{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/104884"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/104884","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Examining the fundraising challenges faced and strategies utilized in the NCAA Division II athletics environment","abstract":"In the current economic environment, state appropriations to higher education are continually decreasing. These cuts in state aid have resulted in universities undergoing significant financial cuts (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017). Intercollegiate athletics departments have not been immune (Glasgow, 2017; Humboldt State, 2018; Rackers, 2016). In particular, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletics departments have taken the hit, as these departments rely heavily on state funds. This structure requires Division II athletics programs to depend on private, charitable contributions, which are brought in through organized fundraising activities. This study used the previous athletics fundraising literature and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) to guide 14 semi-structured interviews with Division II athletics fundraisers, spread throughout the country, representing a wide range of universities with varying enrollment sizes, athletics success, and sport composition. I spoke with fundraisers who were employed by both the athletics department and university’s foundation office. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the challenges these development officers faced and the strategies they used to overcome those obstacles. This study also aimed to identify the role that stakeholders played in athletics fundraising and how stakeholder claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy guided the fundraising process (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Data obtained from the interviews showed that institutional factors such as the culture of giving at the university, an institutional name change, and a lack of institutional support for athletics fundraising to be the biggest challenge. Additionally, a lack of staffing and budgets, coupled with additional job responsibilities that come about from working at a Division II program, were identified as another significant challenge. Meanwhile, the most relevant strategies that emerged from this study were the way fundraisers could utilize stakeholders in their job. The findings showed that coaches were stakeholders with legitimacy and that coaches can be a valuable asset for fundraisers in identifying, soliciting, and stewarding donors. Developing a strategic fundraising plan and communicating and collaborating with the university’s foundation office were also shown to be heavily utilized strategies. All told, most of the challenges centered on elements that were results of fundraising at a smaller, Division II school (i.e., small donor base, de-prioritization of athletics, and lack of investment in fundraising) and challenges that were by and large uncontrollable for the fundraiser, such as winning. The strategies utilized to combat those challenges focused on the role stakeholders play in the fundraising process and how athletics development professionals can capitalize on the claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy in order to maximize philanthropic support for their department.","abstract_html":"In the current economic environment, state appropriations to higher education are continually decreasing. These cuts in state aid have resulted in universities undergoing significant financial cuts (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017). Intercollegiate athletics departments have not been immune (Glasgow, 2017; Humboldt State, 2018; Rackers, 2016). In particular, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletics departments have taken the hit, as these departments rely heavily on state funds. This structure requires Division II athletics programs to depend on private, charitable contributions, which are brought in through organized fundraising activities. This study used the previous athletics fundraising literature and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) to guide 14 semi-structured interviews with Division II athletics fundraisers, spread throughout the country, representing a wide range of universities with varying enrollment sizes, athletics success, and sport composition. I spoke with fundraisers who were employed by both the athletics department and university’s foundation office. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the challenges these development officers faced and the strategies they used to overcome those obstacles. This study also aimed to identify the role that stakeholders played in athletics fundraising and how stakeholder claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy guided the fundraising process (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Data obtained from the interviews showed that institutional factors such as the culture of giving at the university, an institutional name change, and a lack of institutional support for athletics fundraising to be the biggest challenge. Additionally, a lack of staffing and budgets, coupled with additional job responsibilities that come about from working at a Division II program, were identified as another significant challenge. Meanwhile, the most relevant strategies that emerged from this study were the way fundraisers could utilize stakeholders in their job. The findings showed that coaches were stakeholders with legitimacy and that coaches can be a valuable asset for fundraisers in identifying, soliciting, and stewarding donors. Developing a strategic fundraising plan and communicating and collaborating with the university’s foundation office were also shown to be heavily utilized strategies. All told, most of the challenges centered on elements that were results of fundraising at a smaller, Division II school (i.e., small donor base, de-prioritization of athletics, and lack of investment in fundraising) and challenges that were by and large uncontrollable for the fundraiser, such as winning. The strategies utilized to combat those challenges focused on the role stakeholders play in the fundraising process and how athletics development professionals can capitalize on the claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy in order to maximize philanthropic support for their department.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Hanson, Andrew Roger"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"M.S.","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Recreation, Sport, and Tourism","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Welty Peachey, Jon","Raycraft, Michael","Fisher, Kim"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-08-23T19:58:05Z","date_published":"2019-08-23T19:58:05Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:42Z","subjects":["athletics fundraising","Division II, stakeholder theory"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright by Andrew Hanson 2019"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/104884","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Welty Peachey, Jon","Raycraft, Michael","Fisher, Kim"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Hanson, Andrew Roger"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2019-08-23T19:58:05Z","2019-04-22","2019-05"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Recreation, Sport, and Tourism"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.S."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["athletics fundraising","Division II, stakeholder theory"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright by Andrew Hanson 2019"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/104884"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["In the current economic environment, state appropriations to higher education are continually decreasing. These cuts in state aid have resulted in universities undergoing significant financial cuts (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017). Intercollegiate athletics departments have not been immune (Glasgow, 2017; Humboldt State, 2018; Rackers, 2016). In particular, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletics departments have taken the hit, as these departments rely heavily on state funds. This structure requires Division II athletics programs to depend on private, charitable contributions, which are brought in through organized fundraising activities. This study used the previous athletics fundraising literature and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) to guide 14 semi-structured interviews with Division II athletics fundraisers, spread throughout the country, representing a wide range of universities with varying enrollment sizes, athletics success, and sport composition. I spoke with fundraisers who were employed by both the athletics department and university’s foundation office. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the challenges these development officers faced and the strategies they used to overcome those obstacles. This study also aimed to identify the role that stakeholders played in athletics fundraising and how stakeholder claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy guided the fundraising process (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Data obtained from the interviews showed that institutional factors such as the culture of giving at the university, an institutional name change, and a lack of institutional support for athletics fundraising to be the biggest challenge. Additionally, a lack of staffing and budgets, coupled with additional job responsibilities that come about from working at a Division II program, were identified as another significant challenge. Meanwhile, the most relevant strategies that emerged from this study were the way fundraisers could utilize stakeholders in their job. The findings showed that coaches were stakeholders with legitimacy and that coaches can be a valuable asset for fundraisers in identifying, soliciting, and stewarding donors. Developing a strategic fundraising plan and communicating and collaborating with the university’s foundation office were also shown to be heavily utilized strategies. All told, most of the challenges centered on elements that were results of fundraising at a smaller, Division II school (i.e., small donor base, de-prioritization of athletics, and lack of investment in fundraising) and challenges that were by and large uncontrollable for the fundraiser, such as winning. The strategies utilized to combat those challenges focused on the role stakeholders play in the fundraising process and how athletics development professionals can capitalize on the claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy in order to maximize philanthropic support for their department.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2019-08-22 without embargo terms","The student, Andrew Hanson, accepted the attached license on 2019-04-19 at 13:16.","The student, Andrew Hanson, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2019-04-19 at 13:21.","This Thesis was approved for publication on 2019-04-22 at 10:33.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #13788 on 2019-08-22 at 14:45:05","Made available in DSpace on 2019-08-23T19:58:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 HANSON-THESIS-2019.pdf: 12340528 bytes, checksum: 78279ca5b0981b0b8359f4259bc5488c (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4210 bytes, checksum: a69e21cb6cffdf5314034b6cab71d603 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-04-22"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Examining the fundraising challenges faced and strategies utilized in the NCAA Division II athletics environment"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Welty Peachey, Jon","Raycraft, Michael","Fisher, Kim"],"dc:creator":["Hanson, Andrew Roger"],"dc:date":["2019-08-23T19:58:05Z","2019-04-22","2019-05"],"dc:description":["In the current economic environment, state appropriations to higher education are continually decreasing. These cuts in state aid have resulted in universities undergoing significant financial cuts (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017). Intercollegiate athletics departments have not been immune (Glasgow, 2017; Humboldt State, 2018; Rackers, 2016). In particular, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletics departments have taken the hit, as these departments rely heavily on state funds. This structure requires Division II athletics programs to depend on private, charitable contributions, which are brought in through organized fundraising activities. This study used the previous athletics fundraising literature and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) to guide 14 semi-structured interviews with Division II athletics fundraisers, spread throughout the country, representing a wide range of universities with varying enrollment sizes, athletics success, and sport composition. I spoke with fundraisers who were employed by both the athletics department and university’s foundation office. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the challenges these development officers faced and the strategies they used to overcome those obstacles. This study also aimed to identify the role that stakeholders played in athletics fundraising and how stakeholder claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy guided the fundraising process (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Data obtained from the interviews showed that institutional factors such as the culture of giving at the university, an institutional name change, and a lack of institutional support for athletics fundraising to be the biggest challenge. Additionally, a lack of staffing and budgets, coupled with additional job responsibilities that come about from working at a Division II program, were identified as another significant challenge. Meanwhile, the most relevant strategies that emerged from this study were the way fundraisers could utilize stakeholders in their job. The findings showed that coaches were stakeholders with legitimacy and that coaches can be a valuable asset for fundraisers in identifying, soliciting, and stewarding donors. Developing a strategic fundraising plan and communicating and collaborating with the university’s foundation office were also shown to be heavily utilized strategies. All told, most of the challenges centered on elements that were results of fundraising at a smaller, Division II school (i.e., small donor base, de-prioritization of athletics, and lack of investment in fundraising) and challenges that were by and large uncontrollable for the fundraiser, such as winning. The strategies utilized to combat those challenges focused on the role stakeholders play in the fundraising process and how athletics development professionals can capitalize on the claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy in order to maximize philanthropic support for their department.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2019-08-22 without embargo terms","The student, Andrew Hanson, accepted the attached license on 2019-04-19 at 13:16.","The student, Andrew Hanson, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2019-04-19 at 13:21.","This Thesis was approved for publication on 2019-04-22 at 10:33.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #13788 on 2019-08-22 at 14:45:05","Made available in DSpace on 2019-08-23T19:58:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 HANSON-THESIS-2019.pdf: 12340528 bytes, checksum: 78279ca5b0981b0b8359f4259bc5488c (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4210 bytes, checksum: a69e21cb6cffdf5314034b6cab71d603 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-04-22"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/104884"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright by Andrew Hanson 2019"],"dc:subject":["athletics fundraising","Division II, stakeholder theory"],"dc:title":["Examining the fundraising challenges faced and strategies utilized in the NCAA Division II athletics environment"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Recreation, Sport, and Tourism"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.S."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:42Z"}