View
220
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
1/148
i
MOTIVATION THROUGH CIRCLES: AN ANAYLSIS OF WOMENS GIVING
CIRCLES ON PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the
School of Human Service Professions
Widener University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
By
Mary Kate Andris
Center for Education
February 2011
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
2/148
ii
Sign off page
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
3/148
iii
Copyright by
Mary Kate Andris
2011
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
4/148
iv
Acknowledgements
Wow, the years have flown by. I told everyone that I would complete my
doctorate work in, at most, five or six years. I swore that I would not take as long as the
others. I studied, I wrote, and I rewrote. Ten years later, I have completed my journey. I
am thrilled with the knowledge I have acquired and the experiences I have had. Two
children and ten years later, I am DONE.
Thank you to my supportive husband, Kevin, and my two adorable boys, Ryan
and Mark, for encouraging me to finish. Thank you to my parents, Ronnie and Ed, and
my mother-in-law, Joan, for reading my numerous drafts and always offering FREE
babysitting so that I could write.
Thank you to my committee, Dean Barr, Dr. Ledoux, and Dr. Lawler for
providing critical feedback that helped me create a qualitative study that was achievable.
Thank you to friends and family who have listened to me carry on about how
womens giving circles are the future of philanthropy and how we need to get more
involved as female philanthropists. I promise you, while this may be a trend in
philanthropy now; it will always be a focus of mine. I will continue to develop new ways
to approach and involve female donors so that they can make an impact through
philanthropy.
May this dissertation be an inspiration for development officers in higher
education to solicit the female donors around them.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
5/148
v
Abstract
Giving to higher education institutions has been a crucial part of the development
of philanthropy in the United States. Today, the literature suggests that new trends, such
as patterns in womens giving habits, are emerging (Bianchi, 2000; Byrne, 2002; Cobb,
2002; Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006). Different methods are being used to further engage
donors to become more involved with charities throughout the United States.
In the last decade, womens philanthropy has increased in popularity as evidenced
by a quote from Taylor and Shaw-Hardy (2006) who write, As the twenty first century
moves ahead, women continue to expand their knowledge, expertise, influence, and
leadership in every aspect of our society, including business, government, and the
nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. Women are poised to become significant
philanthropists as never before, ready to transform the world and themselves in the
process (p. 3).
In order to gain a better understanding of the motivation to create a womens
giving circle within higher education, this qualitative case study investigated and
answered six research questions. These questions addressed the motivation of female
donors to become engaged in womens giving circles and the motivation ofa higher
education institution to create and manage a womens giving circle.
This qualitative work reports the findings collected through observations,
interviews, and surveys of women participating in giving circles at two universities
within the United States. As efforts to engage female donors become more popular, this
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
6/148
vi
case study will shed more light on the philanthropic motivations of female donors. The
researcher plans to add the results of this case study to existing literature on womens
giving circles in higher education.
Findings revealed that members ofwomens giving circles became initially
involved after being personally asked to join a giving circle and were more inclined to
remain involved in it once they maintained their membership for at least one year. This
case study also found that as a result of participation, female members maintained or
increased their gifts to the organization while also increasing the numbers of hours spent
volunteering for the organization. Finally, the research revealed that female members of
giving circles preferred a structured organization with a board, officers, and committee to
help recruit grant applications and distribute funding.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
7/148
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ivAbstract ...........................................................................................................................vTable of Contents ......................................................................................................... viiChapter I ..........................................................................................................................1
Introduction .............................................................................................................1Women in Philanthropy .............................................................................................2Statement of the Problem............................................................................................4Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................5Significance of the Study............................................................................................6Definitions...............................................................................................................6Research Questions ...................................................................................................8
Chapter II .......................................................................................................................10Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................10Philanthropy ..........................................................................................................11
Context in higher education. ..................................................................................12Emerging trends. .................................................................................................16
Giving Circles ........................................................................................................20History of giving circles........................................................................................20Womens giving circles in higher education..............................................................22The establishment of giving circles. ........................................................................22
Conclusion ............................................................................................................25Chapter III .....................................................................................................................26
Methodology..........................................................................................................26
Internal Review Board .............................................................................................28Population and sampling ..........................................................................................29Research design and process .....................................................................................30
Observation........................................................................................................30Survey...............................................................................................................31Interviews. .........................................................................................................32
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................34Researcher Bias ......................................................................................................36Summary...............................................................................................................36
Chapter IV .....................................................................................................................38Findings................................................................................................................38
Portrait of University A............................................................................................38Womens giving circle structure. ............................................................................39Grants administration and voting process. ................................................................42Host..................................................................................................................43
Portrait of University B ............................................................................................44
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
8/148
viii
Womens giving circle structure. ............................................................................44Grant administration and voting process...................................................................47Host..................................................................................................................48
Survey ..................................................................................................................48Demographics.....................................................................................................49
Table 1Question #10 ............................................................................................51Table 2Question #5 ..............................................................................................54Table 3Question #11 ............................................................................................56Observations..........................................................................................................57
ObservationsUniversity A. .................................................................................58ObservationsUniversity B. .................................................................................69
Interviews .............................................................................................................77Interview with ColleenUniversity Bs Chairperson. ................................................84Interview with University AVice President of Development, Assistant Vice President of
Development, and the Major Gifts Officer. ...............................................................89Interview with University B - Vice President of Development. ...................................101
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................107Chapter V ....................................................................................................................108
Summary.............................................................................................................108Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................108Conclusion ..........................................................................................................110Recommendations.................................................................................................113
Recommendations for Higher Education. ...............................................................113Recommendations for Development Professionals. ..................................................115
Future research .....................................................................................................118
References ...................................................................................................................120Appendix A .................................................................................................................125
Correspondence with Key University Development Staff..............................................125Appendix B ..................................................................................................................126
Observation Protocol .............................................................................................126Appendix C ..................................................................................................................127
Member Consent Form ..........................................................................................127Appendix D .................................................................................................................129
Survey on Philanthropic Behavior ............................................................................129Appendix E ..................................................................................................................136
Interview Protocol for Members ..............................................................................136
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................137Interview Protocol for Key Development Staff...........................................................137
Appendix G .................................................................................................................139Development Officer Consent Form .........................................................................139
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
9/148
1
Chapter I
Introduction
In order for an institution of higher education to thrive, philanthropy must exist.
Historically, the American tradition of philanthropy in higher education has made it
possible to sustain colleges through private gifts. Today, the literature on American
higher education and philanthropy suggests that new trends are emerging (Bianchi, 2000;
Byrne, 2002; Cobb, 2002; Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006).
Different methods are being used to further engage donors to give to charities,
including educational institutions, throughout the United States. With the recent decline
of the economy, donors are considering more carefully the size and designation of their
gifts to non-profit charities. Donors have become more deliberate in the designation of
their gifts and are using new funding mechanisms such as family foundations, community
foundations, and charitable gift funds to deliver their financial support (Byrne, 2002;
Cobb, 2002). While small, individual gifts and large-scale foundations are still part of
the philanthropic options, we now have a new model, an entrepreneurial model of
philanthropy(Beeson, 2006, p. 17). This entrepreneurial model includes new methods of
philanthropy and solicitation such as e-solicitation, online giving and social networking
such as Facebook and Twitter. One of the trends gaining popularity includes a
phenomenon called giving circles (Bearman, Beaudoin-Schwartz & Rutnik, 2005).
Organized fund raising programs in higher education began with alumni
associations and annual campaigns. Giving circles gained prominence in the early
1990s as a result of several factors: the rise of new donors and high net-worth individuals
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
10/148
2
who sought engaging ways to give back to society, the increasing desire by individuals to
have a greater voice, and womens increased ability to give money and desire to do so in
a collaborative manner (Bearman, et al., 2005, p. 112). These circles can be defined as a
group of people who pool their money together to make a larger difference or impact on a
project or group of projects (Bearman, 2007b). Sometimes described as a social
investment club, a giving circle is a pooled fund, often hosted or sponsored by a
charitable organization such as a community foundation, through which members make
grants together (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006, p. 110).
Recently, colleges and universities throughout the United States have caught on to
this new trend. For colleges and universities, however, the creation of giving circles is a
relatively new development in the field of university advancement (Beeson, 2006, pp. 8-
9). For example, the University of WisconsinMadison and the University of
CaliforniaLos Angeles created giving circles and although slow to progress, these
programs have grown since their inception and now include a hundred or more higher
education institutions throughout the United States (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006).
Women in Philanthropy
Womens philanthropy is the focus of many development officers in higher
education today. Taylor and Shaw-Hardy (2006) write in their book, The Transformative
Power of Womens Philanthropy, As the twenty first century moves ahead, women
continue to expand their knowledge, expertise, influence, and leadership in every aspect
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
11/148
3
of our society, including business, government, and the nonprofit and philanthropic
sectors (p. 3).
In 1990, Shaw and Taylor (1995) began conducting interviews, focus groups, and
discussions with more than 150 women philanthropists and development professionals to
discuss women and philanthropy. What they found was that women represent an
expanding donor base. They have the potential to bring many more charitable dollars to
the world of philanthropy and want the chance to participate in the change those dollars
bring to the charity of their choice.
It is only recently that women in philanthropy have been addressed in the
literature. In 1997, Sondra C. Shaw and Martha A. Taylor co-founded the Womens
Philanthropy Institute. Their foresight created a forum for topics on women and their
impact on philanthropy. Their first study, conducted in 1995, stated that womens
philanthropy is guided by the Six Cs of Womens Philanthropy create, change,
connect, collaborate, commit, and celebrate. This framework helped explain in an
organized manner the motivation, intent, and goals that women expect when participating
in a giving circle (Shaw & Taylor, 1995).
Nielsen (1996) offered examples of a womans role in philanthropy as a point of
reference to discuss how women are strengthening their role and influence in American
philanthropy. It is clear that the emergence of bigger roles for women in philanthropy
has been paralleled by the phenomenal growth of women as leaders in the private and
public sectors (Whitley & Staples, 1997). Women are poised to become significant
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
12/148
4
philanthropists as never before, ready to transform the world and themselves in the
process. Some even say that the modern women and philanthropy movement is a
revolution (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006, pp. 3-4).
Statement of the Problem
Giving circles have become a phenomenon over the past 20 years in higher
education philanthropy. In recent times, fund raising was solely focused on cultivating
the male donor. College fund raisers have often spent their time soliciting male graduates
because they frequently make more money than their female counterparts, but by doing
so fund raisers have been missing the mark as women earn more and otherwise gain
access to significant financial resources (Matthews, 1991).
Many colleges and universities have recognized this mistake, and have made
increased efforts to engage more female donors by creating opportunities for them to
support female driven programs on campus, to serve on leadership councils, and to sit on
governing boards. In an attempt to further encourage more participation from women,
colleges are creating high-profile committees and boards for women in which to
participate (Taylor & Rappe, 2008). Womens colleges, of which there are few, have
become particularly successful in the development of major gift solicitation by fully
involving their female alumnae in the fund raising process and providing them with
leadership opportunities, recognition and satisfaction that they have achieved something
important (Whitley & Staples, 1997).
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
13/148
5
Recent publications such asAdvancing Philanthropy examine the influences of
womens giving, the impact of giving together, the motivations for giving as a group, and
the influence of the media in womens giving habits (Bearman, et al., 2005; Shaw &
Taylor, 1995; Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006; Whitley & Staples, 1997). During the past
decade, great strides have been made in womens giving through womens funds, the
United Way, universities, giving circles, and community foundations (Taylor & Shaw-
Hardy, 2006, p. 4). Although these publications address the organization and impact of
womens giving, none address the direct impact of womens giving circles on higher
education philanthropy. This qualitative case study analyzed the impact.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this research was to observe, interview and survey women
participating in giving circles at two universities within the United States in order to
examine the impact of womens giving circles on philanthropy in higher education. By
collecting and analyzing qualitative data through interviews, surveys, and observations,
this case study determined the motivations behind members participation in giving
circles, the key development staff managing the circles, and the higher education
institutions hosting the circles. The motivations of women and the impact they have on
higher education philanthropy revealed in this case study will further efforts to better
organize the engagement of female donors.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
14/148
6
Significance of the Study
It is believed by the researcher that evaluating the existing methods in which
women participate in giving in higher education has a profound impact on the literature
published regarding womens giving circles and their success in non-profit organizations.
Such impact brings to light new and improved methods of fund raising specifically from
women by examining the functionality of womens giving circles in theircurrent
existence.
While the literature is rich in the history of philanthropy in higher education, the
topic of womens giving circles is lightly addressed. If the creation of womens giving
circles in higher education is a way to better engage female alumnae donors, institutions
of higher education need to be educated about this topic and encouraged to follow the
trend (Evans, 1997; Strout, 2007; Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006). Furthermore, it is the
goal of this study to bring about awareness of this topic and to encourage higher
education development officers to implement the model of a womens giving circle.
Definitions
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of
these terms throughout the study. The researcher developed all definitions not
accompanied by a citation.
Giving Circles: Giving circles are groups of individuals of all wealth levels and
backgrounds who pool their money and other resources and decide together where to give
them away (Eikenberry & Bearman, 2009). Giving circles are emerging across the
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
15/148
7
country. Although they may take many different forms and have diverse priorities, they
share the goal of pooling donors money, learning, and giving collectively (Bearman,
2007a, p. 1).
Institutional Advancement: The definition of institutional advancement varies
from institution to institution. One institution may define it as encompassing only fund
raising. Another may define it as only relating to public relations and marketing. At
most institutions, it is defined as fund raising and public relationsand all the other
functions that fall under those categories, including alumni affairs, community relations,
foundation board activities, grants, marketing, publications, scholarships, special events,
and web site development (Carter, 2005).
Philanthropy: After the Civil War, certain leaders in the American Social Science
Association agreed that philanthropy implied the impulse to relieve a situation, which
presumably prevented poverty and other social problems by getting to the root of the
cause of the problem (Curti, 1958, p. 421). Over time, philanthropy has matured in its
impact and meanings. Random House Websters Dictionary defines philanthropy as an
altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations
of money, property, or work to needy persons (Nichols, 2001, p. 1454).
Stewardship: Stewardship is the process of using a gift as the donor intended and
communicating that use to the donor. Janet Hedrick (2008) in her book,Effective Donor
Relations, defines stewardship as A process whereby an organization seeks to be worthy
of continued philanthropic support, including the acknowledgement of gifts, donor
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
16/148
8
recognition, the honoring of donor intent, prudent investment of gifts, and the effective
and efficient use of funds to further the mission of the organization (p. 3).
Research Questions
In order to analyze the motivation of womens philanthropy in higher education
today, this case study attempted to answer the following six research questions:
1. What is the motivation of a member to join a womens giving circle at aninstitution of higher education?
2. What does the member plan to gain from membership in the giving circle?3. Has membership changed the members behavior related to giving to and
volunteering in higher education?
4. What is the short-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in thecreation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution?
5. What is the long-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in thecreation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution?
6. Is an institution artificially limiting womens giving in higher education byusing giving circles or are the circles being effectively used as a
stewardship tool to maximize charitable contributions to the institution?
To achieve the research goals of examining the motivations behind members
participation in the giving circles and the benefits to an institution that come with the
creation of a giving circle, the researcher collected information through interviews,
observations, and surveys of the questions brought forth above. Chapter Three further
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
17/148
9
explains the methods used in the design of the study, an explanation of the population and
sampling procedures used, a description of the interview and survey questions, discussion
of the instruments used to collect this information, and a description of the researchers
bias.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
18/148
10
Chapter II
Review of the Literature
Women represent a tremendous growing source of volunteer fund raising
leadership and major gifts in capital campaigns and annual fund appeals. Professional
fund raisers have been alerted to this emerging potential and the need to further develop
this new leadership and support for their causes (Taylor & Rappe, 2008; Whitley &
Staples, 1997). Recent advancements in workforce development have changed the
portrait of a donor to reflect the strides women are making in the business world,
therefore making them more attractive donors (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006).
Demonstrating this expansion of womens knowledge and business acumen, The
Center for Womens Business Research (CWBR) reports annual statistics that make
obvious the impact women have in the financial world. For example, in 2008 the CWBR
reported that female-owned businesses generate $1.9 trillion annually in sales, employ
7.3 million people, and account for 40 percent of all the privately held firms in the United
States (p. 1). As women have gained more control of their finances and wealth, their
role in philanthropy has gained prominence. Women are poised to become significant
philanthropists as never before, ready to transform the world and themselves in the
process (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006). One trend that has begun among womens
philanthropy is the creation of giving circles.
This literature review explores the topic of womens philanthropy in higher
education by first defining philanthropy, its context in higher education, and the role
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
19/148
11
women play in higher education philanthropy. The second section of this literature
review defines giving circles by exploring the history and purpose of their conception,
while also discussing the emerging trend of womens giving circles in the United States,
particularly within higher education. The final section summarizes the literature in the
area of womens philanthropy in higher education.
Philanthropy
Before exploring the literature relating to philanthropy in higher education, it is
important to define the word philanthropy. In 1875, Thomas Wentworth Higginson
reported that the term philanthropy had appeared for the first time as an English word in
The Guide to Tongues, written in 1628. The word was simply philanthropie a loving
of man(Curti, 1958). After the Civil War, certain leaders in the American Social
Science Association agreed that philanthropy implied the impulse to relieve a situation,
which presumably prevented poverty and other social problems by getting to the root of
the cause of the problem (Curti, 1958, p. 421).
Philanthropy was often defined by men of great wealth, such as Peabody,
Carnegie, and Rockefeller, as large-scale giving (Curti, 1958). Philanthropy could also
be defined as donations of land, sheep, cloth and books. Many early philanthropists, such
as Elihu Yale, made generous contribution with gifts of books and property to establish
institutions of higher education, rather than with cash or securities (Sears, 1990).
Over time, philanthropy has evolved its impact and meanings. Random House
Websters Dictionary defines philanthropy as an altruistic concern for human welfare
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
20/148
12
and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy
persons (Nichols, 2001, p. 1454). A definition with more interest in humankind and the
impact philanthropy has on the average person can be found in the Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary definition of philanthropya love of humankind that promotes the
happiness and well-being of others (Stevenson, 2007, p. 2184). The word
philanthropy has grown to include an interest in helping others while satisfying your
own personal needs.
Contextinhighereducation.The history of philanthropy in higher education dates back to the early sixteenth
century when Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII, endowed the first
professorships at Oxford and Cambridge (Collinson, Rex & Stanton, 2003). In Colonial
America, Harvard University founded in 1635 and early gifts were not given in cash but
were given in kind, such as buildings, land, scholarships, and professorships, by
individuals and congregations. For example, John J. Harvards first gifts to Harvard
University included cotton cloth, sheep, a fruit dish, and a pewter flagon amounting to a
mere 30 shillings. Gifts of these times reflected the simplicity of the social and
economic life of the colonial period (Sears, 1990, p. 16).
Similar to the donations to Harvard, Yale University was founded in 1701 with a
donation of books from 10 Connecticut clergymen. Princeton University, the College of
New Jersey at the time, received a restricted gift of 210 acres of land and 1,000 pounds
from the Presbyterian Church and the residents of Princeton with the condition that the
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
21/148
13
college would establish itself on that land within the town of Princeton. Even then
concerned citizens supporting these institutions were pooling their money and
possessions to see to it that the schools thrived (Sears, 1990).
In 1769, with many colleges in dire financial straits, the colonies understood that
the future of institutions of higher education was in jeopardy. Agents for Princeton
University created a subscription program for giving to universities. The subscription
method was created so that average farmers could donate produce and other small gifts to
institutions of higher education. As a result, Princeton collected over 1,000 pounds of
goods and Dartmouth collected over 10,000 pounds of goods, mostly consisting of
produce (Sears, 1990).
In the early 1800s, the education of women was a crucial development within the
world of higher education. The founding of women's colleges created a new interest in
higher education for philanthropists. The first significant female philanthropist was Mrs.
Emma Willard who founded of Troy Female Seminary in 1820. Mrs. Willard opened the
seminary with an initial gift of $4,000, raised through city taxes and private contributions
(Sears, 1990).
In 1836, Miss Mary Lyon led the effort in the creation of a subscription program
to start Mount Holyoke Seminary and College for Women. Her goal was to raise $30,000
through small subscriptions. The gifts ranged from six cents to $1,000 per donor and the
total project raised $27,000. Miss Lyons goal was to put within the reach of students of
moderate means such opportunities that none can find better (Sears, 1990, p. 44). The
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
22/148
14
demand for the education of women was so great at that time that the first class of women
entering Mt. Holyoke consisted of 350 students (Sears, 1990).
In 1871, Sophie Smith left a $400,000 bequest to advance the education of
women, resulting in the establishment of Smith College. Jane Stanford offered to sell her
jewels to further the construction of Stanford University, named after her deceased son
(Whitley & Staples, 1997). Colleges also found a new means of support from alumni and
affluent millionaires connected with the local community (Rudolph, 1990). In time the
friends of the American college would be asked to increase their benefactions in order to
avoid that awful day when the privately endowed independent college would have to turn
to the government for support (Rudolph, 1990, p. 190). Private philanthropy kept
institutions of higher education in existence.
Giving to higher education institutions has been a crucial part of the development
of philanthropy in the United States and is extensively covered in the literature. The first
author to write about philanthropy in higher education was Jesse Brundage Sears in 1922
in his dissertation studies at Columbia University. Sears described the historical
background of American philanthropy in higher education in great detail, explaining the
rises and falls of the economy through the antislavery movement, the womens rights
movement, and the Civil War. He discussed the impact philanthropy had on the
development of higher education.
Although Jesse Sears wrote his dissertation in 1922, his history of philanthropy in
higher education has held its ground. In 1990, Roger Geiger updated Sears vision of
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
23/148
15
philanthropyby writing an introduction to further support Sears previous ideologies of
philanthropy in higher education. Sears history shows how voluntary philanthropic
support was the foundation of the establishment of American colleges and universities
before the twentieth century. Most of the support given went to underwriting the core
educational activities. Sears is complete in his discussions of the first major private and
public gifts to establish universities of all sizes, the advent of endowment giving, the use
of wills and other planned giving tools, and the establishment of foundations benefitting
education. He includes the details of the circumstances around the first few female
philanthropists such as Ms. Willard who are recognized for their milestone gifts in the
establishment of womens colleges (Sears, 1990).
In The History of American Philanthropy as a Field of Research, Curti (1957)
arguesthat philanthropy may not be one of the major culture segments in the American
history of higher education. Curti (1958) points out that American philanthropy in higher
education followed in good part the British pattern of voluntary private support. For
example, a British man by the name of Wilson was the first philanthropist to establish
loan funds for worthy mechanics in England. During the eighteenth century, Benjamin
Franklin was heralded in Colonial America for establishing a loan fund to build the first
hospital in Philadelphia. Although these funds were not being raised for higher
education, Franklin was the first fundraiser in America to establish a method of fund
raising called the matching gift fund drive (Rudolph, 1990).
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
24/148
16
Emerging trends.
Today, the literature on American higher education and philanthropy suggests that
new trends are emerging (Bianchi, 2000; Byrne, 2002; Cobb, 2002; Strout, 2007; Taylor
& Shaw-Hardy, 2006). Significant changes in the way fund raising has occurred in the
past, using a competitive, peer-pressure type model, has been phased out and different
methods are being used to further engage donors with charities throughout the United
States. Byrne (2002) writes in aBusiness Weekcover story entitled The New Face of
Philanthropythat new philanthropy displays an impatient disdain for the cautious and
unimaginative check-writing that dominated charitable giving for decades(p. 1). The
new donor is more ambitious, more strategic in his or her giving, more global in his or
her purpose and demands results of the charitable organization (Byrne, 2002).
In the last 10 years there have been articles written about new philanthropy
which has altered the philanthropic landscape. Cobb (2002) describes:
New philanthropy refers to a variety of late-twentieth century developments
including the significant growth of individual giving in the 1990s, the creation of
new foundations, the rise of such new funding mechanisms as charitable gift
funds and e-philanthropy, the expansion of community foundations, and the
emergence of venture philanthropy (p. 125).
Cobb (2002) goes on to say that this new philanthropy can be attributed to an
increase in available funds, an expansion in the vehicles used for giving, and a greater
democratization in philanthropy. These developments have expanded the depth of donors
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
25/148
17
to charitable organizations by providing new opportunities for donors to be involved and
make a difference.
The era ofnew philanthropy described by Byrne (2002) and Cobb (2002) is
demonstrated by the substantial increase in charitable donations by individuals during the
1990s and early 2000s. Contributions grew by 50 percent during that period, from $110
billion annually in 1990 to $164 billion in 2001. By harking back to the individualistic
style of giving practiced by Carnegie, these donors are ushering in a new era of
philanthropy (Byrne, 2002, p. 1). Many new philanthropistsboth men and women
are attaching strings or limitations to their gifts having the organization meet milestone
goals or produce measurable results before receiving their funding (Byrne, 2002).
Byrne (2002), Cobb (2002) and others claim the era ofnew philanthropy can be
expanded upon by using unconventional methods of giving such as giving circles.
Giving circles represent one mechanism that has seen a surge in popularity. They have
been described as a cross between a book club and an investment group and attract a
diverse group of donorsboth men and womenacross a wide spectrum of ages (Jones,
2000).
Another major change to expand the scope of philanthropy is the rise of the
modern womens philanthropy movement. As women began obtaining economic
independence through self-employment or the change in the marital tax laws, they gained
control of economic assets previously unknown to them (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006,
p. 11). The current approach to attract female donors is based on creating a connection
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
26/148
18
rather than competition, relationships rather than individualism (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy,
2006, p. 4). This expansion in access to financial resources and the ability to make a
difference through giving is what makes philanthropy attractive to all donors, and to
women in particular.
Although American colleges and universities have extended higher education to
nearly three generations of women since World War II, they have often failed to win
womens fiscal allegiance (Matthews, 1991, p. 2). And until recently, fund raising was
solely focused on the male donor and winning his favor for his contributions. College
fund raisers have spent time soliciting male graduates because they make more money,
but have been missing the mark on the solicitation of women (Matthews, 1991). As
evidenced by the literature, much has been written on female philanthropy in higher
education. Women are poised to become significant philanthropists as never before,
ready to transform the world and themselves in the process. Some even say that the
modern women and philanthropy movement is a revolution (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy,
2006, pp. 3-4).
Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the University of Wisconsin
Madison and the University of CaliforniaLos Angeles created womens philanthropy
programs. Although slow to develop, these programs have grown since their inception
and now include a hundred or more higher education institutions throughout the United
States (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006).
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
27/148
19
One of the indicators of the growing trend in womens philanthropy in higher
education can be seen through the results of capital campaigns for womens colleges. It
is clear that the emergence of bigger roles for women in philanthropy has been paralleled
by the phenomenal growth of women as leaders in the private and public sectors
(Whitley & Staples, 1997, p. 15). Development officers at womens colleges have
become more successful in the solicitation of major gifts by involving the women in the
fund raising process. Many development offices are providing the women with
leadership opportunities and recognition for their contributions to higher education
(Whitley & Staples, 1997).
For example, Wellesley Colleges campaign, which ended in 1992, raised $168
million with a total of 32 women making gifts of $1 million or more (Whitley & Staples,
1997). The University of Pennsylvania created a Trustees Council of Penn Women with
the goal of providing an opportunity for alumnae to become more involved. To become
members of the council, women are invited and asked to give a minimum of $2,500
annually. Since the groups inception, its members have donated $173 million to the
University of Pennsylvania (Strout, 2007).
Women philanthropists bring a depth and breadth of experience to the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. The womens philanthropy program at the University works with
enthusiastic faculty and staff leaders who are identifying and creating funding
opportunities to help create a better world and to advance women (Taylor & Rappe,
2008, p. 1). All in all, more institutions of higher education have spent an enormous
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
28/148
20
amount of time cultivating female donors. Many have spent time considering new ways
to appeal to alienated alumnae. A growing number of institutions are exploring ways to
further engage female donors - through womens honor societies or giving circles. While
this trend is emerging, the literature on womens giving circles in higher education is
lacking.
Giving Circles
Giving circles are emerging across the country. Although they may take many
different forms and have diverse priorities, they share the goal of pooling donors money,
learning, and giving collectively (Bearman, 2007a, p. 1). While they originate with a
group of donors with similar interests, giving circles are created to make a larger impact
than one gift can.
History of giving circles.In 1797 a group of New York women joined together with a purpose in mind.
Their mission was well defined and their goal was evident. As they explained, because
no other charitable resources existed to succor that large class of sufferers who have
peculiar claims on the public beneficence, poor widows with small children, they had
elected to do it themselves (McCarthy, 1990, p. 2).
This group gave gifts of necessity but their generosity came with some strings
attached. They offered unsolicited sisterly advice and developed personal relationships
with the recipients of their funding. But these women were invested heart and soul, and
they saw the projects through to the endor to the success of the grantee. They
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
29/148
21
established themselves as a business entity with a formal approach to solving problems.
Their goals were well-defined, their leadership organized, and grants were delivered in a
very controlled fashion. This womens group, the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows
with Small Children (SRPWC), was incorporated in 1802. It serves as a perfect first
example of an organized group of women making a difference through philanthropy
(McCarthy, 1990).
In 1972, three women from Ms. magazine decided to distribute some of the
profits from the magazine to grassroots efforts in their community benefitting women and
children. In 1975, the Ms. Foundation received non-profit status and shortly thereafter,
the foundation began to fund projects involving domestic violence issues and other
innovative projects that other major foundations would not support. In 1990, the Ms.
Foundation created the Collaborative Fund for Womens Economic Development
(CFWED) which provides crucial support to organizations across the country that help
low-income women start and expand microenterprises and larger social purpose
businesses (Ms., 2008, p. 1). The success of the CFWED created a working model for
other womens circles to replicate.
In September 1995, Washington Womens Foundation (WWF) was created to
allow women to pool their financial resources to make large high-impact gifts to improve
the community, while improving their skills as philanthropists. By 2001, the WWF
membership reached 350 members and the Foundation was able to fund one grant in each
interest area for the first time. Today, it has nearly 500 members (Washington, 2008).
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
30/148
22
Womens giving circles in higher education.
A growing number of coeducational college and universities are seeing the
untapped philanthropic potential of alumnae donors (Taylor & Shaw-Hardy, 2006, p.
141). In response, some institutions have established womens philanthropy programs in
order to engage more women as leaders and donors. These women often demand that
their money be put to work to help other women or to a cause of their interest (Evans,
1997, p. A01).
In 2001, the Iowa State University Women and Philanthropy Committee was
created by Debra Engle, Senior Vice President of Development, consisting of spouses of
the governing board of the institution. The result was a committee that offers seminars in
asset management, family-business succession planning and estate planning, with a focus
on philanthropic planning, volunteering, and leadership. Since 2000, the number of
female donors has increased by 37 percent and the total amount of money given to the
university from women has increased 138 percent (Strout, 2007).
The establishment of giving circles.
In the early 1990s womens giving circles were known as womens foundations.
The purpose of a foundation was to fuse the necessity of larger-scale fund raising with
womens culture of intimate engagement in philanthropy (Clohesy, 2001, p. 9).
Although womens foundations were already exhibiting democratization in
philanthropy, there was a call for a greater sense of ownership of the issues and greater
control of the assets of the foundation. As a result, funding or donor circles were created
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
31/148
23
within the foundations for women who wanted a more involved experience (Clohesy,
2001).
Jessica Bearman, a fund raising consultant and womens giving circle expert,
wrote a report on giving circles for the Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers in
2006. In that report, she summarized that giving circles have a profound impactboth
in terms of the money they give and the ways in which their donors are moved and
changed by their experiences (Bearman, 2007b, p. 01).
When discussing the genesis of giving circles, Bearman et. al.(2005) explained:
Giving circles gained prominence in philanthropy during the 1990s as a result of
several factors: the rise of new donors and high net-worth individuals who sought
engaging ways to give back to society, the increasing desire by individuals to
have a greater voice in and ownership over their charitable giving, and womens
increased ability to give money and desire to do so in a collaborative manner.
The results of the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers first
exploratory study of giving circles, completed in 2004 and released in early 2005,
surprised and thrilled many in the philanthropic community (Bearman, 2007b, p. 1).
The study revealed that more than 200 giving circles existed and detailed information
was collected on 77 of them. In 2006, Bearman reported that the number of giving
circles in existence had increased to more than 400 (2007b). The series of studies
demonstrated that giving circles are thriving and the trend in philanthropy is expanding.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
32/148
24
A survey conducted by the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers in
2006 reported that there were 400 catalogued giving circles in 44 states and the District
of Columbia (Schwinn, 2007). Of the 400 catalogued, one hundred and sixty responded
reporting that they have alone raised $88 million since their inception and granted almost
$65 million. Giving circles are ethnically diverse, with a female members as the
majority, and comprised of all formality levels and sizes from a handful of neighbors
hosting parties with a purpose to some as large as 400 members (Bearman, 2007b).
Since the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers began to track these
groups in 2004, the number of giving circles identified has more now than doubled to
well over 500 groups. Most giving circles are relatively new and there is a strong
indication that many more exist. Recent research by Rutnik and Bearman (2005)
estimates that giving circles have given more than $100 million over the course of their
existence and have engaged at least 12,000 people.
Missing from the data collected by the Forum of Regional Associations of
Grantmakers and the Giving Circles Network out of Centreville, Virginia is information
regarding giving circles established at the colleges and universities. Although extensive
research has been done about the characteristics of giving circles nationwide, there has
been little research reporting the characteristics of giving circles within higher education.
This gap in the literature on giving circles at colleges and universities in particular
provides an opportunity for the researcher to further explore and report the findings of the
impact ofwomens giving circles on higher education philanthropy.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
33/148
25
Conclusion
During challenging economic times, the need for stronger philanthropy creates
new opportunities to engage women in giving circles. Women are willing to support
new and different causes and prefer to give where their gift will make a difference
(Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 88). As reported by Dianne Webber-Thrush in the October
2008 CASE Currents magazine, women are expected to control a disproportionate share
of the projected $41 trillion that will pass from one generation to the next over the next
50 years in the United States (p. 34). The advent of womens giving circles has
appeared at the right time.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
34/148
26
Chapter III
Methodology
Since the purpose of this study was to determine the impact of womens giving
circles on philanthropy in higher education, a qualitative case study design was chosen as
the appropriate method to gather a better understanding of the women participating in the
giving circles and how the circles have affected the universities with which they are
associated. The data needed for this case study was collected over a period of four
months from June 2010 to September 2010. Many institutions of higher education
operate on a fiscal year from July 1st to June 30th and so the calendar cycle on the giving
circles follow the same fiscal year calendar.
Data was collected through observations, interviews and surveys designed to elicit
information about the members of each womens giving circle and their respective
university. QSR NVivo version 8 was used as a storage and organization system.
The research questions for this study were:
1. What is the motivation of a member to join a womens giving circle at aninstitution of higher education?
2. What does the member plan to gain from membership in the giving circle?3. Has membership changed the members behavior related to giving to and
volunteering in higher education?
4. What is the short-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in thecreation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution?
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
35/148
27
5. What is the long-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in thecreation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution?
6. Is an institution artificially limiting womens giving in higher education byusing giving circles or are the circles being effectively used as a
stewardship tool to maximize charitable contributions to the institution?
In qualitative research, the researcher collects numerous forms of data and
examines them to get a better understanding of the phenomena at hand (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992). Shank (1994) states that the strategic decisions to use qualitative research
are very simple. What does it mean to be in this setting? Which people do we actually
need to interview? (Shank, 1994, p. 348). In other words, the researcher is not looking
to test the truth of the theory via a design, but is choosing to examine the observations as
evidence of the ongoing procedures. Furthermore, Shank (1994) says that the researcher
uses this evidence to understand the nature of the processes and relations by discovering
new and fruitful insights (p. 351). This examination of the data can lead qualitative
researchers to believe that there is not a single, ultimate truth to be discovered. Instead, it
may be discovered that multiple perspectives are held by different individuals, with each
of these perspectives having equal validity (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).
A qualitative case study can be defined as a type of qualitative research in which
in-depth data are gathered relative to a single, individual program, or event for the
purpose of learning more about an unknown or poorly understood situation (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2005, p. 108). A case study as defined by Creswell (1998) is an exploration of
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
36/148
28
a bounded system or a case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data
collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context (p. 61). Multiple
sources of information in this particular case study included observations, interviews, and
surveys.
The context of this case involves the observation of the population within its
setting (Creswell, 1998). The researcher observed, surveyed, and interviewed the women
in the physical or social setting appropriate for the case. This provided an opportunity for
the researcher to observe the interactions of the giving circle members in their natural
setting.
Internal Review Board
In order to obtain approval from the Internal Review Board, a detailed description
of the proposed study was submitted, including a statement of the purpose of the study, a
brief statement of the background, a description of the participants, a description of
materials being used to collect information, a list of measurement procedures, a
description of the data collection process, the guarantees for protecting theparticipants
information and sample consent forms. The research being conducted through
interviews, surveys, and observations was presented in detail in the IRB application form
and was evaluated based on the risk to the human subjects. After presenting a complete
research design plan, the researcher obtained approval from the Widener University
Internal Review Board on April 16, 2010.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
37/148
29
Population and sampling
Qualitative research leads this case study toward a nonrandom selection of data
sources, a more purposeful selection. Purposeful sampling can be defined as the method
in which a researcher intentionally selects individuals and sites to learn or understand
(Creswell, 2005, p. 204). Purposeful sampling was used in this case because the
researcher desired to observe only giving circles existing within higher education.
The sample population was chosen from a list of twenty institutions of higher
education with giving circles created by the researcher.. Using Eikenberrys (2005)
Giving Circle Ideal Types, the researcher chose four institutions of higher education
within the original list of twenty that were categorized as formal organizations to solicit
for participation in the study. Eikenberry (2005) defines a formal organization as a
giving circle that is more formal in structure and the decision-making processes. This
type of giving circle has a board, committees, members and frequently a professional
support staff. The giving circle ranges in size from five to 500 members with an average
of 84 members per group. As in the case of this qualitative study, maximal variation
sampling was used. The researcher chose maximal variation sampling, more specifically,
because although the study will analyze two similar giving circles, the researcher felt that
more depth could be added to the research questions by observing one private institution
and one public, land-grant institution. Maximal variation sampling can be defined as
purposeful sampling in which the researcher samples cases or individuals that differ on
some characteristic or trait (Creswell, 2005, p. 204).
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
38/148
30
Research design and process
The researcher used instrumentation designed to collect data on philanthropic
behavior addressing the research questions brought forth above. After identifying a total
of four institutions that have womens giving circles classified as formal organizations,
the researcher contacted all four institutions via written correspondence (Appendix A) to
ask for their participation.
The researcher then followed up with a telephone call to ask if each institution
was willing to participate in the study. Two of the four institutions agreed to participate.
The two institutions that declined to participate did not have executive committee
meetings scheduled for the coming months. The researcher then made travel
arrangements to visit the two participating institutions in the month of June for
observation and survey administration.
Observation.
The observational protocol used in this case study (Appendix B) was adapted
from Eikenberry and Bearmans 2009 work. The observation protocol was designed to
include observations recorded about the atmosphere of the meeting, the topics and
discussion of the meeting, and the perceived impact the meeting had on the members.
All observation notes, both descriptive and reflective notes, were written in a notebook.
These observations were then transcribed by the researcher to be used later in the process
of coding.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
39/148
31
Before the researcher could observe the members during an executive committee
meeting, a member consent form (Appendix C) was distributed to all women in
attendance. Member consent forms were designed to explain the necessity of the details
being collected, request for permission to use the information in a case study, and request
that the members confirm their understanding that their responses will be disclosed in a
case study such as this. The privacy and confidentiality of the survey participants was
protected as the survey did not ask for names or any other indentifying contact
information.
The researcher observed each of the two giving circles during an annual meeting
of the executive committee. As suggested within the literature, the researcher was
introduced to the population before observation. This made it easier to blend into the
background upon the start of the meeting. After recording the aspects of the meeting
such as physical setting and researchers first impressions, the researcher took copious
written notes in a notebook. The entire meeting was audio taped in the event that the
notes did not capture the entire essence of the meeting (Creswell, 1998; Leedy &
Ormrod, 2005; Stake, 1995).
Survey.
At the conclusion of the executive committee meeting, a survey (Appendix D),
adapted from Eikenberry and Bearman (2009), was administered to all members in
attendance. This survey was conducted with the permission of the authors and has been
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
40/148
32
amended to include information the researcher needed to address this specific qualitative
case study.
The survey was administered to 14 executive committee members at University A
after the researcher left the room and 100 percent of the surveys were returned to the
researcher at the conclusion of the meeting. The survey was also given to the 19
members at University B where the Vice President of Development recommended the
surveybe filled out on the members personal time and returned to the researcher in a
pre-paid postage envelope. The decision to return the surveys at a later date resulted in
only eight completed surveys (of the total 19 surveys administered) from University B,
demonstrating a 42 percent rate of return. The researcher chose a survey because it can
be used to demonstrate trends in giving, determine individual opinions about
philanthropic behavior, or identify important beliefs and attitudes (Creswell, 1998).
Interviews.
One-on-one interviews are the most time consuming and costly approach to
educational qualitative research (Creswell, 2005). The researcher can ask questions
related to any of the following topics: facts, peoples beliefs and perspectives about the
facts, feelings, motives, present and past behaviors, and conscious reasons for actions or
feelings (Silverman, 1993).
When scheduling the visit to each institution, the researcher asked the key
development professional if the committee Chair of each giving circle would be willing
to be interviewed by the researcher at the conclusion of the meeting. Because of
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
41/148
33
scheduling conflicts, the researcher was unable to interview the committee Chairs on site,
but was successful in scheduling a follow-up telephone interview with each Chair.
It was also the intention of the researcher to schedule a one-on-one interview with
the key development professionals at each site at the conclusion of the executive
committee meeting. Again, due to scheduling conflicts, the researcher was unable to
meet with the key development staff at the conclusion of the executive committee
meetings but follow-up telephone interviews were scheduled.
In July 2010, one-on-one telephone interviews (Appendix E) were conducted with
the Chairs of each of the womens giving circles (n=2). The telephone interviews lasted
approximately 50 minutes and were not audio taped as the researcher did not have the
technology available to tape the conversations over the telephone. In addition to answers
to the questions asked by the researcher, the interview also included some open
discussion (Creswell, 2005). Comprehensive and detailed notes were taken during the
interview and then transcribed later for coding purposes.
After the interviews were completed with the Chairs of each giving circle, the
researcher had some difficulty scheduling the next set of one-on-one telephone interviews
with the key development staff at each institution. In August 2010, the researcher
completed an interview with the Vice President of Development at University B. Then in
September 2010, the researcher completed an interview with the Vice President of
Development, the Assistant Vice President of Development and Major Gifts Officer at
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
42/148
34
University A. The researcher had difficulty bringing all three of the development staff
together from University A, but feels it was worth the wait for the information collected.
The interview questions (Appendix F) for key development staff were grouped
into three sections: (1) questions about the administration of the giving circle, (2)
questions about the short-term goals of the giving circle, and (3) questions about long-
term goals of the giving circle. Each key development staff person was given a consent
form (Appendix G) before the one-on one interviews were completed. One hundred
percent of the consent forms were returned before the interviews began. Again, the
researcher did not collect names or any other identifying contact information for the
purpose of reporting, however, the researcher collected the information for clarification
and contact purposes. Data analysis and coding commenced at the completion of all the
interviews, surveys, and observations.
Data Analysis
As stated, the purpose of this case study was to determine the impact of womens
giving circles on institutions of higher education. After collecting the data, the researcher
reviewed the information collected to obtain a general sense of the results of the data
collection (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Creswell, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Tesch,
1990). This review was conducted keeping in mind words and phrases frequently used
by the participants and searching for themes that address the overall purpose of the study.
As an investigator, Creswell (1998) recommends that the researcher make
preliminary counts of data and determine how frequently codes appear in the data. After
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
43/148
35
careful analysis, it should be easier to relate categories and develop analytic frameworks
from the data collected (Creswell, 1998). For a case study, analysis consists of making a
detailed description of the case and its setting. If the case presents a chronology of
events, then Creswell (1998) recommends analyzing the multiple sources of data to
determine evidence for each step or phase in the evolution of the case (p. 153). Creswell
(1998) recommends that this information be compiled with a description of the case and a
detailed view of the aspects of the case. The description of the case helps complete the
story about the research while comparing and contrasting with published literature.
After reviewing the words and phrases transcribed from the interviews, meetings,
and observations, the researcher created a concept map to build a conceptual framework
(Maxwell, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). A concept map of a theory is a visual
display of that theorya picture of what the theory says is going on with the
phenomenon youre studying (Maxwell, 2005, p. 47).
Another method of examining qualitative data is the inspection of existing
research (Maxwell, 2005). This review can help bring new terminology or key words to
the forefront and, furthermore, serve as a source of data to test or modify data against
existing theories. For example, Beeson (2006) studied the experiences and motivations
of a womens giving circle in higher education and whether it supports Shaw and
Taylors (1995) theory of the six Cs of Womens Giving. Beesons (2006) case study
found that four (create, change, collaborate, and connect) of the six Cs of Womens
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
44/148
36
Giving were present in her results. Beesons connection to the existing theory added to
the depth of the analysis of data collected during this qualitative case study.
Eikenberry and Bearmans (2009) study of 26 womens giving circles across the
United States reported that participation in a giving circle changed a members desire to
give more, to a wider array of organizations, and to give more strategically with a
stronger purpose in mind. Eikenberry and Bearmans study contributed to the design of
this qualitative study. The researcher deliberately chose the same survey and observation
protocol while strictly focusing on giving circles within higher education.
Researcher Bias
In this case study, it is prudent to disclose the educational and work experience of
the researcher before any data is collected. More specifically, the researcher has 13 years
of fund raising experience that plays an important role in the interpretation of the
anecdotal data collected. The researcher used her experience as a development officer to
look for key signals indicating donor satisfaction and positive or negative impact on the
institution.
Summary
Womens philanthropy is one of the emerging trends in higher education today.
Giving circles have often been considered a womens phenomenon because so many
find shared giving and giving circles to be a welcoming, supportive and empowering
gateway to philanthropy (Bearman, 2007b, p. 2). The importance of women as donors
to charitable organizations such as higher education institutions is crucial. The future of
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
45/148
37
philanthropy in higher education depends on the successful solicitation of female donors.
It is the goal of the researcher to prove that womens giving circles are a prudent way to
involve female donors.
This case study examined the role of womens giving circles in the world of
higher education philanthropy and is intended for use by development officers
worldwide. People join giving circles to magnify the power of their philanthropy
(Rutnik & Bearman, 2005, p. 4). As efforts to engage additional female donors become
more prominent, the motivations of these women and the impact that their philanthropy
has on higher education as shown in this case study will become increasingly important
to understand.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
46/148
38
Chapter IV
Findings
The focus of this research was the impact ofwomens giving circles on
philanthropy in higher education. Data collected from the observation notes, meeting
transcripts, surveys, and interview notes were analyzed to create a conceptual framework
used to develop and clarify theory related to the research questions (Maxwell, 2005;
Miles & Huberman, 1994; Novak & Gowin, 1984). This study reports results found in a
simple category theme and also provides quotations from the data itself so that the reader
may be exposed to a better understanding of the themes through quotations and
transcription notes.
For the purposes of this study, the researcher observed executive committee
meetings of womens giving circles at two Midwestern universities. Additionally, the
researcher administered 33 surveys and conducted four telephone interviews. Starting
with a portrait of each university, chapter four reports the findings from data collected
through these observations, surveys and interviews. In chapter five, conclusions related
to the findings are reported and recommendations are given to development professionals
who are interested in creating womens giving circles.
Portrait of University A
University A can be described as a four-year, coeducational, religiously affiliated,
private institution of higher education located in a Midwestern city. Founded as a
womens college in the early 1920s, University A started to accept male students in the
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
47/148
39
mid to late 1980s. Currently, the student body is comprised of approximately 3,000
students, approximately 70 percent of which are female. Forty percent of the student
body is classified as a minority representing at least 25 foreign countries. The student
population reflects both traditional-aged undergraduate students and adult learners.
The alumni population at University A consists of 14,000 alumni with nearly 80
percent of the alumni living or working in the surrounding area. University A makes
significant contributions to the community through its focus on service opportunities.
Students are encouraged to participate in local, regional and even international
community service opportunities throughout the year. It is on the tradition of service that
University A was founded.
Womens giving circle structure.
The womens giving circle at University A was created in conjunction with the
Development Office by five alumnae in 2007. Its mission is to promote University
initiatives by forging new relationships and building a community of thoughtful, effective
philanthropists among a diversified assembly of women. The giving circle communicates
its mission through the grants and scholarships awarded each year. Past grant recipients
include the on-campus art gallery, a leadership development program for student leaders,
and a new class in the School of Education training teachers about autism. The projects
were chosen because they further enhance the mission of the circle and University by
working together to develop academic programs and educational opportunities that reflect
high standards, interdisciplinary thought, and integrated understanding. Since its creation
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
48/148
40
in 2007, University As giving circle has awarded $165,000 to benefit students, staff and
faculty in support ofthe Universitys mission.
Currently, University As giving circle totals 85 members. Each member has
committed to an annual gift of $1,000 per year. This gift is traditionally paid through a
check, credit card, or payroll deduction for those members of the giving circle who are
employees of the University. Members of the giving circle include alumnae, community
members, staff members and current and former faculty members. Data collected
through interviews with key development officers at University A reported the total
membership of 85 women in the womens giving circle is comprised of 64 percent
alumnae, 23 percent non-alumnae, 10 percent staff members, and three percent faculty
members. Women of all ages are invited to participate in the circle; however, the current
makeup of women in the circle range from 49 years of age to 78 years of age.
The womens giving circle at University A is made up of an executive committee
and five sub-committees. The executive committee consists of a president, a recording
secretary, a corresponding secretary, a treasurer and the chair of each sub-committee.
The five sub-committees are: the awards committee, the bylaws committee, the
membership committee, the events committee, and the public relations committee. These
committees are responsible for the solicitation of, and correspondence with, the entire
population of the womens giving circle. The executive committee meets once a month
on campus, with the sub-committees meeting every other month either on campus or at a
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
49/148
41
members home. The entire womens giving circle has an annual meeting every July on
campus to announce and celebrate the grant recipients for the coming fiscal year.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
50/148
42
Grants administration and voting process.
Applications for the grant awards are collected by the Development Office.
Applicants must be affiliated with the University as a current faculty member, staff
member, or current student or student organization. The applications must be for funds
that are not already included in the department budget. University As womens giving
circle has chosen not to support administrative costs, general operating expenses or fund
raising projects. All applications must be completed and signed off by two levels of
administrationa department chair and a Vice President or Dean.
When the applications are received, they are evaluated by the entire womens
giving circlebased on how well they support the Universitys mission, vision, values and
commitment statement. The size of the grants may vary from $250 to $10,000 per
project. Funds are awarded for one fiscal year and may not be carried over into a second
fiscal year. It is the goal of the womens giving circle to encourage the project
administrators to seek additional funding from other sources (e.g., alumnae, foundations,
corporations, etc.) to perpetuate their programs. Proposed projects must be completed
within one fiscal year and funding may not be requested for an identical project in
consecutive fiscal years. A final report is required from the funded projects including an
evaluation of the project and a spreadsheet detailing how the funds were used by May 1st
of each fiscal year.
The voting process at University A is called consensus voting, meaning that
each member of the giving circle gets one vote and the project with the most votes wins.
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
51/148
43
This year, University A has launched a new voting process on Blackboard, an on-line
learning platform. Blackboard serves as a host for the on-line ballot and each member
receives a user name and password. When a member is ready to vote, she logs on to the
website and fills out the on-line ballot. The votes are automatically tallied and delivered
to the administrator of the awards process at the completion of the voting.
Host.
The Development Office at University A serves as a host for this giving circle.
Similar to other giving circles that exist within higher education, the development staff
members provide administrative support and assistance to the giving circle (Beeson,
2006). Since the creation of the womens giving circle, the Development Office has
assigned a full-time development professional, the Major Gifts Officer, who spends 75
percent of her time on administrative duties related to the womens giving circle. Her
role is to act as a liaison between the executive committee and the entire womens giving
circle. She is responsible for coordinating meetings, maintaining the giving circles
website, and coordinating communication among the executive committee, the various
sub-committees, and the entire membership.
Two other senior development officers, the Vice President of Development and
the Assistant Vice President of Development, spend five percent of their time on the
womens giving circle, primarily focusing on the acquisition of major gifts from current
giving circle members. They also assist the members in recruitment and solicitation of
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
52/148
44
new members. Together, these development officers are proud of the accomplishments
of the womens giving circle since its creation three years ago.
Portrait of University B
A four-year, public, land-grant institution, University B offers a complete
spectrum of liberal arts studies, professional programs and student activities. Also in the
Midwest, University B reports a total enrollment of 42,000 students, with approximately
68 percent of the student body representing the undergraduate population. Sixty five
percent of the students attending University B are state residents, with 24 percent of the
students classified as out-of-state residents. Only one percent of the student body is from
outside the United States. There are approximately 381,000 living alumni who have
graduated from University B.
Womens giving circle structure.
Founded in 1988, University B created the Council on Womens Giving to help
advance the reputation and visibility of women who were already making an impact
through their gifts on campus. Created by the Vice President of Development, this group
identifies itself as the first female major gift organization for women at a co-educational
institution. The women in this group initiate activities designed to bring more women
into volunteer leadership roles and to secure major gifts from women philanthropists and
their families.
For years women made gifts to the University that were generally not recognized.
As recently as 10 years ago, significant female donors were still not being offered the
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
53/148
45
types of prominent rolesboard positions, alumnae volunteer roles, tenured faculty
positions, etc.as their male counterparts. The Vice President of Development launched
the Council to change that and thereby increase the awareness of female donors to
University B.
Currently, the Council totals 85 members. In fiscal year 2009, each member
committed to an annual gift of $1,000 per year. This gift is traditionally paid via check,
cash or credit card. Payroll deduction is not accepted because current faculty or staff
members are not allowed to be members of the circle. As reported by the Vice President
of Development, 87 percent of the membership is alumnae while the remaining 13
percent are friends and philanthropic supporters of the University.
The Council has an executive committee consisting of a President, who serves a
three-year non-renewable term; six regional chairpersons for each regional alumni group;
a Collaborative Giving Project (CGP) chairperson, responsible for the dispensing and
keeping track of the awards; and a membership committee chair. The President of the
Council serves ex-officio on the University Foundation Board of Directors for one non-
renewable three-year term.
The Council meets twice a year at the University. At this time, each committee
reports of their accomplishments throughout the year. The regional groups share the
results of attendance from events that were held in various cities across the United States.
The collaborative giving project provides an update about the grant recipients, the
8/3/2019 Mk Andris - Final Dissert
54/148
46
expend
Recommended