Public Relations in the Nonprofit Sector

Theory and Practice

Richard D. Waters, Richard D. Waters

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317636908
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Public Relations
• Index: Business

Nonprofit organizations are managing to carry out sophisticated public relations programming that cultivates relationships with their key audiences. Their public relations challenges, however, have routinely been understudied. Budgetary and staffing restraints often limit how these organizations carry out their fundraising, public awareness and activism efforts, and client outreach. This volume explores a range of public relations theories and topics important to the management of nonprofit organizations, including crisis management, communicating to strengthen engagement online and offline, and recruiting and retaining volunteer and donor support.

Part I
Strategic Management of Nonprofit Organizations

1
A Fractured Glass Ceiling in Fundraising?

Examining the Careers of Minority Healthcare Fundraisers Using Role Theory

Natalie T. J. Tindall, Richard D. Waters, and Kathleen S. Kelly

In 2013, Americans donated $335 billion to the nearly 1.6 million charitable organizations in the United States (Kalugyer, 2014). Individual fundraisers raised more than 80% of the total donations through traditional and Internet-based fundraising techniques using relationship development strategies (Waters, 2010).

In the United States, fundraising is carried out by full-time and part-time staff practitioners (Hager, Rooney, & Pollak, 2002), volunteers (Lysakowski, 2002), and outside parties, such as consultants and solicitation firms (Hooper & Stobart, 2003). In the late 1990s, Kelly (1998a) estimated that there were approximately 80,000 full-time fundraising practitioners in the United States; however, four years later, Hager and colleagues (2002) placed the number much higher, at as many as 296,000. The precise number of fundraisers is difficult to determine because practitioners hold various titles and the occupation has no set requirements for entry.

Regardless of the number of fundraisers, scholars and practitioners both agree that there is a severe shortage of minority fundraisers in the profession. Minority has been defined as “any part of the population that differs from others in some characteristics and as a result is subjected to differential treatment” (L. A. Grunig, Toth, & Hon, 2001, p. 122). In U.S. society, the designation of minority has been placed on those groups that are underrepresented or disadvantaged, not solely those who are in the statistical minority (Wu, 2002). For the purpose of this study, minority fundraisers are being defined as those practitioners with non-Caucasian backgrounds. The realities of being a minority are intertwined with the power, privilege, and control of the dominant group in a society. The dominant group oppresses and suppresses minority groups through the exclusion and denial of positions within mainstream institutions and through controlling images (Collins, 2000).

Evidence of the gap began to be published in the late 1980s as inadequate numbers of African-American/Black (Betts, 1989), Asian-American (Smith, Shue, Vest & Villarreal, 1992), Hispanic/Latino (Royce & Rodriguez, 1999), and Native American (Thorpe, 1989) fundraising practitioners. Despite awareness of a diversity problem, little was done to improve the situation throughout the 1990s. In 2005, the Association for Fundraising Professionals (AFP) sponsored a diversity summit in conjunction with its international conference. At this meeting, global nonprofit leaders gathered to share ideas and develop a strategy for collective action to lead to greater inclusiveness in fundraising. Although many of the summit recommendations had already been brought to the sector’s attention through practitioner books (e.g., Pettey, 2001), this forum allowed AFP to begin publicized talks about the issue to its membership.

Shortly after the summit, the two other major fundraising associations, the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), began pursuing diversity recruitment initiatives. All three associations have launched public relations campaigns to highlight March as “Diversity in Fundraising” month by showcasing fundraising to minorities as a rewarding profession with opportunities for personal advancement and to help communities. AFP also regularly produces research and case studies to highlight the need for and impact of minority fundraisers, and it produces targeted publications (e.g., newsletters, listservs) to those interested in improving fundraising’s diversity. In addition to organizational research, CASE also regularly highlights the need for diversification in its monthly magazine and manages a speakers’ bureau to ensure the issue is discussed at chapter meetings throughout the world. AHP has demonstrated its commitment to diversity by regularly offering workshops at regional and international conferences on how to diversify the fundraising team, and also through sustained discussions in its virtual learning series.

Despite these efforts, Pettey and Wagner (2007) recently concluded that recruitment has not resulted in a greater number of minorities entering the fundraising profession. Their claim, however, is largely based on anecdotal evidence and qualitative research using small numbers of in-depth interviews. This study aims to provide a theory-based quantitative description of the careers and working environments of minority fundraisers in healthcare. With this evidence, individuals will be able to evaluate whether doors of opportunity exist in fundraising as suggested by fundraising associations.

Literature Review

Role Theory. Grounded in sociology and social psychology, role theory provides a suitable framework for describing an individual’s daily tasks in the fundraising setting. As conceptualized by scholars, role theory focuses on “the recurring actions of an individual, appropriately interrelated with the repetitive activities of others so as to yield a predictable outcome” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 189). Practitioners might perceive a set of role expectations, but modify the expected behavior based on their skills and training. Roles may also be influenced by an individual’s level of autonomy, organizational expectations, or emerging standards of the profession.

Public Relations Roles. Role theory has provided significant insights for how public relations is carried out within organizations. Dozier (1992) said the study of roles has been key to the evolution of public relations as a management function. Broom (Broom & Smith, 1979) conceptualized four roles of public relations practitioners from a review of the literature: communication facilitator, expert prescriber, communication technician, and problem-solving process facilitator. To evaluate the differences between the four roles, each role has traditionally been measured through six items, resulting in a 24-item questionnaire (Broom, 1982).

Numerous studies have utilized the measurement items and have provided evidence of their high reliability (e.g., Piekos & Einsiedel, 1990; Gordon & Kelly, 1999). After 10 years of accumulated studies on the theory of public relations roles, Dozier (1992) conducted a factor analysis of the four roles and concluded that the communication facilitator, expert prescriber, and problem-solving process facilitator roles were intercorrelated. The communication technician role was not significantly related to any of the other roles. Based on the findings, Dozier (1992) argued that the public relations roles should be collapsed into two main roles, manager and technician; this was supported by other scholars (e.g., Toth & L. A. Grunig, 1993). However, it should be noted that some critical conceptual differences are lost when the three managerial roles are combined (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2006).

Fundraising Roles. Although fundraising has traditionally lacked a substantial body of knowledge stemming from theory and research (Kelly, 1998a), reflective practitioners have suggested that fundraisers also enact various roles. Worth and Asp (1994) identified four roles of educational fundraisers: salesperson, catalyst, manager, and leader. The salesperson role concentrates on soliciting gifts. The catalyst works behind the scenes in support of senior administrators and others involved in fundraising activities. The manager role emphasizes practitioners’ skills as internal organizers. The leader role is carried out by practitioners who participate in decision making on organizational policy beyond the realm of fundraising. Worth and Asp’s (1994) roles were tested by Ryan (2006). However, Ryan’s survey did not measure enactment of the roles, but rather the extent to which participants believed that each role descriptor applied to “successful development officers in higher education” (p. 287). No definition of “successful” was given, mean scores on the four role indices were not reported, and reliabilities of the indices were below accepted standards. Ryan (2006) concluded that “there is no tendency for any one of the four fund-raiser roles to be given more value by the respondents” (p. 287).

Taking an organizational perspective, Fogal (1994) conceptualized three fundraising roles related to three stages of development of the fundraising function: vendor role in the formative stage, facilitator role in the normative stage, and strategist role in the integrative stage. According to Fogal (1994), in the formative stage, fundraising is “characterized by an emphasis on fundraising techniques that generate needed income, such as mass appeals through direct mail and telephone solicitation” (pp. 370–371). Organizations value practitioners who have sales skills. Fundraising is staff-centered at the normative stage, and solicitation skills are valued. At the integrative stage, fundraising is central to the nonprofit, and “donors are regarded as thoughtful participants in the organization’s life and work” (Fogal, 1994, p. 371). Organizations in this stage seek fundraisers with skills in building and maintaining relationships. Importantly, Fogal argued that the three stages are not mutually exclusive, but the role assigned to fundraising “reflects the organization’s style of management and institutional philosophy” (p. 371).

Derived from practitioner experience, the roles suggested by Worth and Asp (1994) and Fogal (1994) have been helpful in describing daily tasks; however, they are difficult to compare to other role theory studies because of their limitations. Kelly (1998a) combined public relations role theory with her own professional experience as a fundraiser to conceptualize four organizational roles enacted by fundraisers: liaison, expert prescriber, problem-solving process facilitator, and technician. Based on findings of a qualitative study using in-depth interviews, Kelly (1998b) explicated a new schema to measure fundraising roles. According to Kelly, the roles explain how individual fundraisers behave in carrying out their job responsibilities and predict the outcomes of the action. In describing the four roles, Kelly explained that asking fundraisers whether they solicited gifts was a weak measurement of role enactment, as that task is carried out by almost all staff fundraisers. However, routine tasks other than solicitation reveal significant insights into how fundraisers participate not only in the fundraising program but also in organizational decision making.

Kelly (1998a) hypothesized that every fundraiser plays all four roles to some extent, but enacts one predominantly. The predominant role is important as it represents the worldview held by practitioners and senior managers regarding what fundraisers do and how they contribute to organizational success. Kelly’s critical analysis of the practitioner literature provided evidence that all four roles exist in fundraising practice.

Liaison is the role predominantly enacted by consultants, who do not solicit gifts but advise organizational managers and volunteers on doing so (Kelly, 1998a). The role casts practitioners as interpreters and mediators in bringing together organizational representatives with prospective donors. This is the traditional, “behind-the-scene” role of consultants. A weakness of the liaison role is its reliance on other actors, which makes fundraising vulnerable to unmet goals and inefficiency. Furthermore, practitioners enacting this role concern themselves only with fundraising; they are not involved with other aspects of the organization, such as delivering program services.

Expert prescriber is the exact opposite of liaison (Kelly, 1998a). Fundraisers in this role act and are viewed as the only ones in their organization with the skill and responsibility for raising gifts. Senior managers, trustees, and staff are content to leave fundraising in the hands of the “expert” and assume relatively passive participation. The role is attractive to managers and trustees who dislike fundraising and to fundraising practitioners who enjoy expert status. Among the role’s many weaknesses, fundraising is isolated from the organization’s operations, which hampers efforts to address organizational needs and establish meaningful relationships with donors.

Fundraisers usually begin their careers in the technician role, in which they primarily are concerned with producing and implementing the various tactics used in raising gifts, such as grant proposals and direct mail (Kelly, 1998a). Technicians carry out decisions made by others. They are not part of the management team and rarely participate in strategic planning, research, or budgeting decisions. Problems arise when fundraising departments consist only of technicians. In such cases, the function contributes little to advancing the organization’s mission or meeting its goals.

Practitioners enacting the problem-solving process facilitator role are part of the management team. They collaborate with others in the organization, manage key actors’ participation in the fundraising process, and participate in decision making on organization-wide problems. Problem-solving process facilitators rely on research and strategic planning to direct fundraising programs. Success is gauged not by the amount of money raised, but by the extent to which fundraising helped the organization achieve its goals. When fundraising departments are headed by practitioners predominantly enacting this role, the fundraising function is fully integrated in the organization’s operations and aspirations.

In her exploratory study, Kelly (1998b) found qualitative evidence that the four roles accurately describe the behavior patterns of fundraisers as they go about their work for different types of charitable organizations. Wagner (2002) attested to the validity of these four roles, but called for “more research to verify and substantiate these findings” (p. 48). However, little has been done to explore the relationship between role theory and fundraising.

Tindall (2007) surveyed fundraisers at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to examine which tasks they used in donor communication. She followed up that study with a more descriptive examination of the roles, using in-depth interviews (Tindall, 2009). Using Q methodology, Waters (2008) found evidence for a typology consisting of manager, technician, and researcher, fundraisers who primarily spent the day researching cultivation opportunities targeted at individuals and foundations. Waters, Kelly, and Walker (2012) explored the relationship between gender and role enactment and found that a glass ceiling exists that prevents women from taking on managerial roles. However, research has yet to explore racial diversity in relation to fundraising role theo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Part I Strategic Management of Nonprofit Organizations
• Part II Stakeholder Relations
• Part III Public Awareness and Advocacy
• Part IV New Media Challenges and Opportunities
• Afterword
• Contributors
• Index