| The 4,232 colleges and universities in the United States (2004 Higher Education Directory, 2004, p. 1) represent a broad and diverse spectrum of mission, classification, size, and resources. Whether largely tuition driven or richly endowed, all of them share a common denominator: some level of dependency upon charitable giving. Current economic conditions and reductions in federal and state allocations to higher education have placed a greater burden on fund raising (Miller et al., 1994). Therefore, decisions made by major donors are significant to the life and vitality of most colleges and universities. In fact, most campus physical plant additions, endowed chairs and named schools are funded in large part by charitable gifts from major donors. As a result colleges and universities work hard to obtain knowledge of current and potential major donors including their giving patterns and their capacity for future philanthropic behavior through publicly available data and privately cultivated relationships. Even so, the factors that contribute to the decisions made by major donors, decisions that determine when they give, the amount they give, and to whom they give, are less known and understood.; While research has been conducted on why major donors give, little is understood concerning how the major donor makes his/her decision. Knowing why major donors give does not necessarily inform us as to how they determine to give. Using existing theory and literature in the areas of the history of philanthropy, adult development theory, self-actualization theory, the psychology of giving, individual decision-making processes, and the study of major donors, their interests and motivations, this study assessed how a select group of major donors decided when, how much, and to whom they gave.; This qualitative research study focused on current major donors from three institutions of higher education located in the mid-Atlantic region. The primary data source was interviews with current major donors from each of the three institutions. The chief development officers from each of the three participating institutions were also interviewed. Development office databases were also reviewed. |
