R ESEARCH R EPORT

Literature Review:
Philanthropic Fundraising
Wesley E. Lindahl, Aaron T. Conley

C ARBONE (1986) assembled an agenda for fundraising research

that provided an excellent general context for the review of
research results in philanthropic fundraising, along with a call
for increased research. This agenda was set as a part of a 1985 semi-
nar in Washington, D.C., that involved key scholars from academia
and professionals from the development field. Research in this field
has proliferated ever since. This article summarizes the progress of
research on philanthropic fundraising.
The best way to review the successes and highlight the remain-
ing areas for inquiry will be to consider them within the context of
the research framework that Carbone (1986) presented. Hence, we
have organized the review within three overriding areas: (1) the phil-
anthropic environment, (2) the work and careers of fundraisers, and
(3) the management of fundraising. Obviously, no article of this
length can include all the research on fundraising, so we have
included additional references at the end for the reader to explore.
The sheer volume of high quality studies that have evolved over
the past sixteen years is welcome in a field in need of a greater base
of substantive, objective research rather than a casual acceptance of
anecdotal evidence. This article confirms that the field has a knowl-
edge base that researchers can build on over time. Of course, more
and better research is needed to progress beyond these foundations.
Although the term fundraising can be broadly defined to include
political fundraising and even raising capital for business ventures,
this article focuses exclusively on the efforts involved in raising sup-
port for charitable nonprofit organizations. Due to the time and
resources necessary for this effort, certain segments of the nonprofit
sector are more involved in fundraising than others. Higher education
institutions (including private support organizations that work with
public universities and colleges) and hospitals represent the focus of
most dollars spent on fundraising, and unfortunately this is the focus
of much of the research in the field. Comparatively little research
exists on fundraising for religious organizations, despite the fact that
this category consistently draws the greatest amount of philanthropic

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 13, no. 1, Fall 2002 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
91
92 LINDAHL, CONLEY

support each year. For 2000, Giving USA (American Association of

Fund-Raising Counsel Trust for Philanthropy, 2001) recorded nearly
$74.31 billion in donations to religious groups, accounting for 36.5
percent of all contributions. Giving to education reached $28.18 bil-
lion or 13.8 percent, whereas a report on giving to only colleges and
universities recorded $23.2 billion (Council for Aid to Education,
2001). The remaining categories in Giving USA recorded $18.82 bil-
lion (9.3 percent) for health care organizations, $17.99 billion (8.8
percent) for human service agencies, $11.59 billion (5.7 percent) to
public or society organizations, $11.5 billion (5.7 percent) for arts
Another and cultural institutions, $6.16 billion (3 percent) for environmental
organizations, and $2.71 billion (1.3 percent) for international affairs
comprehensive
causes. The report classified an additional $32.2 billion of voluntary
source of data are gifts as “unallocated.” Each of these subsectors saw moderate to
the surveys strong increases over the previous year, continuing a trend the non-
profit sector enjoyed through much of the 1990s.
conducted by
Another comprehensive source of data are the surveys con-
INDEPENDENT ducted by INDEPENDENT SECTOR and published as the biennial report
SECTOR and Giving and Volunteering in the United States (Kirsch, Hume, and
Jalandoni, 1999). This project started in 1988 and has been com-
published as the
pleted six times, establishing a strong and consistent lineage of data
biennial report that will provide increasingly useful insight into U.S. perceptions of
Giving and philanthropy.
Volunteering in
the United States The Philanthropic Environment
In this section we review the areas described by Carbone in his dis-
cussion of the agenda for fundraising research: What motivates
donors to contribute? What characteristics of alumni define who will
give back to their alma maters?
Motivational Studies
Scholars have made significant strides in both empirical and theo-
retical efforts in the area of donor motivations since Carbone’s call
to action (1986). Researchers have given increasing attention to
answering the perplexing question of what motivates people to give
voluntarily to a university, hospital, cultural organization, or social
cause. The increasingly academic approach to this question presents
the much-needed opportunity for fundraisers to base more of their
efforts on informed inquiry.
Recent studies appear to emphasize a dichotomous approach to
unraveling the mystery behind donor motivation. Most studies
acknowledge that no single donor characteristic will account for a
donor’s decision to give; they emphasize instead a combination of
psychological motives and sociological influences. Psychological or
self-interest motives may include recognition, status, peer influence,
tax benefits, or preservation of family wealth. Research on the
sociological aspect of giving focuses on the influence of altruism
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 93

(Burlingame, 1993; Piliavin and Charng, 1990), religion (Oates,

1995; Wuthnow and Hodgkinson, 1990; Jeavons, 1991; “Those Who
Give,” 1993), and identity with a cause or organization (Schervish,
1993, 1997). Selected summaries of recent research on donor moti-
vations follow here.
Frank (1996) argues that the most effective approach to under-
stand motivations for charitable giving lies in combining two con-
flicting perspectives: altruism and self-interest. He uses the dominant
model of contemporary social science, the self-interest model of ratio-
nal choice or the “me-first caricature” (p. 131), to explain that indi-
viduals are essentially selfish and pursue their goals through the most
efficient means possible. Although this perspective accurately defines
much about our desire for material possessions, it leaves unexplained
why people occasionally make gestures of selfless kindness. Frank
indicates that these gestures are based on emotion rather than ratio-
nality. Our world is not one of bipolar altruists on one side and self-
ish rationalists on the other, which explains why we find otherwise
self-minded individuals occasionally exhibiting altruistic behaviors
in the form of charitable giving.
Harbaugh (1998) considers two different motivations for gifts:
intrinsic benefit (warm glow) and prestige benefit (when others
know how much you’ve given). He used data on donations by
lawyers to their law schools to estimate a utility function that
includes both intrinsic and prestige benefits. The results support the
hypothesis that donors have a taste for prestige, and they show that
a substantial portion of donations can be attributed to it. This study
provides both the theoretical and empirical evidence that supports
the creation of levels of giving within giving clubs. Listing people
by categories of donations will produce more gifts in total than will
listing people alphabetically.
Panas (1984) met with many “megagift” donors and surveyed
the group to explore their reasons for giving. The author then
matched the results against surveys of development officers that
revealed some major misunderstandings in the area of donor moti-
vation. For example, the major donors whom Panas surveyed often
mentioned the financial stability of the institution as a motivating
factor of giving, whereas the development officers did not mention
this factor as often.
This work by Panas (1984) helped shape one of the most popu-
lar works of the 1990s on major donors and their motivation for giv-
ing. In The Seven Faces of Philanthropy, Prince and File (1994) use
donor segmentation to create a taxonomy of seven major donor types
based on similarities in their motivations for giving and views on
philanthropy. The book also provides a framework for gift cultiva-
tion strategies based on the categories.
Ostrower (1995) studied the elite of New York City and
found that the donor not only gives to but receives benefit from the
charitable organization. Donors are not just writing checks to
94 LINDAHL, CONLEY

the organizations. Instead, the organizations provide a social context

for defining the elite class. Ostrower found a prestige factor associated
with different organizations, and donors were motivated to become
associated through board memberships in boards with the highest
prestige. She also found the culture of the elite to be intimately asso-
ciated with giving. The elite needed the philanthropic activity to help
define themselves as an elite, just as the organizations needed the elite
to provide resources in support of the organizational mission.
Ostrower (1995) builds on the work of Odendahl (1990, p. 3)
who also studied the elite and found that “elite American philan-
thropy serves the interest of the rich to a greater extent than it does
the interests of the poor, disadvantaged, or disabled.” Obviously
Donors are not controversial, her work documents the control of the power elite in
just writing decisions being made in charitable organizations in the arts, culture,
checks to the education, health, and welfare.
From the field of psychology, Cialdini (1984) discusses how the
organizations; knowledge that others are contributing to an organization creates a
instead, the context that legitimizes solicitation. Further, once individuals are
organizations engaged in an activity, they tend to follow along with the role expec-
tations that are a part of their chosen level of participation. For exam-
provide a social ple, after agreeing to be on a fundraising committee, committee
context for members will typically take on the expected roles both of giving and
defining the asking others to give.
Blau (1968) and Boulding (1973) consider the concept of a social
elite class exchange between the donor and the organization. Boulding uses the
term “grants economics” to describe how giving to charity provides
the donor some return in the “form of status, recognition, or some
subtle psychological transfer” (p. 2). This helps the fundraiser under-
stand the back and forth cycle of giving and receiving that allows a
donor to build a relationship with the institution in a mutually sat-
isfactory way.
Predicting Alumni Giving
The most commonly studied segment of donor giving is clearly in the
field of higher education. The proliferation of degree programs in
nonprofit management and philanthropic studies over the past two
decades has directly benefited many large research universities that
offer these degree programs. University foundations and alumni asso-
ciations commonly grant doctoral candidates access to their giving
records in order to help identify useful predictors or motivators for
giving among their graduates. Several hundred doctoral dissertations
focusing on some aspect of alumni giving have been published over
the past twenty years, with most of them focusing on only one insti-
tution and its graduates. When combined with the growing number
of peer-reviewed publications on alumni giving, this area represents
one of the fastest-growing and most useful segments of philanthropic
research. The emphasis here is appropriate because gifts from alumni
consistently are the single largest source of external support for
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 95

colleges and universities. This figure reached $6.8 billion in 2000,

accounting for 29 percent of all contributions to higher education
(Council for Aid to Education, 2001).
In a comprehensive review of the literature, Conley (1999) iden-
tified the most frequently tested variables assumed to be reliable pre-
dictors of alumni participation in giving and level of giving. The
variables were categorized as demographic, enrollment, and posten-
rollment. Among the demographic variables, job classification and
household income clearly emerged as the most common variables
found to be statistically significant predictors of giving. Involvement
in student activities and school (or major) were the most reliable
among the enrollment variables. And among the postenrollment
variables, involvement in alumni activities, emotional attachment,
Serious
and alumni’s perception of the institution’s need for financial support engagement
were most often found reliable. Although useful as an overview of the evolves only from
recent literature, this review did not separate findings by institution
size or affiliation.
the socialization
Peer-reviewed studies like Leslie and Ramey (1988), Baade and process that
Sundberg (1993), Lindahl and Winship (1992, 1994), and Connolly results in a
and Blanchette (1986) provide a useful context for the growing
emphasis on empirical research for predicting alumni giving. And
donor’s identity
although the balance of donor motivation research leans heavily with the
toward alumni giving, the entire field of philanthropic fundraising is organization
benefiting from advancements in research methodologies and the
application of increasingly sophisticated quantitative and qualitative
or cause
techniques.
One particularly useful advancement in the conceptualization of
donor motivation has emerged in the form of the identification model
of Schervish (1993, 1997). He suggests that a basic connection to an
organization, such as being a graduate of a university, is not enough
to motivate philanthropic action. Serious engagement evolves only
from the socialization process that results in a donor’s identity with
the organization or cause. The socialization process is experienced
through “communities of participation” (p. 113) in which individu-
als either choose to associate or become involved as a result of cir-
cumstance. Whether it is a formal community, such as a church, or
an informal one, such as a group of neighbors who form a neighbor-
hood crime watch, “the important point is that being connected to
an array of such life-settings is the basis for people becoming aware
of needs and choosing to respond” (1997, p. 114).
Havens, Coutsoukis, and Schervish (1998) replicated their
empirical study of their identification model of giving using two new
data sets: the 1996 national General Social Survey and the 1994–1995
national Harvard Survey of Health and Life Quality. They found noth-
ing to contradict the identification model and much to confirm it.
Hall and Febrarro (1998) explore models of charitable giving
comparing the identification model of Schervish and Havens (1997)
to a new model—the model of planned giving—by using a data set
96 LINDAHL, CONLEY

from a survey of eighteen thousand individuals giving and volun-

teering in Canada. The new model performs about as well as the
identification model but without the need to consider measures of
charitable giving as independent variables.
Clotfelter (2000) discusses the most recent national study funded
by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. He looks at two cohorts of
former students from a sample of private colleges and universities.
Higher levels of gifts are associated with higher income, graduation
from the school they started with as freshmen, and the degree of sat-
isfaction with their school experience. Satisfaction was related to
whether someone took a special interest in the individual during the
student years. Students with need-based aid in support of their col-
lege education tend to give less as alumni, compared to students who
did not receive this type of aid. Students who were relatives of for-
mer students tended to give more as alumni than those who were not
relatives of former students.

The Work and Careers of Fundraisers

What is distinctive about the work and careers of people who work
as fundraisers?
CEO Fundraising
The leader of any nonprofit organization today must be not only
effective at managing people and resources but skillful in raising vol-
untary gifts in support of the group’s cause. Like most sectors of the
nonprofit world, higher education recognized in the 1990s that
fundraising would become a visible symbol of institutional quality
and viability (Duronio and Loessin, 1991). The increasing impor-
tance of the president, deans, and the chief development officer in
educational fundraising has resulted in a growing amount of origi-
nal research on these positions (Cook, 1994; Rodriguez, 1991; Dial,
1993; Lampo, 1990); it has also produced insightful collections on
fundraising from the president’s perspective, for example, Fisher and
Quehl (1989) and Murphy (1997).
Cook (1994) studied the role of presidents and chancellors in
fundraising. After interviewing twenty presidents of higher educa-
tion institutions and a panel of development experts, he concluded
three things: (1) fundraising is a team effort; (2) the president is typ-
ically the central player on the fundraising team; and (3) fundrais-
ing differs from one institution to another and from one context to
another.
Who Solicits? Who Is Successful?
Although most of the recent research on effective fundraising lead-
ership has focused on university presidents, studies on fundraisers
throughout the nonprofit sector have yielded valuable insight on the
profession. The most recent and comprehensive examination of
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 97

fundraisers (Duronio and Tempel, 1997) identified characteristics in

this population that help further define the profession and the pro-
files of the most successful fundraisers. This nationwide survey
received responses from 955 female and 793 male fundraisers. Inter-
esting findings included the following:

More than eight of every ten respondents worked in another field

before fundraising.
Most common previous professions were education, advertising and
promotion, and general business.
The typical female respondent was white and forty-two years old, had Duronio and
a B.S. in education, and earned less than $40,000.
The typical male respondent was white and forty-five years old, had Tempel also
a graduate degree in business or education, and earned asked
$40,000–60,000. respondents to
Compared to evidence from the 1980s, the field is maturing on many
levels, including lower turnover rates, greater job stability, stronger identify the
commitment to an organization and its mission, and a greater iden- personal
tification of fundraising as a profession and not just an occupation. characteristics,
Duronio and Tempel (1997) also asked respondents to identify skills, and
the personal characteristics, skills, and professional knowledge of the professional
best fundraisers they knew rather than theorizing about what the knowledge of the
ideal fundraiser would look like. According to the authors, the most
common responses supported previous findings (see Panas, 1988; best fundraisers
Bila, 1991): they knew
• Personal characteristics: commitment to cause or organization,
integrity, and honesty
• Skills: organization, communication, writing, making the ask, and
effective listening
• Professional knowledge: all areas of fundraising (but especially
planned giving), tax or legal knowledge

Duronio and Tempel’s study (1997) builds on previous work by

Carbone (1989), who surveyed fundraisers in academe. From 206
respondents (40 percent), he discovered a wide variety of information
about the professionals involved. “They are predominantly young,
white, well educated, and increasingly more equally divided between
female and male” (p. 17). Over half (55 percent) are in their first
or second year of service in their current positions. Seven out of
ten have been in their positions for three or fewer years. He also
found that they experience considerable upward career mobility within
institutions and somewhat more through relocation to other institu-
tions. They learn about the field in various informal ways and have a
somewhat constrained view of professionalism in their vocation.
Retaining successful fundraising staff has also become a chal-
lenge, resulting in some relevant research. Conducting a survey of
98 LINDAHL, CONLEY

twenty-seven fundraisers in Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa, Beem

(1999) found that they were motivated both by financial incentives
and a desire for appreciation and recognition. They would like fre-
quent performance reviews and favor structure to guide their often
nebulous work.
Lane and Levis (1989) conducted a study of foundations that
provide grants to nonprofit organizations to improve their fundrais-
ing. The participants agreed that people are the key to fundraising
capacity. The most frequent grants were for the education and train-
ing of board members, other volunteers, CEOs, and professional
Salary figures staff.
from the College Although the research literature in this area is still generally lim-
and University ited, it is growing. Many scholars view this as a positive and neces-
sary step toward further establishing fundraising as a legitimate
Personnel profession rather than simply an occupation (see Carbone, 1989;
Association Tempel, Cobb, and Ilchman, 1996; Marion, 1996).
indicate how Studies of Compensation of Fundraising Officers
development Although salaries in the nonprofit sector continue to lag behind the
personnel have private sector, two factors have helped reduce this disparity over
become among the past decade: the great demand for successful fundraisers and top
executives (Hall, 1999) and the increasing application of for-profit
the highest paid business management practices to nonprofit organizations. It is not
administrative uncommon for skilled fundraisers and nonprofit leaders today to
staff on college have advanced college degrees, specialized training (for example, in
planned gifts), and exceptional communication skills. And although
campuses employees once considered lower compensation an acceptable
consequence of working for a nonprofit organization, Duronio and
Tempel suggest now “it is foolish to believe that dedication to a noble
cause overcomes inept management” (1997, p. 182).
The field of higher education provides a useful glimpse of
the increasing importance that organizations place on a skilled devel-
opment staff. Salary figures from the College and University Person-
nel Association, as reported annually in the Chronicle of Higher
Education Almanac (2000), indicate how development personnel
have become among the highest paid administrative staff on college
campuses.
Most notable in the 1999–2000 survey was the nearly 8 percent
salary increase for directors of major gifts at doctoral institutions,
from $71,473 up to $77,038. The median for all institutions was
$60,608. The median salary of chief development officers rose by
more than 5 percent, as those in doctoral institutions received
$134,487; the median figure for this position in all institutions was
$88,936. These salary figures are only slightly below other key cam-
pus positions, such as the chief business officer and chief adminis-
tration officer; they are nearly equal to or greater than all other senior
administrative posts including the chief admissions officer, general
counsel, and director of athletics. These figures support the vision of
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 99

many observers including Gilley, Fulmer, and Reithlingshoefer

(1986), who foresaw in the mid-1980s that lead institutional
fundraisers were beginning to be recognized as one of three new
“power brokers” on university campuses along with the information
technology expert and the admissions director.

The Management of Fundraising

The final major area of research, the management of the fundraising
process, contains a broad range of studies, from the comparison of dif-
ferent techniques of fundraising to the determination of how to allo-
cate resources among competing fundraising efforts within a large
organization. The growth of research in this area is particularly ben- Still remaining to
eficial to management practitioners because they are accountable for
both an effective administrative operation and a well-trained fundrais- be explored are
ing corps that uses effective development and solicitation methods. the long-term
On the practical side, Brownstein and Katzev (1985, p. 564) consequences of
reported that the “low-ball” technique was found to be the best at
raising money just outside of a museum. Solicitors asked prospects prospects’
for seventy-five cents and then while they were getting the change repeated
asked for twenty-five cents more for another special cause. With exposure to
other techniques (foot-in-the-door, asking for a signature on a
petition, and door-in-the-face, asking for a five-dollar contribution compliance
initially), solicitors were not able to raise as much from the eighty- techniques
nine subjects in the study.
Wang, Brownstein, and Katzev (1989) compared the relative
impact of three social compliance techniques in promoting charita-
ble behavior. Those asking prospects to donate either $10, $25, or
$50 up front (door-in-the-face) produced more money than either
having the prospect answer a questionnaire or asking for an amount
of $1.50 or less. The door-in-the face technique is based on the
notion of reciprocal concession. “Individuals in our society are
obliged to respond with a favor after other individuals have made a
concession to them. The concession which the requester makes by
moderating the second request more or less requires the individual
to return the favor by complying to the second, more reasonable, tar-
get request” (p. 167). Still remaining to be explored are the long-term
consequences of prospects’ repeated exposure to compliance tech-
niques. Additional research here should determine whether the like-
lihood of future compliance will be reduced if the individual begins
to suspect that he or she is being manipulated.
Lovelock (1980) provided a detailed case study of the Stanford
Annual Fund by looking at the various programs and techniques and
the preliminary results from changes in strategy. The paper represents
one of the first comprehensive studies of annual giving completed at
a major university.
Researchers have done much work to try to determine what
characteristics of a fundraising operation were most related to
100 LINDAHL, CONLEY

fundraising effectiveness. Duronio and Loessin (1991) provide us

with the most extensive research in this area, whereas other stud-
ies (for example, Dillion, 1990) concern themselves with a specific
focus (for example, theological seminaries). Prominent success fac-
tors across all ten colleges and universities in the Duronio and
Loessin analysis (1991) include strong entrepreneurial leadership
from the president and chief development officer, institutional com-
mitment to fundraising, and a fundamental understanding of the
unique strengths and weaknesses of their institutions by participants
in the fundraising program.
One of the theoretical questions that researchers considered
includes whether a centralized approach or a decentralized approach
to fundraising provides the greatest benefit for the organization. For
example, Hall (1992) considered a variety of issues surrounding the
decentralization of development within higher education. She found
that the personnel at both the central and school development level
agreed that a centralized shared database is the most beneficial to
raising money. Decentralization shifts the control from the president
to the academic deans, who must have proper staffing to pursue
development work. Decentralization results in more academic lead-
ers actively participating in fundraising, which improves the univer-
sity’s ability to manage a major gift program and thereby enhances
its ability to obtain support.
A second theoretical area involves the concept of what we might
call free riding. If potential donors see that someone else (such as
government sources or other major donors) will fund the effort for
the benefit of the entire group, prospects will have a tendency to stay
on the sidelines and get a free ride, receiving benefits without pay-
ing for them. Cadsby and Maynes (1993) have done experimental
studies in fundraising, as have many other economists (Bagnoli and
McKee, 1991; Dawes, Orbell, Simmons, and van de Kragt, 1986;
Orbell, van de Kragt, and Dawes, 1988; Rapoport and Eshed-Levy,
1989; van de Kragt, Orbell, and Dawes, 1983; van de Kragt and oth-
ers, 1986) who considered the question of free riding and explored
how to eliminate it. Cadsby and Maynes (1993, p. 1) asked: “If the
public good is to be provided through voluntary contributions,
should the incentive structures be designed to encourage group
members to pay their share of the cost of its production?”
More specifically, researchers consider problems in which an
organization does not provide a public good unless the contributions
reach a particular threshold. Dawes and Thaler (1988) provide a
review of the literature that shows that free riding tends to increase
in repeated rounds of public goods games. These games are clinical
economic experiments where participants (usually students) are
given funds and can contribute them (or not contribute them) in
each round of the “game.” The findings of Cadsby and Maynes
(1993) show that allowing continuous contributions facilitates pro-
vision. A money-back guarantee also encourages provision. Nurses
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 101

and environmental studies students were much more willing to con-

tribute toward the public good. Sefton and Steinberg (1993, p. 25)
conducted experiments to test reward structures in public good sit-
uations and found that “some subjects remain altruistic despite the
best efforts of experimenters to induce egoistic preferences.” With
data on symphony orchestras to substantiate his theory, Brooks
(1999) used a nonlinear model for examining the effects of govern-
ment funding on private donations. At low levels of subsidies, gov-
ernment support may stimulate private giving, and at high levels it
could have the opposite effect.
Kay-Williams (1998) has studied the life cycle of fundraising
operations in the United Kingdom. She found three phases: appeal,
fundraising, and marketing. Each has its own distinctive character- Sefton and
istics:
Steinberg found
Appeal: The fundraising efforts are volunteer-driven, with little or no that “some
paid staff participating. Fundraising is for initial setup of the orga- subjects remain
nization or for basic ongoing support. The founder takes the lead
and gets personally involved in asking for support.
altruistic despite
Fundraising: Trustees realize the need for proactive ongoing fundrais- the best efforts of
ing—not just by the CEO or founder. The head of fundraising experimenters to
becomes a part of the management team; staff, not volunteers,
drive the action.
induce egoistic
Marketing: Emphasis is on the donor and relationships; staff grows preferences”
to allow building more one-on-one relationships with donors, part-
nerships with volunteers. The whole organization—not just pro-
fessional or volunteers—works together to raise funds.

In contrast, in her landmark text on fundraising, Kelly (1998)

suggests four different models:

• Press agentry model, based on emotional appeal

• Public information model, based on one-way presentation of the
facts
• Two-way asymmetrical model, based on scientific research of audi-
ence and message
• Two-way symmetrical model, based on a mutual understanding
between donors and the organization

This fits Kelly’s view that fundraising has a public relations, as

opposed to a sales, orientation.
Researchers have also extensively explored the relationship
between asking (and the cost of asking) and giving (and the amount
of expected and actual gifts given). Levis (1990) promotes a
basic premise that donors give primarily because they are asked.
To the untrained, this implies that in order to increase giving, an
organization must simply ask more. But to ask more requires more
resources. It involves needs assessment, case development, prospect
102 LINDAHL, CONLEY

research, fundraising planning and budgeting, volunteer solicitation,

volunteer solicitor recruitment and training, gift processing, donor
recognition, donor record keeping, results analysis, performance
measurement, and evaluation. (For a study of the connection
between costs and benefits, see Boyle and Jacobs, 1978.) Levis (1990)
presents several suggestions for improving a fundraising opera-
tion, including setting aside negative attitudes toward fundraising
costs, matching related costs with related revenues in accounting sys-
tems, and investing by appropriate categories of fundraising.
The issue of fundraising costs is one of the greatest challenges
today, as more and more organizations soliciting funds are under
greater scrutiny and demands for accountability. So how does an
organization know if it is being cost effective? For higher educa-
Among the tion, the first comprehensive effort to assess fundraising effective-
fifty-one colleges ness came about in the Council for Advancement and Support and
Education study (1990), which provided the first benchmark for
and universities costs of external relations. Among the fifty-one colleges and uni-
in the study, costs versities in the study, costs for fundraising averaged sixteen cents
for fundraising per dollar raised. The median was eleven cents, and the range for
the middle 50 percent was eight to sixteen cents. The study also
averaged sixteen found that each fundraising professional accounts for an average of
cents per $500,000 to $1.1 million in gift income, and the largest area
dollar raised of expenditure in a fundraising budget is for salaries and benefits
(63 percent). Rooney (1999) provides further recommendations
for improving the methodology to assess costs of fundraising for
universities.
Assuming a relationship between asking and giving, Paton
(1986) developed and graphed theoretical constructs of donor pre-
disposition and capacity. High donor predisposition to giving allows
small initial fundraising resources to produce moderate levels of gift
income. Low capacity in the prospect pool will cause little increase
in gift revenue when fundraising expenditures increase beyond
the saturation point. Although this research is mainly theoretical,
Paton’s insights into the nature of relationships between development
expenditures and gift revenue provide a framework of discussion in
this area.
Several correlation studies have determined institutional factors
that are linked to gift income. Pickett (1977, 1986), Leslie and Ramey
(1985) and Loessin and others (1987) in studies surveying several
institutions have found that variables such as size of endowment,
number of alumni, cost of attendance, graduate school attendance of
alumni, size of school, general expenditures, and fundraising expen-
ditures correlate with gift income.
Soukup (1983) explores the strategies of fundraising for a non-
profit organization to maximize net income. Soukup modeled the giv-
ing pattern of members in a direct mail environment as a Markov
chain. Categories such as “new member,” “nondonor,” “first-time
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 103

donor,” renewed donor,” “lapsed donor,” “major donor,” and “lapsed

major donor” are set up, with the probability of moving from one
category to another over time. Evaluating the alternatives
using Howard’s value-determinations policy improvement method,
the researcher found an optimum strategy. The optimum strategies
for each state proved to be the most costly: multiple mailings with
recognition of major donors (versus form letters, for example). To
build a reliable base of donors, an institution may need to spend
more revenue than it expects among individuals it solicits for the
first time.
Weisbrod and Dominguez (1986) set up a model tested empiri-
cally using Internal Revenue Service Form 990 data that shows vol-
untary giving is responsive to conventional market variables such as
fundraising expenditures. They also found that earlier researchers
had exaggerated the emphasis they placed on the marginal tax rate
facing potential donors as the key determinant of the level of contri-
butions. A follow-up study by Okten and Weisbrod (2000, p. 271)
continues to find that “the total effect of fundraising, direct and
indirect—that is the total elasticity of donations with respect to
fundraising—is generally positive.”
Lindahl (1990, 1992) developed a model for strategic planning
based on the relationship between fundraising effort and gift results
across a broad spectrum of programs. The results show that organi-
zations in many cases (especially universities) should place more
effort on raising major gifts from all sources rather than on annual
fund gifts.
A comprehensive effort focused on better understanding and
assessing fundraising costs for specific organizational types is cur-
rently under way and promises to provide a more accurate and objec-
tive way to evaluate the costs of raising money. This cooperative
project between the Urban Institute and the Center on Philanthropy
at Indiana University began in 1999 and should begin disseminating
results soon. The effort is driven by the researchers’ belief that there
should be no universally accepted ratio of cost per dollar raised
across the nonprofit sector. Rather, a small arts organization should
be able to compare its fundraising costs to other small arts organiza-
tions, and a large research university should know how it compares
to other research universities. The research team is using this seg-
mented approach due to the belief that fundraising costs vary not just
by organizational mission and size but also by other variables includ-
ing an organization’s age, location, and types of fundraising methods
used (Rooney, telephone conversation with the author, Aug. 31,
2001).
Others have applied market research techniques to fundraising.
Using the concept of relationship marketing applied to the fundrais-
ing field, Sargeant (1999) considered the question of why donors stop
giving to a charity. A survey of dropouts to ten major charities in the
104 LINDAHL, CONLEY

United Kingdom found donors dropping out for three top reasons:
(1) they felt that other causes were more deserving; (2) they could
no longer afford to offer support; or (3) they had no memory of giv-
ing to the charity. Building stronger relationships with donors should
prevent this drop-off.
Researchers have studied the planned or estate gift potential
across the nation. Schervish and Havens (1999) reported a better esti-
mate for the wealth transfer coming during the period from 1998 to
2052. Instead of the widely reported estimate of $10 trillion, the new
estimate is $41 trillion (and possibly two or three times that
amount). This translates to $6 trillion in charitable bequests.
The National The aging of the U.S. population suggests continued growth in
Committee on planned giving vehicles, but little research exists to show how to har-
Planned Giving ness this growth into charitable causes. Fink and Metzler (1982)
undertook an early cost-benefit study concerning deferred gifts at
reported that Pomona College, applying modern business methods of cost account-
three-fourths of ing to Pomona’s fundraising practices as related to deferred gift solic-
the people who itation. The results indicated that a net benefit exists in such a
program, even considering the several years’ delay between the solic-
put a charity in itation process and the university’s eventual use of the funds (both
their wills did not bequests and life-income gifts).
tell the charity The National Committee on Planned Giving (1996) reported that
three-fourths of the people who put a charity in their wills did not
about the tell the charity about the future gift. And about half of those setting
future gift up life income plans through outside agencies did not tell the charity.
Few donors change their wills once they have set them up.
Using a data set of Northwestern University alumni, Lindahl
(1991) discovered that past outright giving is not statistically related
to whether alumni set up charitable trust gifts. Therefore, marketing
plans for planned gifts that simply target past outright donors will be
missing a great number of alumni. Lindahl found two tracks of major
donors: one type builds up giving over the years and provides a
major outright gift in the later years of life; the other type, perhaps
more motivated by the income that a charitable trust or gift annuity
provides, will make a major deferred gift in the later years of life
regardless of the past outright giving history.
Martin (1992) conducted a national survey of planned giving
donors and found that the charitable remainder unitrust is the most
frequent charitable trust (when compared to charitable remainder
annuity trusts), representing seven of ten trusts established since
1969. Almost one-third of all charitable remainder trusts are cre-
ated in the month of December. A slight increase also occurs
in June. The value of the assets contributed does not seem to
affect the type of trust selected. As the unmarried donor’s age
increases, the more likely preference is for annuity trusts (fixed pay-
out). With women surviving men more frequently as they age, the
sex of the donor may also play a role in determining which trust
type the donor uses.
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 105

Conclusion
As the research highlighted here suggests, substantive progress has
been made since Carbone’s 1986 research agenda for fundraising. The
research movement has been propelled not just by individual works
of research but also by continued gatherings of scholars and practi-
tioners who have followed Carbone’s lead by periodically assessing
the philanthropic environment and setting new agendas that build
upon past efforts.
Two of these examples stand out as useful models that we hope
will continue. In the closing chapter of Taking Fund Raising Seriously
(Burlingame and Hulse, 1991), three key figures of this movement—
Robert Payton, Gene Tempel, and the late Henry Rosso—authored an Continued
agenda for both scholars and practitioners. Their agenda advocates the
study of philanthropy from the perspective of the liberal arts, specifi-
research efforts
cally through social psychology, psychology, anthropology, and his- and periodic
tory. They cite that fundraisers borrow far too much from professional assessments of
schools, including law, business, and public administration, “schools
which are themselves notorious borrowers from the more basic disci-
the literature will
plines of the humanities and social sciences” (p. 276). Fundraising be necessary if
would enjoy greater legitimacy, the authors argue, if philosophers, his- this field’s current
torians, and sociologists engaged the study of philanthropy and exam-
ined its prevalence in our society. Their agenda for practitioners
momentum is to
emphasizes basic understandings of philanthropy and more of know- continue
ing the why rather than the traditional emphasis on the how to.
The closing chapter of Critical Issues in Fund Raising (Bur-
lingame, 1997) summarized a 1995 gathering of scholars, senior
fundraising practitioners, and association executives who met for the
purpose of assessing fundraising research and identifying needs for
future efforts. The list of recommendations, which was later inte-
grated into a research agenda promoted by the Association for
Fundraising Professionals (formerly known as the National Society
for Fund Raising Executives), focused on the demographics and
community determinants of giving, financial and management issues,
motivations of donors, the impact of government and public policy,
equity and ethics, and the fundraising profession.
Continued research efforts and periodic assessments of the liter-
ature will be necessary if this field’s current momentum is to con-
tinue. Circumstances and trends unforeseen in 1985 have
dramatically affected the nonprofit sector and the fundraising efforts
that take place within it. For example, consider the widespread
impact of just three such issues: the vast creation of new wealth since
the end of the early 1990s recession, the influence of new technol-
ogy on nonprofit organizations and their ability to raise voluntary
support, and the relief efforts following the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001. Few can contest the impact these three issues
have had, and none of us could have accurately predicted their
impact in such a short period of time.
106 LINDAHL, CONLEY

Chances are that we will see as much change between now and
2015 as we have since 1985 and possibly even more. Scholars of phil-
anthropy must continue the efforts of the past few decades as the
impact of the nonprofit sector grows throughout all aspects of soci-
ety. And practitioners need to continue not only following this
research but increasingly integrating research findings into their
work. Our field undoubtedly faces significant transformations in the
near future, but the advancements in research prompted by Carbone’s
agenda (1986) will light our way to a much brighter future.

WESLEY E. LINDAHL is director of the School of Business and Nonprofit

Management and professor of nonprofit management and fundraising at
North Park University in Chicago.

AARON T. CONLEY is assistant dean for development in the College of Busi-

ness at Florida State University, Tallahassee. He received a doctorate in
higher education and philanthropic studies from Indiana University in
1999.

References
American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel Trust for Philan-
thropy. Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year
2000. New York: American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel,
2001.
Baade, R., and Sundberg, J. “Identifying the Factors that Stimu-
late Alumni Giving.” Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 29, 1993,
p. B1.
Bagnoli, M., and McKee, M. “Voluntary Contribution Games: Effi-
cient Private Provision of Public Goods.” Economic Inquiry, 1991,
29, 351–366.
Beem, M. “Fund Raising in the Balance: An Analysis of Job Perfor-
mance, Appraisals, and Rewards.” Paper presented at the ARNOVA
Conference, Arlington, Va., Nov. 1999.
Bila, T. Certified Fund Raising Executives: Their Profile and the
Approaches They Have Used to Obtain Their Current Employment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, 1991.
Blau, P. M. “Social Exchange.” In D. L. Sills (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Old Tappan, N.J.: Macmillan,
1968.
Boulding, K. E. The Economy of Love and Fear: A Preface to Grants
Economics. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1973.
Boyle, S. E., and Jacobs, P. “The Economics of Charitable Fund
Raising.” Philanthropy Monthly, May 1978, pp. 21–27.
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 107

Brooks, A. “The Effects of Public Subsidies on Private Giving to

Nonprofits: Nonlinear Crowding Out and Subsidy Traps.” Paper
presented at the ARNOVA Conference, Arlington, Va., Nov. 1999.
Brownstein, R., II, and Katzev, R. “The Relative Effectiveness of Three
Compliance Techniques in Eliciting Donations to a Cultural Orga-
nization.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1985, 15 (6), 564–574.
Burlingame, D. Altruism and Philanthropy: Definitional Issues. Essays
on Philanthropy, no. 10. Indianapolis: Indiana University Center
on Philanthropy, 1993.
Burlingame, D. Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley,
1997.
Burlingame, D., and Hulse, L. (eds.). Taking Fund Raising Seriously:
Advancing the Profession and Practice of Raising Money. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Cadsby, C., and Maynes, E. “Voluntary Provision of Threshold Pub-
lic Goods: New Experimental Evidence.” Paper presented at
ARNOVA Conference, Toronto, Canada, Fall 1993.
Carbone, R. An Agenda for Research on Fund Raising. College Park,
Md.: Clearinghouse for Research on Fund Raising, 1986.
Carbone, R. Fund Raising as a Profession. College Park, Md.:
Clearinghouse for Research on Fund Raising, 1989.
Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac: Almanac Issue. Washington,
D.C.: Chronicle of Higher Education, 2000.
Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The New Psychology of Modern Persuasion.
New York: Quill, 1984.
Clotfelter, C. “Alumni Giving to Elite Private Colleges and Universi-
ties.” Unpublished paper, Duke University, 2000.
Conley, A. Student Organization Membership and Alumni Giving at a
Public, Research I University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, 1999.
Connolly, M., and Blanchette, R. “Understanding and Predicting
Alumni Giving Behavior.” In J. Dunn (ed.), Enhancing the Man-
agement of Fund Raising. New Directions for Institutional Research,
no. 51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
Cook, W. Courting Philanthropy: The Role of University Presidents and
Chancellors in Fund Raising. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, 1994.
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Expenditures in
Fund Raising, Alumni Relations, and Other Constituent (Public) Rela-
tions. Washington, D.C.: Council for Advancement and Support of
Education, 1990.
Council for Aid to Education. Voluntary Support of Education 2000.
New York: Council for Aid to Education, 2001.
Dawes, R., Orbell, J., Simmons, R., and van de Kragt, A. “Organizing
Groups for Collective Action.” American Political Science Review,
1986, 80, 1171–1185.
Dawes, R., and Thaler, R. “Anomalies: Cooperation.” Journal of Eco-
nomic Perspectives, 1988, 2, 187–197.
108 LINDAHL, CONLEY

Dial, D. The Role, Status, and Qualifications of the Chief Advancement

Officer in Selected Institutions of Higher Education. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, La Sierra University, 1993.
Dillion, R. M. Advancing Advancement: A Study of Fundraising
Effectiveness Among Protestant Seminaries in the U.S. Deerfield, Ill.:
Dillion, 1990.
Duronio, M., and Loessin, B. Effective Fund Raising in Higher Educa-
tion: Ten Success Stories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Duronio, M., and Tempel, E. Fund Raisers: Their Careers, Stories,
Concerns, and Accomplishments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1997.
Fink, N. S., and Metzler, H. C. The Costs and Benefits of Deferred
Giving. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
Fisher, J., and Quehl, G. (eds.). The President and Fund Raising. Old
Tappan, N.J.: Macmillan, 1989.
Frank, R. “Motivation, Cognition, and Charitable Giving.” In
J. B. Schneewind (ed.), Giving: Western Ideas of Philanthropy.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996.
Gilley, J., Fulmer, K., and Reithlingshoefer, S. Searching for Academic
Excellence: Twenty Colleges and Universities on the Move and Their
Leaders. Old Tappan, N.J.: Macmillan, 1986.
Hall, H. “Wanted: Big-Gift Fund Raisers.” Chronicle of Philanthropy,
Apr. 22, 1999, pp. 13–14.
Hall, M. R. “The Decentralization of Development: Impact on Power,
Priorities, Faculty Perceptions.” Teachers College Record, 1992,
93 (3), 569–582.
Hall, M., and Febrarro, A. “Models of Charitable Giving: Identifica-
tion or Planned Donations?” Paper presented at the ARNOVA Con-
ference, Seattle, Wash., Nov. 1998.
Harbaugh, W. “The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers.”
American Economics Review Papers and Proceedings, 1998, 88 (2),
277–282.
Havens, J., Coutsoukis, P., and Schervish, P. “Social Participation and
Charitable Giving Revisited: Replication of a Multivariate Analy-
sis.” Paper presented at the ARNOVA Conference, Seattle, Wash.,
Nov. 1998.
Jeavons, T. “A Historical and Moral Analysis of Religious Fund
Raising.” In D. Burlingame and L. Hulse (eds.), Taking Fund Raising
Seriously: Advancing the Profession and Practice of Raising Money.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Kay-Williams, S. “The Five Stages of Fundraising.” Paper presented at
the ARNOVA Conference, Seattle, Wash., Fall 1998.
Kelly, K. Effective Fund-Raising Management. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,
1998.
Kirsch, A. D., Hume, K., and Jalandoni, N. Giving and Volunteer-
ing in the United States, 1999. Washington, D.C.: INDEPENDENT SEC-
TOR, 1999.
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 109

Lampo, J. The Role and Effectiveness of Deans in Fund-Raising

and Advancement as Perceived by Deans and Chief Development Offi-
cers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas,
1990.
Lane, F., and Levis, W. C. “Funding Fund Raising Report.”
Philanthropy Monthly, June 1989.
Leslie, L., and Ramey, G. “When Donors Give: How Giving Changes in
Good and Bad Times.” CASE Currents, 1985, 11 (9), 25–26.
Leslie, L., and Ramey, G. “Donor Behavior and Voluntary Support for
Higher Education Institutions.” Journal of Higher Education, 1988,
59 (2), 115–132.
Levis, W. C. “Increased Giving by Investing More Money in Fund
Raising Wisely.” Philanthropy Monthly, Apr./May 1990, p. 2.
Lindahl, W. E. “Resource Allocation in University Fund Raising.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Administration
and Policy Studies, Northwestern University, 1990.
Lindahl, W. E. “Differentiating Planned and Major Gift Prospects.”
Connections, Fall 1991, p. 9.
Lindahl, W. E. Strategic Planning for Fund Raising: How to Bring in
More Money Using Strategic Resource Allocation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1992.
Lindahl, W. E., and Winship, C. “Predictive Models for Annual
Fundraising and Major Gift Fundraising.” Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 1992, 3 (1), 43–64.
Lindahl, W. E., and Winship, C. A. “Logit Model with Interactions
for Predicting Major Gift Donors.” Research in Higher Education,
1994, 35 (6), 729–744.
Loessin, B. A., and others. “Identifying Peer Institutions for Com-
parative Evaluation of Fund Raising Effectiveness.” Paper presented
at the AIR Forum, Kansas City, Mo., 1987.
Lovelock, C. “Stanford University: The Annual Fund.” Unpublished
paper, Harvard University Institute for Educational Management,
1980.
Marion, B. “The Education of Fundraisers.” Paper presented at
the ninth annual symposium, Indiana University Center on
Philanthropy, Indianapolis, August 1996.
Martin, G. “Charitable Remainder Trusts for Higher Education:
Results of a National Survey.” Durham, N.H.: Martin, 1992.
Murphy, M. (ed.). The Advancement President and the Academy.
Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1997.
National Committee on Planned Giving. “Planned Giving in the
United States: A Survey of Donors.” Indianapolis, Ind.: National
Committee on Planned Giving, 1996.
Oates, M. The Catholic Philanthropic Tradition in America. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995.
Odendahl, T. J. Charity Begins at Home: Generosity and Self-Interest
Among the Philanthropic Elite. New York: Basic Books, 1990.
110 LINDAHL, CONLEY

Okten, C., and Weisbrod, B. A. “Determinants of Donations in Pri-

vate Nonprofit Markets.” Journal of Public Economics, 2000, 75,
255–272.
Orbell, J., van de Kragt, A., and Dawes, R. “Explaining Discussion-
Induced Cooperation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1988, 54, 811–819.
Ostrower, F. Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Panas, J. Megagifts: Who Gives Them, Who Gets Them. Chicago:
Pluribus Press, 1984.
Panas, J. Born to Raise: What Makes a Great Fundraiser? What Makes
a Fundraiser Great? Chicago: Pluribus Press, 1988.
Paton, G. J. “Microeconomic Perspectives Applied to Developmen-
tal Planning and Management.” In J. Dunn (ed.), Enhancing the
Management of Fund Raising. New Directions for Institutional
Research, no. 51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
Pickett, W. L. “An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Fund Raising
Policies of Private Undergraduate Colleges.” Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Denver, 1977.
Pickett, W. L. “What Determines Fund Raising Effectiveness?” CASE
Currents, 1986, 8, 22–25.
Piliavin, J., and Charng, H. “Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory
and Research.” Annual Review of Sociology, 1990, 16, 27–65.
Prince, R., and File, K. The Seven Faces of Philanthropy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Rapoport, A., and Eshed-Levy, D. “Provision of Step-Level Public
Goods: Effects of Greed and Fear of Being Gypped.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989.
Rodriguez, C. Alumni and the President: Presidential Leadership Behav-
ior Affecting Alumni Giving at Small Private Liberal Arts Colleges.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Union Institute, 1991.
Rooney, P. “A Better Methodology for Analyzing the Costs and Ben-
efits of Fund Raising at Universities.” Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 1999, 10 (1), 39–56.
Sargeant, A. “Modeling Donor Attrition—Why Do Individuals Stop
Giving?” Paper presented at the ARNOVA Conference, Arlington,
Va., Nov. 1999.
Schervish, P. “Philanthropy as a Moral Identity of Caritas.” In P. Dean
(ed.), Taking Giving Seriously. Indianapolis: Indiana University Cen-
ter on Philanthropy, 1993.
Schervish, P. “Inclination, Obligation, and Association: What We
Know and What We Need to Learn About Donor Motivation.” In
D. Burlingame (ed.), Critical Issues in Fund Raising. Hoboken, N.J.:
Wiley, 1997.
Schervish, P., and Havens, J. “Social Participation and Charitable
Giving: A Multivariate Analysis.” Voluntas, 1997, 8 (3), 235–260.
Schervish, P., and Havens, J. “Millionaires and Millennium: New Esti-
mates of the Forthcoming Wealth Transfer and the Prospects for a
 L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W : P H I L A N T H R O P I C F U N D R A I S I N G 111

Golden Age of Philanthropy.” Paper presented at the ARNOVA

Conference, Arlington, Va., Nov. 1999.
Sefton, M., and Steinberg, R. “Reward Structures in Public Good
Experiments.” Unpublished paper, Indiana University Center on
Philanthropy, Indianapolis, 1993.
Soukup, D. J. “A Markov Analysis of Fund Raising Alternatives.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 1983, 20, 314–319.
Tempel, E., Cobb, S., and Ilchman, W. (eds.). The Professionalization
of Fundraising: Implications for Education, Practice, and Account-
ability. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, no. 15. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
“Those Who Give: The Link Between Charity and Religion.” CQ
Researcher, Nov. 12, 1993, p. 1002.
van de Kragt, A., and others. “Doing Well and Doing Good as Ways
of Resolving Social Dilemmas.” In H. Wilke, D. Messick, and
C. Rutte (eds.), Experimental Social Dilemmas. Frankfurt am Main,
Germany: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986.
van de Kragt, A., Orbell, J., and Dawes, R. “The Minimal Contribut-
ing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems.” American Politi-
cal Science Review, 1983, 77, 112–122.
Wang, T., Brownstein, R., and Katzev, R. “Promoting Charitable
Behaviour with Compliance Techniques.” Applied Psychology, 1989,
38 (2), 165–183.
Weisbrod, B., and Dominguez, N. “Demand for Collective Goods in
Private Nonprofit Markets: Can Fundraising Expenditures Help
Overcome Free-Rider Behavior?” Journal of Public Economics, 1986,
30, 83–95.
Wuthnow, R., and Hodgkinson, V. (eds.). Faith and Philanthropy in
America: Exploring the Role of Religion in America’s Voluntary Sector.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

Further Reading
Anderson, A. Ethics for Fundraisers. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 1996.
Brittingham, B., and Pezzullo, T. The Campus Green: Fund Raising in
Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1.
Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development,
George Washington University, 1990.
Burlingame, D. (ed.). The Responsibilities of Wealth. Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992.
Burlingame, D., and Young, D. (eds.). Corporate Philanthropy at the
Crossroads. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, 1996.
Carbone, R. Fund Raisers of Academe. University Park: Clearing-
house for Research on Fund Raising, University of Maryland,
1987.
112 LINDAHL, CONLEY

Clotfelter, C., and Ehrlich, T. (eds.). Philanthropy and the Nonprofit

Sector in a Changing America. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 1999.
Drachman, S. “Factors Accounting for Variations in Levels of Private
Giving to Higher Education in the United States.” Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1983.
Hall, P. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, 1992.
Marks, M., and Schansberg, D. E. “Fairness and Reputation Effects
in a Provision Point Contributions Process.” Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 1997, 7 (3), 235–251.
Mason, D. Voluntary Nonprofit Enterprise Management. New York and
London: Plenum Press, 1984.
Mixer, J. Principles of Professional Fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1993.
Ostrander, S., and Schervish, P. “Giving and Getting: Philanthropy
as a Social Relation.” In J. Van Til and Associates, Critical
Issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Powell, W. (ed.). The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1987.