (Drezner, 2009), (Macchiette & Roy, 1993), (Gasman & Bowman, 2013)
Conceptual Framework: Performance Gap Analysis (K.M.O.)
 (Clark & Estes, 2008); Examining Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

80
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine alumni and parent donor participation through the
evaluating the global context of four-year higher education institutions, both public and private,
within the United States. The analysis will focus on the gaps in knowledge, motivation and
organizational structures correlated toward achieving an increase in alumni donor contribution
which directly impacts the organizational overall goal. The stakeholders of focus for this analysis
are the development officers and executive staff.
Research Questions
1. To what extent are the majority of four-year Colleges and Universities meeting their goal
of cultivating and retaining alumni and parent donors?
2. What is the Development Officer’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to achieving
organizational and departmental goals?
3. What marketing and communication strategies are Development Officers using to
increase donor cultivation and retention of Alumni donors?
4. What are the recommendations for effective alumni and parent donor cultivation
strategies related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences?
Methodology & Stakeholder Participants
Primary Qualitative Study: In-Person Interviews
(10) Development/Fundraising Officers (Staff)
 each participant varying in professional experience, education, location,
gender-identity, and institution type.

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

81
Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average
(Mean)/Total
Public or
Private
PB PV PV PV PB PV PV PB PV PB 6PV, 4PB
Years of
Experience
7 6 12 5 6 11 3 5 14 9 M: 7.8 years

Highest
Level of
Education
B M D B B M B A M B T: 1A, 5B, 3M, 1D
Gender M F M F F F NB M F F T: 6F, 3M, 1NB
Ethnicity B W B W W MX L W L A T: 4W, 2B, 2L, 1A,
1M
Length
Interview
(Minutes)
39 42 47 51 40 37 58 42 44 49 M: 44.9

Key:
Gender: (M) Male, (F) Female, (NB) Non-binary| Ethnicity: (A) Asian, (B) Black, (L) Latino,
(MX) Mixed (W) white
Degrees: (A) Associates, (B) Bachelors, (M) Masters, (D) Doctorate| Institutions: (PB) Public,
(PV) Private

EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

82
Secondary source: Document Analysis
 Leading field-based Annual Report in Higher Education
Development/Fundraising
 Council for Advancement and Support of Education (2018)
Data Collection and Analysis
 Knowledge Findings
 Conceptual knowledge (Alexander, 2004)
 Procedural knowledge (Rueda, 2011)
 Motivation Findings
 Self-efficacy (Bandura, 2006)
 Expectancy value (Eccles, 2004)
 Organization Findings
 Cultural model (Schein, 1985)
 Cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001)

Synthesis and Implications
The framework utilized for this qualitative study allowed the researcher to examine the
commonality and knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in order to better
understand the gaps in performance related to achieving an increase in donor participation
through professional ability and resources related to donor relations strategies used at four year
public and private colleges and universities. Overall, the feedback was fairly consistent,
implicating a lack of shared goals, understanding, and access to professional development
for best practices. These findings will shape the suggested recommendations for increasing
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

83
donor participation rates to a competitive average standard of ultimately 50 percent
alumni donor participation within the next decade. In relation to the interview questions, the
findings were also consistent with the research questions and comments made during each
interview.

Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
Metacognitive Knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002), Procedural Knowledge (Pajares, 2006)
 In short: Development Officers need to know how to build strategic marketing and
engagement plans, specifically for affinity-based audiences; they must be open to
learning, and adapting to, national trends and best-practices within the field.
Motivation Recommendations
Expectancy value (Clark & Estes, 2008), Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1991)
 In short: Development Officers need to believe that goal-setting, strategic planning, and
innovation will lead toward positive outcomes; they must feel confident that their
individual and collective contributions could drive an increase in donor participation
through more intentional and inclusive approaches.
Organization Recommendations
Cultural model (Scott & Palincsar, 2006), Cultural setting (Scott & Palincsar, 2006)
 In short: The Development Office must acknowledge (and be ready to rectify) the issues
of a lack of trust in a collaborative process where skill-levels, foundational knowledge,
desired approaches and, in some cases, shared goals are not in alignment. The
EXAMINING DONOR ENGAGEMENT

84
Organization needs to have a common and consistent understanding of team and
organizational goals.
Conclusion
The recommended areas of focus are improving core competencies are through Professional
Development training in the following areas Marketing and Public Relations (a focus on
inclusion and equity), Strategic Planning, Project Management. Through the use of building a
performance gap conceptual framework, this study was able to identify the four key areas of
need for development offices who are struggling to meet or exceed the high-performance in the
area of donor cultivation and retention. By implementing the identified recommendations made
in this study one of the most key factors by increase the rate of participation thus building life-
long donor connections with alumni and parent constituents.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract At first glance, the traditional donor cycle has not changed very much over the full and multifaceted lifespan of the development profession. Objectively, the donor cycle begins with identification and prospect analysis, and is followed by qualification, cultivation, solicitation, and then stewarding and renewal. With nearly $60 billion in donations going toward education in 2018 (Charity Navigator, 2019), charitable giving and philanthropy clearly remain a prominent and integral source of support for service and mission-centered organizations seeking to create a better tomorrow. However, as the landscape continues to change, and as generations ever evolve in how they engage and interact with the world in which they live, shouldn’t our profession’s approach to philanthropy grow as well? ❧ In an age of digital influencers and social media, the options of support are virtually endless. It has become increasingly apparent that the curation of our donor experience strategies, particularly in higher education, must change organizationally and become not just competitive but, more importantly, consistent and connected. The purpose of this study was to examine development offices, employee aptitude, and performance gaps that may directly impact alumni and parent donor cultivation strategies in private and public colleges and universities. This study sought to explore the development, implementation, and evaluation of the complete donor experience created by development (fundraising) offices, and to understand how that experience impacts retention and connectedness to the institution. This study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to evaluate development offices and officers to determine whether any gaps existed in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that would affect donor retention and alumni and parent participation. This study consisted of the literature review, qualitative interviews, and document analysis to evaluate how development officers could better connect their constituents to their institutions and how to increase the likelihood of gaining a lifelong donor and supporter of the college and/or university.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Institutional advancement in higher education: managing gift officer performance and turnover

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

PDF

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

PDF

Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study

PDF

Professional development and building diversity inclusive educational settings in South Korea: an innovation study

PDF

Exploring the effectiveness of continuing medical education for physicians enrolled in an MBA program

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Parent engagement in higher education and its effect on first generation degree attainment: an innovation study

PDF

Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment

PDF

Strengthening community: how to effectively implement a conflict resolution and peer mediation program on a secondary school campus: an evaluation study

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

Asset Metadata

Creator Kyle, Brandon D. (author)

Core Title Examining donor engagement strategies: an exploratory study of the impact of performance gaps on donor retention and cultivation within higher education development offices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/07/2019

Defense Date 06/11/2019

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

Tag alumni,Development,donor cycle,engagement,Fundraising,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,performance gaps,philanthropy,professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick (committee chair), Keller-Muraszewski, Alison (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email brandkyleone@gmail.com,kyleb@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-209768

Unique identifier UC11663138

Identifier etd-KyleBrando-7760.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-209768 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KyleBrando-7760.pdf

Dmrecord 209768

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kyle, Brandon D.

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