1. Stephen L. Shapiro - Old Dominion University Joris Drayer – University of Memphis

2.  Giving to colleges and universities up 6.2% in 2008 ($31.60 billion)  Boosted by top 20 institutions (up 11.5%)  Other institutions down 4.2%  Individual alumni gave $8.70 billion Council for Aid to Education, 2009

3.  Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)  Ticket sales account for 28% of generated revenues and 23% of total revenue  Charitable contributions from alumni and others account for 31% generated and 25% total  Together, these two line items account for nearly 60% of generated revenues Fulks, 2008

4.  Football Championship Subdivision (FCS)  Ticket sales account for 17% of generated revenues but only 5% of total revenue  Charitable contributions from alumni and others account for 29% of generated revenue but only 8% of the total revenue  Generated revenues account for only 27% of total revenues in the FCS Fulks, 2008

5.  Despite this success, one population that athletic departments have not successfully cultivated is former student-athletes (FSA)  Former athletes are essentially alumni of the athletic department  Perhaps FSAs have different perceptions/motivations than the general donor population

6.  The purpose of this study was to examine motivations for former student-athlete donors  Mahony, Gladden, and Funk’s (2003) 31-item Donor Motivation Scale (DMS) was adapted to examine the structure and influence of motivations for athletic alumni donors

7.  Billing, Holt, and Smith (1985) identified four motivations for donors: benefits, philanthropic reasons, social reasons, and success of the athletic program  Staurowsky, Parkhouse, and Sachs (1996) added two factors: curiosity and power  Success factor was broken into two categories ▪ Current Success and Tradition (Past Success)

8.  Mahony et al. (2003) developed the Donor Motivation Scale (DMS) which identified eight motivational factors:  Four Success Related Factors ▪ Tradition ▪ Current success of the program ▪ Future success ▪ Community pride  Four Additional Factors ▪ Philanthropic ▪ Escape ▪ Business enhancement ▪ Psychological commitment  Benefits were not included in the scale, but were measured individually

9.  Mahony et al. (2003) found that three of the success factors (future, current, and tradition), benefits (priority seating), and psychological commitment were the strongest motives  Additionally, benefits (priority seating for FB and MBB), tradition, and business enhancement had a significant impact on the size of the donation

10.  Gladden, Mahony, & Apostolopoulou (2005) used a mixed methods approach to understand donor motives  The DMS instrument was used along with qualitative methods  The strongest motivational factors were: ▪ Desire to support and improve the athletic program ▪ Ticket-oriented benefits (priority seating) ▪ Helping student-athletes  Altruistic factors such as “donating to a good cause” were not found to be strong motivators

11.  Participants  Athletic alumni at two NCAA Division I institutions  A total of 745 former student-athlete donors were invited to participate in this study  161 usable surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 21.6%  Procedure  A web based survey was used in the present study  An initial email was sent to participants providing information about the study and a link to the online survey  Survey was identical for both institutions (with the exception of the institution name and mascot)

12. Instrumentation  The online survey consisted of 41 questions  The DMS (31 items) and 2 benefits items adapted from Mahony et al. (2003)  8 demographic and donor information items

13. Data Analysis  Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with promax rotation was conducted on the DMS for factor validity purposes  Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were examined for internal consistency of the motivational factors identified through EFA  Two single item measures regarding donor benefits (priority seating for football and men’s basketball) were not included in the overall scale, but were used in subsequent analysis of donor motivations  Means and standard deviations were examined to identify the relative importance of these motivations for athletic alumni

14. Sample Profile  83.2% of respondents were male  The average age of respondents was 49.9  The majority of current donors were Caucasian (84.5%) and married (72.7%)  The majority of respondents (53.4%) had a household income above $100,000  58.8% of respondents graduated from the institution  The average annual donation was $1,223.70

15. Exploratory Factor Analysis  EFA, using promax rotation, was conducted on an adapted version of the DMS  Eight factors were identified extracting 60.87% of the variance (consistent with Mahony et al., 2003) - 3 Success Related Factors (Tradition, Current Success, and Future Success) - Escape, Business Enhancement, Philanthropic, Psychological Commitment, and Program Image  One item was eliminated from the scale due to inappropriate factor interpretation

16.  Finalized scale contained 8 factors with a total of 30 items  Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) .94 (Escape) .89 (Philanthropic) .85 (Program Image) .83 (Success III – Future Success) .83 (Business Enhancement) .82 (Success I - Tradition) .65 (Psychological Commitment) .62 (Success II – Current Success)

17. Examination of Means & Standard Deviations  Strongest Motivation Sub-Dimensions for Athletic Alumni: 1. Current Success (M = 5.09, SD = 1.04) 2. Tradition (M = 5.05, SD = 1.22) 3. Program Image (M = 4.91, SD = 1.10)  Weakest Motivation Sub-Dimensions for Athletic Alumni: 1. Obtain Seats for Football (M = 2.39, SD = 1.62) 2. Business Enhancement (M = 2.91, SD = 2.00) 3. Obtain Seats for Men’s Basketball (M = 2.95, SD = 1.63)

18.  The DMS structure was generally consistent for former student-athlete donors  One “Psychological Commitment” item was deleted  Considerable changes to the “Tradition” and “Community Pride” Factors ▪ Items were shifted, “Community Pride” was renamed “Program Image” based on these changes

19.  Additional items should be developed for factors with limited items (Business Enhancement, Philanthropic) in order to confirm factor structure with future data collection (general donors, former athletes, alumni, etc.)  Reliability was suspect for Psychological Commitment and Current Success Factors  Additional item generation, data collection, EFA, and CFA is needed to enhance internal consistency and validity of the DMS and its sub-dimensions

20.  Former student-athlete donor motivations appear to differ from the general donor population  Benefits are not the predominant motivation  Athletic alumni care more about tradition and image of the program  It is in the best interest of athletic departments to develop recruitment and retention strategies specific to the wants/needs of athletic alumni

21.  Enhanced Communication  Keep consistent contact with athletic alumni after graduation ▪ Use current athletes  Provide opportunities for involvement to make athletic alumni a “part of the process” ▪ Former Athlete Clubs ▪ Former Athlete Web Page

22.  Sell Image and Tradition  Recruitment and retention strategies for athletic alumni should focus more on promoting the success of athletic programs and less on material benefits for donors

23. Billing, J.E., Holt, D., & Smith, J. (1985). Athletic fund-raising: Exploring the motives behind donations. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Council for Aid to Education. (2009, February). Contributions to colleges and universities up by 6.2% to $31.60 billion. New York, NY: Author. Fulks, D.L. (2008). 2004-2006 NCAA revenue and expenses of Division I intercollegiate athletic programs report. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Gladden, J.M., Mahony, D.F., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2005). Toward a better understanding of college athletic donors: What are the primary motives? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 18-30. Mahony, D.F., Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2003). Examining athletic donors at NCAA Division I institutions. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 9-27. Staurowsky, E.J., Parkhouse, B., & Sachs, M. (1996). Developing an instrument to measure athletic donor behavior and motivation. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 262-277. Verner, M.E., Hecht, J.B., & Fansler, G.A. (1998). Validating an instrument to assess the motivation of athletics donors. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 123-137.