Mk Andris - Final Dissert

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


2/148

ii

Sign off page


3/148

iii

Copyright by

Mary Kate Andris

2011


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.


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


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.


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


8/148

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


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


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


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


12/148

4


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).


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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).


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


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


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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?


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


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.


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).


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


54/148

46

expend

Mk Andris - Final Dissert

Documents