Influences on Participation in a University Faculty and Staff Annual Giving Campaign

Abstract

As tuition and state support become increasingly constrained, private fund raising is becoming an ever more important source of institutional revenue. Internal faculty and staff giving campaigns are a key part of fund-raising efforts. This study, carried out at a mid-sized, state-assisted, Midwestern university, provided critical information about which types of employees are more likely to contribute and about faculty perceptions of the giving process. Human resources and development records were merged into a database for statistical analysis. Also, a sample of fulltime faculty was interviewed concerning motivation for giving, barriers or situations that prevent faculty from giving, best communication methods, and other relevant factors. Administrative staff, fulltime employees, blacks and whites, employees who were alumni, those who lived in the university's home city, employees who had ever given previously to the university, those with higher previous giving totals, employees with higher salaries, and those employed for a greater number of years were significantly more likely to give. Faculty generally understood the purpose of employee giving campaigns and agreed that departmental representatives were a good means of communication about the campaign. They felt that direct appeals to support needs at the individual department level might cause more faculty to participate than does a broad-based generic campaign approach. They would also like to be able to detail very specifically how their donations are used. Implications are included for which employees should be solicited and how the employee annual giving campaign should

I give at the office: A review of workplace giving research, theory, and practice

“…In the workplace, there appears to be a similar interface. Knight () discovered that participation in a prior campaign was a key determinant of giving again. Charoensap‐Kelly () noted that previous faculty/staff donors were 52 times more likely to donate again.…”

“…Osili et al () noted that those with salaries higher than $85,000 gave more at work (but salary was more significant in giving outside of work). In the U.S. higher education setting, salary was positively correlated with donating (and usually donation amount; Agypt et al, ; Borden et al, ; Christensen et al, ; Knight, ; Shaker et al, ), except in one case (Charoensap‐Kelly, ). In the U.K. study of 8,000 payroll donors, the more people earned, the more they gave through the workplace (Romney‐Alexander, ).…”

What Works at Work? Toward an Integrative Model Examining Workplace Campaign Strategies

“…One workplace study found that women were more likely to participate than men (Carman ). Other workplace giving studies found race/ethnicity to be significant (Borden et al ; Knight ), not necessarily in alignment with the general US giving. For example, Knight's () university‐based study noted that Black employees were more likely to donate than Caucasian employees.…”

“…Other workplace giving studies found race/ethnicity to be significant (Borden et al ; Knight ), not necessarily in alignment with the general US giving. For example, Knight's () university‐based study noted that Black employees were more likely to donate than Caucasian employees. A higher level of religious involvement is another common correlate to philanthropic giving, but most workplace giving studies lack the data to address this characteristic.…”

Creating a culture of giving in Irish higher education: an education in direct(ing) philanthropic giving in Ireland

“…A guide to this approach is offered through seminal professional advancement texts, including Buchanan (2000) and Tromble (1998) along with specific fundraising and philanthropy practical references, which outline the sequential and specialized nature of this work (Worth 2002;Smith 2001;Brittingham and Pezzullo 1990). The nuances of matching alumni donors' motivations for giving and to increase philanthropic giving to universities by individuals and foundations are as specific as examining predictors of faculty or staff giving (Borden, Shaker, and Kienker 2014;Knight 2004;Agypt, Christensen, and Nesbit 2011) predictors towards alumni engagement and donations to their alma mater (Weerts 2007;Weerts and Ronca 2007;Sun, Hoffman, and Grady 2007;Belfield and Beney 2000;Monks 2003). These sophisticated means of analysing the giving to universities matches the investment in advancement professionals and fundraising (development) offices across American universities.…”