A Comparison of decentralized and Centralized Patterns of Managing the Insitutional Advancement Actvities at Research Universities
| dc.contributor.advisor | Berdahl, Robert O. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hall, Margarete Rooney | |
| dc.contributor.department | Education Policy, Planning and Administration | |
| dc.contributor.publisher | Digital Repository at the University of Maryland | |
| dc.contributor.publisher | University of Maryland (College Park, Md) | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-01-19T14:55:01Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-01-19T14:55:01Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1989 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This study compares three patterns of managing the institutional advancement activities of universities: a centralized pattern; a decentralized pattern; and, a semi-decentralized pattern. A telephone survey of 97 colleges and universities determined that at research universities, in addition to the university-wide development office, 57% have development offices for their business schools and 44% for their engineering schools. Following up on the initial survey, case studies were conducted at three universities, one with each management pattern. Academic and advancement executives were interviewed. A mail survey was also conducted of 312 development officers at research universities. The case studies and the final survey show significant agreement in areas such as: (a) whether the academic unit or the central development office should bear the responsibility for maintaining the alumni/donor database and the records of gifts, for researching prospects, and for acknowledging gifts; and, (b) whether an academic unit development officer, in order to succeed, must be an integral part of the unit's management team, have easy access to the dean, and interact well with faculty and the members of the unit's volunteer board. The responses show significant disagreement in areas such as: (a) whether an academic unit development officer, in order to succeed, must report to the dean, be paid by the dean, be located in the academic unit, have good rapport with the chief university development officer, or have an academic title; (b) whether the academic unit or the central development office should have primary responsibility for major gift solicitations, annual fund, setting development priorities, stewardship, and preparing the case statement; and, (c) how effective are coordination and control measures, volunteer boards, and communications between the central office and the academic units and between the faculty and the development officers . To address the strengths and weaknesses of each management pattern, it is recommended that: (a) a fully centralized system establish a Deans' Development Council, (b) a fully decentralized system establish an Executive Development Council and a Development Committee, (c) a semi-decentralized system give particular attention to communication from the central development office to the academic unit development offices. | en_US |
| dc.identifier | https://doi.org/10.13016/cjsy-xog4 | |
| dc.identifier.other | ILLiad # 1549073 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1903/29510 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.title | A Comparison of decentralized and Centralized Patterns of Managing the Insitutional Advancement Actvities at Research Universities | en_US |
| dc.type | Dissertation | en_US |