Running Head: A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED.

LITERATURE

A Review of Alumni Philanthropy in Higher Education Literature

Ryan Bradshaw

George Mason University

HE 897

Dr. Baker
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

A Review of Alumni Philanthropy in Higher Education Literature

Public funding of higher education has continued to decline over the last decade

(McDonough, 2017). Since 2008, state government funding of public education in the United

States has declined by almost $9 billion, adjusted for inflation (Mitchell, Leachman, &

Masterton, 2017).

This trend has continued to build for over 30 years, as exemplified by the budget of

Virginia’s public institution George Mason University. In 1985, state government allocations

covered 67% of the institution’s educational and general (E&G) expenses, with tuition revenue

covering the remaining 33%. By 2000, state funding had declined a modest 10% to represent

57% of E&G expenses, but then precipitated downward to only 25% of E&G expenses in 2018.

In the grand scheme of the institution’s full $1 billion budget, which includes capital expenses,

research programs, and student room and board, state funding now represents only 20%, while

students now pay over $541 million per year in tuition and other fees (Davis & Wu, 2017).

In order to sustain programs, facilities, and services while enduring these large cuts,

institutions have, on average, raised tuition by 35% over that same period, with some states

seeing tuition costs double over that same 10 year period. Tuition increases alone have not been

enough to keep institutions of higher education profitable; cutting faculty positions, reducing

student services, and even closing campuses has occurred as campus leaders attempt to balance

their budgets (Mitchell et al., 2017).

With falling government funding and, in some states, severe limitations on increasing

tuition (Herzog, 2017), institutions have increasingly been searching for external funding

sources. Philanthropy has increasingly been utilized to supplement budgets. In 2017, colleges

2
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

and universities in the United States collectively brought in $43.6 billion, according to the

Council for Aid to Education (2018). This was a 6.3% increase over the previous year. However,

28% of the $43.6 billion was raised by just 20 institutions, only seven of which are public

institutions, with the highest being the University of Washington at $554 million, less than half

of the voluntary external funds raised by both Harvard University and Stanford University

(Council for Aid to Education, 2018).

One group of individuals who provided over one quarter of all voluntary gifts in 2017

were alumni of the institutions. Collectively, alumni donated over $11.37 billion, a 14.5%

increase over the previous year (Council for Aid to Education, 2018). Alumni are an increasingly

important group of potential donors, but what is known about why they give back to their alma

maters?

This paper will provide a review of the literature to date of theories of donor motivations,

characteristics of alumni donors to their alma maters, and investigate the propensity to give of

different constituency groups of alumni, particularly former student athletes. A brief overview of

the history of higher education philanthropy and the history of alumni organization and donation

to their alma mater’s will be offered to provide context. Recommendations for future areas of

research will also be offered.

History of Higher Education Philanthropy

Philanthropy in education has a long history, dating back to ancient Greece when a friend

gifted Plato the land just outside of Athens to found his academy (Webb, 1989) and the

philanthropist Cimon helped finance the academy (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Webb, 1989). Plato,

upon his death, provided funding for the academy for another 900 years by endowing the land

3
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

the academy sat on (Cook & Lasher, 1996). The concept extended to Western civilization in

France in the twelfth-century, when a conflict between the city and the University of Paris led

local businessmen to provide the institution with in-kind donations of housing in the form of a

dormitory for poor student scholars (Haskins, 1936).

Philanthropy in American higher education dates back to the founding of the

Massachusetts Bay Colony College, later known as Harvard College, in 1636 (Drezner, 2011;

Miller, 1993; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014). Shortly after the founding of the college, a pamphlet

entitled “New England’s First Fruits” was published by college officials to serve as the fund-

raising literature used by college representatives dispatched to England to solicit needed financial

resources for the new school. These individuals, who came to be known as “honorable beggars”

(Miller, 1993; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014), returned with a collection of small gifts from

individuals, churches, and even communities totaling £1,000 to £10,000 per trip (Thelin, 2007).

The success of these campaigns led to future fundraising campaigns that in 1701 helped keep the

strugling Collegiate School of Connecticut from closing its doors thanks to a substantial gift

from Englishman Elihu Yale, prompting college officials to rename the school after its

benefactor (Miller, 1993; Thelin, 2007). Thomas Hollis is noted as being the first individual to

endow funds to pay the salary of a professor, in the form of a professor of divinity at Harvard

College in 1721 (Thelin & Tollinger, 2014), while Mary Lyon is noted for fundraising

specifically to open an institution of higher education for women, leading to enough funds being

donated to open Mount Holyoke College in 1837 (Miller, 1993).

History of Alumni Organizing and Giving

The first recorded alumni association was founded at Yale College in 1792 when a class

secretary was chosen to maintain a contact list for alumni and to invite them back to campus

4
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

periodically to take part in organized activities (Forman, 1995). The earliest recorded association

of alumni was created at Williams College in 1821 as the Society of Alumni of Williams College

(Forman, 1995; Miller, 1993), with the mandate that “the influence and patronage of those it has

educated may be united for its support, protection and improvement” (Shaw, Embree, Upham, &

Johnson, 1917, p. 10). Alumni at Brown University in Rhode Island attempted the first financial

campaign, aiming to raise $1,000 from alumni to purchase medals and prizes for winners of

academic contests among current students (Council for the Advancement and Support of

Education, 2013). Princeton University’s Alumni Association, the Alumni Association of Nassau

Hall, attempted the first large capital campaign in 1832 with a goal of raising $100,000 for their

alma mater. The campaign managed to raise only half of its goal, but enabled Princeton to

purchase a new telescope and endow three professors the following year (Forman, 1995; Shaw et

al., 1917). Colleges for women also followed the trend when the first alumnae association was

established at Cincinnati Wesleyan Female College in 1852 (Council for the Advancement and

Support of Education, 2013). 1890 saw the organizing of the first noted continual alumni

fundraising campaign, the Yale Annual Fund, which Curti & Nash (1965) consider the beginning

of the institutionalization of giving. Alumni associations began to be professionalized in 1897

when the University of Michigan’s newly founded alumni association hired a full-time secretary,

paid entirely by the alumni body (Forman, 1995).

Financial giving to institutions was additionally enhanced in 1917 with congress’ creation

of tax deductions for charitable giving. After the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the states

in 1913 establishing income taxes across the country, tax exemptions for certain non-profit

organizations, including educational institutions, were implemented in the Revenue Act of 1913.

Four years later, congress raised taxes to increase revenue to support the country’s effort in

5
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

World War I, but in doing so created tax deductions for charitable gifts. The ability of donors to

decrease their annual tax bill by giving to philanthropic efforts is credited with inspiring growth

in higher education philanthropy (Trollinger, 2009).

Throughout the interwar period from 1918-1945, alumni support of alma maters

increased as more alumni began to feel an obligation to repay a debt to the institution that gave

them their education (Curti & Nash, 1965). This increased involvement also led to many

institutions professionalizing their fundraising efforts, focusing more on capital campaigns and

planned giving involving alumni (Trollinger, 2009).

Following World War II, the number of alumni funds and the money they generated grew

exponentially. Prior to the war in 1936, only 86 alumni funds were known to exist, generating

$2.8 million. By 1961, this had grown to 1,042 alumni funds generating almost $209 million.

Through most of the 1950s, alumni were also the second most prevalent source of private funds,

behind foundations. In 1962, alumni became the primary source and have not relinquished the

title since (Trollinger, 2009). In 2016, educational institutions received 15% of the $390.05

billion in charitable giving that occurred in the United States, second only behind religious

institutions. Of that $58.5 billion, 29% came from alumni (Giving USA, 2017). This

demonstrates the importance that alumni play in the funding and financial stability of American

higher education institutions today.

Motivations for Philanthropic Support

One big question is: why do alumni, and people in general, give their money away to

philanthropic causes? Thelin and Trollinger (2014) believe that there are many intermingling and

6
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

overlapping reasons why alumni give to their alma maters which can be characterized in six

categories:

1) Religion: major religions in the Western world follow the commandment of “love thy

neighbor as thyself”, which leads to individuals acting selflessly and sharing their

wealth with their neighbors.

2) Altruism: defined as an “unselfish desire to live for others.” Individuals can, however,

be satisfied because of giving, leading economist James Andreoni to use the term

“warm-glow giving” to describe the un-selfless satisfaction that can result from

giving.

3) Exchange: the act of giving to receive something in return, societal approval, “warm-

glow” feelings of satisfaction, or the act of giving back. Alumni donating back to

their alma mater in return for the education and experiences they received is a form of

exchange motivation.

4) Psychosocial: donors’ ability to find meaning and significance in their own lives by

meeting the needs of others.

5) Teleological: donors decision to give is based solely on the recipient of the gift, such

as directing their funds to their alma mater solely for supporting the alma mater. Their

alma mater is a part of their identity, with the institution’s name gracing their resume,

apparel, and more. To many alumni, this is their sole motivation to give.

A more cynical explanation of motivations for giving comes from the seven basic reasons

that Elliott (2006) believes make donors open their wallets:

1) Religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs: donors give because they believe it is

part of their religion and what it means to be a “good person”.

7
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

2) Guilt: giving as restitution for past sins.

3) Recognition: the immortality of having a name attached with a gift.

4) Self-preservation and fear: buying protection or in response to fear.

5) Tax rewards: taking advantage of a reduced income tax bill.

6) Obligation: feeling of paying-back for previous support, such as to an alma mater.

7) Pride and self-respect: giving to be seen as a supporter.

Elliot’s motivations, while different than Thelin and Trollinger’s, depict a donor who is

driven to give by much more self-serving reasons. However, all can be applied as possible

motives for alumni giving to the institution that granted them their degree, from the recognition

and pride associated with giving, to the feeling of being a good person, to paying-back for

previous support, and even for redirecting some tax dollars to a charitable cause the alumnus

finds worthy.

An additional concept for donor motivations comes from Prince & File (1994), who

categorized donors in seven distinct groups that they called “The Seven Faces of Philanthropy”:

1) The communitarians: doing good makes sense

2) The devout: doing good is God’s will

3) The investor: doing good is good business

4) The socialite: Doing good is fun

5) The altruist: Doing good feels right

6) The repayer: Doing good in return

7) The dynast: Doing good is a family tradition

8
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Alumni donors would generally be considered repayers, as they give to their alma mater

out of a sense of obligation for the great education and lifelong benefits they received from it.

Prince and File (1994) found that only about 10% of all donors do so as repayers and that most

of these contributors give to educational or medical causes. Their definitions of the other six

groups of philanthropists do, however, cover other motivations that influence donors to higher

education. Investors may give to their alma mater in order to help their business find adequately

trained employees in the local area, while devout donors may see their faith as the reason to give

to their religiously affiliated alma mater.

Theoretical Models for Motivating Philanthropic Behavior

Marketing literature provides two theoretical models for motivating philanthropic

behavior. The Services-Philanthropic Model (SPG) states that the decision to donate is highly

influenced by the donor’s perceived value of the services the charitable organization provides,

such as, the quality of the educational experience a university provides, or their connection to the

organization, like their experience as an alumnus (Brady, Noble, Utter, & Smith, 2002). The

Identity-Salience Model (ISM) is based on identity theory and believes that donors are more

likely to give to organizations they have a positive relationship with. Relationships are built and

grown based on participating in activities the organization organizes, such as a university

establishing sport leagues for students (Arnett, German, & Hunt, 2003). Arnett et al. (2003) also

state that donors’ decision-making process to give is also affected by their ability to give and

their perception of a need for their gift existing.

Drezner (2015) believes that philanthropic giving towards higher education is a way for

individuals to reinforce that higher education is a public good. He views the act of voluntarily

9
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

giving as an indication by the donor that creating knowledge and educating other’s benefits more

than just the individual.

Brown (1991) examined philanthropic motivations from a marketing perspective using

alumni at Ball State University. His analysis led to alumni being grouped in to three distinct

segments; “classroomers” who emphasize the institution’s faculty, educational facilities, and

reputation as important represent 61% of alumni; “non-classroomers” who emphasize social

activities, job placement services, and arts and entertainment make up 25% of alumni; and 14%

are considered “athletic boosters”, who deemed intercollegiate athletics and the athletic facilities

as important. Brown’s (1991) study was completed to dispel the notion that athletics and athletic

results were the primary motivator for alumni giving and his findings led him to recommend that

institutions focus on the largest segment, the classroomers, and their interests to solicit financial

gifts.

Alumni Identity

Alumni’s identity with the institution also plays a key role in their motivation to donate.

Stephenson and Bell (2014) used Tajfel and Turner’s 1981 social identity theory, which the

authors defined as “individuals organize themselves into social categorizations…which act as

cognitive tools to create order in the social environment” (Stephenson & Bell, 2014, p. 178), to

investigate how alumni’s self-identification with the institution affects their motivation to donate

to their alma mater. A positive correlation was identified between an alumni’s identification with

the university and the number of expected financial gifts they would make to the institution.

Additionally, if a donor was to identify with the institution, they were 43% less likely to have

never donated to their alma mater, as even if their financial means were limited, they would find

a way to contribute even a small amount. The authors also found that the primary reasons

10
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

identified by alumni in a quantitative question about giving motivations were: “because I am an

alumnus” (67%), “to give back to the university” (47%), and “to help students” (43%). The

primary rationale for not donating was led by “I can’t afford to give now” (43%). To note, 26 of

the 1,146 non-donors explained their motivation to not donate as being because they no longer

identified with the institution.

Alumni identity with the institution, or lack thereof, influences the decision not to donate.

Wastyn (2009), in a qualitative study of non-donors, found that this segment of alumni decides

not to donate because they no longer see a connection between themselves and the institution,

primarily due to the current cost of attending the institution. They also believe that other charities

are in greater need of the funds and that they already paid the institution for their degree, so there

is no need to continue to pay for a commodity that they already received.

Factors Influencing Alumni Decision to Donate

Research on motivating factors for alumni donations to their alma maters has identified

several factors that influence an alumnus’s decision to donate. These factors include age (Carter

& Duggan, 2011; Durango-Cohen & Balasubramanian, 2015; Le Blanc & Rucks, 2009;

McAlexander, Koenig, & DuFault, 2015; Okunade & Berl, 1997, Skari, 2014; Weerts & Ronca,

2007; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012), time since graduation (McDearmon & Shirley, 2009), race

(Carter & Duggan, 2011; Le Blanc & Rucks, 2009; Monks, 2003), gender (Carter & Duggan,

2011; Holmes, 2009; Le Blanc & Rucks, 2009; Sun, Hoffman, & Grady, 2007), income (Carter

& Duggan, 2011; Clotfelter, 2003; Okunade & Berl, 1997; Skari, 2011; Tsao & Coll, 2005;

Weerts & Ronca, 2009), wealth (Baade & Sundberg, 1996; Holmes, 2009), amount of student

aid or loans received (Freeland, Spenner, & McCalmon, 2015; Lara & Johnson, 2014; Marr,

Mullin, & Siegfried, 2005; Meer & Rosen, 2012; Monks, 2003), and distance from their current

11
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

place of residence and their alma mater (Holmes, 2009; Lara & Johnson, 2014; McDearmon &

Shirley, 2009; Skari, 2014). This section will review the literature to date on these topics.

Demographic Factors

Age. Okunade and Berl (1997) investigated alumni giving to a large, Carnegie classified

research I institution, business school over a 35 year period. Their results showed that the oldest

alumni were almost four times more likely to donate to the school than alumni who had

graduated within the most recent 10 year period. This confirmed their hypothesis that older

alumni, who have had a greater amount of time to accumulate wealth, have a greater ability to

donate. McAlexander et al. (2015) also found that alumni 65 years old and older were

significantly more likely to intend to donate to their alma mater and to have included the

institution in their will or estate plan. Durango-Cohen and Balasubramanian (2015) also found

that the optimal age range for alumni donations was 45 to 65 years old, as that segment donated

almost 40% of the total funds donated by alumni to the institution in their study.

Gender. According to most recent research on the topic, gender plays a contributing role

in determining an alumnus’s likelihood of giving. Le Blanc and Rucks (2009), in a study that

used data from a large public institution’s alumni donation records, showed that of a subsection

of 20 percent of all of the institution’s living alumni, male alumni were significantly more likely

to donate than alumnae. These results contradict the findings of studies using groups more recent

alumni. Holmes’ (2009) study only looked at giving by alumni from the previous 15 years and

found that women were more generous with their donations. Sun et al. (2007), using a random

sampling of alumni who had readily available email addresses in the early 2000s, also found that

females were more likely to donate back to the institution. Due to the use of email addresses and

the timeframe, it can also be assumed that more recent graduates were the primary respondents.

12
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

These more recent findings do also contradict with Okunade’s (1993) and Marr et al.’s (2005)

findings that found that gender had no effect on alumni’s likelihood to donate.

Race & Ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are also contributing factors to the frequency and

dollar amount of donations. Carter and Duggan (2011) found that donors to a Virginia

community college were overwhelmingly White (95.7%), although their sample size was limited

to only 241 donors who responded to the survey. Le Blanc and Rucks (2009), in their analysis of

a random sampling of 32,898 alumni from a list of all living donors of a large public university,

also found that alumni donors were overwhelmingly White. Monks (2003) similarly found that

Black, Hispanic, and multi-race alumni gave between 23% to 39% less than White alumni.

Comparable to the inconsistency of Okunade’s (1993) findings related to gender, his same study

also found that race had limited effect on the business school’s alumni donating to the alma

mater.

Financial Factors

Annual income plays an important role in an alumnus’s decision to donate. Okunade and

Berl (1997) found that individuals who earned over $90,000 per year were almost 3 times as

likely to donate over those who earned $30,000 per year. Over a decade later, Weerts and Ronca

(2009) similarly found that $90,000 in annual income was a significant threshold for larger

versus smaller gifts to the institution. Tsao and Coll (2005), in examining the motivations to

donate of graduates from journalism programs, similarly found that a higher personal income

resulted in a higher propensity to donate. Skari (2011) found that wealth was also a factor in a

community college graduate’s likelihood of donating to the institution that awarded their

associates degree. As would be expected given the findings that individuals with higher incomes

13
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

give more to their alma maters, personal wealth is also a determining factor in an alumnus’s

propensity to give (Baade & Sundberg, 1996).

The act of taking out loans to fund their education has a negative effect on alumni’s

propensity to give. Alumni who have over $10,000 in student loans are 10% less likely to donate

to their alma mater (Monks, 2003). Similarly, Meer and Rosen (2012) found that the act of

taking out any form of educational loan lowers the probability of gift giving by a modest 3.6%,

with a negative relationship between loan amounts and likelihood of giving. Marr et al.’s (2005)

study showed that receiving any form of needs-based loan reduced the probability of the alumnus

making a donation by 16%. Lara and Johnson (2014) found that an academic award made alumni

5% less likely to donate.

Receiving a scholarship from the institution, however, does not affect the probability of

an alumnus donating, but the size of the scholarship does impact the size of the gift. Alumni who

received larger scholarships make smaller gifts (Meer and Rosen, 2012). Qualitative research on

the subject suggests that scholarship recipients do not consider the support a gift that they should

be grateful for and in return attempt to repay to the institution (Forrest, Nikodemos, & Gilligan,

2016). In contrast, Freeland et al. (2014) found that receiving a scholarship did increase the

likelihood of a financial gift being made, as did receiving financial support from parents. Aid in

the form of student employment on campus has no effect on propensity to give as alumni (Meer

& Rosen, 2012).

Geographic Factors

How close an alumnus lives to campus also plays a role in their likelihood of donating.

Alumni who live closer to their alma mater’s campus are more likely to donate (Holmes, 2009;

14
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

McDearmon & Shirley, 2009; Skari, 2014), primarily since their proximity to campus allows

them to be more engaged in the campus. This is, however, contradicted by Lara and Johnson’s

(2014) findings of an econometric model of over 27,000 alumni of Colorado College that found

that living over 750 from the college resulted in a marginally higher likelihood of donating to the

college.

Experiential Factors

Just as age, gender, race & ethnicity, wealth, income, and financial support influence

alumni’s decisions and propensity to donate, so does their experience as students and as alumni.

This next section will review the occasionally contradictory literature to date on experiential

factors that can affect donations by alumni.

Alumni engagement. Alumni who remain engaged with the institution have a higher

propensity to give. In their study at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Weerts and Ronca

(2009) found that alumni who kept in touch with the institution, primarily by following news

about the institution’s athletic teams, were more likely to donate. Tsao and Coll’s (2005) study of

alumni of a journalism program found that those who were kept in touch with via newsletters,

sponsored alumni events, and being invited to interact with current students were more likely to

consider donating to the institution. Sung and Yang (2009) also found a strong relationship

between the university’s relationship with alumni and the alumni’s supportive behavioral

intentions towards the institution.

Alumni satisfaction. Satisfaction with the alumni’s experience as a student, both inside

and outside of the classroom, influence donations. Baade and Sundberg (1996) found that alumni

viewed investments into their classroom educational experience as a student as the primary

15
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

reason to donate to their alma mater. Gaier’s (2005) and Skari’s (2014) works similarly found

that alumni who were pleased with their academic experience were more likely to give. Alumni

who are satisfied with their past experiences with the institution are more likely to currently have

a positive relationship and to give in the future (McAlexander & Koening, 2001).

Alumni who are satisfied specifically with their educational experiences at the institution

are more likely to believe that the college contributed to their education and are also more likely

to have developed a relationship with faculty and staff while a student (Sun et al., 2007). Sun et

al. (2007) found that alumni who were more satisfied with their experience were more inclined to

donate to their alma mater. Similarly, Clotfelter (2003) found that alumni of private institutions

who were satisfied with their student experience also donated more often, and that those who

could identify a mentor that they had had on campus while a student were even more likely to

donate. Clotfelter’s findings were also confirmed by McDearmon and Shirley’s (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. In his study, student experience was the most important factor

determining the alumnus’s likelihood of donating (Monks, 2003).

Alumni who are highly satisfied with their undergraduate experience and are involved on

the campus, have a higher perception of the campus’s financial needs and are also more likely to

donate (Hoyt, 2004). Sung and Yang (2009) found that total satisfaction with the alumnus’s

education, including the quality of their educational experience, the relationships they built with

faculty and staff, and the level of communication from the institution, affect their willingness to

financially support the institution.

16
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Stephenson and Yerger (2014) narrowed alumni’s satisfaction with their educational

experience to only focus on satisfaction with student affairs and campus resources. While they

found that satisfaction with campus resources did not impact donations by alumni, they did find

that satisfaction with student affairs on campus was significantly related to the alumni’s choice to

donate.

Alumni recommending the institution. Satisfaction with student experience can also be

interpreted as alumni’s likelihood of recommending the institution. Those who would

recommended the institution to another person are 27% more likely to donate to their alma mater

than alumni who would not endorse the institution (Okunade & Berl, 1997). Stephenson and

Yerger (2015) found that donors who were satisfied with their alma mater’s campus resources

were also significantly more likely to recommend and promote the institution.

Student Extra-curricular Involvement

Involvement in extra-curricular activities on campus while a student is positively related

to the likelihood of making donations to the alma mater. Monks (2003) found that active

participation in certain types of activities was correlated with increased alumni giving, including

student government, intercollegiate athletics, and Greek life. However, he also found that alumni

who had participated in student clubs or political organizations while on campus made smaller

donations, on average, than students who had participated in no extracurricular activities at all.

Participation in fraternities and sororities while a student was also identified as a factor in

alumni’s likelihood of donating by Marr et al. (2005) and by Taylor and Martin (1995). Taylor

and Martin (1995) found that involvement with the Greek system at the institution was the

second highest characteristic of high donors, behind staying involved with the institution as an

17
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

alumnus. Lara and Johnson (2014) also found a strong connection between participating in Greek

life as a student and donating as an alumnus. Marr et al. (2005) found that fraternity members

were 7% more likely to donate, while sorority members were 13% more likely to donate than

alumni who were not a part of Greek life. The dramatic increase in the likelihood of sorority

members donating is interesting when compared to Holmes (2009) and Sun et al.’s (2007)

findings that female alumni were more likely to donate.

Involvement in Greek life is not the only predictor of higher future giving. Taylor and

Martin (1995) also found that participation in a student club increased the chance that a donation

was made. Hoyt (2004) similarly found that donors typically had higher levels of participation in

campus life as an undergraduate student. Drew-Branch (2011) noted that a relationship exists

between student engagement, alumni satisfaction, and alumni donations. Cascione (2003)

believed that this increased satisfaction and rate of donations related the opportunities for

leadership growth that extra-curricular activities offered alumni. McDonough (2017), in a

qualitative study of motivational factors for alumni donating their time to the institution, also

found that involvement in extracurricular experiences led to an increased affiliation with the

institution and was a motivator for alumni volunteering for the institution. Similarly, in their

qualitative study of former scholarship recipients, Forrest et al. (2016) found that having a

connection to the university’s community, or more importantly a lack thereof, was a determining

factor in an alumnus’s decisions to donate.

Rau and Erwin (2015) developed a predictive model for determining alumni’s propensity

to give. In their model, engagement in campus as an undergraduate was a found to be a strong

predictor of future giving. In contrast, Lara and Johnson’s (2014) econometric model found that

18
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

former Greek life alumni did donate more frequently and generously, but that this trend did not

hold true for other alumni who were highly engaged in campus life as a student.

Engaging Formerly Engaged Student Alumni

Building off of the literature that indicates that students who are more engaged in campus

develop higher affinities for the school (Gaskins, Rey, & Scott, 2006; McAlexander & Koenig,

2001) and that alumni with a higher affinity for their alma mater are more likely to support their

alma mater (Pumerantz, 2005; Sun, et al., 2007), Fresk and Mullendore (2012) interviewed

student employees to determine if they believed their job made them involved on the campus.

The researchers found that students considered themselves engaged with the campus, but that

most did not view themselves as building relationships on campus through their employment,

which would make them less likely to donate in the future. Gaskins et al. (2006) recommended

that departments on campus develop their own alumni networks to cultivate their relationship

with their former students, including producing alumni newsletters and hosting alumni specific

events, to keep these formerly engaged students engaged as alumni. Sharing good news and

accomplishments with alumni positively impacts their identity with the organization and their

relationship with the institution (Drezner, 2018).

Universities and colleges can further strengthen their relationship with alumni who were

highly engaged as students by welcoming them back to campus and keeping them engaged with

their former student club, organization, Greek life chapter, or team (Rissmayer, 2010). Student

Affairs Offices and Alumni Affairs Offices should look to engaged students post-graduation and

encourage them to stay involved with the campus and to begin making small donations shortly

after graduation (Gaskins et al., 2006). Campuses can also look to further create opportunities to

19
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

engage students while they are on campus in order to harness this relationship in future years to

help support the department and the institution.

Former Student Athlete Population

Alumni who were intercollegiate athletic athletes during their time at the institution have

different experiences while on campus than their non-intercollegiate athlete peers. This leads to

former varsity student athletes being less likely to donate to their alma mater due to a sentiment

that they already contributed to the alma mater through their athletic abilities (O'Neil & Schenke,

2007). Lara and Johnson (2014), in their study of over 27,000 alumni at Colorado College, also

found that former student athletes were less apt to donate to the institution. Shapiro,

Giannoulakis, Drayer, and Wang (2010) found that only 5% of former student athletes donated

back to their athletic department.

Shulman and Bowen (2001), in a study at both highly selective Ivy League, National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I schools, and New England Small Colleges

Athletic Conference (NESCAC), NCAA Division III institution, (which does not offer

scholarships specifically for athletes and does not sell high dollar tickets or receive revenue from

television broadcast contracts) (National Collegiate Athletic Association, n.d.) schools also

found that older former student athlete alumni donated more often, but that younger former

student athletes were less likely to donate as frequently as the average alumnus (Bowen & Levin,

2003; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). In contrast, Holmes, Meditz, and Sommers (2008) conducted

their research at Middlebury College, a NESCAC member institution, to dispel Shulman and

Bowen’s findings. In their study, they found that younger former athletes were more likely to

donate than older former student athletes and that former student athletes were more likely to

donate than the general student population (Holmes et al., 2008). The different experiences that

20
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

older alumni had as a student athlete compared to the experiences of the newer graduates has an

impact these former student athletes’ decisions to donate (O’Neil & Schenke, 2007; Shapiro &

Giannoulakis, 2009).

In contrast to the multiple findings of former student athletes donating less, Marr et al.

(2005) did find that participating on a varsity athletic team generated the same type of

attachment to the university as did participating in Greek life. Their assumption was that this

would translate into donations to the institution by alumni. This was confirmed in their study,

with 8% more student athletes than non-student athletes responding to appeals for donations.

Gender may also play a role in giving to athletics. Tsiotsou (2006) found that men gave

more to athletic programs than females. However, Burchette (2013) and Halpin (2015), in their

separate studies of only former student athletes, found no statistical difference in the propensity

to give of male and female alumni.

Constraints to Giving by Former Student Athletes

Halpin (2015) examined constraints that keep former student athletes from donating. His

research found that the former student athlete’s experience, if negative, was a constraint to

donating. This followed Shapiro and Giannoulakis’s (2009) findings that the former student

athlete experience could significantly impact their propensity to give. Halpin’s findings also

match Monks (2003), McDearmon & Shirley (2009), and Sun et al.’s (2007) results that

identified positive student experiences as a motivating factor for future donations. Similarly,

Halpin (2015) found that a lack of connection with the institution by a former student athlete

would negatively affect their propensity to donate.

21
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Participating in a “revenue” sport, primarily football and men’s basketball (Sanderson &

Siegfried, 2015), leads to the student athlete feeling more like an athlete than a student (Potuto &

O'Hanlon, 2007). Many of these students also had scholarships that were tied to their skill,

dedication, and performance as a student athlete, which made them feel less able to participate in

campus activities, such as extra-curricular activities, or building relationships with non-athlete

students and faculty (Potuto & O'Hanlon, 2007). These experiences would negatively affect their

time at the institution and make them less likely to donate based on the research on student

experience (Monks, 2003; McDearmon & Shirley, 2009; Sun et al., 2007).

Decision to Donate

Institution’s act of soliciting donations from alumni is a strong determinant of the

likelihood that a donation will be made (Baade & Sundberg, 1996; Lertputtarak &

Supitchayangkool, 2014; Pumerantz, 2005). Institutions must keep themselves at the top of

alumni’s minds through email updates, newsletters, magazines, alumni events, and social media

(Lertputtarak & Supitchayangkool, 2014; Tsao & Coll, 2005). This mirrors Shapiro and

Giannoulakis’s (2009) findings that if former student athletes were not contacted by the

institution or athletic department and asked to donate, they likely would not donate on their own.

This all supports Gaskins et al.’s (2006) recommendation that departments find ways to keep

alumni engaged and involved with the department and university in order to build a relationship

before asking for funds in the future.

The ability to direct donations to a specific interest of the alumnus, such as a specific

department, club, or athletic team, is a motivator for donations (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).

22
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Even with the ability to direct funds to a specific target group, alumni will spread their

donations around. Stinson and Howard (2004) examined alumni giving at the University of

Oregon over an eight year period, from 1994 to 2002, and found that 38.7% of alumni directed

their entire gift to the athletic department. An even larger 69.5% of alumni donated at least a

portion of their money to the athletics program while donating the rest to academic and other

campus services.

Recommendations for future research

Future Areas of Demographic Research

The research to date on the demographic characteristics of alumni who donate to their

alma maters paints an unclear picture of who institutions looking for funds should target. Donors

are typically older, have a higher level of income, and are typically not paying off loans, which

makes sense considering that older alumni typically earn higher salaries, have had more time to

pay off loans, and time to save money. However, alumni who begin by making small gifts

shortly after graduation are more likely to make larger gifts later in life (Cascione, 2003;

Holmes, 2009; Marr et al., 2005). Research on race and ethnicity’s affect also indicates that a

donor is more likely to be White than any other race. On these subjects, the literature creates a

rather consistent profile. Areas for future qualitative researchers to delve deeper into on this

subject involve interviewing individuals of different ages, races, genders, and income levels, and

cross-referencing these demographic identities with having attended different types of higher

education institutions, including institutions’ size, public versus private, institutions of varying

levels of prestige, and institutions in different geographic locations, to identify motivations and

constraints to donations for these diverse alumni.

23
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

The image becomes less clear when examining gender. Longer longitudinal studies, such

as Le Blanc and Rucks (2009), found that males were more likely to donate, while studies only

looking at younger alumni indicated that females were more likely to donate (Holmes, 2009; Sun

et al., 2007). To complicate this further, other studies found no link between gender and

propensity to donate (Marr et al., 2005; Okunade, 1993). The role of gender and how it affects

donors’ motivations and propensity to donate to their alma mater are both areas for future

potential research.

Future Areas of Experiential Research

As would be expected, alumni who were more satisfied with their experience as a

student, were more likely to donate. The research on this subject to date consistently draws a link

between satisfaction, engagement, likelihood of recommending the institution, and propensity to

donate.

Involvement in extra-curricular activities as a student provided a less clear picture of

alumni’s likelihood of donating. Participation in Greek life was consistently correlated with

increased alumni giving (Lara & Johnson 2014; Marr et al., 2005; Monks, 2003; Taylor &

Martin, 1995). However, participation in other campus activities as a student, such as clubs and

student government, was murkier. Some scholars found that higher levels of engagement in

campus activities did increase donations (Drew-Branch, 2011; Hoyt, 2004; Rau & Erwin, 2015;

Taylor & Martin, 1995), while others found that this type of engagement actually made these

alumni less likely to donate (Lara & Johnson, 2014; Monks, 2003).

This contradiction requires additional research on the subject. Further research on the

subject can also dig deeper into the affect that involvement in different types of student activities

24
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

has on alumni’s likelihood to donate, including participation in student government, student

academic clubs, student social clubs, student sport clubs, and intramural sports. Student

employment on campus, including differentiating between different jobs and levels of

responsibility, as a predictor of alumni propensity to donate should also be explored. Qualitative

studies can also be used to identify motivations and constraints of these alumni, to verify that

these experiences influenced their propensity to donate.

Drezner (2011) also identified a need to further explore the involvement of student affairs

divisions in institutional fundraising, a need that remains today.

Student Athlete Areas for Future Research

The majority of research to date has also found that former student athletes are less likely

to donate than their alumni peers (Bowen & Levin, 2003; Halpin, 2015; Lara & Johnson, 2014;

O’Neil & Schenke, 2007; Shapiro & Giannoulakis, 2009; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Marr et al.

(2005) and Holmes et al. (2008) did find that former student athletes in their studies were more

likely to donate than the average student, however, they both completed their studies at private,

selective institutions, Vanderbilt University and Middlebury College, respectively. Future

research could look deeper into the types of institutions former student athletes played at and the

role the sport the student athlete played has in their likelihood of donating.

Club Sport Student Athletes Areas for Future Research

One additional area of future research could involve comparing the effect of the student

experience of varsity student athletes to club sport student athletes.

Club sports, groups of students who played a sport together and competed against other

institutions began on campuses in the mid-1800s as the precursor to varsity athletics. Club sports

25
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

experienced a resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s after the introduction of Title IX legislation

increased the number of female varsity sports and athletes. Budget cuts of the era led to

decreased funds to field varsity sport teams, which led to many sports moving back to the club

sport level while also adding gender specific female clubs (Matthews, 1987).

Club sport athletes typically must organize and fund their teams themselves, receiving

limited financial and administrative support from the institution (Matthews, 1987). Club sport

participants are typically highly engaged students on campus (Lifschultz, 2012). There is

estimated to be over 2 million club sport athletes on campuses in the United States each year

(Pennington, 2008), over four times as many as NCAA athletes (National Collegiate Athletic

Association, 2017).

Areas for potential future research involve comparing the experiences of these two

distinct groups of student athletes on campus, including their propensities to donate back to the

institution. Qualitative research can compare the motivations and constraints of these two groups

to identify how experiences for both groups can be modified in the future to increase alumni

engagement and donations back to the alma mater by all of these former student athletes.

26
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

References

Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The Identity Salience Model of Relationship

Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67, 89-105.

Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). What Determines Alumni Generosity? Economics of

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.

Bowen, W. G., & Levin, S. A. (2003). Reclaiming the game. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E. (2002). How to Give and Receive: An

Exploratory Study of Charitable Hybrids. Psychology & Marketing, 19(11), 919-944.

doi:10.1002/mar.10044

Brown, J. D. (1991). Targeting University Alumni Segments That Donate for Non-Athletic

Reasons. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 7(1), 89-98.

Burchette, B. M. (2013). Examining factors that influence donor motivation among former

student-athletes and NCAA DI classification (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI No. 3567240).

Carter, L. S., & Duggan, M. H. (2011). Philanthropic Motivations of Community College

Donors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35, 61-73.

doi:10.1080/10668926.2011.525178

27
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Cascione, G. L. (2003). Philanthropists in Higher Education: Institutional, Biographical, and

Religious Motivations for Giving. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Clotfelter, C. T. (2003). Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities. Economics of

Education Review, 22, 109-120.

Cook, W. B, & Lasher, W. L. (1996). Toward a Theory of Fund Raising in Higher Education.

Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 33-51. doi: 10.1353/rhe.1996.0002

Council for Aid to Education. (2018). Voluntary Support of Education. New York, NY: Author.

Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. (2013). Explore the History of Alumni

Relations. Retrieved from About CASE:

https://www.case.org/About_CASE/CASE_History/100AnniversaryAAS/100Anniversar

yExplore.html

Curti, M. E., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Davis, J. J., & Wu, S. D. (2017, September 12). Faculty and Staff Budget Town Hall. Fairfax,

VA. Retrieved from http://budget.gmu.edu/wp-

content/uploads/BudgetTownHall_Sep2017.pdf

Drew-Branch, V. L. (2011). Student Engagement, Alumni Satisfaction, and Alumni Donations at

a Public Four Year Institution: An Analysis of How the Undergraduate Experience

Influences Alumni Donations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI No. 3476544).

28
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education. ASHE

Higher Education Report, 37(2), 1-146. doi:10.1002/aehe.3702

Drezner, N. D. (2015). The 6th Annual Barbara Townsend Lecture: Fundraising and

institutional advancement: Theory, practice, and new paradigms. Denver, CO:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Drezner, N. D. (2018). Alumni Engagement in Higher Education: A Matter of Marketing and

Leveraging Social Identities. In A. Papadimitriou (Ed.), Competition in Higher Education

Branding and Marketing: National and Global Perspectives (pp. 181-195). Cham,

Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58527-7_9

Durango-Cohen, E. J., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2015). Effective Segmentation of University

Alumni: Mining Contribution Data with Finite-Mixture Models. Research in Higher

Education, 56, 78-104. doi:10.1007/s11162-014-9339-6

Elliott, D. (2006). The Kindness of Stangers: Philanthropy and Higher Education. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Forman, R. (1995). Alumni Relations - A Perspective. In C. H. Webb (Ed.), Handbook for

alumni administration (pp. 5-11). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education & The

Oryx Press.

Forrest, J., Nikodemos, L., & Gilligan, C. (2016). The experience of receiving scholarship aid

and its effect on future givign: a listening guide analysis. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 13(1), 47-66. doi:10.1080/14780887.2015.1106628

29
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Freeland, R. E., Spenner, K. I., & McCalmon, G. (2015). I gave at the campus: Exploring student

giving and its link to young alumni donations after graduation. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 755-774. doi:10.1177/0899764014529625

Fresk, K. L., & Mullendore, R. H. (2012). Connecting Student Employment, Involvement, and

Alumni Affinity. Recreational Sports Journal, 36, 140-151.

Gaier, S. (2005). Alumni Satisfaction with Their Undergraduate Academic Experience and the

Impact on Alumni Giving and Participation. International Journal of Educational

Advancement, 5(4), 279-288.

Gaskins, D. A., Rey, S. V., & Scott, D. L. (2006). Celebrating Your Recreational Sports Alumni:

Connecting Generations for Future Success. Recreational Sports Journal, 30, 136-141.

Giving USA. (2017). Giving USA 2017. Chicago, IL: Giving USA.

Halpin, K. R. (2015). Investigating Former Student-Athlete Donor Constraints at Multiple NCAA

Institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Global (UMI No. 3715218).

Haskins, C. H. (1936). The rise of universities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Herzog, K. (2017, July 6). University of Wisconsin Regents freeze tuition, OK student fee and

housing increases. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2017/07/06/regents-approve-new-

budget-gives-less-uw-madison/455165001/

30
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Holmes, J. (2009). Prestige, charitable deductions and other determinants of alumni giving:

Evidence from a highly selective liberal arts college. Economics of Education Review,

28(1), 18-28. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.008

Holmes, J. A., Meditz, J. A., & Sommers, P. M. (2008). Athletics and Alumni Giving: Evidence

From a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College. Journal of Sports Economics, 9(5), 538-

552. doi:10.1177/1527002507313896

Hoyt, J. E. (2004). Understanding Alumni Giving: Theory and Predictors of Donor Status. Paper

presented at the 44th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston,

MA.

Lara, C., & Johnson, D. (2014). The anatomy of a likely donor: econometric evidence on

philanthropy to higher education. Education Economics, 22(3), 293-304.

doi:10.1080/09645292.2013.766672

Le Blanc, L. A., & Rucks, C. T. (2009). Data mining of university philanthropic giving: Cluster-

discriminant analysis and Pareto effects. International Journal of Educational

Advancement, 9(2), 64-82.

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.

31
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Marr, K. A., Mullin, C. H., & Siegfried, J. J. (2005). Undergraduate financial aid and subsequent

alumni giving behavior. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 45(1), 123-

143. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2003.08.005

Matthews, D. O. (1987). Managing Collegiate Sport Clubs. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2001). University Experiences, the Student-College

Relationship, and Alumni Support. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3),

21-44.

McAlexander, J. H., Koenig, H. F., & DuFault, B. (2015). Millennials and Boomers: increasing

alumni affinity and intent to give by target market segmentation. International Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21, 82-95. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1544

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

McDearmon, J. T., & Shirley, K. (2009). Characteristics and institutional factors related to young

alumni donors and non-donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2),

83-95.

McDonough, K. M. (2017). Young alumni perspectives about philanthropically supporting their

alma mater (Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University). Retrieved from

lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15370

32
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

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

Miller, M. T. (1993). Historical perspectives on the development of academic fund raising.

Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(3), 237-242.

Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterton, K. (2017). A Lost Decade in Higher Education

Funding: State Cuts Have Driven Up Tuition and Reduced Quality. Washington, DC:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2017_higher_ed_8-22-17_final.pdf

Monks, J. (2003). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective

institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121-130. doi:10.1016/S0272-

7757(02)00036-5

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2017). Student-Athletes. Retrieved from National

Collegiate Athletic Association: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Division III Philosophy Statement. Retrieved

from National Collegiate Athletic Association: http://www.ncaa.org/governance/division-

iii-philosophy-statement

Okunade, A. A. (1993). Logistic regression and probability of business school. Education

Economics, 1, 243-262.

Okunade, A. A., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Determinants of Charitable Giving of Business School

Alumni. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 201-214.

33
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

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=a

ll&adxnnlx=1415607028-dX04LbLCPFwHAJMSxFxHaw

Potuto, J. R., & O'Hanlon, J. (2007). National study of student-athletes regarding their

experiences as college students. College Student Journal, 41(4), 947-967.

Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1994). The Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approach to

Cultivating Major Donors. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Pumerantz, R. K. (2005). Alumni-in-Training: A Public Roadmap for Success. International

Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(4), 289-300.

Rau, N. E., & Erwin, T. D. (2015). Using Student Engagement to Predict Alumni Donors: An

Analytical Model. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 5(2), 101-111.

Rissmayer, P. A. (2010). Student Affairs and Alumni Relations. New Directions for Student

Services, 19-29. doi:10.1002/ss.357

Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The Case for Paying College Athletes. Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115-138.

Shapiro, S. L., & Giannoulakis, C. (2009). An Exploratory Investigation of Donor Constraints

for Former Student-Athletes. International Journal of Sport Management, 10, 207-225.

34
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

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

Shaw, W. B., Embree, E. R., Upham, A. H., & Johnson, E. B. (1917). Hand Book of Alumni

Work. Washington, DC: The Association of Alumni Secretaries.

Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Skari, L. A. (2011). Who Gives? Characteristics of Community College Alumni Donors

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI

No. 3460434).

Skari, L. A. (2014). Community College Alumni: Predicting Who Gives. Community College

Review, 42(1), 23-40. doi:10.1177/0091552113510172

Stephenson, A. L., & Bell, N. (2014). Motivations for alumni donations: a social identity

perspective on the role of branding in higher education. International Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 176-186. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1495

Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2014). Optimizing engagement: brand identification and

alumni donation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6),

765-778. doi:10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0057

Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2015). The Role of Satisfaction in Alumni Perceptions and

Supportive Behaviors. Services Marketing Quarterly, 36, 299-316.

doi:10.1080/15332969.2015.1076696

35
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2004). Scoreboards vs. Mortarboards: Major Donor Behavior

and Intercollegiate Athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(2), 129-140.

Sun, X., Hoffman, S. C., & Grady, M. L. (2007). A Multivariate Causal Model of Alumni

Giving: Implications for Alumni Fundraisers. International Journal of Educational

Advancement, 7(4), 307-332.

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

Taylor, A. T., & Martin, J. C. (1995). Characteristics of Alumni Donors and Nondonors at a

Research I, Public University. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 283-302.

Thelin, J. R. (2007). Colleges in the Colonial Era. In H. S. Wechsler, L. F. Goodchild, & L.

Eisenmann (Eds.), The History of Higher Education (3rd ed., pp. 54-74). Boston, MA:

Pearson Custom Publishing.

Thelin, J. R., & Trollinger, R. W. (2014). Philanthropy and American Higher Education.

Pelgrave MacMillan: New York, NY.

Trollinger, R. W. (2009). Philanthropy and transformation in American higher education

Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI

No. 3471544).

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.

36
A REVIEW OF ALUMNI PHILANTHROPY IN HIGHER ED. LITERATURE

Tsiotsou, R. (2006). Investigating differences between female and male athletic donors: A

comparative study. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11,

209-223. doi:10.1002/nvsm.34

Wastyn, M. L. (2009). Why alumni don't give: A qualitative study of what motivates non-donors

to higher education. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2), 96-108.

doi:10.1080/09645290801976985

Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2009). Using classification trees to predict alumni giving for

higher education. Education Economics, 17(1), 95-122.

doi:10.1080/09645290801976985

Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable

giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review,

3(2), 217-245. doi:10.1332/204080512X649379

Wood, E. W. (1989). Philanthropy: Past, Present, and Future. The Journal of Contemporary

Issues in Fund Raising, 27(2), 6-8.

37