Nghiên cứu hào phóng tại các trường quân sự: Đặc điểm và động lực của các nhà tài trợ chính

University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 12-14-2015 Understanding Generosity at Military Colleges and Universities: Characteristics and Motivations of Major Donors at the Federal Service Academies and Senior Military Colleges John Paul Dowd III University of South Carolina - Columbia Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.edu/etd Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons Recommended Citation Dowd, J. Understanding Generosity at Military Colleges and Universities: Characteristics and Motivations of Major Donors at the Federal Service Academies and Senior Military Colleges. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.edu/etd/3245 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons.

For more information, please contact digres@mailbox. UNDERSTANDING GENEROSITY AT MILITARY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVATIONS OF MAJOR DONORS AT THE FEDERAL SERVICE ACADEMIES AND SENIOR MILITARY COLLEGES by John Paul Dowd III Bachelor of Arts Winthrop University, 1989 Master of Education The University of South Carolina, 1993 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Administration College of Education University of South Carolina 2015 Accepted by: Katherine Chaddock, Major Professor Chris Plyler, Committee Member James Rex, Committee Member Julie Rotholz, Committee Member Lacy Ford, Senior Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies i     © Copyright by John Paul Dowd III, 2015 All Rights Reserved ii     DEDICATION To my wife, Kim: you were my sidekick in the pursuit of this degree and you are so incredibly bright. It is you who should be wearing a doctoral hood. You have supported me throughout this process and done so with never wavering encouragement.

You maintained the balance in our family, took care of the kids, and our family never missed a beat. Without you, this degree would have never even been a dream, much less a reality. I love you dearly. To Gibson and Brauer: while it is hard for you to imagine, Dad started this degree to honor you and make your life even better.

You are my inspiration and I thought of you the entire way during this journey. I missed so many of your activities and chances for us to be together, but you always forgave me and told me how you understood when I was locked away writing. I am blessed beyond measure to be your father. I love you to the moon and back! To my mother, Barry Gibson Webster: thank you for always making sure that my priorities were in order, my compass was pointing north, and that I knew, no matter what, that education was paramount to achieving success in life.

To my stepfather Dr. Ronald Webster – you encouraged me and offered assistance around every corner. To my father JP Dowd, Jr. and sister, Elizabeth Dowd Dorrell: thank you for always being interested in and supporting my work.

iii     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dr. Jason Silverman – You always saw an educational spark in me and drove me to try and fuel the flame. Raymond Murphy – if not for you, I would have never been given the chance to pursue a M. degree, much less work toward a PhD.

You saw something in me in the fall of 1991 that I could not see in myself. Mark Tompkins - your guidance and support for only knowing me a short time was beyond measure. Cermette Clardy – If not for you deciding that I had promise in the field of advancement, I would not be where I am today. I owe you so much.

Jim Rex – You hired me as a graduate intern and introduced me to the profession into this profession in January 1993. You have been an integral part of my life personally and professionally. Chris Plyler – Hard to imagine that in 1993, I was working as an intern with you while you were Chancellor at USC Beaufort. Now for you to serve on my committee is a compliment that I can never repay.

Julie Rotholz – You have been a guiding light to make sure I became an accomplished researcher and pushed me to explore my scholarly limits. I am grateful for all of your feedback and support. Katherine Chaddock – Thank you seems so inadequate when I reflect on everything you have done to hold my hand through this process. You pressed me to become a scholar and in the process we became friends.

I could not have selected a better chair, thank you from my entire family. Anna Janosik Cooke – You, my friend, are the unsung hero in this entire effort; I share this success with you, and can’t imagine not having your help. Elton Hendricks – You first planted the seed with me that I needed to earn a doctoral degree if I was ever going to want to have a ticket to the best seat in the theater. Thank you for inspiring me to want that ticket.

General John Rosa– You have been supportive of me and encouraged me to complete this degree from the first day I joined your staff in February 2013. I am forever indebted. You are a true principled leader. My Board Members, Especially Chairs W Coleman, Reamer King, and Bud Watts IV – You afforded me the time to complete the degree while at FMU and The Citadel Foundation.

Your support was imperative and unwavering. I have been fortunate to serve with you all. Kathleen Hancock – you supported me on this journey from day one at The Citadel Foundation, and kept me focused and found time to get me to the finish line, not an easy task. To all my staff and colleagues at Methodist University, Columbia College, Francis Marion University, The Citadel and The Citadel Foundation - I share this with you because you all have had some impact on my life and career.

I have been blessed to work with amazing colleagues. My PhD Cohorts – Kyle, Stephanie, and Telesia – Wow! What can I say? You guys rock! I am so grateful that we got the chance to walk this path together. Thank you! The Staff at Norwich University, The Citadel, Virginia Military Institute, Virginia Tech, and United States Naval Academy - for distributing the survey for me and a special thanks to all those persons who responded. Fred Carter – If there were one person who I can look back on and determine that without his support, I would have never earned this degree, it would be you.

Sir, you sat me down in your office in the fall of 2009 and not only told me I needed to pursue the degree, but laid the road map for me on how I would get it done. I can’t begin to thank you enough. It is my goal to use this degree in an effort to honor your legacy of public service and to serve as an effective leader not only in higher education, but as a leader for the greater public good, especially in South Carolina. v   ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics and motivations of major donors at three federal service academies and the six senior military colleges.

Although much literature has been published on donor motivation, as well as studies determining what donor characteristics are linked to the decision of alumni to financially contribute back to their alma maters, research specific to the federal service academies and the senior military colleges could not be found. Therefore, this study addressed the void in the literature. The methods used to gather this data were survey instrument and personal interviews. The researcher sent letters to colleagues at the study institutions and then conducted eight personal interviews in a semi-structured environment.

The interviews were selected by participants indicating on the survey their willingness to contribute, as well as via the researcher’s personal contacts. The findings were limited to a small sample, due to having 5 out of 9 institutions participate in distributing the survey; 158 surveys were ultimately returned. This small sample size is typical of mail surveys in qualitative studies. Nevertheless, the results highlighted a number of interesting indications about giving; it is anticipated that these will serve as valuable reference points in future research on this subject of military giving (especially in regard to alumni giving).

These results included, perhaps predictably, some similarities between the motivations of these donors and donors at institutions with vi   similar unique or “niche” missions. However, there were some interesting differences as well. Gender played a prominent role, as did age and the perceived value of leaving a legacy at the institution. Student experiences did not have as much of a role in motivating donor behavior; however, donors who were on an athletic team showed an increased propensity to give.

The research also supported findings in previous studies, showing that involvement at the school leads to higher contributions and that donors need to have faith in administrative leadership in order to permit their gifts to be used in the best interest of the school. Finally, the research supported the supposition that leaving a legacy and enhancing the institution’s brand was of high importance to major donors. The results can assist professional advancement staff at the subject institutions to develop strategic and specific fundraising approaches with major donors on their respective campuses. The data points indicated by the study can be beneficial when working with current or future major donors at the federal service academies and senior military colleges and universities.

The alumni and other major donors who participated in the survey and interviews have immense loyalty to their alma maters. The study also provides foundational research in giving at military colleges and universities, which clearly have strong similarities and differences from other niche mission schools such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and women’s colleges (as well as links to mainstream private and public universities). Dissertation Director: Dr. Katherine Chaddock vii   TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION.

vi LIST OF TABLES. xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .1 Philanthropy and Military Colleges .1 Purpose of the Study .7 Background of Subject Schools .18 viii   CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .20 Historical and Descriptive Literature: Philanthropy and Higher Education. Philanthropy: General Definitions and History .20 Philanthropy in American Higher Education .23 History of Higher Education Fundraising Campaigns .24 Motivations for Giving .28 Alumni Giving Studies .36 Fundraising at the Federal Service Academies and Military Colleges .52 Survey Distribution and Instrument .57 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS OF SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS .58 Overview of Purpose and Methods .58 Survey Findings: Introduction .58 Survey Findings: Institution and Gift Type Profile .59 Survey Findings: Donor Motivation .62 Survey Findings: Stewardship of Gifts .68 Survey Findings: Demographics and Characteristics of the Sample .73 Confidence in Current Leadership .73 Positive Brand and Reputation.74 Current Alumni and Donor Involvement .76 x     CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION .78 Review of the Study’s Purpose .79 Motivational Factors: Absence of Student Experiences .79 Motivational Factors: Confidence in Current Leadership .82 Motivational Factors: Alumni Involvement and Engagement .84 Demographic Characteristics: Age and Giving .86 Demographics Characteristics: Proximity to Campus .87 Demographics Characteristics: Donor Age .89 Conclusions of Key Findings .90 Recommendations for Further Research .93 Implications for Practice .98 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL.103 APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT .104 xi     APPENDIX C: COLLEAGUE LETTER .112 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .115 xii     LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1: Summary of Federal Service Academies and Military Colleges .1: Donor/Organization Integration Model .2: Private Gifts Received .1: Donor Response by Institution.3: Types of Gifts .4: Participation in Student Activities .5: Level of Engagement Post Graduation .6: Motivations for Donors .7: Influential Staff Contact .8: Satisfaction with Ability to Direct Gifts .9: Age of Donors .10: Income for Donors .