October 22, 2007

History & background Justification for study Theoretical framework Research questions Methodology Quantitative and

qualitative processes Possible limitations to study Survey findings & implications Conclusions

Summary Of Presentation

Era of Uncertainty began in 1970s, up in ‘80s (Cook, 1997) Federal/state funding likely to decrease for schools, now

looking for finance options to survive (Dennis, 2003) Private donations to colleges/universities…

About $28 billion in 2006 (9.4% more since 2005) (Strout, 2007) Univ. of Oregon Athletics earned over

$4 million in donations by alumni/non-alumni (10% of budget) (Stinson & Howard, 2004)

Donor motivation research essential is essential to attain funds to meet rising costs of athletic programs

History & Background

Past research findings conclude… Athletic donors are not altruistic (philanthropic) and

expect something in return (better seating priority, etc.) (Mahoney, Gladden & Funk, 2003)

Institutions should develop target markets (active alumni, specific majors, fraternity/ sorority, and etc.)

Don’t ignore unique groups. Attempt to understand them

Justification for Study

Justification For Study

Abundance of research currently available on giving to athletic programs at colleges/universities

However, little research exists on former student athletes

Conclusions from limited research findings…

Former athletes don’t have same motivations to give as general alumni

Giving by ex-athletes motivated by winning at liberal arts colleges (Div. 1A and Div 3 schools) (Turner, Meserve & Bowen, 2001)

“Already donated” through blood, sweat, and tears (Shuit, 2005)

Most “exploited” workers in U.S. economy (Shuit, 2005)

Their coaches perceived to make “unethical” choices (Priest, Krauss & Beach, 1999)

Former Student Athletes

Potential Themes

Demographic considerations include such themes as… Gender Revenue vs. non-revenue sports Geographic location

Proximity later in life Ethnicity

HBCUs Socio-Economic Status

Wealth, financial history

Theoretical Framework

McClelland’s Motivational Needs Theory Achievement Affiliation Power(Braden, 2000)

Neocolonialism Recruited athletes feel like

migrant workers How do athletes respond

to these feelings? (Waltz, 1979)

Research Theory: Taxation

IRS section 501: Tax Exempt Status Law for institutions of charitable, religious

and educational purposes Intercollegiate competition

viewed as educational value Unrelated Business Income Tax

Income from any business by organization not related to main purpose of company

Sponsorships, TV revenue, tickets, and donations (Brand, 2006)

IRS Tax Reform Act of 1986

Originally exclusive provision for University of Texas & Louisiana State University Pertaining to season tickets/premium seats and

utilizing donations to obtain these locations In 1988, extended to all universities (Brand, 2006)

IRS Tax Law: Section 501 (l)

“If a taxpayer makes a payment to or for an institution of higher education, and the taxpayer thereby receives (directly or indirectly) the right to seating or the right to purchase seating in an athletic stadium of such institution, 80 percent of such payment is treated as charitable contribution (not including any amount separately paid for tickets).” (Brand, 2006)

What motivates former student-athletes to donate to their alma mater’s athletic program?

What are unique factors affecting desire to contribute? What personal experiences

or issues become obstacles for athletes donating to their former athletic programs?

Which specific conclusions on motivations of general alumni can also be applied to former student athletes?

Research Questions

Research Questions

Which of tested variables is greatest factor to determine donations (gender, geographic location, and etc.)?

How much do former college athletes’ personal experiences as student influence their motivation to donate?

Mixed-Methods approach using qualitative and quantitative processes to collect comprehensive data

Qualitative Process: In-depth, personal Interviews with approximately dozen former student athletes at University of Northern Colorado

Quantitative Process: Survey via online to broad-based pool of former student athletes, also at UNC

Methodology

A qualitative study implemented with interview design, standard procedure in initial development of formalized scale (Fowler, 1995).

Data collection took place during Fall 2006 Participants: 11 former collegiate student-athletes

currently non-donors (purposeful sample) Data Collection: Semi-structured personal interviews

(30-40 min) audio-recorded by phone or in person Data Analysis: Thematic content analysis used

to identify emerging categories

Qualitative Process

Former student-athletes who competed at least one year at UNC and contact information with foundation

Data collection took place during Jan.-Feb., 2007 Participants: A total of 750 former athlete non-donors

invited to participate in study Data Collection: 243 usable surveys were returned

for response rate of 36.4% Data Analysis: Item, Principal Component, and

Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency Analysis

Quantitative Process

Online Survey Protocol Low Response Rate

Research suggests typical response is equal or worse than other formats (phone or mail survey)

E-mail viewed as “Junk Mail” Add survey link in e-mail Explain study in e-mail

Unclear answers & instructions Edit and proofread to create

most user-friendly survey (Evans & Mathur, 2005)

Possible Limitations

Experience (predominant factor) Included items related to:

Poor support Lack of adequate compensation Poor treatment by coaches and/or athletic department An overall poor experience

Implications of Findings: Educate coaches, administration and staff

on improved conditions during athlete’s career Make donating a part of athlete’s learning experience Improve relations between current athlete

and alumni program

Survey Findings

CommunicationImplications: Coaches, current players & etc., contact FSA’s

PrioritizationImplications: Demonstrate athletics as a worthy cause

DetachmentImplications: Factor that athletic dept. has limited control

ControlImplications: Share documentation on where funds utilized

SatisfactionImplications: Establish a “winning culture”

Survey Findings

Current student-athletes… Stress to coaches the need to support student-athletes

beyond playing field Educate current student-athletes

about need for donations

Athletic department leaders… Provide early and consistent communication

via fundraisers, e-mails, websites and stay in contact with current members of program

Conclusions

Repeat process with additional universities to identify result trends

Expand process among all classification levels to identify trends among Division 1-A vs. Division 1-AA, Div. 2, and Div. 3, or private vs. public institutions, and HBCUs vs. other institutions

Combine data findings of multiple schools to identify commonality for alumni motivations among universities

Future Research

Black, E.W., Dawson, K., & Ferdig, Richard E. (2006) Forgotten Alumni: Online Learners as Donors. Academic Exchange Quarterly. 10.1, p43(5).

Retrieved September 28, 2007 from InfoTrac databases. Brand, M. (2006, November 13). Response to House Ways Committee Pertaining to

NCAA Funding and Revenues. Indianapolis , IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Braden, P. A. (2000). McClelland's Theory of Needs. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from University of West Virginia Parkersburgh:

http://www.wvup.edu/jcc/mgmt410/ McClelland.pdf Cook, W. Bruce. (1997). Fund raising and the college presidency in an era of

uncertainty: from 1975 to the present. Journal of Higher Education. 68.n1: pp.53(34). Retrieved December 7, 2007 from InfoTrac databases.

Dennis, M. (2003) Nine Higher Education Mega-Trends, and How They’ll Affect You. Distance Education Report, 7(6), 335.

Evans, J., & Mathur, A. (2005). The Value of Online Surveys. Emerald Research Register, 15(2), 195-219. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from Academic Search Premier database.

Fowler, F.J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References Cited

Mael, F., & Ashford, A.E. (1992). Alumni and their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Mahony, D., Gladden, J., & Funk, D. (2003, Winter). Examining Athletic Donors at NCAA Division I Institutions. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 9. Retrieved September 13, 2007, from Academic Search Premier

database Sparrow, N. (2006). Developing reliable online polls. International Journal of

Market Research, 48(6), 659-680. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from Business Source Premier database.

Stinson, J., & Howard, D. (2004). Scoreboards vs. Mortarboards: Major Donor Behavior and Intercollegiate Athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly,

13(3), 129-140. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from Business Source Premier database.

Strode, J. (2006). Donor Motives to Giving to Intercollegiate Athletics. Dissertation for Ohio State University, 1-140. Retrieved October 18,2007.

Strout, E. (2007, March 2). Donations Increase for 3rd Year in a Row. (Cover story). Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(26), A1-A28. Retrieved

September 26, 2007, from Academic Search Premier dbase

References Cited

Tsiotsou, Rodoula (2004, November). The role of involvement and income in predicting large and small donations to college athletics.

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6.2, p117(7). Retrieved September 28, 2007 from InfoTrac databases.

Turner, Sarah E., Meserve, Lauren A., & Bowen, William G. (2001, December). Winning and giving: Football results and alumni giving at selective private colleges and Universities. Social Science Quarterly, p.

812(15). Retrieved September 28, 2007 from InfoTrac databases.

References Cited