Grants and Private Funding

This article discusses how grants and private funding serve to sustain higher education in the United States. While traditional revenue sources still play a large role in higher education financing, institutions are beginning to more aggressively pursue non-traditional funding sources due to increased market competition and costs. Historically, these non-traditional funding sources have included private donations from alumni and other individual benefactors as well as from corporations, foundations, and similar entities. Continued federal grant support given directly to higher education institutions has also played a large role and has served to shape modern higher education.

Keywords Alumni; Benefactors; Corporations; Federal research grants; Foundations; Private giving; Voluntary support

Higher Education > Grants & Private Funding

Overview

While tuition revenues and, for public institutions, state and local appropriations play a large role in the financial support of higher education institutions, these traditional revenue sources are generally supplemented with other resources. Over the course of time, a number of different groups have become actively involved in the private financing of higher education. Additionally, the federal government has come to play a role in providing direct support to higher education institutions via grants for various purposes.

Individual Private Benefactors, Foundations, Alumni, & Corporations

While not the founders of the institutions that took their names, John Harvard and Elihu Yale were the first considerable private benefactors in New England. However, it was not until the latter part of the nineteenth century that large gifts from single donors became more common (Rudolph, 1990). Private giving to higher education institutions accelerated after the Civil War when large personal fortunes were made during the period of rapid industrialization (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). According to Rudolph (1990),

Endowments of sizable proportions were a contribution to the American college of the Industrial Revolution, of the remarkable rewards which it brought on the eminently exploitable American continent, and of the sense of stewardship which invigorated the possession of private wealth with a sense of public responsibility. (p. 181)

For example, Cornell originated with a $500,000 gift from Ezra Cornell, whose single gift matched the total accumulated endowment of all higher education institutions at the turn of the twentieth century (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). As the twentieth century progressed, individual benefactors like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford began to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into higher education. Their main aim was "not to found new institutions, but to strengthen older ones and sometimes modify their direction" (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 377). Brubacher and Rudy (1997) noted that endowments, which are supported by donations, have been especially crucial to private institutions as their financial "mainstay" (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 377). While not initially well-received, declines in state and federal public support have often led to a more acceptable view of private giving to public higher institutions as well (Liu, 2006).

In the early twentieth century, large philanthropic organizations that focused on supporting higher education in various ways were also created by millionaires and began to take shape. These included Rockefeller's General Education Board (1903) and Foundation (1913) as well as the Carnegie Foundation (1906) and Corporation (Rudolph, 1990). The foundations established matching-gifts principles under which colleges had to match (or sometimes even double) gifts they received (Rudolph, 1990). These principles not only led to extensive endowment drives to secure matches, but also to the preoccupation of college presidents' time with fundraising for matches (Rudolph, 1990).

As large gifts had to also be supplemented with smaller gifts, institutions began to put on general endowment drives. Yale was the first institution to initiate an annual alumni giving drive in the 1890s (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Yet, the time of regular, exceptionally large gifts to higher education seemed to draw to a close by the mid twentieth century as steep increases in inheritance and income taxes, which were used to cover war costs as well as new social services, took their toll (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Around this time, corporations began to be asked to play a larger role in the financing of higher education (Pollard, 1952).

Federal Government's Role

It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the federal government began to deal directly with colleges and universities in providing them with assistance (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Specifically, World War II marked the onset of continuing federal involvement in higher education (Kerr, 2001). Kerr (2001) described the initiation of federal support for scientific research that was ushered in after World War II as one of two great impacts that have "molded the modern American university system and made it distinctive" (p. 35).

The move toward continuing federal grant support was sparked by "vast programs of contract research" (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 231). By 1950, about a dozen federal agencies were expending $150 million annually in such endeavors at various higher education institutions. However, federal resources tended to flow to a group of institutions that already had well-established scholarly reputations, and this led some to view the institutions as essentially representing a monopoly over federal research grants (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 231). Yet, over time research funds were dispersed across slightly more institutions. By 1990 about half of all federal support for research was concentrated at thirty-two institutions, as compared to twenty in 1963 (Kerr, 2001).

Federal support for research historically advanced three great national concerns: defense, scientific and technological progress, and health (Kerr, 2001). As such, the humanities and social sciences have traditionally received very little federal support (Kerr, 2001). Some of the federal agencies that have been major sources of research funds include the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health (Kerr, 2001). With the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax mailings that occurred that same year, Congress was compelled to direct more federal research funding toward homeland security projects (Borrego & Brainard, 2003). For instance, funding for homeland security projects, which included training programs as well as research, increased by 68 percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2003 (Borrego & Brainard, 2003).

By 1960 federal support for research at higher education institutions had reached $1 billion (Kerr, 2001). Federal research funds then increased about four times over between 1960 and the mid 1990s (Kerr, 2001). A period of particular rapid growth in federal research funding occurred between 1980 and 1995 when funding increased by 50 percent (Gladieux & King, 1999). Yet, overall between 1960 and the mid 1990s the rate of increase in federal research funds slowed as compared to previous periods (Kerr, 2001). Still, by 1995 federal research support had reached $13 billion (Gladieux & King, 1999).

Applications

Walton & Bell (2003) indicate that the many types and sources of college and university revenues include the following:

• Tuition from students and families

• Appropriations, grants, and student financial aid from state and local governments

• Research and other grants from the federal government

• Donations and gifts from private benefactors

Concerning grant aid, research and other grants from the federal government are the particular focus in light of the impact such aid has had on molding modern higher education (Kerr, 2001).

Private Giving

According to Liu (2006), revenues from private giving help institutions not only with their day-to-day operations but also may help fund various projects and undertakings initiated in the name of excellence. At the same time, only about 10 percent of expenditures at higher education institutions are covered by private funds (Strout, 2006a). In general, trends in private giving tend to align with the state of the stock market and the economy (Strout, 2006a). The number of campaigns and solicitations for private donations on behalf of higher education institutions also impacts growth (Strout, 2007).

Private funding can come from a number of different sources including individuals, business and industry, philanthropic foundations, civic groups, and religious groups (Pollard, 1952). Contributions to US colleges and universities increased 2.3 percent from 2011 to 2012. At $31 billion overall, the total is still below the 2008 high of $31.6 billion (Council for Aid to Education, 2013). During the same year, alumni giving declined 1.3 percent, and although the average alumni gift declined just of 1 percent, the average gift per alumnus increased over 10.5 percent. The main sources of private giving to higher education institutions in 2012 were foundations (29.5 percent), alumni (24.8 percent), other nonalumni individuals (18.8 percent), corporations (16.9 percent), other noncorporate and nonreligious organizations (9 percent), and religious organizations (.9 percent) (Council for Aid to Education, 2013). Overall, the primary sources of voluntary support to higher education institutions are foundations, alumni, and nonalumni individuals.

Liu (2006) explored what motivates donors of private support. For instance, alumni may be motivated by college pride and loyalty or may wish to guarantee the marketability of their degree. On the other hand, nonalumni individuals as well as foundations may be motivated by the desire to make a social contribution (e.g., improve higher education for all). Finally, corporations generally give to higher education institutions in exchange for certain benefits.

Alumni Donations

Alumni may make donations to their alma maters for specific purposes (e.g., to establish a scholarship or help fund a new building) but may also make unrestricted donations as part of annual fund drives or endowment campaigns. Recently, alumni participation in private donations to higher education institutions has been declining (Strout, 2007). However, it has been proposed that this is mainly due to colleges' and universities' efforts to capture information on all their alumni. Specifically, the number of alumni on record is increasing faster than the number who actually donates and this has made participation rates drop (Strout, 2007). Alumni contributions still represent one of the largest shares of voluntary donations with about 25 percent of all such donations being made by alumni in fiscal year 2012 (Strout, 2007).

Corporate Funding

Writing after the Second World War, Pollard (1952) noted that corporations were being asked more and more to provide funds to higher education. He also noted that setting up tax-free foundations as the mechanism by which to make contributions was becoming more common with corporations as well. In general, corporate funding of higher education takes many forms. Corporations provide funds for scholarships and fellowships for students but also provide institutional aid (e.g., operating or capital grants) as well as research funds (Pollard, 1952). However, in giving to higher education institutions corporations need to be attuned to state laws that may be set up to protect stockholders, as well as federal limits or restrictions (Pollard, 1952).

In discussing the benefits that corporations receive from donating to higher education institutions, Pollard (1952) remarked, "leading corporations are strongly in the market for the kind of intellectually disciplined and trained personnel that can be found only in our universities and colleges," (p. 115). Also, in addition to specialized research services, the basic research that colleges and universities conduct has provided numerous benefits to industry as well (Pollard, 1952).

Foundation Funding

According to Harcleroad (1999), national independent foundations, like the Carnegie and Ford Foundations, are the source for over 90 percent of private foundation giving to higher education institutions. Overall, there are five types of private foundations (Harcleroad, 1999):

1. Community foundations: typically are citywide or regional and provide funds to higher education institutions for locally related projects
2. Family or personal foundations: have limited purposes
3. Special purpose foundations: have very narrow purposes (e.g., funding a glee club on campus)
4. Company foundations: provide one source by which to channel corporate giving
5. National independent foundations: typically provide funding to higher education institutions for targeted research in areas of national or international interest

Private foundation grants to higher education institutions not only support research but also such undertakings as community improvement efforts and staffing support (Harcleroad, 1999). At the same time, private foundation grants represent a relatively small proportion of higher education financing (Harcleroad, 1999). Yet, "by their choice of areas to finance [foundations] entice supposedly autonomous colleges to do things they might not do otherwise … . [and] they have had significant effects on program development and even operations" (Harcleroad, 1999, pp. 244-245). For instance, foundation grants have been instrumental in establishing new academic fields as well as changing the course of existing fields (Harcleroad, 1999).

Research & Other Grants from the Federal Government

Federal research funding has generally been concentrated on relatively few institutions (Gladieux & King, 1999; Kerr, 2001). Writing in the early 1960s, Kerr described some twenty higher education institutions, which represented only about a tenth of all American universities at the time, as the "primary federal grant universities" (p. 42). Some of this concentration of federal resources was due in part to the fact that the scientists most able to efficiently and quickly carry out desired research worked at a limited number of institutions (Kerr, 2001).

Federal research funds can cover either indirect costs or direct costs. Scandals over institutional billing for indirect costs erupted during the late 1980s and early 1990s (Gladieux & King, 1999). The case of Stanford charging questionable items to the federal government as part of its indirect costs has often been cited (Gladieux & King, 1999). For instance, among other inappropriate charges, it was discovered that Stanford had charged depreciation on a yacht to administrative overhead (Brainard, 2005). In the end, several institutions were required to return millions of dollars to the federal government due to such questionable billing (Gladieux & King, 1999). In 1991 Congress enacted a cap on the overhead that colleges and universities can charge on federal research grants in response to the overhead scandals that made headlines (Brainard, 2005). Many colleges and universities have argued that overhead restrictions are too burdensome (Brainard, 2005), and some institutions have had to cover incremental overhead costs from increased federal regulations on their own (Brainard, 2005).

Aside from grants for research, an example of another type of grant that the federal government makes directly to higher education institutions is those grants awarded through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), which supports innovations in higher education (Brainard, 1999). Overall, more than half of all colleges in the United States have applied for FIPSE grants (Brainard, 1999). Revised rules call for various types of projects that can receive FIPSE grants, such as those that would "support innovative approaches to connecting community colleges to four-year institutions" or "establish off-campus and community-based delivery of educational programs and services to rural students" (Brainard, 1999, p 38).

Viewpoints

According to Liu (2006), "increasing market competitiveness and rising educational costs have underscored the importance of external revenues in higher education finance," (p. 119). These trends are compounded by declines in both federal and state public support (Liu, 2006). As such, colleges and universities are more aggressively pursuing non-traditional funding sources (Liu, 2006). This section explores in more detail some of the issues that have arisen as institutions heighten their pursuit of non-traditional revenue sources.

Socially Responsible Investing

In the 1970s the argument was made for higher education institutions to invest more of their endowment resources into stocks in order to bolster their financial resources (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). At the same time, it was argued that institutions should follow 'ethical investor' guidelines and take responsibility for the social policies of the corporations they held stock in (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 382). For instance, if corporations polluted the environment or produced harmful products it was expected that institutions divest of their holdings in such corporations or at least vote their proxies against the corporation's management (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

Student activism has led to a number of colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, to opt to not invest in companies that do business in Sudan, whose government has been accused of committing various acts of brutality in the country's Darfur region (Strout, 2006c). Similar actions were taken about thirty years ago to protest the enforcement of apartheid in South Africa (Strout, 2006c). Yet, the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute and the Tellus Institute report that socially responsible investments by college and universities declined from 21 percent in 2009 to 18 percent in 2011 (IRRC Institute, & Tellus Institute, 2012).

Educational Conflicts of Interest

Kerr (2001) argued that federal investment in research at universities shifted faculty priorities away from teaching and toward research. Faculty members also responded to a related shift within universities in which compensation and rewards came to be based more on the receipt of federal research funds and less on teaching activities and undergraduate education (Kerr, 2001). Specifically, promotion and tenure decisions for faculty came to rest more heavily on research and publications than teaching (Zusman, 1999). According to Altbach (2001), "the prestige hierarchy of American academe favors research and publication even though the large majority of the professoriate are not heavily engaged in these activities," (p. 27).

Zusman (1999) also noted that the involvement of full-time faculty in undergraduate education waned during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Studies showed how compared to the past faculty were teaching fewer undergraduate courses, the responsibility for which was shifted to part-time faculty and/or graduate teaching assistants (Zusman, 1999). However, Altbach (2001) also noted that while research has retained its foothold, teaching is also beginning to gain greater respect.

Some other educational concerns with accepting funding from non-traditional sources have also been voiced. For instance, Mangan (1999) reported that medical schools are relying on corporate grants more as government support dwindles. However, professors have indicated that corporate sponsors pose threats to academic freedom as they too often "decide what will be studied, how the research will be conducted, and how and whether the findings will be published" (p. 6).

Concentration of Resources

As noted, federal research grant resources have tended to be concentrated with a relatively small segment of the total higher education community of the United States (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Gladieux & King, 1999; Kerr, 2001). A study by Liu (2006) also showed that, in line with previous research, "institutions at the top of the institutional hierarchy enjoy accumulative advantage" in securing private giving (p. 135). For example, a total of $25.6 billion in private donations was raised during fiscal year 2005, which was also the second year of a period of growth in private giving (Strout, 2006a). However, such growth was not evenly distributed. Half of the growth was concentrated in the top ten fundraising institutions for private donations (Strout, 2006a). The period of growth in private donations continued in fiscal year 2006 with about $28 billion being raised by higher education institutions (Strout, 2007). Yet, half of the growth for fiscal year 2006 was again concentrated in the top ten fundraising institutions for private donations (Strout, 2007).

Different types of higher education institutions also seem to accumulate more funds from private giving. Strout (2006b) noted that unlike state public flagship universities, regional public colleges do not tend to have strong relationships with corporations and foundations. Flagship universities, among other factors, have tended to be more proactive about seeking corporate and foundation funding and they also have a "'broader array of programs' for which to solicit financial support" (Strout, 2006b, ¶ 4). However, some regional institutions are beginning to increase efforts to pursue corporate and foundation funding. At Eastern Michigan University, for instance, a new position to focus on corporate and foundation relations was recently created (Strout, 2006b).

Terms & Concepts

Alumni: (Alumnae) Graduates of a college or university, who may have attended the institution as either an undergraduate or graduate student; some higher education institutions also include students who attended their institutions but did not graduate in their alumni ranks

Benefactor: An individual or group that makes a monetary contribution or other type of gift aid to another entity, who benefits from their assistance

Corporation: "An association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence irrespective of that of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members" (Barnhart & Stein, 1962, p. 271)

Direct Costs: The costs associated with a research project that can be easily discerned to be related to that specific project (e.g., salaries, travel, equipment, supplies)

Divestment: The change or pulling of investments due to social or political policy

Endowment: A revenue fund supported by donations; generally, only a portion of the interest on donations is spent while the principle remains intact

Foundation: An institution that engages in endowment donations generally to further some social cause

Overhead: (Also referred to as "facilities and administrative costs" or "indirect costs") the amount of funds that universities and colleges receive for overhead costs (in addition to the direct costs) associated with research projects. Overhead consists of reimbursement for both administrative costs and facilities costs (e.g., laboratories, utilities); there is a cap on administrative costs but not on facilities costs.

Tax-Free Foundations: Receive, manage, and invest a share of company profits in order to make contributions on the company's behalf.

Bibliography

Altbach, P. G. (2001). The American academic model in comparative perspective. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education (pp. 11-37). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Barnhart, C. L., & Stein, J. (Eds.). (1962). The American college dictionary. New York: Random House, Inc.

Borrego, A., & Brainard, J. (2003, September 26). In directing dollars, Congress favors Homeland-Security projects. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50 , A20. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11017710&site=ehost-live

Brainard, J. (1999, March 26). Popular grants program for colleges regroups as Congress sets its priorities. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45 , A39. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1664202&site=ehost-live

Brainard, J. (2005, August 5). The ghosts of Stanford. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51 , A16-A18. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17868266&site=ehost-live

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Council for Aid to Education. (2013, February 20). Colleges and universities raise $31 billion in 2012. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE-2012-Press-Release.pdf

Fischer, K. (2011). Crisis of confidence threatens colleges. (cover story). Chronicle of Higher Education, 57, A1–A4. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60941100

Gladieux, L. E., & King, J. E. (1999). The federal government and higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 151-182). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Harcleroad, F. F. (1999). The hidden hand. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 241-268). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

IRRC Institute, & Tellus Institute. (2012, July). Environmental, Social and Governance Investing by College and University Endowments in the United States: Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Relations. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.irrcinstitute.org/pdf/FINAL%5FIRRCi%5FESG%5FEndowments%5FStudy%5FJuly%5F2012.pdf

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Liu, Y. (2006, February). Determinants of private giving to public colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6 , 119-140. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23839602&site=ehost-live

Mangan, K. (1999, June 4). Medical professors see threat in corporate influence on research. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45 , A14. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1896876&site=ehost-live

Pollard, J. A. (1952). Corporation support of higher education. Harvard Business Review, 30 , 111-126. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6781279&site=ehost-live

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.

Strout, E. (2006a). Private giving to colleges is up, but fewer alumni make donations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, A27-A29. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19905208&site=ehost-live

Strout, E. (2006b). Regional public colleges struggle to tap corporations and foundations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , 34. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22271078&site=ehost-live

Strout, E. (2006c). Sudan divestment movement gains on campuses. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 , A17-A17. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21669927&site=ehost-live

Strout, E. (2007, March 2). Donations increase for 3rd year in a row. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , A1-A28. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24281080&site=ehost-live

Sua, J. (2013). Does corporate giving pay off? Three different types of corporate giving and brand preference. AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, 24375–376. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86740171

Walton, C., & Bell, J. (2003). New ways to fund higher ed. State Legislatures, 29 , 28-31. Retrieved May 02, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11583668&site=ehost-live

Zagier, A. (2012). Colleges turn to private sector as state support lags. Community College Week, 24, 12. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=76318637

Zusman, A. (1999). Issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 109-148). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Suggested Reading

Asquith, C. (2006, June 29). Demanding divestment from Sudan. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23 , 14-17. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21429002&site=ehost-live

Baade, R., & Sundberg, J. (1996, December). Fourth down and gold to go? Assessing the link between athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 77 , 789-803. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9706044723&site=ehost-live

Bacchetti, R., & Ehrlich, T. (2006, November 17). Reconnecting colleges and foundations. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , B20-B20. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23159093&site=ehost-live

Butcher, K., Kearns, C., & McEwan, P. (2013). Giving till it helps? Alumnae giving and children's college options. Research in Higher Education, 54, 499–513. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89220723

Cash, S. (2005, August). Private voluntary support to public universities in the United States: Late nineteenth-century developments. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5, 343-356. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20197697&site=ehost-live

Gitlin, T. (1985, May 18). Divestment stirs a new generation. Nation, 240 , 585-587. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10978485&site=ehost-live

Gottfried, M., & Johnson, E. (2006, August). Solicitation and donation: An econometric evaluation of alumni generosity in higher education. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6 , 268-281. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24526056&site=ehost-live

Hankin, K. (2011). Corporate philanthropy, college students, and the Lunafest® Film Festival. Feminist Teacher, 21, 229–247. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78854544

Schneider, J. (2007, Spring). Foundations and higher education: Whose agenda? Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21, 28-31. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24839396&site=ehost-live