Running head: QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

Qualitative Method Paper

Ryan Bradshaw
George Mason University
EDRS 810
Dr. Bland

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

An Exploratory Investigation of Constraints Keeping Former Club Sports Athletes from
Donating to their Alma Mater
As state governments cut contribution levels to public higher education institutions,
fundraising and philanthropic donations are increasingly being used to fill the gap. State
governments in California (Medina, 2012) and Virginia (Vozzella & Weiner, 2014) have cut
millions from their funding of public higher education institutions across the United States,
seeing the overall funding drop over 40% between 1980 and 2011 (Mortenson, 2012).
Philanthropic donations to the institution, which are up 21.3% since 2009 (Council for Aid to
Education, 2014) and 301% since 1994 (Nicklin, 1994), are being used to bridge the funding
shortfall. Donations by alumni of the institutions represent $9 billion of the over $33.8 billion in
total voluntary donations institutions received in 2013, however, only 8.7% of alumni typically
donate to their alma mater (Council for Aid to Education, 2014).
Alumni are a key segment of the population institutions and researchers are investigating
to determine what motivates them to donate. Previous studies have shown that age (Okunade &
Berl, 1997), income (Tsao & Coll, 2005), wealth (Baade & Sundberg, 1996), and level of student
aid an individual received (Meer & Rosen, 2012; Monks, 2003) all influence an alumnus(a)s
likelihood of donating back to their institution. Student experience on campus also plays a
positive role in determining future donations of time and money, both in the classroom (Baade &
Sundberg, 1996) and outside of the classroom (Monks, 2003; Pumerantz, 2005; Sung & Yang,
2009; Weerts & Ronca, 2008). Club Sport athletes, of which there are an estimated 2 million per
year in the United States (Pennington, 2008), are a group of students who have had different,
more engaged, student experiences than their peers (Foubert & Grainger, 2006; Kuh, 1995).
Virtually no research has been done to date on the propensity of this large subsection of engaged
2

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

students to donate back to their alma mater upon graduation or the constraints that keep many of
them within the 91.3% of alumni who do not donate.
Review of Literature
As there is limited research on the subject of Club Sports alumni donating to their
institution, the review of literature focused instead on student experience in relation to propensity
to donate, student-athlete propensity to donate, and other factors/constraints that affect the
likelihood of donating.
Student Experience
The quality of the experience an alumnus(a) had while a student at the institution,
through involvement in extracurricular activities, such as student organizations and clubs, as
determined by their self-reported level of satisfaction, has a direct impact on the alumnus(a)s
likelihood of donating to the institution (Monks, 2003; Sung & Yang, 2009). Monks (2003)
found that those who were very satisfied with their experience were 2.6 times more likely to
donate than respondents who rated their experience in the lower 4 points of the 5 point Likert
scale. Students who are more engaged in campus activities are also more willing to donate their
time back to the institution after their graduation (Weerts & Ronca, 2008). Classroom experience
is important as well, with alumni recognizing investment in their classroom educational
experience as students as a primary reason to donate to their alma mater (Baade & Sundberg,
1996). Alumni who would recommend the institution are also 27% more likely to contribute
financially to the institution than alumni who would not endorse it (Okunade & Berl, 1997).

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

Student Athletes
ONeil and Schenke (2007) researched alumni who had participated in intercollegiate
athletics during their time at an institution and found that student athletes have different student
experiences than their fellow students. Former student athletes are also less likely to donate to
their alma mater as they feel as though they have already contributed to the institution through
their athletic skills (O'Neil & Schenke, 2007). Like their peer students (Baade & Sundberg, 1996;
Monks, 2003; Sung & Yang, 2009; Weerts & Ronca, 2008), a student-athletes experience while
competing for the institution also played a role in their decision to donate (ONeil & Schenke,
2007; Shapiro & Giannoulakis, 2009). Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009) also found that factors
that kept former student-athletes from donating could be broken into four themes: importance,
summarized by if donating to the institution was a priority in the alumnus(a)s life; connection,
summarized by the loss of identity or connection with their alma maters athletics department;
communication, summarized by continued communication with the alumnus since graduation;
and experience, summarized by the alumnus(a)s perception of their student-athlete experience.
Decision to Donate
The institutions solicitation of donations is a significant determinant of an alumnus(a)s
likelihood of donating (Baade & Sundberg, 1996; Lertputtarak & Supitchayangkool, 2014;
Pumerantz, 2005). If an institution does not keep itself in the front of an alumnus(a)s mind
through magazines, email updates, and social media, the alumnus(a) is less likely to remember to
donate to the institution (Lertputtarak & Supitchayangkool, 2014). This echoes Shapiro and
Giannoulakiss (2009) finding that former athletes who were not contacted by the institution

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

were not likely to donate. Alumni need to remain engaged by the institution in order to remember
to donate (Pumerantz, 2005; Tsao & Coll, 2005).
Alumni also like to donate to their specific interests (McDearmon, 2010), such as a
specific department or club. The ability to do so increases the chance of the alumnus(a) donating
(McDearmon, 2010). Donors are also more likely to donate to a group they have a connection
with and from whom they receive recognition (Bennett, 2006; McDearmon, 2010).
Donor Constraints
In a 2009 study on constraints that keep former student-athletes from donating to their
institution, Shapiro and Giannoulakis based their work on the leisure constraints model put
forward by Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey (1991). That model proposes three hierarchical
categories in which constraints to leisure can be categorized: intrapersonal barriers (internal
psychological states and attributes which impact a decision to partake), interpersonal barriers
(influence from outside individuals that impact a decision to partake), and structural barriers
(external factors that impact the decision to partake) (Crawford et al., 1991). Crawford et al.
(1991) proposed that an individual looking to participate first experiences an intrapersonal
barrier, based on their own personal feelings and motivations. They then experience an
interpersonal barrier, where the sentiments and opinions of others have an impact on their
decision. Finally, if they overcome both of those barriers, they must also surpass the structural
barrier in order to participate. Additional postulation found the model to be cross-culturally
accurate in describing constraints faced by individuals to participation in leisure activities, but
also for other decision making processes, such as a student deciding to attend nursing college
(Godbey, Crawford, & Shen, 2010).

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009) believed the same hierarchical constraint model was
applicable to the barriers that potential non donors face when deciding not to donate. They also
relied on ONeil and Schenkes (2007) finding that the quality of the experience the participant
had and the participants self-perceived level of importance of the activity, were factors in
deciding if a former athletes would donate. Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009) found that certain
elements of Crawford et al.s (1991) model were relevant to former student athlete donor
constraints. Particularly, they found that intrapersonal constraints included feelings that
donations would be better utilized by other organizations they donated to, interpersonal
constraints included poor experiences during their time as a student athlete, and structural
barriers included not being asked to donate.
From the findings of the 2009 study, Shapiro, Giannoulakis, Drayer, & Wang (2010)
developed a Former Student-Athlete Donor Constraint Scale survey, which they then verified as
being an effective predictor of potential barriers influencing charitable contributions amongst a
specific population. This provides validity to the findings of the 2009 Shapiro and Giannoulakis
study.
Research Problem
I propose that the framework used by both Crawford et al. (1991) and Shapiro and
Giannoulakis (2009) can be applicable to former Club Sport athlete non donors. Club Sport
alumni are a group on which virtually no research exists about their propensity to donate back to
their alma mater or the constraints that keep them from donating. Club Sport participants
outnumber varsity athletes across the United States by an estimate 5 to 1 ratio and traditionally
have a very different experience than their NCAA student-athlete peers, including having to pay

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

to play, utilizing facilities at off-peak hours, having volunteer coaches or player-coaches, and
operating on meager budgets with little support from the institution (Pennington, 2008). Other
differences include Club Sports being student led and involving both traditional sports, such as
baseball, ice hockey, and soccer, and non-traditional sports, such as trap and skeet, underwater
hockey, and quidditch (Lifschultz, 2012). Shapiro and Giannoulakiss (2009) exploratory
investigation will be used as a guide to compare and contrast the constraints that former Club
Sports athletes face as opposed to those that former student-athletes face.
Student Athlete Donor Constraint Study
Shapiro and Giannoulakiss (2009) qualitative study explored constraints that kept
athletic alumni from donating to the athletic department of their alma mater. Shapiro and
Giannoulakis (2009) interviewed 11 former student-athlete non-donors from a diverse age range,
level of competition, and type of sport they participated in. The participants took part in one,
semi-structured, 30 to 40 minute interview with a researcher. The interview consisted of 14
questions, but the order of questions and possibility of additional clarifying and open ended
questions varied by interview based on the responses that were given by participants. The
interviews were recorded and then transcribed. From the transcriptions, Shapiro and
Giannoulakis (2009) identified four general themes in which they could group the responses:
Importance, Connection, Communication, and Experience.
Theoretical Framework of Donor Constraint Study. In the original study, Shapiro and
Giannoulakis (2009) based the work on Constructivist theory. The researchers believed that
Constructivist theory, which they interpreted from Crotty (1998) as being the notion that
meaning is constructed by human beings and how they interpret the world, was a theoretical

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

match for their exploratory investigation. They felt that the former student-athletes individual
experiences would affect their attitude and behavior towards donating to their alma maters
athletics department. The importance of donating would have a diverse significance for each
individual.
Methodology
Shapiro and Giannoulakiss (2009) study on constraints that kept athletic alumni from
donating to the athletic department of their alma mater was used as a model to replicate.
Theoretical Framework
This study utilized a Grounded Theory methodology. Grounded Theory is a methodology
used to create a new theory, through empirical collection of data and analysis of the data
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Data collection in Grounded Theory can take place through
multiple means, including semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions (Johnson &
Christensen, 2014). Data analysis in Grounded Theory begins with open coding, the naming and
categorizing of elements within the data, followed by axial coding, the identification of themes
that were mentioned several times by respondents, and ends with selective coding, the process of
identifying a main story line of the theory (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Data collection can
end in Grounded Theory when no additional information or concepts are appearing from the data
collection process (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Participants and Setting
This study took place at a large, public, suburban, research institution in the Mid-Atlantic
Region, in conjunction with the institutions Club Sports Office and Office of Advancement and
Alumni Relations (OAAR). The Club Sports office provided the researcher with a list of
8

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

individuals who had been a member of one of the institutions 35 club sports for at least one
semester between the 1994/95 academic year and the 2013/14 academic year. The list had 9,800
names. The list was then compared with the OAARs list of all alumni who had donated to the
institution to identify which of the 9,800 individuals had not donated to the institution at least
once since the end of their studies at the institution. The OAAR, in order to maintain proprietary
domain over as much of the list as possible and maintain the anonymity of as many non-donors
as possible, selected 30 individuals. The individuals were purposefully selected based on the
request of the researcher to include a representation of diverse years of graduation (1996-2013),
length of time they participated in the club (1-5 years), gender, age (23-48 years old), and club
Table 1
Profile of Participants
Pseudonym
Gender Age Club
Years as club member
Graduation year
Jess
Female 27
Running
2006-2008
2009
Kyle
Male
33
Baseball
2002-2005
2005
Adam
Male
39
Rugby
1997-2000
2000
Leslie
Female 23
Functional Fitness 2012-2014
2014
Katie
Female 37
Basketball
1999-2000
2003
David
Male
42
Ice Hockey
1995-1998
1998
Christine
Female 44
Swim
1991-1995
1996
Bob
Male
29
Golf
2004-2008
2008
Alicia
Female 40
Tennis
1993-1997
1998
Stacie
Female 25
Equestrian
2007-2009
2012
Phil
Male
34
Trap & Skeet
1999-2003
2003
Anna
Female 43
Volleyball
1999-2001
2003
Jayne
Female 28
Softball
2008-2009
2009
Joe
Male
48
Soccer
1994-1996
1996
Richard
Male
24
Crew
2009-2012
2013
they participated in (35 clubs were possible). Characteristics of all 15 participants are outlined in
Table 1.
Selected individuals were contacted by email. The email explained the purpose of the
study, how the study would gather information, the importance of their participation in the study,
9

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

and invited them to participate in the study by meeting with the researcher in person for the 30 to
40 minute interview. If the participants current geographic prevented them from meeting the
researcher in person, the option of conducting the interview by phone was presented.
This study utilized purposeful sampling, in which the size of the sample is determined by
when the researcher feels they have enough participants for the study (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). Purposeful sampling also aims to maximize information gathering and ceases gathering
information when no new data is forthcoming (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This also follows the
concept of theoretical saturation of Grounded Theory methodology (Johnson & Christensen,
2014).
18 of the 30 individuals who were contacted agreed to take part in the interview. During
the interview process, saturation was attained after the 15th interview, as no new information was
forthcoming. Of the 15 completed interviews, 11 were in person, while four were over the phone.
Data Collection
Individual interviews with participants were used as the method for data collection. Once
the participants agreed to take part in the study, specific interview times were set up by phone or
in person with each individual. Interviews took place in the fall of 2014. In person interviews
were conducted in a private meeting room on the campus of the institution. Prior to the interview,
participants were given a consent letter. The letter described the purpose of the study, the length
of the interview, contact information for the researcher and the institutions Institutional Review
Board, and the participants right to refuse to start or complete the interview. The letter also
outlined that there were no known risks or benefits to the participant as a result of partaking in
this study. As the interview would be audio recorded, the participant was informed that the study
10

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

would be audio recorded and that the tape would only be used for data collection and analysis,
and that they would be destroyed following transcription of the interview. Participants were
informed that their anonymity would be protected by assigning a pseudonym to be used in
association with their data. Before the interview commenced, the participant was asked to sign
the letter indicating that they clearly understood that their participation was voluntary and that
the information would be kept anonymous to the best of the researchers ability.
Participants were interviewed individually in one semi-structured interview. Each
interview took 30 to 40 minutes. The interview utilized Shapiro and Giannoulakiss (2009)
Former Student Athlete Constraint Questions. The questionnaire included 14 questions
designed to identify constraints the individual faced to donating to their alma mater athletic
department. For the purpose of this study, any question relating to being a former studentathlete or the institutions Athletics department, were modified to former Club Sport athlete
or the institutions Club Sports department. As Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009) had done in
their study, the order of questions and the utilization of additional open-ended questions
depended on the responses given throughout the interview. Questions included: Do you
currently donate to any organizations, foundations, etc.?, Are you currently involved with your
alma maters Club Sports department in some capacity?, Briefly discuss your experience as a
Club Sports athlete, and List any factors or circumstances that would prevent you from
engaging (or donating to) in the Club Sports department. A final open-ended question was
utilized as a catch-all to gain any additional insight the interviewee may not have felt they had
the opportunity to share: Do you have any final comments regarding former Club Sport athletes
and Club Sports department donation constraints?.
Following each interview, the audio recording was fully transcribed.
11

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

Analysis
A thematic analysis was then conducted using the transcripts of the 15 interviews.
Thematic analysis involves identifying different categories of types of responses, such as a
particular type of constraint a donor faced, and then generating themes based around those types
of responses in order to organize them (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Results
Anticipated Results
It is anticipated that results will follow the same four general themes that Shapiro and
Giannoulakis (2009) identified (importance, connection, communication, experience), but that
the definitions of each grouping will be different.
Importance. Club Sport alumni will choose to give to groups/causes that they deem important to
their lives, just as student-athletes did. However, as opposed to their student-athlete peers, it is
anticipated that Club Sports alumni will choose to do so as a result of factors comprised in the
connection and communication categories. This will be due to the fact that the institution will
have failed to have communicated with the Club Sports alumnus(a) specifically on the subject of
being a former Club Sport athlete. That important connection to the institution, which
significantly contributes to the likelihood of an alumni donating (Baade & Sundberg, 1996;
Lertputtarak & Supitchayangkool, 2014; Pumerantz, 2005), needs to communicated to the Club
Sports alumnus(a) to encourage their donation.
Another factor that will emerge in the importance section is the alumnus(a)s personal
allocation of funds. Recent graduates and alumni who utilized financial aid or student loans to

12

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

finance their education are less likely to donate as they do not have as much disposable income
(Meer & Rosen, 2012; Monks, 2003). This will be considered a decision of importance, as to
those individuals, the decision to pay for general expenses and repaying their loan will trump
their decision to send money to their alma mater.
Connection and Communication. These two themes will emerge as one in relation to Club
Sports alumni. As the institutions OAAR or Club Sports office had not reached out to the
individuals and reminded them of their connection to their Club Sport, many of the alumni will
have forgotten about their identity of being a Club Sport athlete. Alumni need to be reminded of
their good experiences and asked to donate (Lertputtarak & Supitchayangkool, 2014). Alumni
also need to know that they can donate specifically to their former club or the Club Sports
department as a whole, which was not properly communicated in the past. Knowing that they can
earmark funds for a pet project increases the chances of donation (McDearmon, 2010).
Experience. Students who are involved with extracurricular activities on campus tend to report
having a better student experience and are better adjusted to life on campus (Foubert & Grainger,
2006). Students who had a better experience are more likely to donate (Okunade & Berl, 1997).
It is anticipated that Club Sports alumni will have had a good student experience, but that they
will have forgotten about those experiences and the connections they made with fellow club
members due to the institutions inability to facilitate the connection.
Limitations
A limitation of this study is that it included alumni from only one institution. If the study
had been completed at a different institution that had potentially made different attempts to
create importance and connection through communication with alumni would have significantly
13

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

changed the themes of the data. Student experience at the institution was primarily limited to
experience as a Club Sport athlete in this study. There are many other types of ways an
alumnus(a) could have been engaged on campus while participating in Club Sports, which could
have also contributed to his/her positive or negative sentiments towards donating to the
institution. These factors were not considered or queried in this study.
Areas of future study
Shapiro et al. (2010) utilized the data collected from Shapiro and Giannoulakiss (2009)
study to create the Former Student-Athlete Donor Constraint Scale, which they then found could
be given to a larger sampling of former student-athletes. Similarly, the data from this study could
be developed into a Former Club-Sport Athlete Donor Constraint Scale survey, with questions
based upon the findings of this study, and utilized on a larger scale at institutions everywhere to
determine if similar trends hold true at all campuses.
While this study emphasized barriers and constraints that keep alumni from donating, an
area of future qualitative research is determining the reasons why current Club Sports alumni
donors do donate. A similar study could be completed with that group of individuals.
Practical Implications & Conclusion
Club Sports offices and Development/Foundation offices on campuses across the nation
must be able to identify ways to increase donations from this sub-population who typically had
strong student experiences. The constraints identified in this study can be controlled by the
institution, primarily through direct communication with alumni. In order to combat budget cuts
with philanthropic donations, institutions must be able to engaged Club Sports alumni, remind

14

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

them of their past experience, facilitate the connection with the former club-mates, and
encourage them to contribute financially to the institution or their former program/club.

References
Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). What Determines Alumni Generosity? Economics od
Education Review, 15(1), 75-81.
Bennett, R. (2006). Predicting the Lifetime Durations of Donors to Charities. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 15(1-2), 45-67. doi:10.1300/J054v15n01_03
Council for Aid to Education. (2014). Voluntary Support of Education 2013. New York, NY:
Author.

15

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

Crawford, D., Jackson, E., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints.
Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research
process. London, UK: SAGE.
Foubert, J. D., & Grainger, L. U. (2006). Effects of Involvement in Clubs and Organizations on
the Psychosocial Development of First-Year and Senior College Students. NASPA
Journal, 43(1), 166-182.
Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & Shen, X. (2010). Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory
after two decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 111-134.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and
Mixed Approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student
learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123-155.
Lertputtarak, S., & Supitchayangkool, S. (2014). Factors influencing alumni donations.
International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 170-178.
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n3p170
Lifschultz, L. (2012). Club Sports: Maximizing Positive Outcomes and Minimizing Risks.
Recreational Sports Journal, 34, 104-112.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

16

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

McDearmon, J. T. (2010). What's in it for me: A qualitative look into the mindset of young
alumni non-donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(1), 33-47.
doi:10.1057/ijea.2010.3
Medina, J. (2012, June 1). California Cuts Threaten the Status of Universities. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/us/california-cuts-threatenthe-status-of-universities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Meer, J., & Rosen, H. S. (2012). Does generosity beget generosity? Alumni gibing and
undergraduate financial aid. Economics of Education Review, 31, 890-907.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.009
Monks, J. (2003). Patterns of giving to ones alma mater among young graduates from selective
institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121-130. doi:10.1016/S02727757(02)00036-5
Mortenson, T. G. (2012, Winter). State Funding: A Race to the Bottom. The Presidency: The
American Council on Education's Magazine for Higher Education Leaders. Retrieved
from http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-arace-to-the-bottom.aspx
Nicklin, J. L. (1994, May 18). Tough Fight for Donations. The Chronical of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Tough-Fight-for-Donations/93699/
Okunade, A. A., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Determinants of Charitable Giving of Business School
Alumni. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 201-214.

17

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

O'Neil, J., & Schenke, M. (2007). An examination of factors impacting athlete alumni donations
to their alma mater: a case study of a U.S. university. International Journal of Nonprofit
& Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 59-74. doi:10.1002/nvsm.274
Pennington, B. (2008, December 1). Rise of College Club Teams Creates a Whole New Level of
Success. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/sports/02club.html?
_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1415607028dX04LbLCPFwHAJMSxFxHaw
Pumerantz, R. K. (2005). Alumni-in-Training: A Public Roadmap for Success. International
Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(4), 289-300.
Shapiro, S. L., & Giannoulakis, C. (2009). An Exploratory Investigation of Donor Constraints for
Former Student-Athletes. International Journal of Sport Management, 10, 207-225.
Shapiro, S. L., Giannoulakis, C., Drayer, J., & Wang, C. (2010). An examination of athletic
alumni giving behavior: Development of the Former Student-Athlete Donor Constraint
Scale. Sport Management Review, 13, 283-295. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.12.001
Sung, M., & Yang, S. (2009). Student-university relationships and reputation: a study of the links
between key factors fostering students' supportive behavioral intentions towards their
university. Higher Education, 57(6), 787-811. doi:10.1007/sl0734-008-9176-7
Tsao, J. C., & Coll, G. (2005). To Give or Not to Give: Factors Determining Alumni Intent to
Make Donations as a PR Outcome. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59(4),
381-392.

18

QUALITATIVE METHOD PAPER

Vozzella, L., & Weiner, R. (2014, September 18). Va. legislators approve budget deal, reject
Medicaid expansion. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-legislators-approve-budgetdeal-reject-medicaid-expansion/2014/09/18/f8abde32-3dfe-11e4-b0ea8141703bbf6f_story.html
Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2008). Characteristics of Alumni Donors Who Volunteer at their
Alma Mater. Research in Higher Education, 49, 274-292. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-90770

19