How did we get here? The career paths of higher education fundraisers

• Author: Femida Handy,Megan M. Farwell,Maren Gaughan
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21397

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How did we get here? The career paths

of higher education fundraisers

Megan M. Farwell

1

| Maren Gaughan

2

| Femida Handy

1

1

School of Social Policy & Practice,

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

2

School of Dental Medicine, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Correspondence

Femida Handy, School of Social Policy &

Practice, University of Pennsylvania, 3701

Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA

19104-6214.

Email: fhandy@upenn.edu

Abstract

University-based fundraisers have career paths that are

unique in that most do not come to their careers

through traditional training programs that are available

to other professions, which may impact their expecta-

tions of and experiences in their work. Using the con-

ceptual framework of person-in-environment fit, this

study uses qualitative data from semistructured inter-

views of 44 higher education fundraisers to understand

factors influencing their career trajectories. While for-

mal educational backgrounds do not necessarily pro-

vide specific skills necessary for a fundraising career,

findings show that many rely on on-the-job training,

which was at times inadequate. Findings also counter

common reports of fundraisers as “falling into the pro-

fession”when choosing to join the fundraising field

and demonstrate how organizational factors can influ-

ence recruitment and retention.

KEYWORDS

fundraising, person-in-environment match, retention

1|INTRODUCTION

Philanthropic support is integral to the U.S. nonprofit sector: in 2017 alone, more than $410 bil-

lion were donated to various nonprofit organizations, with nearly $59 billion designated for

education (Giving USA, 2018). Universities and colleges alone garnered $43.6 billion, of which

over 44% was given by individuals (Council for Aid to Education, 2018). Regardless of the gift

source (i.e., whether supported originated from individuals, corporations, or foundations), it is

highly likely that these gifts were facilitated, at least in part, by fundraisers. However, despite

Received: 5 February 2019 Revised: 31 October 2019 Accepted: 11 November 2019

DOI: 10.1002/nml.21397

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2020;30:487–507. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 487

their importance to fundraising, fundraisers remain largely understudied. Although scholarly

work examining overall fundraiser demographics (Breeze, 2017; Duronio & Tempel, 1996;

Nathan & Tempel, 2017) and fundraising strategies (Goering, Connor, Nagelhout, &

Steinberg, 2011; Merchant, Ford, & Sargeant, 2010) exists, most research focuses primarily on

donor motivations to give (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010; Konrath & Handy, 2018; Mount, 1996).

As universities rely more and more on philanthropic support to sustain their operations

(Thelin & Trollinger, 2014), understanding both who gives and who asks is critically

important.

This study specifically explores the experiences of fundraisers at R1

1

colleges and universi-

ties, a subsector selected for two reasons. First, there are 81,000 registered members of the

Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE; the professional association of

higher education fundraisers). In contrast, the Association of Fundraising Professionals,

which is open to fundraisers from any field, has 30,000 members. These proxies, although

admittedly rudimentary, suggest that a substantial number of fundraisers work in higher edu-

cation settings. Second, like many nonprofits, institutions of higher learning rely on donations

to support their operations, and fundraisers have historically raised money for critical needs

such as research funds, buildings, student scholarships, and professorships (Caboni, 2010;

Iarrobino, 2006). However, the role of higher education fundraisers has arguably become even

more important due to reductions in public funding for the sector: although the education

field receives substantial philanthropic support, increased public divestment from higher edu-

cation institutions (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017) suggests a need to rely even

more heavily on private philanthropy. In short, “as institutions' desire for private support

grows, so too does the demand for successful fundraising professionals”(Shaker & Nathan,

2017, p. 1).

Considering the relative importance of fundraisers to the higher education sector, this arti-

cle examines motivations and influences that shaped current higher education fundraising

leaders. Although some research describing fundraiser pathways into the field exists (Breeze,

2017; Duronio & Tempel, 1996; Nathan & Tempel, 2017), less examined are the influences from

which individuals developed the skills and knowledge to become successful fundraisers. Thus,

the purpose of this study is to explore formative influences that shaped fundraiser career trajec-

tories through the following research questions: How do fundraisers (a) explain their motiva-

tions for becoming fundraisers, (b) explain their intentions of continuing in their professions as

fundraisers, and (c) characterize their preparation and training for this role?

1.1 |Conceptual framework

This study examines fundraisers' career trajectories through perceived fit with their work envi-

ronment. This person-in-environment fit has been primarily conceptualized in two ways: com-

plementary and supplementary. Complementary fit occurs “when a person's characteristics

‘make whole’the environment or add to it what is missing”(Kristof, 1996, p. 3; Muchinsky &

Monahan, 1987). In contrast, supplementary fit occurs when an individual's characteristics

match those of his or her environment (Boon & Biron, 2016; Cable & Edwards, 2004). These

conceptualizations have been largely (although not exclusively) aligned with two specific types

of fit. Supplementary fit is often examined through the perspective of a Person–Organization

(P-O) match, while complementary fit has been the overwhelming focus of Person–Job (P-J)

research (Boon & Biron, 2016).

488 FARWELL ET AL.