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

Sign off page

ii

Copyright by Mary Kate Andris 2011

iii

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.

iv

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 of a 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 v

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 of womens 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.

vi

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... iv Abstract ...........................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... vii Chapter I ..........................................................................................................................1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1 Women in Philanthropy .............................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................6 Definitions...............................................................................................................6 Research Questions ...................................................................................................8 Chapter II .......................................................................................................................10 Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................10 Philanthropy ..........................................................................................................11 Context in higher education. ..................................................................................12 Emerging trends. .................................................................................................16 Giving Circles ........................................................................................................20 History of giving circles. .......................................................................................20 Womens giving circles in higher education. .............................................................22 The establishment of giving circles. ........................................................................22 Conclusion ............................................................................................................25 Chapter III .....................................................................................................................26 Methodology..........................................................................................................26 Internal Review Board .............................................................................................28 Population and sampling ..........................................................................................29 Research design and process .....................................................................................30 Observation. .......................................................................................................30 Survey. ..............................................................................................................31 Interviews. .........................................................................................................32 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................34 Researcher Bias ......................................................................................................36 Summary...............................................................................................................36 Chapter IV .....................................................................................................................38 Findings ................................................................................................................38 Portrait of University A ............................................................................................38 Womens giving circle structure. ............................................................................39 Grants administration and voting process. ................................................................42 Host. .................................................................................................................43 Portrait of University B ............................................................................................44 vii

Womens giving circle structure. ............................................................................44 Grant administration and voting process. ..................................................................47 Host. .................................................................................................................48 Survey ..................................................................................................................48 Demographics. ....................................................................................................49 Table 1 Question #10 ............................................................................................51 Table 2 Question #5 ..............................................................................................54 Table 3 Question #11 ............................................................................................56 Observations ..........................................................................................................57 Observations University A. .................................................................................58 Observations University B. .................................................................................69 Interviews .............................................................................................................77 Interview with Colleen University Bs Chairperson. ................................................84 Interview with University A Vice President of Development, Assistant Vice President of Development, and the Major Gifts Officer. ...............................................................89 Interview with University B - Vice President of Development. ...................................101 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................107

Chapter V ....................................................................................................................108 Summary.............................................................................................................108 Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................108 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................110 Recommendations .................................................................................................113 Recommendations for Higher Education. ...............................................................113 Recommendations for Development Professionals. ..................................................115 Future research .....................................................................................................118 References ...................................................................................................................120 Appendix A .................................................................................................................125 Correspondence with Key University Development Staff ..............................................125 Appendix B..................................................................................................................126 Observation Protocol .............................................................................................126 Appendix C..................................................................................................................127 Member Consent Form ..........................................................................................127 Appendix D .................................................................................................................129 Survey on Philanthropic Behavior ............................................................................129 Appendix E ..................................................................................................................136 Interview Protocol for Members ..............................................................................136 Appendix F ..................................................................................................................137 Interview Protocol for Key Development Staff ...........................................................137 Appendix G .................................................................................................................139 Development Officer Consent Form .........................................................................139 viii

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

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. 89). For example, the University of Wisconsin Madison and the University of California Los 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

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

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).

Recent publications such as Advancing 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 & ShawHardy, 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.

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 their current 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

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 relations and 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

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 an institution 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 the creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution? 5. What is the long-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in the creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution? 6. Is an institution artificially limiting womens giving in higher education by using 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

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.

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

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

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 philanthropy a 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. Context in higher education. 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

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

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

15

philanthropy by 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) argues that 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).

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 a Business Week cover story entitled The New Face of Philanthropy that 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

17

to charitable organizations by providing new opportunities for donors to be involved and make a difference. The era of new 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 philanthropists both 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 of new 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 donors both men and women across 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

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 California Los 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).

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

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 end or to the success of the grantee. They

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).

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

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.

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 of womens giving circles on higher education philanthropy.

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.

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 an institution 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 the creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution?

27

5. What is the long-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in the creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution? 6. Is an institution artificially limiting womens giving in higher education by using 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

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 the participants 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.

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).

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.

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

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 survey be 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

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

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 longterm 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

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 theory a 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

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

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.

38

Chapter IV Findings The focus of this research was the impact of womens 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

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

40

in 2007, University As giving circle has awarded $165,000 to benefit students, staff and faculty in support of the 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

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.

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 administration a department chair and a Vice President or Dean. When the applications are received, they are evaluated by the entire womens giving circle based 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.

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

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

45

types of prominent roles board 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 nonrenewable 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

46

expenditures related to the project, and the progress on the projects as supported by the Council.

47

Grant administration and voting process. Different from University A, the larger Council on Womens Giving formed a smaller womens giving circle within it called the Collaborative Giving Project (CGP). The CGP performs the same function as the awards committee performs for the University A giving circle. It is structured like a womens giving circle and is made up of 23 women from the Council executive committee who all contribute $1,000 a year to the CGP fund. A small sub-committee exists within the CGP that meets once a year and additionally, corresponds via e-mail, if needed. This sub-committee acts as a filter to analyze and vet various projects on campus. The projects are then presented to the Council executive committee as a slate to be voted on. This June 2010, the CGP recommended to the Council that the same four projects as in the previous year 20092010 be supported again for the next five years. The Council executive committee voted on June 23, 2010 in favor of accepting this recommendation as presented. The size of the grants administered by the CGP varies from $2,500 to $11,500 per project. Funds are awarded for one fiscal year and must be used in their entirety before the conclusion of the fiscal year. A meeting is held with the project director and the chair of the CGP annually to conduct an evaluation discussing the success and impact of the project. A written report is not required from the project director; however, the CGP chair and committee put together a detailed report to share with the Council during the June meeting.

48

Host. The Universitys Development Office is located within the Universitys Foundation. This structure is common for large universities. The Foundation serves as a host for the Council. Thanks to the generosity of alumni and friends, total gifts received by the Foundation since 1945 now stand at more than $2.41 billion. Total gifts to the Foundation from the Council amounts to $25 million since 1988. The Development Office has assigned one full-time development officer and one part-time development administrative assistant to work closely with the committee. The Vice President of Development, the assigned full-time liaison, has more than 20 years of experience in fund raising and has been working with female donors most of her career. She works closely with the Chair of the Council to organize the agenda for the annual meeting and solicit the members of the Council for their annual gift. She is also responsible for follow-up solicitation of members who have not contributed or of new members who have not been asked for their contribution yet. Survey The following data was collected through the administration of a survey on-site at each University. The survey used (Appendix D) was adapted from Eikenberry and Bearman (2009) and conducted with the permission of the authors. Of the 33 surveys administered, a total of 23 were returned demonstrating a 60 percent return rate. Of the 23 surveys completed, a total of 14 were from University A, representing a 100 percent response rate, and nine were from University B, resulting in a

49

47 percent response rate. Even though the surveys were administered on-site in my presence, the women at University B were not given enough time at the conclusion of the meeting to complete the surveys. The women were advised by the Development staff to complete the survey at home and mail it back to me. If the study were to be duplicated, I would recommend that time be built into the meeting so that the survey could be administered, completed, and collected on-site. Demographics. Data from University A reported 93 percent of the women classifying themselves as White/Caucasian and seven percent of the women identifying themselves as a member of the Latino population. The ages of the respondents ranged from 49 to 78 years old with the average age calculated as 65 years old. Fifty percent of the respondents indicated they are between 66 and 75 years of age. At University B, one hundred percent of the women who completed the surveys reported that they are White/Caucasian. The ages of the respondents ranged from 59 to 71 years old. Fifty percent of the respondents identified themselves as belonging in the 51 to 65 years of age category while the other fifty percent of the respondents categorized themselves between 66 and 75 years of age. According to Eikenberry (2006) data indicates that giving circles generally attract younger (younger than 40 years) and female participants thereby bringing new money to the organized (philanthropic) table (p. 523). However, this qualitative case study found that the data did not represent a population of women less than 50 years of

50

age. One female respondent from University A indicated she is 49 years old. All of the other respondents were 50 years of age or older. The survey also asked the members of the womens giving circle about their current employment status. The data collected regarding employment status directly correlates with the age of the respondents. Of a total of 23 respondents, 36 percent of the women responded that they are currently retired. Additionally, 21 percent of the women responded that they are not employed. Together these two categories total 57 percent of the respondents who are not currently working. Nine out of the 14 respondents from University A indicated that they are not employed or are currently retired. The remaining five respondents from University A are still working in the fields of either Management or Education. Of the nine total respondents from University B, six of them responded that they are not currently working or retired. The remaining three respondents indicated they are employed in a professional field or in sales. During the interviews conducted with the Chairs of the giving circles, each woman conceded that she was motivated to join the giving circle after having reached a stage in her life with newly found spare time. This motivation is likely not unique to the Chairs when considering the ages of the female respondents of both womens giving circles. The average age of a womens giving circle respondent in this study was 65 years old. At retirement age, women have more time in their schedules. Eighty one percent of the overall respondents indicated that they are involved in one giving circle at

51

this time. Only one respondent answered that she is a member of more than one giving circle. As shown in Table 1, the survey asked the question, How often in the past 12 months have you participated in the following through your giving circle? The results show that more than 50 percent of the respondents at University A frequently volunteer their time to attend and participate in meetings, hold leadership positions, attend educational sessions, and attend social events through the giving circle. One hundred percent of the respondents from University A reported that they frequently took part in deciding on who received funding from the giving circle. Women want to see their money has a visible effect. Women want to create change and be a part of the organization in the community (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 88). Table 1 Question #10
How often in the past 12 months have you participated in the following through your giving circle? Attended full membership meetings Participated in committee meetings Held leadership position(s) Attended educational sessions Helped raise funds Went on site visits to potential funding recipients Attended social events Voted or took part in deciding on who received funding from the giving circle Volunteered with funding recipient Took action on local, national or international policy University A (n=14) Frequently 12 11 11 10 6 2 10 14 4 2 Sometimes 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 0 1 0 University B (n=9) Frequently 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 Sometimes 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 0

52

As shown in Table 1, forty five percent of the respondents from University B frequently attended membership meetings and 33 percent participated in those meetings that they attended. Not surprisingly, 45 percent of the respondents also voted or took part in deciding who received funding from the giving circle. The group at University B does not meet as often, and so, I think some women are feeling left out of the decision making process. Support for campus funded projects is often determined through committee and presented to the larger group for a vote. I think this is why the percentage was not higher in this case. This data shows that women are participating in the giving circle when permanent change can happen. The ability to bring about change and make a difference ranks number one as a motivation for womens giving (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 88). Female philanthropists are nothing new. However, over the past fifteen years, how and why they give has gained considerable attention. The survey developed by Eikenberry and Bearman (2009) addresses the motivations of giving circle members and how outside pressures can influence their decision to contribute. In determining the impact membership in a giving circle has on a members philanthropic behavior, the survey asked, What is your best estimate of the total number of organizations or charities your household contributed to in the past 12 months? Respondents indicated that they contributed to anywhere from five charities to 30 charities over a period of one year. One respondent from University B indicated that in the past 12 months, she has contributed to 25 organizations totaling $160,000, an average

53

gift of $6,400 per charity. At the same University, another respondent indicated that she gave nine charities $150,000 over the past 12 months, an average gift of $16,667 per charity. Respondents from University B, who were members for five years or more, indicated that they have contributed anywhere from $3,500 to $150,000 in the past 12 months. In 1995, Shaw and Taylor surveyed and interviewed 150 women philanthropists and fund raisers to discuss women and philanthropy. Women informed the researchers that they want to know all the facts before they give. They want to know the broad rationale for the program and how the organization will carry it out. They also want to know if a program is fiscally sound and capably administered (Shaw & Taylor, 1995). The way in which giving circle members give appears to be strongly connected to the level of participation in the giving circle. Eikenberry and Bearman (2009) found that participating in a giving circle seems to cause members to not only think more about their giving and giving plans, but to also examine more intensely where, how much and in what ways their gifts should be made (p. 32). This case study collected similar responses as are demonstrated in Table 2. Table 2 shows that at University A, eight women indicated they frequently give based on advancing a vision for change and seven women responded that they frequently give multi-year gifts. At University B, six women responded that they sometimes solicit input from others when making funding decisions, while five sometimes use organizational performance data to inform them of their funding

54

decisions. For women, making a difference means making a change, rather than preserving status quo (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 88). Comparatively, in Eikenberry and Bearmans report (2009), total household contributions were significantly changed in two categories advancing a vision for change (p=0.012) and soliciting input from and/or collaborating with others to make funding decisions (p=0.032). Their conclusions indicate that an increase in strategic giving in these two areas shows a positive correlation with total overall giving when involved as a member in a womens giving circle. Table 2 Question #5
How often do each of the following statements apply to your annual contribution(s)? Always I contribute based on advancing a vision for change I conduct research to help decide which organizations to support. I solicit input from others to make funding decisions. I support general operating expenses. I use organizational performance data to inform funding decisions. I give multi-year gifts. I take into consideration cultural differences, race, class, and/or gender. 5 1 1 0 0 1 1

University A (n=14)

University B (n=9)

Frequently 8 4 2 4 3 7 4

Sometimes 0 6 4 4 8 2 6

Always 4 0 1 1 0 2 1

Frequently 4 2 1 3 0 2 4

Sometimes 1 3 6 3 5 2 2

55

As discussed before, the average age of the respondents in this case study was 65 years old and while 57 percent of the women responded that they are not currently employed, the household income reported was quite substantial. Out of a total of 23 respondents, thirty seven percent of the women responded that their household income last year was between $150,000 to $199,999 while 35 percent of the women responded that their household income was $200,000 or more last year. On the survey the women were also asked to report the approximate value of their personal net worth (assets less liabilities), including real estate and other assets. Of the women who responded, 56 percent of the respondents reported having a net worth ranging between $1,000,000 to $4,999,999. Two women reported having a net worth of $20,000,000 or more. Data indicated that the respondents total gifts to charitable organizations over the past year ranged from $300 to $160,000. The average aggregate gift amount in the past 12 months for survey respondents from University A was $5,983 and was $67,062 from University B respondents. Twenty two percent of the survey respondents echoed the sentiments of Eikenberry and Bearman (2009) by reporting that the total amount they contributed last year has substantially increased. However, 17 percent indicated that their giving has remained the same. Additionally, data in Table 2 shows that nine respondents from University A substantially increased the total number of organizations they support and 10 respondents have substantially changed their level of involvement in changing

56

government policies. At University B, five respondents also substantially increased the level of involvement in changing government policy. When asked in the survey about their level of participation at the university and within the external community, responses to two segments from Table 3 stood out in the research. Question 11c asked whether participation in the giving circle has affected the amount of time the member gives as a volunteer. Thirty percent of the respondents indicated that their time has substantially increased while 35 percent indicated that it has remained the same. Question 11e addressed whether the members participation has made her more aware of problems in the community and 17 percent of the respondents answered that her awareness has substantially increased as a result of her participation, while only 30 percent indicated it had stayed the same. Table 3 Question #11
University A (n=14) Substantially Stayed the increased Same 4 9 4 4 2 6 10 3 1 7 4 4 4 1 University B (n=9) Substantially Stayed the increased Same 1 3 3 2 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 0

How has participation in the giving circle affected the following? The total amount I contribute annually. The total number of organizations I support annually. The amount of time I volunteer annually. My awareness of how nonprofit organizations operate. My awareness of problems in the community. My participation in efforts to address problems in the community. My involvement in changing government policies.

57

Observations The following data were collected during on-site observations of executive committee meetings for the two womens giving circles. I audio taped each meeting in its entirety and took copious notes in a notebook using an observation protocol developed by Eikenberry and Bearman (2009).

58

Observations University A. On June 17, 2010, I attended an executive committee meeting of the womens giving circle at University A. The travel was not what I anticipated. After being delayed because of bad weather, I arrived fifteen minutes before the beginning of the meeting. Upon my arrival, I found that the Major Gifts Officer and Chair of the giving circle were standing outside in the rain waiting for me to arrive. Having only ever met the Major Gifts Officer once, I found it incredibly thoughtful of her to wait for me out in the rain. After we walked to the conference room and settled in, the women began to arrive. All of the women were well-dressed in their best raincoats and umbrellas. After settling in themselves, they approached me to introduce themselves and welcome me to the meeting. Before the meeting began, they discussed the weather, the relocation of the meeting, and spent time catching up with each other. Because the committee meets every other month and some of these women already know each other from college, they have formed relationships that created a sense of camaraderie in the room. I noted in my observation notes that the atmosphere of the room was pleasant, friendly, and very comfortable, even for an outsider. Once the majority of the women were present, the Chair, Karla,1 called the meeting to order. She asked a member of the committee to open the meeting with the prayer of the day. I thought this was an unusual way to begin the meeting. I thought it was interesting because they were enforcing the mission and vision of the University

Her name has been changed to protect her identity.

59

from the beginning of the meeting. The prayer touched on the significance of people in our lives who make a difference, who could be considered a hero. At the end of the prayer, the women thanked the reader for the sharing the prayer of the day. Once Karla called the meeting to order, I made some observations about the atmosphere of the meeting. The meeting was in a small conference room in an academic building on campus. After consulting the campus map, I also noticed that the academic building was not located anywhere near the Development Office. The meeting table was set up in a square so that all the women could face each other during the meeting. In looking around the room, I observed that the women appeared to range in age from 55 to 75. I also noted that the women, in my opinion, were representative of the upper middle class socioeconomically. There were 12 members of the executive committee in attendance, with the Major Gifts Officer, Administrative Assistant and Assistant Vice President of Development also present. Before the meeting began, I set out two audio tape recorders to tape the meeting for clarification purposes. I also took copious notes in my notebook. After the welcome by Karla, she asked the Major Gifts Officer to introduce me. While introducing me, the Major Gifts Officer explained my purpose in observing and recording the occurrences during the meeting. She assured everyone that all the data I planned to collect would remain confidential. At the conclusion of my introduction, she asked everyone to complete the member consent form and return them to her immediately before the meeting began.

60

Karla announced that she would like to get through the agenda quickly so that there would be some time at the conclusion of the meeting to discuss openly the impact of womens giving circles on higher education philanthropy. She also mentioned that at the conclusion of the executive committee meeting, everyone would need to complete an anonymous survey on philanthropic behavior. Karla thanked the women for their participation in this study and explained how important research is in the field of womens philanthropy. All of the women seemed genuinely interested in helping out with my research and they seemed open to the idea of discussing womens philanthropy and its impact on higher education after the meeting. I observed that no one objected to the consent form or the suggestion of completing the survey. Before the meeting began, 100 percent of the member consent forms were completed and submitted. Karla gave me an agenda and I immediately noticed two things: (1) the meeting agenda had detailed start and stop times for each agenda item and (2) the events calendar was printed on the back of the paper to conserve paper and thereby save printing costs. This theme of conserving funds surfaces again when the committee discusses signage for events. While Karla used Roberts Rules to formally approve the minutes, the structure of the meeting was rather informal. Women were called on to give their reports and were willing to answer any questions regarding the details. For example, the Treasurer reported that the total amount of money expected to be collected from the entire

61

membership by June 30th was $74,000. She also informed the executive committee that as of June 17th, the total amount collected was $69,641.74. The women began asking questions of the Treasurer such as, How do we plan to collect this money? and Do we expect the money to be collected on time? The women all seemed pleased with the total amount collected for the year. Karla even recommended that some money be put aside to use for the grant announcement party, thereby suggesting that the total amount of money awarded not equal the total amount collected. The women seemed to acknowledge this suggestion; however, there was not any additional discussion regarding this comment. The second committee to give a report was the awards committee. The awards committee is a very structured committee. The Chair presenting her report was more serious than some of the others. She only spoke when there was complete silence in the room. She was very organized and was anxious to discuss the status of the committee responsibilities. The chairperson reported that this year the awards committee has added a few new features to the voting process. First, because the number of grant applications has doubled, from 10 to 21 applications in one year, the committee has created a forum for the women to discuss the specifics of each grant application. This year, the awards committee organized 12 to 15 roundtable discussions throughout the months of April, May and June for the women to sit down and discuss the details of each grant application. She reported that these roundtable discussions have been very well attended with approximately 15 to 20 women in attendance each time. This process has encouraged

62

some of the members of the womens giving circle to cast their vote earlier than the July 12th deadline. As of June 17, 2010, 30 of the possible 74 votes had been cast for grant awardees. At this point a few side conversations started which I did not expect. Women whispered to each other that they felt the roundtable discussions were a wonderful addition. Some even attended more than one. A few women even said it helped them better determine which projects on campus really needed their support. The awards Chair then explained that the second new feature added to the process was on-line voting through Blackboard. Blackboard is an on-line learning platform where the entire population of the womens giving circle can log-on to vote using an online ballot. While this is the first year that the committee has used Blackboard, the potential to expand its use has been discussed. The women expressed concern about whether this new voting process is likely to be embraced by the entire womens giving circle population. At this point, a discussion ensued about the difficulties some of the women were experiencing accessing the on-line ballot. I observed that some of the women were older and seemed to be more challenged by technology. They openly admitted that the technology was daunting to them. The women who were having difficulty have called the Major Gifts Officer to have her walk them through this new process. Some of the women were clearly frustrated by the new on-line method of voting. The Major Gifts Officer made sure to encourage the women who were uncomfortable with the online process to cast a paper ballot. The Chair announced that at the conclusion of the new on-line voting process the committee would like to survey the

63

entire membership to ask for feedback on the new voting process. It was evident that member feedback is really important to the group. The discussion about the survey turned into a discussion about the creation of an annual survey to solicit feedback from the entire population of the womens giving circle regarding correspondence, events, membership drives and committee recruitment. The executive committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing how to create the survey, who should do it and by when. The next committee to present its report was the bylaws committee. The Chair of the committee was not present at the meeting so another member of the committee reported for her. I observed that if a sub-committee chair is unable to attend the executive committee, the atmosphere is so casual that another member of the subcommittee is encouraged to attend in her absence. Again, the informality of this group makes the meetings enjoyable to attend. Even the bylaws committee referenced how much fun they are having meeting and reworking the bylaws. One woman remarked, Who knew bylaws could be so much fun! Karla also commented on the camaraderie of the committee and publicly thanked them for their service. The committee reported that they were working to tweak the bylaws to include updates and changes to the membership of the committee. Once all of the proposed changes are incorporated into a single document, a comprehensive draft will be presented to the executive committee for its review.

64

After the bylaws committee presented its report, the events committee chair reported on the upcoming events. The Chair happily reported that the next event will be the big announcement of the grant award recipients in July. The event will serve as the annual meeting for the entire womens giving circle. There will be a light breakfast provided before the meeting. She expressed her personal excitement for the announcement of the grant recipients. The Chair indicated that she would not be in attendance during the July meeting but asked if someone could call her as soon as the grant recipients were announced. She said she couldnt wait! Again, in observing the supportive atmosphere of the meeting, I noticed a number of women complimenting the events committee for planning this event and for following through with all of the details. Karla also publicly thanked the Chair and expressed her excitement for this event. The events committee then reported on the remainder of the year, pointing out the dates on the calendar on the back of the agenda. The events Chair encouraged all the women to attend every event. She specifically referenced an event in September during which the grant recipients will be presented with their check during a pep rally of sorts. This event will be held on the grassy knoll in the middle of campus for everyone to attend. The giving circle is trying to attract attention across campus. Ice cream will be served to everyone in attendance. Karla asked whether it would be possible to secure a

65

sponsorship for the ice cream. She said, I would rather save the money for the grant recipients than spend it on ice cream. At this time, the women began to discuss in side conversations about how thrilled they are with the idea of an outreach event on campus to attract attention to the giving circle. They discussed how the event will increase awareness of the group while raising the image and visibility of the womens giving circle. At the conclusion of the events committee report, the membership committee discussed their responsibilities. The womens giving circle at University A is made up of alumnae, faculty members, staff members, and community supporters. I observed that the makeup of the membership was an underlying discussion throughout the membership report. Many of the women expressed concern that there is not a method in place to keep track of the women who have been asked to become members of the womens giving circle and those who have declined membership. Again, the committee chairperson was not in attendance so another membership committee member gave her report. She reported that the committee would like to focus on attracting younger members to the giving circle. The committee has discussed having various events at different times of the day to attract different populations of women to the membership. The substitute for the Chair reporting on membership indicated that the current membership of the giving circle is made up of 60 percent alumnae of the University and 40 percent community, faculty or staff members. I was surprised how long the women

66

discussed the specifics of using a donor matrix to keep track of potential members. There was a strong concern about attracting the right women while not bothering women who have already been asked. After the discussion died down about recruitment and retention of women in the giving circle, the public relations committee was asked to give its report. The chairperson reported that the committee was busy accomplishing all sorts of little projects. Invitations were designed for the two events in July and September and the committee then turned its attention to the signage for the event on campus in September. I learned at this time, that the details of the event in September included a parade of the womens giving circle members through the center of campus holding banners, dressed in their finest purple colors, and led by one of the women husband playing the bagpipes. These women are pulling out all the stops to gain some notoriety on campus. I was also impressed at how invested the women are in creating a name for themselves and sharing what they do all around campus. The womens giving circle, is about more than what it does for them, then how they feel. They want to make an impact on campus and share the good news of what they are accomplishing with everyone. The discussion continued with signage and how truly expensive it could turn out to be. The committee reported that the woman working on the signs for the public relations committee developed a cost-saving idea to reuse the signs by adding Velcro tabs to add and remove words, dates, times, etc. She talked with a local Kinkos and worked

67

out the details so that the signs can be used for a long time. One of the women even commented, Wow, you are being very green. After discussing the details of signage for upcoming events, the public relations chair moved on to report on the creation of a newsletter to be sent to the entire womens giving circle population. She explained to the executive committee that the public relations committee has decided to feature past grant recipients, committee spotlights, and a calendar of events. When the Chair asked for feedback from the committee, the discussions began again. Some women suggested that their names and contact information be added to the newsletter to help recruit new committee members. Some women clearly did not want their names published. Karla suggested that the public relations committee wait to send the newsletter out after the July event so that the new committee chairs and new Chair of the womens giving circle could be announced. In the end, the decision was made by the committee to send the first newsletter in August. The women all seemed pleased with that decision. My experience observing the women during the executive committee meeting at University A was a positive one. All of the dialogue during the meeting was very informal, even casual with laughter and joking among the women. The group gets along very well and the group dynamic was upbeat and supportive. The women were supportive of each others comments and when they had questions they asked them directly to each other in an effort to gain a better understanding of what was happening.

68

After the meeting, the women talked informally with me about womens philanthropy. They did not specifically reference their individual giving during the meeting; however, some of the women mentioned to me after the meeting that they give beyond the giving circle to the University. Each member seemed comfortable with the size of their annual gift. Again in the conversation following the meeting, the women were not shy about how proud they are of the creation of a giving circle to benefit the University. The women are happy to see that their efforts to further develop the bylaws and recruit additional members are helping the circle thrive. The women are thrilled to be involved in philanthropy at the University.

69

Observations University B. On June 23, 2010, I attended an executive committee meeting of the Council on Womens Giving at University B. I arrived at the business center and introduced myself to both the President of the giving circle and the Vice President of Development. Both women were pleased to meet me and the President went out of her way to make me feel welcome. Before the meeting began, I chatted with a few women over coffee and muffins. Everyone was pleasant. The meeting was located in the off-campus executive business center affiliated with the University. The conference room was rather large in size for the number of women attending. However, I later learned that the large room was needed because there were presentations from groups on campus during the afternoon part of the agenda. These groups used a laptop, large projector screen, podium, and microphone to make their presentations. The tables were arranged in a large square so that all in attendance could see each other. I also noticed that the executive center was not near the Development Office. There were 19 female members in attendance with at least four staff people. Other staff from the University attended the meeting during various times throughout the day but did not stay for the entire meeting. As the observer, I sat towards the back of the room at the table. Before the meeting began, I set out two audio tape recorders to tape the meeting for clarification purposes. I also took copious notes in my notebook.

70

The President, Colleen,2 called the meeting to order precisely at 9:00 a.m. She thanked the women who had traveled from New York City, Chicago, and various other cities to attend the meeting. The atmosphere was pleasant but more formal than what I experienced at University A. While there were a few women having side conversations before the meeting, the overall feel of the room was more serious. I observed that most of the women were dressed in business attire with a few of the women wearing business suits and heels. During the meeting, Roberts rules were used loosely. I observed that the attendees appeared representative of upper middle class and ranged in age from early 40s to 75 years of age or more. The President requested that the meeting open with short introductions. Each woman was instructed to say her name, where she lives, when she graduated, and to tell a little bit about her major philanthropic interest at University B. I believe the President did this so that the women could get to know each other. This group only meets twice a year and because the University is larger in size than University A and has a more geographically diverse member base, fewer women know each other outside of the committee. Colleen moved quickly through the opening introductions and Presidents report to try to keep on schedule. She announced that there were a lot of items on the agenda and she would like to cover them all. The next item Colleen addressed was the member consent form in the folder. She introduced me and explained why it was important for

Her name has been changed to protect her identity.

71

me to learn from them about how to establish and maintain successful womens giving circles. She asked everyone to complete the member consent form and pass them to me. Secondly, Colleen pointed out the survey on philanthropic behavior that had been placed in each persons folder. She asked the women to fill the survey out on their own time and return it to me in the pre-paid postage envelope that was also in the folder. After noting that the survey would take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete, she emphasized that it was an integral part of my research. After she introduced me, Colleen shared some interesting statistics with the women related to women's philanthropy. She reported that total gifts to the University Foundation from women since the founding of the Council was $417 million. The total gifts, pledges, and planned gifts from Council members has been $25 million. In 2009, the Foundation received approximately $37.5 million from women and $32.3 million from men. She paused here to note that the 2009 number included a couple of large bequests from women who preferred to remain anonymous, but she continued stating that she is astounded by the numbers when just 20 years ago women were not considered serious major gift prospects. She closed by saying she thinks women compare very favorably to men in the philanthropy arena and that she looks forward to continuing this trend. The next item in the Presidents report included the proposal of the slate of new committee members, including a new President for a three-year term. She then asked for a formal motion to accept the ballot as presented. A motion was made and seconded and

72

the vote was called. After the vote was unanimous she thanked everyone for their service. Then she gave what could be interpreted as a farewell speech. I have enjoyed being a member of this board for several years and for being the chair for the past three years. I want to thank you all for your cooperation and your enthusiasm. That's what continually makes this worth it. Its always a plus to get together here with all of you and I look forward to continuing on. I think that we have strong opinions and varied voices that should be considered because we represent the entire University. Hopefully our efforts will increase those numbers that I mentioned to you not only through financial gifts but also efforts to increase philanthropy at the University. I'm going to be around and I look forward to continuing with you and keep up the good work. The entire room erupted in applause for Colleen. It was my observation that the women in the room have enjoyed her leadership and are pleased that she has agreed to remain involved in a different capacity. The next item on the meeting agenda was the regional committee reports given by each of the regional representatives. The chair of each regional committee presented a report about the status of the regional group, their membership numbers, and the events that were held over the past year. Some groups even discussed the recruitment of new members and the specific programs that were successful in the recruitment of members.

73

One of the regional groups in a nearby city described how it is just beginning to recruit a regional group for this city. Recently, they held a focus group meeting where 50 women attended to learn more about the University and how they could become involved. The development officer assigned to assist this group was at the meeting and anxiously chimed in to report how successful this group has become. Most recently, the new group met to form a charter and develop bylaws. The next item for the group to accomplish is to plan a speaker-lunch meeting in their city. There was very little discussion after each of the regional reports except for the President who continuously thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and working so hard to make the regional groups a success. After the regional reports, the Vice President of the University Foundation presented a report on the scholarship program that has received support from the Council on Womens Giving. The scholarship program was created in 2007 and provides funding for talented students who do not have the financial capacity to attend the University. Members of the Council have helped to promote it by suggesting how it should be marketed and to whom it should be marketed. So far, the scholarship has helped a total of 60 people and five of those scholarships were provided by the Council on Womens Givings Collaborative Giving Project. She thanked the women for their participation on the Council and also publicly thanked Colleen for all of her hard work as President. The Vice President also made sure to welcome the incoming President of the Council who was in attendance.

74

Colleen continued to keep the meeting moving. The next report was given by a staff person from the Development Office and the Chair of the Collaborative Giving Project (CGP). During this report, I learned that the CGP is a womens giving circle that exists within the Women Philanthropy Council at the University. It is similar to other womens giving circles in that its purpose is to pool together funds to make a larger impact; however, the members of the CGP are all Council on Womens Giving executive committee members. The CGPs mission is to support campus women, faculty, staff and students and those who are conducting activities in support of the campus mission. The Council on Womens Givings 23 executive committee members contribute $1,000 annually to the CGP which goes to support an annual symposium for women in leadership, a child care program for sick children of University employees, the scholarship program referenced above, and a faculty mentoring program. In October, the CGP committed to supporting these four projects through the year 2015. A total of $29,000 is committed for the 2010 2011 fiscal year. This is when I observed a general shift in attitudes in the room. The discussion became heated. The chair continued with her report pointing out the shortfall in funding for the coming fiscal year. With only 23 members on the Council on Womens Giving executive committee and a commitment of $29,000 for funding of the four projects, there is a $6,000 shortfall for the coming years commitments. She even noted, You can see going forward we have some real challenges if we want to continue funding our four designated projects at the level we started with.

75

So I dont know how we all feel about whether we want to increase the amount we give or whether we should just keep it at $1,000 each. Im not sure if we plan to expand the size of the Council but if we keep it the same, we wont get the money we need for next year. I could see the side conversations start amongst women who did not even really know each other. They were starting to become frustrated and expressed their displeasure. How could this have happened? Why didnt they tell us sooner? Why are we just finding out about this? I am not prepared to give more this year. And so the discussion continued on for 45 minutes while various solutions were proposed and discussed. Someone in the crowd quickly computed that each woman would only have to contribute $300 more this year to make up for the shortfall. One woman suggested that some women could give more, if they are able, and maybe then they could reach the goal. Another woman mentioned that every time she turns around someone has their hand out to her. She does not want to carry anyone elses load. The discussion created a sense of disorder that I did not expect to see in this room with this particular group of women. About 20 minutes into the discussion, one member made a motion to raise the annual gift to $1,300 for the fiscal year 2010 2011. Another member seconded it. Then

76

someone tried to change the motion and the specifics of Roberts Rules were discussed. Another woman suggested an increase to $2,000 so that this predicament might be avoided in the future. Another member agreed and suggested the extra money could be placed in an endowment account for situations like this. Then the member who made the motion became agitated that her motion had not been called for a vote yet. For a group of women who I presume are of considerable means, I was surprised at how much consternation the proposed increase engendered. I also observed at this time that the younger women (30s, 40s, and early 50s) in the room seemed supportive of an increase to their gift and of the use of the residual to cover future years through an endowment. The older women (60s, 70s, and 80s) in the room seemed inclined to give only what was needed for that year. After 25 minutes of additional discussion, Colleen called for a vote on the motion to increase the gift from $1,000 to $1,300. A hand vote was called and the results were nine to nine a tie. After the votes were tallied, someone asked Colleen if she voted. She admitted that in the chaos she did not cast her vote and after voting aye, the motion to increase the gift to $1,300 was accepted From this point forward, the atmosphere of the room had changed. Women started to become a bit disengaged with what was happening and started to check personal digital assistants and cell phones. One more report was given by the retiring executive director of the Foundation, during which he thanked the women for their contributions and for their unwavering support of the Foundations mission.

77

When the meeting broke for lunch, the conversation about the increase of the annual gift infiltrated the lunch conversation. I was fortunate enough to be included in the lunch plans and got to experience first-hand the continued discussions about the increase. Most of the women at my table were discussing the need to restructure the funding cycle so that funding commitments were made after the money was collected. Other women at my table just wanted to see a more calm and organized discussion about this topic at the next meeting. The President, Colleen, who also sat at my lunch table was concerned about this discussion going forward. She expressed a desire to resolve the situation as soon as possible. During the second half of the meeting various campus project directors presented to the Council. One group in particular, was not shy about asking for funding for their costs. These projects were presented so that the women participating in the COUNCIL were aware of exemplary projects existing on campus. Interviews I indicated in my Internal Review Board proposal in April that I wanted to interview in person each of the Chairs of the womens giving circles I planned to observe. I thought it would be ideal to observe them in their element and then talk with them directly after the meeting to get a better idea of their motivation to be a leader in the circle. I contacted the Development Officer at each institution to ask if I could observe the women during a meeting and meet with the Chair at the conclusion of the meeting. Much to my disappointment, neither of the Chairs was available at the conclusion of the

78

meeting. The following data were collected during interviews conducted over the phone. As you will see, I was also unable to interview the Development Officers in person. I conducted phone interviews for them as well. Interview with Karla University As Chairperson.At the conclusion of the executive committee meeting, I approached Karla,3 the chair of University As womens giving circle, to ask her if she would be willing to be interviewed about her membership in a womens giving circle. While she was not available that afternoon, Karla indicated that she would be happy to answer a few questions on the telephone at a later date. She provided me with her phone number and an e-mail address for follow-up. When I returned from my trip, I emailed her and we scheduled a telephone interview on July 7, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Having met Karla already, I felt comfortable talking with her on the phone. We spent a few minutes recapping my horrible travel experience and my pleasant experience observing the women during the executive committee meeting. I thanked her for making me feel so welcome at the meeting. I also thanked her in advance for the time we were about to spend discussing womens philanthropy. I began the interview with this question: Can you describe your experience as a member of the giving circle? Before she answered, Karla asked if she could provide me with some background information regarding her history with the University.

Her name has been changed to protect her identity.

79

Karla graduated from University A in the mid-to-late 1960s. She graduated with a business degree and secured a very reputable job within a large, Fortune 500 company. After retiring from her full-time job in 1999, Karla started her own consulting business. When business started to slow down in 2006, Karla found herself looking for other things in which to get involved. At the same time, the Development Office at University A contacted her and asked her to lunch. She told me that over the years a lot of people have asked her to lunch, but until that point she rarely had time in her schedule to accept. She met with the Development Officer from the University who asked her to become a member of the planning committee for her upcoming 40th reunion and to make a leadership gift. It was at this meeting she began to gain a better understanding of what the University had accomplished and its strategic plans for moving forward. She said the planning of her 40th reunion celebration came at the perfect time in her life. Karla described how she and four other women met at a local coffee shop to discuss the details of planning their 40th reunion. They had been tasked with the job of forming a committee and reaching out to fellow alumnae to encourage them to attend the reunion. Karla explained how she had always been a loyal contributor to University A and each of the other universities which she and her husband attended. Each year, she would make a gift of $1,000 to University A, a gift of $1,000 to her graduate institution, and $1,000 gift to her husbands two institutions a total of $4,000 a year. She also explained how she and her husband contributed to the United Way and other charities supported by her employer, but they never felt the need to give any more back to her

80

alma mater. Karla also told me that she and her husband made additional gifts to his alma mater because they were more involved there. Other than her regular $1,000 gift to the University, Karla did not feel particularly connected to University A. When I asked her if she had received mailings and magazines from University A updating her on the accomplishments of the University, she said, Yes, I would flip through them on occasion. But she shared that she never had any interest in what was going on there and admitted that she did not have a true idea of what was going on at University A. Karlas experience during her reunion was the experience she needed to reconnect her to University A. I realized during the reunion that I was not aware of how much my alma mater had changed and how proud I was of how they were making a difference in the community. Before, I honestly did not have the time to spend to learn about the [the Universitys] activities. For the past 30 years, I have had a full-time job and was raising two children. Now that I am retired and have the time to spend, I am thrilled to be giving my time back to the University. After they celebrated their reunion together, this newly energized group of women met again to discuss how they could continue to be involved in what was going on at the University. They decided to start a womens giving circle.

81

After Karla described how she became involved with the University, I asked her a few follow-up questions such as: (1) what is your role now in the giving circle? (2) how long have you been involved in it? And (3) why do you participate? I have been involved with the giving circle as a member since its inception in 2007. I was a member for six months during the formation period and then served as a committee member for 18 months. I have been the Chair for one year and will begin my second term in July 2010. Karla mentioned that she always envisioned herself living near a University during her retirement. She thought that it would be nice to give back by more than just writing a check. Not only is she involved with the womens giving circle, but Karla acts as a student mentor for students who are job hunting and serves as a panelist on student senior thesis projects. She enjoys the time she spends on campus and admits that it makes her feel young. At this point, she reminds me that had someone from the University not personally invited her to become more involved, she may have sought out a different place to volunteer her time and contribute her money. The next series of questions for Karla were intended to elicit information about her philanthropic behavior before she became involved with the womens giving circle. As we talked, I realized she already provided me with most of the answers. Yes, her time was limited when she worked full-time and she did not have time to volunteer. Yes, she made obligatory gifts to her alma mater but never had an interest in becoming more involved. Yes, she has written checks and sent them to his and hers the Universities

82

they graduated from. But when I asked Karla about how strategic she had been over the past 30 years of giving back, she admitted she had not employed a strategy for her giving or volunteering. Karla described how she and her husband volunteer for events at work, work the registration table at fundraisers, and attend various non-profit events each year. But Karla and her husband had not historically been strategic in determining the amounts of their gifts or tow whom they gave them. Since Karla has joined the giving circle, her gifts to University A have multiplied. I give five times more to University A than I did before joining the giving circle, approximately $5,000 per year including the reallocation of my other gifts from other institutions. When asked if her involvement with the womens giving circle has changed how she practices philanthropy, reflected in the amount she gives each year, her answer was simple: Absolutely. My participation in the giving circle has caused me to give more. Yes, my participation in the giving circle has changed the way I think about philanthropy. I not only give of my treasures, I give of my time too. I was pleased with the answers I was getting from Karla. At this point, she was truly divulging information that she may not have shared with anyone else. So I kept the

83

questions coming, continuing with Has your participation in the giving circle changed the way you think about philanthropy? Karla was blunt when she said, I think the word philanthropist is overblown. People who call themselves philanthropists are just trying to self-gratify themselves. I grew up Catholic and it was in my upbringing that I should give back of my time and my treasures. I think our group is the antithesis of the meaning of philanthropists. We all give to University A, not because it makes US feel good, but because we are doing something to make someone else feel good. I then asked a follow-up question that I was expecting her to answer in a positive way, but her enthusiasm for the University somewhat surprised me. Has participation in the giving circle changed your level of interest in the University and will you remain involved on a regular basis? Karla paused and then commented that she feels as if she has made a lifetime commitment to University A. Her involvement and participation on campus through the giving circle has created such a positive experience for her that she cannot imagine her life without her time at University A. It was clear to me at this point her involvement in the womens giving circle had changed her view on philanthropy, her level of interest in the University, and her strategy on giving to an organization. By this time, Karla and I had been talking for 54 minutes on the telephone and I did not want to keep her much longer. I asked her if she had any final thoughts to share with me:

84

I have two beliefs when it comes to giving. You give because it is important to contribute to society. It makes you feel good. And then there are those who give because it makes them look good. No matter which strategy you employ, giving back to society is what is important. Interview with Colleen University Bs Chairperson. Before I arrived at the executive committee meeting at University B, I asked the Vice President of Development if she would contact Colleen4 to see if she had some time after the meeting for me to ask her a few questions. Because travel plans were already in place, Colleen was not available. I was surprised to learn that Colleen lives approximately three hours away from the University by plane, so when I arrived at the meeting, I introduced myself to Colleen and asked if she would be willing to spend some time talking with me at another time about her involvement in the Council on Womens Giving. She was enthusiastic and thrilled to be asked. We discussed scheduling a phone conversation for after the Fourth of July. I called her on July 7, 2010 and we talked for 50 minutes. When I initially introduced myself to Colleen, she was welcoming and friendly. At the conclusion of the meeting, she asked me to join the entire group for lunch and then invited me to sit at her table during lunch. She and I talked about womens philanthropy and the rise in major gifts from women, without the assistance of their husbands. We also talked of the politics that exist within the womens giving circle at University B.

Her name has been changed to protect her identity.

85

She described the population of women as very diverse indicating that there were many women who have different points of view when it comes to how much they should give, how often they should give, and how the excess of money collected by the giving circle should be invested. Colleen seemed comfortable confiding in me about some of the details. When I placed the call to her home the morning of July 7th, we spoke again like old friends. I immediately thanked her for her time during the busy summer months. She thanked me for adding my research to the existing research that supports womens philanthropy. I began by asking Colleen if she could describe her experience as a member of the womens giving circle. Colleen has been involved in the Council for 16 years, since 1994. She has served as the President of the Council for three years with her term expiring on June 30, 2010. As a result of her position as President of the Council, Colleen has also had the privilege of serving on the University Foundation Board of Directors in an ex-officio position. Colleen, like Karla, felt I needed some background about her upbringing to better understand how she viewed philanthropy before she joined the womens giving circle and started making gifts herself. My background is modest. I grew up on a farm and my parents gave modestly to the church. My father worked while my mother did the books. For five years before I was married, I lived on my own and did my

86

own finances. When I married Peter5, he liked that I balanced my own checkbook. His mother was an accountant for a prominent restaurant and with five boys and a husband who did not help out much at home; she learned to raise her boys on her own. So, Peter was used to women making their own decisions. He encouraged me to help him make monetary and philanthropic decisions. I had a hard time coming to terms with that because that wasnt what I saw in my upbringing. When I asked Colleen about how involved she was before the womens giving circle she indicated that she was involved here and there but mostly at school with her children. I volunteered at my childrens school. I was classroom mom and helped out with other activities that involved my children. You have to understand, at that time, my mentality of women rallying around a cause was holding a PTA bake sale. Colleen went on to explain that she and her husband were always involved philanthropically at his alma mater where they created a scholarship for a masters degree student majoring in Education. When the scholarship came to the attention of the University B development staff, Colleen and her husband received an invitation to an alumni event in New York City. This event was being held for the purpose of recruiting female donors to become members of the newly forming Council on Womens Giving.

His name has been changed to protect his identity.

87

At the event, Colleen heard the Vice President of Development speak about women becoming more involved at University B and at that moment, she decided to become more involved. At that same event, I heard a very philanthropic woman speak about giving her own money back to the University she graduated from. This further encouraged me to get involved and start giving. Before Colleen joined the giving circle, she changed her giving habits with the encouragement of her husband. He encouraged her to give to organizations in which she was interested. Together, they created a family foundation to make more substantial gifts while also using taking advantage of the tax benefits that come with that structure. Every year, they gave to both universities and their first major gift was a scholarship created at his alma mater. When I asked Colleen about whether her participation in the giving circle has changed the way she practices philanthropy now, she said: Becoming involved in the giving circle has marked the first time I have made gifts on my own. I give now through the Collaborative Giving Project. I feel that being more involved makes me feel like I am doing more to help women attain an education they may not have otherwise received. I still give to the University, just a little more than before.

88

Colleen also made a point of explaining that her method of giving or her strategy of giving has become more deliberate. Before she makes a gift, she takes the time to learn more about how it will impact the population she is concerned about. I specifically choose the projects that I invest in. I feel more connected and invested in the projects that I give to. I would rather give bigger gifts to fewer projects because it makes a greater impact on the beneficiaries of the money. When I asked if her participation in the giving circle has change her level of interest in the University, Colleen said, My involvement with the Council on Womens Giving has changed the way I think about the University in a positive way. I am more aware of the needs of the University and where my money would be best spent/designated. I have more interest in ongoing projects and want to stay involved to see them through to completion (if there is one). Being a member of the Board has created more appreciation for education and how important it really is. Having been involved in womens giving since 1994, I was confident that Colleen would remain involved in the University for years to come. However, I asked her if she planned to remain involved on the Council on Womens Giving at the conclusion of her term as President.

89

I do see myself remaining interested in the University and involved in the philanthropy at the institution. I am looking forward to rotating out as President because I will get the chance to step back and watch from a different point of view. I hope to spend some time on the bylaws committee. I would like to see term limits added to the bylaws as well as some other changes. Having reached the end of our interview questions, I asked Colleen if there was anything else she wanted to share with me about her experiences in the giving circle. I felt comfortable talking to her the entire conversation. This interview, unlike my interview with Karla, was more like a conversation than an interview. She confided in me by explaining that along with making a difference through her gifts, she feels as though she is making a difference in other womens lives. I often catch a few women who say that being involved means something to them and that giving like this makes them think about how they can effect change. Interview with University A Vice President of Development, Assistant Vice President of Development, and the Major Gifts Officer. The last of my telephone interviews was conducted on September 1, 2010 at 4:00 in the afternoon. Although I visited University A in June, it was difficult to find a time that worked for all three of the Development Officers involved in the giving circle and

90

which was sufficient to permit me to conduct an interview. When I placed the call to University A, I heard three women greeting me happily on the other end of the line. I first met the Assistant Vice President, Judy,6 and Major Gifts Officer, Mary, at a conference in Indianapolis, Indiana in November 2008. I traveled to the Womens Philanthropy Institute conference to pick up ideas for my dissertation topic. I was also in Indianapolis to see a few major gift prospects. I met the women at the awards dinner on the final evening in Indianapolis. At the time, I was still formulating ideas of what I wanted my dissertation to accomplish, but I shared with Judy that I was hoping to focus on the impact of womens giving circles in higher education. Judys response was Well youre in luck! We have one of those! We would love for you to come out and see us. You are always welcome. We exchanged contact information and then she introduced me to Mary. She explained that Mary had recently been hired to serve as the full-time administrator of the giving circle at University A, and should I have any questions, I should direct them to Mary. She [Mary] was the expert. Once I formulated my plan, received IRB approval and began to think of whom I might observe, Judy and Mary came to mind instantly. When I contacted Mary to ask if I could observe their giving circle in action, she was more than accommodating sending me directions, hotel suggestions, and even greeting me in the pouring rain when I arrived. The same was true when I asked if I could interview her over the telephone for about one

The names of all three Development Officers at University A, Judy, Mary and Sarah, have been

changed to protect their identities.

91

hour. She insisted that if I interviewed her, I should also interview Judy, who arrived a year before she did, and the Vice President, Sarah, who arrived six months before that. She felt that all three of them could paint a better picture than she could alone. I now understand what she meant. I started the interview by thanking the women for finding time in their busy schedules to talk with me. I asked the women why they created the womens giving circle at University A. Judy answered by saying: Our University was a womens college until 1988. There was never a strong culture of giving back to the institution monetarily. We wanted get women engaged at a higher giving level and create a new voice on campus for people to listen to. I was brought on here at University A to help start a womens giving circle because I had experience in starting one at my previous job. When Sarah came on board, she agreed with the creation of the womens giving circle and so away we went. Because Mary arrived about a year after the creation of the giving circle, she gave credit to Judy and Sarah for establishing the circle. It was Judy and Sarahs idea. Im just the puppeteer of their creation. Sarah and Judy both had experience in forming a giving circle at another institution. When Sarah and Judy arrived at University A, they both thought this would be the best way to attract a new caliber of female donors.

92

I continued by asking Judy if the giving circle has its own mission and goals. She explained that the womens giving circle was created with a mission of getting more women engaged socially and financially with the institution. The underlying goals are to support more programs or projects on campus that encourage creativity. The projects supported do not necessarily have a female slant to them, except that the women are the philanthropists behind the money. I asked Sarah a follow-up question regarding the goals, Were the goals created by the members alone or did you and your staff provide some assistance? Sarah explained that sample bylaws and committee job descriptions were borrowed from other universities. Judy made a contact at a conference in Boston and obtained some additional sample documents to help with the formation of the circle. Looking back on that experience, Sarah remembers fondly when she and Judy were ready to let go. Once the circle was created, we [Judy and I] felt that we planted the seed and now we needed to step away. Sarah and Judy both felt confident in the alumnae they chose to get the womens giving circle off the ground. Sarah went on to explain, Once the women accepted intellectually the idea of a giving circle and put it inside their hearts, we were confident that it would flourish. In the beginning, Judy would attend every meeting of the newly formed circle until Mary joined the staff. In 2008 when Mary came on board, the women in the circle were starting to take more ownership of the success of the circle and were only

93

consulting the staff for administrative support. Mary spends about three quarters of her time on things related to the giving circle. She works with the women on mailings, the on-line voting process, grant administration, and the recruitment of new members. There is also a clerical support person (who is also a member) who tracks donations and provides any clerical support the circle needs. Because we were already on the topic of the role of the staff within the womens giving circle, I asked Judy if the staff has a specific role in the success of the womens giving circle. All of us are members voting members of the giving circle. We all contribute $1,000 annually to be a part of the circle. It is expected that annually all members will make their gift, either through payroll deduction or other traditional methods. We do follow up on gifts that have not come in around April or May. Most gifts, though, come in on their own. Related to the role of staff, Mary pointed out that the time she spends working with the giving circle reaps rewards for her in establishing a rich portfolio of major gift donors. Most of the women who are members of the womens giving circle have become major gift prospects of Marys. She is working with these women to move them from major gift prospects to major gift donors. Judy added that as a result of the positive experience the women within the giving circle are having, two of the current members have made additional contributions each year to create an endowment to cover the cost of a full-time position in the development

94

office to serve as an administrator to this group. Sarah commented that this is a direct result of involving the women in the everyday operations of the University. She could not be more pleased. The decision-making of the giving circle was next on my list to discuss. I asked if the members alone decide how to spend the funds raised by the members. Mary quickly answered, Yes, the members decide how to spend the money. Everyone receives one vote and this year they decided to give away $71,000 of the total $74,000 available. I followed up by asking Mary if the Development Office has the final say as to which grant applications are funded. Nope. We run this group like we would any other college affiliated board. Each member has one vote and they decide by majority who is funded each year. Because I also observed the womens giving circle executive committee in action, I knew how the giving circle was structured. However, I asked Mary a few clarification questions. The giving circle has an executive committee with a President, Treasurer, Corresponding Secretary, and Recording Secretary. There are five committees within the giving circle structure: awards, membership, events, bylaws, and public relations. The committees meet bi-monthly and the executive committee, consisting of the chairs of all the committees and the aforementioned positions, meet monthly. The next section of the interview involved the details of the financial structure of the giving circle. Some giving circles are created as separate 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. The two giving circles I observed have their money held by the University

95

or University Foundation, both operating as 501(c)(3) organizations themselves. Sarah described that it works best when the University holds all the funds in a separate giving circle account for the members donations. However, Sarah explained that there have been many discussions about the creation of a separate 501(c)(3) for the womens giving circle. While there have been talks, nothing has progressed. Again, Sarah explained that the University administration is not opposed to the creation of a separate 501(c)(3). The only concern would be if the women became disenchanted with the University, then the stream of funding for various projects on campus could be in jeopardy. Being familiar with the statistics, Mary gave me the specifics details about the makeup of the womens giving circle at University A. The circle totals 85 members with 64 percent of the membership identified as alumnae, 35 percent as non alumnae, six percent as faculty, and 10 percent as staff. All faculty and staff who are members of the giving circle make their gifts through payroll deduction. I asked Sarah, being that she is the Vice President, to explain the staff roles for each of the three of them. She explained, Each of us has a different role. Judy and I serve as members on the committee and work with some of the women to ask them for a major gift. Mary works closely with the members on administrative items such as the on-line voting process, the annual solicitation, and the recruitment of new members. We all work very well together and enjoy the time we spend with the womens giving circle members.

96

After discussing the specific makeup of the womens giving circle and the role each staff member plays, I asked the women why they are involved in the giving circle. Is it their job? Do they volunteer to be involved? Mary was the first to answer, It is my job a huge part of my job; however, I enjoy it. It makes me happy to see these women engaged in our institution. They want to learn about everything, they are fully engaged. Sarah chimed in to say These women see themselves as philanthropists. We couldnt have asked for more. All three of the women indicated that they are members of the womens giving circle and so I was careful when I asked the next question, Did you volunteer to become a member of the womens giving circle or were you required? Judy was the first to share her answer, I believe that if you are going to support something, you need to do it 100 percent. I willingly contribute to the womens giving circle annually. While I think I thought I knew this answer already, I asked the women if any of them were involved in a giving circle at another institution. I asked them to give me the specifics of where, in what capacity and for how long. Before coming to University A, Mary had limited experience with giving circles. Judy, however, probably had the most experience. The first time she learned of giving circles was at a conference she attended in July 2006. She asked a lot of questions and gathered information on how to establish and maintain a giving circle at her University. She returned to her University and started

97

to create a giving circle when she was hired at University A. When Judy arrived at University A, she had recently created a giving circle at another local institution. She mentioned that she was just starting to see the results from its creation when she left to work at University A. However, all the women indicated that the giving circle experience at University A was different because there were alumnae who were asking for this kind of involvement. Also, with the alumni giving rate so low, the women knew it was a logical first step to increasing overall giving to University A. Moving to discussion about the fund raising strategy at University A, I posed the question, Has participation in a giving circle changed the way you think about fund raising? Judy was quick to respond, No, not really. We already knew that the best way to attract donors was to get them invested in what goes on at the University. It has been so successful involving the women through the giving circle. This is definitely fund raising at its best. Has the creation of the womens giving circle changed your strategy in how you ask a donor for money? Having seen the immediate success of the womens giving circle through an increase in overall giving, Sarah said, Yes, it has changed where we look for names and how often we bring new female names to the major gifts table discussion. We have women who we were trying to get involved with our University, who are now involved

98

because of the giving circle. We never thought we would get them involved. Sarah went on to explain, It has also changed how I talk to a potential female donor. I always bring up the womens giving circle as a way to get her interested first, and then solicit her later. The more time they spend on the giving circle, the more engaged and invested they become. I asked Sarah if the womens giving circle has made them all more aware of female donors in your community. Founded as a womens college, I knew that women were not new prospects for them; however, Judy mentioned before that alumnae giving at University had always been low. I also knew that the examples set by the members of the womens giving circle have attracted some attention within the alumnae population. Sarah explained, Has it brought new women to the front? Yes and no. We have women who we have been targeting for some time. We have some of those women involved but now we are looking beyond those names for new ones inside the University community and beyond. Having observed the womens giving circle, I knew that it was a high-functioning, very motivated group of women. I asked Mary about short-term goals for the circle. Did she have some? Did the committee have different short-term goals? Mary explained,

99

The overall short-term goal set by the Development Office and the committee together is to reach 100 members. There are two benefits to that (1) we have $100,000 to award to various projects on campus and (2) it will help the giving circle raise the minimum grant award amount from $10,000 to $25,000. They would love to reach that unofficial goal in the next year. I asked Mary about retention? Do you intend to acquire 15 new donors in one year and keep the other 85 at the same time? Yes, that is the long-term goal. We hope the giving circle membership will continue to grow. We havent discussed when or if it will become unmanageable. Well see when we get there. Trying to be sensitive to the time I have taken with them, I begin to conclude the interview by asking if there is an overall long-term goal for the creation of the womens giving circle at the University. Judy explained that all along the goal was to create a voice for women as philanthropists on campus. The giving circle has served as an example for alumnae in the future as a way to give back to the institution. She explained that their hard work has paid off. The staff does not intend to neglect the circle and plans for expansion are moving along smoothly. Judy hopes that in three years, the membership will be at 100 members, at least, and the minimum grant award will be raised to $25,000.

100

In five years, Sarah would like to see a position created on the Board of Trustees for a womens giving circle member. She does not want it to be a member filling an open seat, she is hoping a new seat will be created for the giving circle, filled by a giving circle member, preferably the President. Mary is working on a program that will encourage the women in the giving circle to commit to a five-year pledge of $1,000 a year. This will ameliorate the tedious job of asking each and every woman for her gift of $1,000 every year. She would like to see the giving become more automatic. Ten years from now, the staff would like to have a full-time person in the Development Office dedicated entirely as administrative support for the giving circle. Sarah hopes that the endowment will be fully-funded by that time. In closing, I asked the staff if there was anything else they felt I should know about their giving circle at University A. Mary mentioned that she wanted to update me on the results of the voting and the grants that were awarded for this year. She knew that I was present at the last roundtable discussion. Mary mentioned that the women are all happy with the projects that will receive their support this year. Out of 16 proposals that were submitted for consideration to the womens giving circle, the women chose to support 14 of those projects for a total of $71,000 in funding. The projects include funding for a Zebra fish development lab, a one-day workshop for children who stutter, and the purchase of specialty software for the graphic design laboratory.

101

Judy feels that over the past three years the mentality on campus about the womens giving circle has changed from a group that resembled a Parent Teacher Association bake sale to something that is a force to be reckoned with. She gushed when she said that the quality of the grant proposals has become more competitive and more thoughtfully written. Interview with University B - Vice President of Development. I conducted an interview with the Vice President of Development at University B on August 16, 2010 at 11:00 in the morning. Jennifer,7 the Vice President of Development, has spent most of her career researching, writing and speaking about women in philanthropy. She has substantial experience in fund raising and believes that 20 years ago, female donors were virtually non-existent. Her goal has always been to raise the profile of the female donor. I thanked her for her time and began by asking her why she created the womens giving circle at University B. She responded by asking if she could provide me with some background about the womens giving circle at University B before answering the question. Twenty years ago, she created a group called the Council on Womens Giving.8 The purpose of the Council was to create a way to encourage female donors to become more involved with the University by placing them in more prominent positions on campus. Women were recruited from all across the United States in different age

Her name has been changed to protect her identity. The name of the group has been fabricated to protect the identity of its members.

102

groups and with different affiliations with the University to come together and effect change for women on campus. It even took a few years for the Foundation staff to understand the purpose behind the creation of this group. Jennifer explained that it took some time for the women to gain the respect of others on campus. In 2000, Jennifer formed a womens giving circle within the Council on Womens Giving, called the Collaborative Giving Project (CGP). Its purpose was to encourage women involved in the Council on Womens Giving to support the institution financially. The mission of the CGP is to assist campus women (faculty, staff and students) and those who are doing activities in support of campus women. The CGP is made up of 23 members from the executive committee of the Council on Womens Giving. Every year each woman contributes $1,000 and the CGP committee sets (on their own) priorities based on a six-year funding cycle. They select significant projects to support and commit to those projects for six years at a time. Every year the goals for the projects are set, the results are measured and funding is adjusted, as needed. The CGP looks for projects across campus that serve as many people as possible. Do you, as the primary staff member for the womens giving circle, have a specific role in the success of the womens giving circle, I asked. Jennifer responded, I am involved in all decisions regarding funding through the CGP. However, I do not officially have a vote. The committee listens closely to what I have to say regarding the selection of the right projects to support on campus.

103

This is different from University A and the role the staff member plays as the administrator of the womens giving circle. University As liaison, Mary, is allowed to vote for the projects she supports but does not influence the womens giving circle in any other way. When I asked Jennifer to explain how the womens giving circle was structured financially, she explained that she created the CGP to exist within the confines of the University Foundation. The money collected from members is held by the University Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3). The Foundation holds the funds and administers the grant funding to each project selected for funding annually. The membership of the CGP comes from the Council on Womens Giving. All members of the CGP are also members of the Council executive committee. Jennifer designed the giving circle to include only alumnae and community members supporting the University. Right now, there are 23 members - 20 alumnae and three friends or business women from the community. No current faculty members are allowed to serve on the committee. Understanding that Jennifer created the giving circle, I asked her what her role is within the circle. She explained that she serves as an advisor to the giving circle. She has two staff members that help her with the everyday correspondence among the group, the development of the agenda and the annual solicitation. The staff members work with the Chair of the group to write and send out the annual solicitation. Jennifer is responsible for following up with members who have not yet made their gift.

104

At this point, I asked Jennifer about why she participates in the giving circle. I knew she created the giving circle, but I was curious to see if she enjoys her involvement or if it is required as a job responsibility. I felt that there needed to be a way to bring women to the forefront in the giving arena. I created the Council so that women have a forum to share their ideas and make an impact on campus. Because Jennifer has 20 years of experience in fund raising I did not think her involvement with the womens giving circle would change the way she thinks about fund raising but I had to ask. Jennifers response was: No, not necessarily. I know from my years of experience that fund raising and cultivating a donor takes time and energy. I know that its not a quick thing. My involvement with this group confirmed the knowledge I already had about fund raising. So then I asked, Has it changed your strategy in how you ask a donor for money? She responded, I have tweaked my strategy a bit maybe as a result of this group. I think that there needs to be more of a personal touch when courting the donor like thank you notes and or letters of correspondence. Continuing with the theme of stewardship of female donors, I asked if she thinks that female donors can sometimes be a bit more labor intensive.

105

Yes, I believe that it takes more staff time to steward and ask a female for a gift. Most women want to be involved after they make a gift. They want to see how the gift has impacted someone or something. I find that getting female donors involved in the overall mission and goals of the University makes it easier to ask the donors for the ultimate gift. I went on to ask, So as a seasoned fundraiser has your involvement with womens philanthropy, and more specifically, womens giving circles made you more aware of female donors in your community? Yes, definitely. I feel that more female donors have come to the forefront of giving at the University as a result of the Council on Womens Giving. More female donors are being asked to serve in leadership roles on volunteer boards at the University as well. I followed with: When you thought about creating a womens giving circle, 20 years ago, did you have any short-term goals in mind? Jennifer explained that it was always in the back of her mind that she would like to attract attention to female donors to the University. However, her first priority was to create a forum for women to have their voice heard on campus. Now that that goal has been met, it is her goal to maintain relationships with the female donors who continue to show interest in the University but who rotate off the Council.

106

I also hope to retain the donors who are already involved. I hope that if they dont stay involved on the board that they will move on to other projects/boards within the University. So still speaking about short-term goals, do you intend to acquire more female donors over the next three to five years? Yes, overall certainly, but not too many more donors for the CGP. I would like this group to remain about the same size. I would like the CGP to hover around 25 members. I went on to ask Jennifer about the long-term goals she has established for the Council. Possessing the fund raising experience you have, have you thought about the long-term goals for the womens giving circle at your University? She responded: There are no long-term goals over the next three, five, or 10 years. Nothing formal. However, I would like to cultivate some of the women already involved to make a major gift. The stewardship of female donors is so crucial once they become involved in the University. I asked her, As the women rotate off the board, what has been your experience with keeping the women engaged with the University? I have involved some of the women in projects on campus and used them as resources for committees on campus. For example, some of the women on the CGP were involved in identifying discriminatory policies on campus and bringing them to the attention of administrators on campus. I

107

would also like use some of the women to increase the number of regional groups that exist within the Council. In closing, I asked Jennifer if there is anything she would like other development professionals to know when contemplating the creation of a womens giving circle at their University. All of the women involved in the CGP have served as such a good resource for the University. The projects they have chosen to support are dynamic projects because they cast a large net over the campus. These projects bring attention to the CGP unlike before. My advice would be to constantly provide opportunities for your rotating womens giving circle members to remain involved on campus. Involvement is the key to investment. Conclusion In summary, the evidence in this qualitative research case study was discovered during observations, interviews and survey collection at two Midwestern Universities. The data painted a picture of the motivations of a member to join a giving circle and the incentives of an institution to create one. Chapter Five makes recommendations for development professionals who are interested in establishing a womens giving circle.

108

Chapter V Summary Data collected during this case study revealed that members of the womens giving circles observed became initially involved after personally being asked to join a womens 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 in the giving circle, female members maintained or increased their gifts to the organization while also increasing the number of hours spent volunteering for the organization. Furthermore, the female members involved in the giving circle were interested in the camaraderie that was also formed during the creation of and execution of the agenda items during meetings. The women observed indicated that their involvement in the womens giving circle also created a keen sense of awareness for community problems locally and beyond. Limitations of the Study This qualitative case study offers a few important findings to the literature. Yet, there are some limitations to the study also. First, the design was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal in nature. Data was collected over a period of four months from two institutions of higher education. A longitudinal study would have expanded the number of observations collected and supplied the researcher with more in-depth interviews needed to make concrete statements about womens giving habits.

109

A second limitation to the study was the nature of the sample itself. The sample chosen included two institutions of higher education. One institution was identified as a private institution formerly identified as a womens college and the second institution was identified as a public, land-grant institution. A longitudinal study would have provided more time to recruit additional institutions that mirror the aforementioned institutions. Observations of additional institutions with similar characteristics would have provided the researcher with more depth in order to expand on the conclusions of the data. Another limitation to this study was the lack of survey responses collected from University B. Of the total 23 possible responses to the survey administered, a total of 9 were collected. As indicated before, the researcher would have built more time into the agenda to administer the surveys during the meeting in order to obtain a more accurate picture of the giving behaviors of the members of the womens giving circle at University B. Finally, the ages of the women observed participating in womens giving circles were a limitation to this qualitative case study. The women observed as participating in the womens giving circles were approximately 65 years old. Given more time, the researcher could have deliberately chosen a womens giving circle with a younger average population. This addition to the study would have expanded the depth of conclusions made by the researcher.

110

Conclusion Women are contributing in a new, creative and collaborative way to support higher education in the United States (Beeson, 2006, p. 110). However, as their desire to become more involved in the philanthropic community grows, it is imperative that fundraisers are prepared to help them visualize their impact in the non-profit community (Shaw & Taylor, 1995). This case study set out to investigate the motivation of women who join womens giving circles and the motivation of a higher education institution to create a womens giving circle by answering the following six research questions: 1. What is the motivation of a member to join a womens giving circle at an institution 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 the creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution? 5. What is the long-term goal of an office of institutional advancement in the creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution? 6. Is an institution artificially limiting womens giving in higher education by using giving circles or are the circles being effectively used as a stewardship tool to maximize charitable contributions to the institution?

111

The motivation of a member can be influenced by a variety of outside forces. However, the findings, based on interviews, surveys, and observations, suggest that many different things motivated women to join a womens giving circles. These were: Women were more motivated to join a giving circle when a personal invitation was extended to them. They were also more inclined to remain involved after being a part of a giving circle for at least one year. Women were motivated to join a giving circle because they have a desire to make a larger impact then they can by themselves. Women were also more inclined to join a giving circle when they could not only contribute philanthropically, but volunteer their time as well. Membership in a womens giving circle provides a female donor with many satisfactions. The existing research reports thus far that the desire to make an impact ranks high on the list of important benefits of membership (Bearman, et al., 2005; Beeson, 2006; Eikenberry & Bearman, 2009). Shaw and Taylor (1995) describe the desire to make an impact as one of the Six Cs of Womens Giving: Change. The ability to bring about change and make a difference ranks number one as a motivation for womens giving. Women are willing to support new and different causes and prefer to give where their gift will make a difference (p. 88).

112

Based on observations and interviews, members indicated that they were looking for friendship, camaraderie, and a greater awareness of the problems in the community as a benefit of their membership. I observed first-hand the camaraderie and friendship that have developed as a result of working together for a greater cause. Not only did the members establish friendship and create a sense of camaraderie, thirty nine percent of overall respondents indicated that their participation in a giving circle substantially increased their awareness of problems in the community and also substantially increased their participation in the efforts to address the problems in the community. Beesons (2006) dissertation also sought the answer for what motivates women to join a womens giving circle. Her study found that women were motivated to join for a variety of reasons including the opportunity to connect to campus, control the destination of their gift, participate in the selection and awarding of grants and generally express their philanthropic support of the university (Beeson, 2006, p. 123). As a result of participation in a giving circle, members reportedly increased the number of hours spent volunteering and maintained or increased the total amount contributed over a period of one year. The findings related to the short-term, long-term and stewardship research questions will be addressed in the recommendations for higher education and development professionals below.

113

Recommendations Several recommendations can be drawn from the findings in this study. All recommendations connect to the impact the findings have on higher education and on the field of Development. Recommendations for Higher Education. The creation of a womens giving circle at a higher education institution to attract female donors is critical. With the growing number of women achieving executive positions within the business industry, institutions need to create an entry point to connect alumnae back to the institution. Giving circles create an opportunity for alumnae to increase their level of involvement and establish a long-term commitment with the organization. Some themes that emerged within this study include the importance a personal invitation can have in enticing a person to join, the role timing and the availability of the group (i.e. womens giving circle) can play, and how the desire to make an impact in the community can drive a person to become involved. The personal invitation has become a strong tool used by fundraisers to recruit members for the giving circles. Interviews with the key development officers indicated that the giving circle has frequently been used as an initial point of entry for women interested in getting involved with the institution. Membership in the giving circle serves as the first step in cultivating women towards making a major gift. The results of this study suggest that a personal invitation from the institution is more effective than any other method of communication. Most women who were

114

interviewed indicated they became involved because someone took the time to ask them to become involved. Once invested and involved, these women tend to spend more time working together to make a greater impact on campus. Perhaps not surprisingly, the findings indicate that these volunteers oftentimes become donors. Female donors need to be educated about the accomplishments of the institution through more than just the usual channels of communication, i.e. alumni magazines, annual solicitations, public relations e-blasts, etc. By connecting women with our organization or project before asking them for money, we let our prospects know that we care about them (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 91). Women interviewed admitted that they did not have a complete picture of how the institution was being run or what the top priorities of that institution were until they were full engaged in the womens giving circle. Their recommendation to the field of higher education was to approach alumnae and friends of the institution personally, educate them about the priorities of the institution and provide them a method (i.e. womens giving circle) to become involved so that they can make a difference. Another recommendation from the women interviewed was to hold more focus groups for women to attend. Women are showing interest in attending focus groups held by the University in cities with large pockets of alumnae. These focus groups serve two purposes: to educate alumnae of the accomplishments of the University and to ask if they would like to become more involved as a volunteer at the University. Women felt that they could make a difference at their alma mater given the opportunity or forum to do so.

115

Recommendations for Development Professionals. Development professionals who have experience creating giving circles know that in order for the giving circle to be attractive to women, there needs to be some ability to control the money collected or use the money collected to make a change. Women see money as a tool for change, and they see change as immediate, not gradual (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 89). In the creation of a giving circle, it is critical for a development professional to involve a diverse group of women with all different types of experience and background. Once a giving circle has been initiated, it needs a membership the body of individuals whose money, energy, and time provide fuel for its operations (Rutnik & Bearman, 2005, p. 11). Research shows that founding members of giving circles are looking beyond their personal network of friends to create a more diverse group of members that can bring different resources to the table (Bearman, et al., 2005; Eikenberry & Bearman, 2009; Rutnik & Bearman, 2005). The circles that were subject to this research study are comprised of a diverse population of women of predominantly affluent means. Sixty eight percent of the women surveyed responded that their net worth is in excess of $1,000,000. Two respondents answered that their net worth is in excess of $20,000,000. Giving circles appeal to donors of all ages. Many circles find that the interactions among different age groups are a significant source of learning for members. Nevertheless, most giving circle donors are

116

between the ages of 40 and 65perhaps because these individuals are likely to be established in their careers and settled in their communities (Bearman, 2007b, p. 7). The results of this study suggest that women involved in giving circles prefer an organized structure to a loose, informal network of women. Women preferred a structured giving circle with officers, bylaws, committee reports and a streamlined voting process. Giving circle members preferred a diversified membership. They felt that a more diverse group of women brought more experience to the group. Before establishing a giving circle, the institution should create a strategic plan to roll out the introduction of the giving circle properly. Next, the institution should hold focus groups in cities with large pockets of potential female donors to ask them what they want to learn about the institution. The development office within the institution should work closely with potential members to educate them about the accomplishments of the University and how they can help advance programming at the institution. They should work with the alumnae to involve them in mentorship programs, alumni career panels, and other student life activities. Next, the institution should look for leaders in the focus groups who understand the goals of the institution and use those leaders to identify other alumnae who will volunteer their time and talents. It is also prudent to keep them informed and involved in the creation of the organizational structure of the circle. By seeking their input regarding

117

the details of the giving circles administration, women will remain engaged in the process and will feel proud to recruit other members. The chairs of the giving circles also had strong opinions about their level of participation in the circle. Both indicated that their current level of participation is not temporary and their desire to remain involved with the University is strong. From a development prospective, key development officers not only want to engage their volunteers by asking them for their time, but by also asking for their financial support. When recruiting new members, key development officers should explain that membership in a giving circle includes an annual contribution. Ultimately, the relationship that is forged over time with both the key development officer and the institution creates a bond between the member and the institution. The key development officers work to cultivate this relationship. Women want to feel connected with an organization when they give money (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 90). Not only do female donors want to feel connected but the moment they do not, you have lost their commitment to the cause. Donor retention is the key to continued success in fund raising and the two key elements for continued success are communication and involvement. Key development officers also know the importance of keeping the womens giving circle members involved. A large part of linking women to an organization involves making them feel needed (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 92). A simple thank you for their time, talent and treasures can keep female donors engaged. Hedrick (2008) says

118

in her new book entitled, Effective Donor Relations, acknowledgment is one or more private communications between the organization benefitting from the gift and the donor that made the gift. This step is crucial in the relationship building process of fund raising. With planning, key development officers and higher education institutions can build a relationship with a female volunteer that uses their commitment to the cause to establish a long-term relationship with the organization. We must find a new way of attracting women to charities by using their strong volunteer orientation yet focusing on major giving (Shaw & Taylor, 1995, p. 93). Findings showed that: Giving circles were used as a method of attracting new female donors to the institution. Membership in the giving circle acted as the first step in the major gifts cultivation process. Giving circles were also used as a stewardship tool to establish a long-term relationship between the donor and the University. Stewardship is the process of using a gift as the donor intended and then communicating with the donor about the use of the gift (Hedrick, 2008, p. 4). Open lines of communication provides the donor with the opportunity to ask about the impact of the gift, express a desire to remain involved with the organization, and the opportunity to meet the recipient(s) of the gift. This relationship building exercise is crucial to the future involvement of the donor. Future research There are many avenues of research related to the impact of giving circles that have not been addressed in this study. First of all, various types of giving circles could

119

be investigated further. While some of this study covered the demographics of a giving circle, a new trend has surfaced in which womens giving circles are being created with women of a particular race or ethnicity. A study investigating whether this type of ethnically driven giving circle exists within higher education would be interesting. Secondly, the findings of this study were limited by the number of Universities observed and members surveyed. Another study could include additional Universities to gather a larger picture of how giving circles function within Universities. The research would be similar in that the case study would only include giving circles classified as formal organizations so that a direct comparison could be completed. Lastly, a complete list of giving circles within higher education in the United States does not exist. While the suggested research is not a qualitative case study, it would provide a point of reference for Universities creating giving circles. Development professionals at different schools could contact each other and share resources used to create a giving circle. Once that list is completed, ample data could be collected over a period of time that could demonstrate the trends in higher education giving and the trends of female donors and their giving habits.

120

References

Bearman, J. E. (2007a). Hosting a giving circle. Washington, DC: Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers. Bearman, J. E. (2007b). More giving together: The growth and impact of giving circles and shared giving. Washington, D.C.: Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers. Bearman, J. E., Beaudoin-Schwartz, B., & Rutnik, T. A. (2005). Giving circles: A powerful vehicle for women. In M. Taylor & S. Shaw-Hardy (Eds.), New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising (Winter ed., Vol. 50, pp. 109-123). San Francisco, CA: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Beeson, M. J. E. (2006). Women's giving circles: A case study in higher education philanthropy. Doctor of Education Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts International database. Bianchi, A. (2000, October). The new philanthropy. Inc.23-25. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Byrne, J. A. (2002, December 2). The new face of philanthropy, Business Week. Carter, L. S. (2005). All in the family: Why college-wide support of institutional advancement is key. Inquiry, 10(1), 35-40.

121

Clohesy, S. J. (2001). Donor circles: Launching & leveraging shared giving (pp. 58). San Francisco, CA: Women's Funding Network. Cobb, N. K. (2002). The new philanthropy: Its impact on funding arts and culture. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 32(2), 125-143. Collinson, P., Rex, R., & Stanton, G. (2003). Lady Margaret Beaufort and her professors of Divinity at Cambridge: 1502 to 1649. Oxford, England: Cambridge University Press. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Curti, M. (1957). The history of american philanthropy as a field of research. The American Historical Review, 62(2), 352-363. Curti, M. (1958). American philanthropy and the national character. American Quarterly, 10(4), 420-437. Eikenberry, A. M. (2005). Giving circles and the democratization of philanthropy. Doctor of Philosophy Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska. Dissertation Abstracts International database. Eikenberry, A. M. (2006). Giving circles: Growing grassroots philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 517-532. doi: 10.1177/0899764006287482

122

Eikenberry, A. M., & Bearman, J. (2009). The impact of giving together: Giving circles' influence on members' philanthropic and civic behaviors, knowledge and attitudes: Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers. Evans, J. (1997, January 17). Alumnae who give - and now get; The trade-off for women's donations is campus power; Final edition, The Washington Post. Hedrick, J. L. (2008). Effective Donor Relations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Jones, M. M. (2000). Circular reasoning can prove most charitable indeed: 'Giving circles' help focus, fuel philanthropy., Concord Monitor. Key Facts About Women-Owned Businesses. (2008). Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.womensbusinessresearch.org/facts/index.php Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Matthews, A. (1991, April 7). Alma maters court their daughters. The New York Times Magazine. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed. Vol. 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCarthy, K. D. (1990). Lady bountiful revisited: Women, philanthropy, and power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

123

Ms. Foundation for Women. (2008). Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.ms.foundation.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=34 Nichols, W. (Ed.). (2001). Random house webster's unabridged dictionary (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House, Inc. Nielsen, W. A. (1996). Inside American philanthropy: The dramas of donorship. Norman, OK: University of Oklaholma Press. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. Rutnik, T. A., & Bearman, J. (2005). Giving together: A national scan of giving circles and shared giving. Baltimore, MD: Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers. Schwinn, E. (2007). Donor giving circles awarded $13-million in grants to charities last year, report says. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 19(16). Sears, J. B. (1990). Philanthropy in the history of american higher education (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Shank, G. (1994). Shaping qualitative research in educational psychology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(3), 340-359. Shaw, S., & Taylor, M. (1995). Reinventing fundraising: Realizing the potential of women's philanthropy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

124

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2007). Shorter oxford english dictionary (6th ed. Vol. 2). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. Strout, E. (2007). Courting female donors. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(44), A21A22. Taylor, M. A., & Rappe, L. E. (2008). Women's philanthropy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: A seven step guide. (pp. 1-20). Madison, WI. Taylor, M. A., & Shaw-Hardy, S. (Eds.). (2006). The transformative power of women's philanthropy (Vol. 50). San Francisco, CA: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol, PA: Falmer. Washington Women's Foundation. (2008). Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.wawomensfoundation.org/ Webber-Thrush, D. (2008, October). A gift of her own. CASE Currents, XXXIV(9), 3335. Whitley, F. V., & Staples, P. (1997). Womenpower: The growing factor in gifts fund raising in the decade ahead. Fund Raising Management, 28(6), 14-18.

125

Appendix A Correspondence with Key University Development Staff

Date

Ms. Jane Doe/Mr. John Doe Vice President of University Advancement One University Place Collegetown, State Zip Dear Ms./Mr. Doe, My name is Mary Kate Andris and I am a doctoral student in higher education at Widener University in Chester, PA. I am writing to ask for your permission to interview, survey and observe the members of your womens giving circle for a period of one year. As a researcher and fund raiser, it is my desire to learn more about the motivations of a member of a womans giving circle in higher education and the motivation of staff members like you in the creation of this giving circle. I would like to attend one of your giving circle annual meetings, survey your members, interview your Chair, and key development staff members like you who serve as the liaison to the womens giving circle. It is through these surveys and interviews that I will gather information to help me better understand the motivations and philanthropic behaviors of the members of the giving circle. It will also help me better understand the motivation of the University Development Office to use the giving circles as a short-term or long-term stewardship tool for donors. Would you be willing to let me observe your circle so that I can include it in my study? I will be contacting you over the next week or so to see if you would be willing to share this experience with me. Thank you for your consideration,

Mary Kate Andris, M.Ed.

126

Appendix B Observation Protocol Name of group: Date and Time of meeting: Location of observer:

Place:

During or immediately following the meeting, observations should be written or typed up, paying particular attention to the following areas. If something interesting happens, it should be described at the end of the protocol. Use the back of the paper, if needed. Observation protocol adapted from Eikenberry and Bearmans report The Impact of Giving Together (2009). Areas of Focus Atmosphere: Describe the location of the meeting. Describe the general atmosphere among the people in the meeting (i.e. formal/informal, social/professional, etc.) Topics/Discussion: Describe the topics discussed in the meeting both formal and informal. What topics seemed to dominate the discussion? In what ways were these topics discussed (presentations, dialogue, debate, etc.)? Personal Impacts: Did members talk about their own philanthropy? Did members indicate the influence the giving circle has had on their own giving and volunteering? Did they discuss impacts of the giving circle on them socially, intellectually, emotionally, etc.? Other happenings of interest: Observations

127

Appendix C Member Consent Form

Widener University IRB Protocol Number 85-10 INVESTIGATOR NAME: STUDY TITLE: Mary Kate Andris, M.Ed. Motivation Through Circles: The Impact of Womens Giving Circles On Philanthropy in Higher Education

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to observe, interview and survey women participating in giving circles and key development officers managing the giving circles at two universities within the United States. By collecting and analyzing data through interviews, surveys, and observation, it is the goal of this case study to determine the levels of motivation of members of the giving circles, the key development staff managing the circles, and the higher education institutions hosting the circles. I am being asked to be a participant in the study because my experience in the giving circle will help show any changes in my philanthropic behavior. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS As a participant in this study, I may experience some discomfort in answering the questions. However, the answers to my questions will remain completely confidential. BENEFITS There are no direct benefits to my participating in this study; however the knowledge I receive may be of value to me when deciding to participate in another philanthropic endeavor. ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES The study does not involve an intervention and so therefore, I may opt out at any time. CONFIDENTIALITY All documents and information pertaining to this research study will be kept confidential in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. I understand that data generated by the study may be reviewed by Widener Universitys Internal Review Board, which is the committee responsible for ensuring my welfare and rights as a research participant, to assure proper conduct of the study and compliance with university regulations. If any presentations or publication result from this research, I will not be identified by name. The information collected during my participation in this study will be kept for three years or until the publication of this dissertation. My confidentiality will also be protected by the elimination of names and addresses on the survey instruments. My name and address will not be collected nor connected to the survey answers in any way. TERMINATION OF PARTICIPATION

128

I may choose to withdraw from this study at any time and for any reason. If I choose to drop out of this study, I will contact the investigator and my research records will be destroyed. If this is an anonymous survey, research records cannot be destroyed following the submission of the survey. COMPENSATION I will not receive any payment for being in this study. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. There will be no cost to me for participating in this research. INJURY COMPENSATION Neither Widener University nor any government or other agency funding this research project will provide special services, free care, or compensation for any injuries resulting from this research. I understand that treatment for such injuries will be at my expense and/or paid through my medical plan. QUESTIONS All of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction and if I have further questions about this study, I may contact Mary Kate Andris at (757) 482-2734 or mktandris@cox.net. If I have any questions about the rights of research participants, I may call the Chairperson of Widener Universitys Institutional Review Board at (610) 499-4110. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to me. I am free to withdraw or refuse consent, or to discontinue my participation in this study at any time without penalty or consequence. I voluntarily give my consent to participate in this research study. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. Signatures: ___________________________ Participants Name (Printed) ___________________________ Participants Signature __________ Date

I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge, the subject signing this consent form has had the study fully and carefully explained by me and have been given an opportunity to ask any questions regarding the nature, risks, and benefits of participation in this study. _______________________________ Principal Investigators Name (Printed) _______________________________ Investigators Signature
Widener Universitys IRB has approved the solicitation of participants for the study until 4/12/11.

__________ Date

129

Appendix D Survey on Philanthropic Behavior This survey is completely confidential and voluntary. We will not match your answers to your name or address and will not share your answers with anyone. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. 1. During the past 12 months, did your household make a charitable contribution? Charitable contributions can be defined as giving from personal accounts that your household controls and may include money or assets with monetary value. a. ____ No b. ____ Yes 2. During the past 12 months, did your household make a charitable contribution: Yes For religious purposes or spiritual development? To help people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities? For health care or medical research? For educational purposes? To organizations that support or promote the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness? For sports and recreation purposes? To organizations that support women and girls? To organizations that support ethnic or minority groups? To an organization that serves a combination of purposes? For purposes other than those mentioned above? 3. What is your best estimate of the total amount your household contributed during the past 12 months? $___ ____ ____, ____ ____ ____, ____ ____ No Dont Know

130

4.

What is your best estimate of the total number of organizations or charities your household contributed to during the past 12 months? Number of organizations/charities ______

5. Thinking about the larger charitable contributions your household made during the past 12 months, how often does each of the following statements apply to these contributions? Always Frequently Sometimes Never Dont Know I/We contributed based on advancing a vision for change that Id like to see in the world. I/We conducted research to help decide which organizations to support. I/We solicited input from and/or collaborated with others to make funding decisions. I/We supported general operating expenses in addition to or instead of specific programs. I/We used organizational performance data to inform funding decisions. I/We gave multi-year gifts. I/We took into consideration cultural differences, race, class, and/or gender in making funding decisions. 6. Do you belong to a giving circle? A giving circle is a group of individuals who pool money and other resources and decide together where to give these away. This does not include donor recognition programs that nonprofit organizations use to honor donors. _____ No/Dont know _____ Yes
*Questions adapted from Eikenberry and Bearmans report The Impact of Giving Together (2009).

131

7. How many giving circles do you currently belong to? _____ 1 _____ 2 _____ 3 or more For questions 8 through 11, if you belong to more than one giving circle, please answer based on the giving circles you have participated in the longest. 8. How long have you been a member of this giving circle? _____ Less than a year _____ 1-2 years _____ 3-4 years _____ 5 years or more 9. How much money does your household typically give to this giving circle each year? $___ ____,____ ____ ____, ____ ____ ___ 10. How often in the past 12 months have you participated in the following through your giving circle? Frequently Sometimes Rarely Not at all Does not apply to my giving circle

Attended full membership meetings Participated in committee meetings Held leadership position(s) such as committee head, officer, or administrator of the giving circle Attended educational sessions (including presentations by nonprofit staff or other experts) Helped raise funds (for example, found gift donors outside of the giving circle or organized a fund raising event)

132

Went on site visits to potential funding recipients Attended social events (such as dinner parties, lunches or gatherings that may or may not be held in conjunction with a business meeting) Voted or took part in deciding on who received funding or other support from the giving circle Volunteered with funding recipient or other nonprofit Took action on local, national or international policy 11. How has participation in this giving circle affected the following? Substantially increased The total amount I/we contribute each year. The total number of organizations I/We support each year. The amount of time I/we volunteer each year. My/our awareness of how nonprofit organizations operate. My/our awareness of problems in the community. My/our participation in efforts to address problems in the community. My/our involvement in changing government policies at the local, national or international levels.
*Questions adapted from Eikenberry and Bearmans report The Impact of Giving Together (2009).

Slightly Increase d

Stayed the Same

Slightly Substantially Decreased Decreased

133

About You Why do we ask you personal questions? These questions are only meant to help us understand how different characteristics influence charitable giving and civic engagement. We will not be able to match these characteristics to your name or address and will not share your personal information with anyone. 12. Are you: Female Male

13. In what year were you born? _______ 14. What is your race or ethnicity? African American/Black Arab-American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Multi-racial Native American White/Caucasian Other

15. What was your total household income before taxes last year (include income from spouses, partners, etc.)? Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more

16. What is the current value of your total household net worth, assets less liabilities (including real estate and other assets)? Negative or $0 $1 to $199,999 $200,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 $10,000,000 to $19,999,999 $20,000,000 or more

17. What was your highest grade of school or level of education completed? High School or less Vocational school or some college Associate Degree Bachelors Degree (BA/BS/AB) Masters or advanced degree ( J.D., M.D., Ph.D.)

134

18. Which of the following best describes your current employment? Not employed Arts, entertainment, sports or media General management, business, or financial, including information technology, statistical analysis, and other mathematical occupations Professional (lawyer, doctor, nurse, accountant or other profession requiring special training and certification). Education (teacher, professor, administrator, librarian, language instruction, training, etc.) Social services, including care for elderly or children, social work, counseling, nonprofit organization serving those in need. Other nonprofit or voluntary associations. Public safety, including military. Manufacturing, production Sales: retail or wholesale Services: restaurant, physical fitness, office and administrative support, in-home services, health care support occupation Primary production such as farming, fishing, forestry, mining. Construction, building trades, installation, repair, and maintenance, landscape design and maintenance. Transportation

Other Retired

19. How often do you attend religious services? Do not attend Once a year or less Several times a year About once a month Once a week or more

20. How many years have you lived in your current community? ______ years 21. What is your marital status? Married or in a long-term relationship/widowed Single, never been married Single, divorced

135

22. How many children, aged 17 or younger, live in your household? _____ Children under 17 23. Thinking politically and socially, how would you describe your general outlook? Extremely liberal Liberal Slightly liberal Middle of the road/Moderate Slightly conservative Conservative Extremely conservative Dont know/No interest

Thank you very much for your contribution to this study!

*Questions adapted from Eikenberry and Bearmans report The Impact of Giving Together (2009).

136

Appendix E Interview Protocol for Members Project: Motivation of Womens Giving Circle Members Time of interview: Date: Place: Interviewer: Interviewee: Position of interviewee: *Questions: 1. Tell me about your experience as a member of the giving circle? a. What is your role within the giving circle? b. How long have you been involved in the giving circle? c. Why do you participate in the giving circle? 2. Before your involvement in the giving circle, how active were you philanthropically? a. Did you use other modes of giving, such as individual check writing, donor advised funds or foundation? b. Did you volunteer or were otherwise engage in a voluntary group? c. How strategic were you in your giving and volunteering? 3. Has participation in the giving circle changed the way you practice philanthropy? a. Has it changed the amount you give? Can you estimate how much? b. Has it changed how you give; like how often and at what levels? c. Where you give? 4. Has participation in the giving circle changed the way you think about philanthropy in your life? a. Has your philosophy about philanthropy changed with your participation in the giving circle? What did you used to think about it? What do you think now? 5. Has participation in the giving circle changed your level of interest in the University? a. Do you see yourself becoming/remaining involved with the University on a regular basis? 6. Since joining the giving circle, have you changed the way you think about the University? 7. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your experience participating in a giving circle?
*Questions adapted from Eikenberry and Bearmans report The Impact of Giving Together (2009).

137

Appendix F Interview Protocol for Key Development Staff Project: Motivation of Womens Giving Circle Members Time of interview: Interviewer: Position of interviewee: Date: Place: Interviewee:

Background on the Womens Giving Circle: 1. What was the purpose of the creation of the womens giving circle at your University? a. Does it have a mission, goals and objectives? b. If so, were they created by the members alone or with staff assistance? c. Does the staff involved have a specific role in the success of the womens giving circle? Does the staff solicit gifts from the members of the circle? d. Do the members alone decide how to spend the funds raised by the members? 2. Tell me a little bit about the Giving Circle structure. a. How is the giving circle structured administratively? Is there a board? Board President? Board Treasurer? b. How is the giving circle structured financially? Is it a standalone 501 C3? Does it have an endowment? Does the University hold the funds? c. What is the makeup of the membership of the circle? What percentages of alumnae are involved? What percentage of community members? What percentage of faculty members? What percentage of administrators/staff? Others? 3. Tell me about your experience being part of a giving circle. a. What is your role within the giving circle? b. How long have you been involved in the giving circle in your current position? c. Why do you participate in a giving circle? Is it part of your job responsibilities or did you volunteer? d. If you volunteered to become a member, why? e. Have you been involved in a womens giving circle administratively at another University? If so, where and for how long?

138

4. Has participation in a giving circle changed the way you think about fund raising? a. Has it changed your strategy in how you ask a donor for money? b. Has it changed your strategy in how you ask a female donor for money? c. Has it made you more aware of female donors in your community? 5. What is the overall short-term goal in the creation of the womens giving circle at your University? d. Do you intend to acquire more female donors through the creation of the womens giving circle? e. Do you intend to retain more female donors through the creation of the womens giving circle? 6. What is the overall long-term goal in the creation of the womens giving circle at your University? a. Is it the intention of the institution to maintain the population of female donors for a period of three years? b. Is it the intention of the institution to maintain the population of female donors for a period of five years? c. Is it the intention of the institution to maintain the population of female donors for a period of 10 years? 7. Thank you for your time with this survey. Is there anything else about the giving circle at your institution you would like to share?

139

Appendix G Development Officer Consent Form

Widener University IRB Protocol Number 85-10 INVESTIGATOR NAME: STUDY TITLE: Mary Kate Andris, M.Ed. Motivation Through Circles: The Impact of Womens Giving Circles On Philanthropy in Higher Education

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to observe, interview and survey women participating in giving circles and key development officers managing the giving circles at two universities within the United States. By collecting and analyzing data through interviews, surveys, and observations, it is the goal of this case study to determine the levels of motivation of members of the giving circles, the key development staff managing the circles, and the higher education institutions hosting the circles. I am being asked to be a participant in the study because my experience managing the giving circle will help explain the motivation of the institution in the creation of the womens giving circle. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS As a participant in this study, I may experience some discomfort in answering the questions. However, the answers to my questions will remain completely confidential. BENEFITS There are no direct benefits to my participating in this study; however the knowledge I receive may be of value to me when deciding to participate in another philanthropic endeavor. ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES The study does not involve an intervention and so therefore, I may opt out at any time. CONFIDENTIALITY All documents and information pertaining to this research study will be kept confidential in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. I understand that data generated by the study may be reviewed by Widener Universitys Internal Review Board, which is the committee responsible for ensuring my welfare and rights as a research participant, to assure proper conduct of the study and compliance with university regulations. If any presentations or publication result from this research, I will not be identified by name. The information collected during my participation in this study will be kept for three years or until the publication of this dissertation. My confidentiality will also be protected by the elimination of names and addresses on the survey instruments. My name and address will not be collected nor connected to the survey answers in any way.

140

TERMINATION OF PARTICIPATION I may choose to withdraw from this study at any time and for any reason. If I choose to drop out of this study, I will contact the investigator and my research records will be destroyed. If this is an anonymous survey, research records cannot be destroyed following the submission of the survey. COMPENSATION I will not receive any payment for being in this study. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. There will be no cost to me for participating in this research. INJURY COMPENSATION Neither Widener University nor any government or other agency funding this research project will provide special services, free care, or compensation for any injuries resulting from this research. I understand that treatment for such injuries will be at my expense and/or paid through my medical plan. QUESTIONS All of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction and if I have further questions about this study, I may contact Mary Kate Andris at (757) 482-2734 or mktandris@cox.net. If I have any questions about the rights of research participants, I may call the Chairperson of Widener Universitys Institutional Review Board at (610) 499-4110. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to me. I am free to withdraw or refuse consent, or to discontinue my participation in this study at any time without penalty or consequence. I voluntarily give my consent to participate in this research study. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. Signatures: ___________________________ Participants Name (Printed) ___________________________ Participants Signature __________ Date

I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge, the subject signing this consent form has had the study fully and carefully explained by me and have been given an opportunity to ask any questions regarding the nature, risks, and benefits of participation in this study. _______________________________ Principal Investigators Name (Printed) _______________________________ Investigators Signature
Widener Universitys IRB has approved the solicitation of participants for the study until 04/12/11.

__________ Date