FACTORS ACCOUNTING FOR VARIATIONS IN LEVELS OF PRIVATE GIVING TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

The purpose of this study was to identify factors accounting for variations in levels of private giving to United States higher education. A second objective was to quantify the effect of each variable on voluntary contributions. Two separate analyses were performed. A cross-sectional study was designed to determine why amounts given vary among institutions for the year 1977-78. Four models were created: an overall contributions and per alumnus contributions model, an economic resource model and an eclectic model. All were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression. The dependent variable used was private giving and the independent variables examined were related to the institution itself or the state environment. In the analysis Liberal Arts I institutions were separated from Research Universities I and tests were performed that divided the sample into public/private institutions, wealthy/poor regions, and sunbelt/snowbelt regions. Second, a time-series analysis of total giving to higher education institutions was performed encompassing the years 1932 to 1974. Again, ordinary least squares regression was used. The dependent variable was total giving (TG) to higher education and the primary independent variables were largely economic factors. In the time-series analysis, three models were probed: gross receipts, net receipts, and a national income model. The cross-sectional analysis found that RUI and LAI institutions share one major variable that is strongly associated with contributions to them: quality. Other factors were found to vary among regions and between nonalumni and alumni giving. It was found also that private giving is best explained through alumni. The time-series analyses had very high explanatory power. Division of the gross receipts model revealed a decided difference between individual and business giving with business responding to classical economic fashion and individuals contributing in apparent disregard of economic motives. It would appear that different characteristics should be stressed when dealing with the different donors to institutions of higher education. Alumni and nonalumni should be solicited in disparate manners and businesses and individuals should be pursued for gifts at different times with different strategies, according to economic indicators and the demonstrated needs of the college