DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 353 628 CS 508 063

AUTHOR Kelly, Kathleen S.TITLE Losing Control in the Nonprofit Sector: An

Examination of Fund-Raising Encroachment.PUB DATE 30 Oct 92NOTE 14p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Speech Communication Association (78th, Chicago, IL,October 29-November 1, 1992). For a related study,see ED 349 603.

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) ReportsResearch /Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Fund Raising; Interviews; Models; 'Nonprofit

Organizations; Organizational Change; *PublicRelations

IDENTIFIERS Louisiana; Maryland

ABSTRACTTo build theory, a study (the third stage in a

program of research) examined encroachment by fund raising on publicrelations in the nonprofit sector. Two sets of in-depth interviewswere conducted with 19 public relations managers in nonprofitorganizations in Maryland and Louisiana. The organizationsrepresented in the purposive sample fell into four of the six majorcategories of recipient organizations (arts, culture and humanities;education; health; and human services). Results indicated thatwhereas only seven of the organizations represented in the study werein a fund-raising encroachment state, three more practice publicrelations under encroachment from a function other than fund raising,and of the remaining nine public relations departments reporting astructurally separate relationship with fund raising, seven appear tobe vulnerable to future encroachment. Results also indicated that:(1) the role as technician, perception of public relations as asecondary function, organizational turbulence, and dependency onprivate gifts lead to the takeover of the public relationsdepartment; and (2) although titles were found to be weak indicatorsof organizational power, higher salaries paid to fund raisers and theparticipation of the public relations function in the decision-makingprocess were found to be strong predictor of vulnerability, orantecedents, to fund-raising encroachment. A model of fund-raisingencroachment was developed from the findings. (Two tables of data anda figure presenting the model are included; 21 references areattached.) (RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

LOSING CONTROL IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR:AN EXAMINATION OF FUND-RAISING ENCROACHMENT

Kathleen S. KellyAssociate Professor

Department of CommunicationUniversity of Southwestern Louisiana

Lafayette, LA 70504-3650(318) 231-6953

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEENTGRANTED BY

-1)ZZ t kat ;L. 5k:;/. At,

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERICI"

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

ViTlfis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationongmating It

r Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction duahty

Points of new or opinions statedln th.sdoc.umerit do not necessarily represent oHictalOERI position or policy

Paper (Top Three) presented to the Commission on Public Relations, Speech Communica-tion Association National Convention, Chicago, IL, October 30, 1992.

TZST COPY AVAILABLE

ABSTRACT

Losing Control in the Nonprofit Sector:An Examination of Fund-Raising Encroachment

Commission on Public Relations, Speech Communication Association National Convention,Chicago, IL, October 29 November 1, 1992.

Although scholars have examined marketing encroachment on public relations in the for-profit sector, little research has been done on encroachment by fund raising in the nonprofitsector. This paper documents fund-raising encroachment and theorizes about external andinternal factors contributing to it. It concludes that role as a technician, perception of publicrelations as a secondary function, organizational turbulence, and dependency on private gifts leadto the takeover of the PR department.

Graduate students enrolled in the 1991 Fall seminar, "Contemporary Issues inPublic Relations," at the University of Southwestern Louisiana conducted the eightinterviews with Louisiana practitioners and wrote preliminary analyses. I wishto acknowledge their contribution to this paper and thank them for their excellentwork. They are: Brian Atkinson, Margaret Anderson, Kathryn Butcher,Christopher Lakos, Andrea LeBlanc, Katherine Meagher, Pierre Pelletier, andRobin Wimberley.

.4

LOSING CONTROL IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR:AN EXAMINATION OF FUND-RAISING ENCROACHMENT

This study represents the third stage in a pro-gram of research on fund-raising encroachment onthe function of public relations in charitable or-ganizations. In this study, in-depth interviews wereconducted with 19 public relations managers inMaryland and Louisiana. Factors leading to en-croachment, as well as the consequences of fund-raising encroachment were explored and analyzed.The findings of this study, supplemented by thefindings of an earlier work, suggest a theoreticalmodel that explains fund-raising encroachment andadds to parallel work on marketing encroachment inthe for-profit sector.

The purpose of this study was to build theory.An earlier exploratory study on the relationshipbetween fund raising and public relations in thosecharitable organizations with missions of educationor arts, humanities and culture, had documented thesubordination of public relations an alarmingproportion of those organizations (Kelly, 1992a).Building on that earlier work, this study againutilized qualitative methods to explore more deeplythe factors associated with fund-raising encroach-ment. The results of this study cannot be general-ized, but can only provide tentative answers to theproblemanswers that, in the form of hypotheses,will be tested systematically in the field in the nextstage of this research program. As presented here,the theoretical model and the conclusions can onlyclaim to represent an interpretation of what theoryand examination of a small, purposive sample tell usabout the encroachment of fund raising on publicrelations in U.S. charitable organizations and theconsequences of such action on public relationspractitioners and their organizations.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Dozier and Lauzen (1990) defined encroachmentas "the assignment of professionals from outsidepublic relations to manage the public relationsfunction" (p. 3). In recent years, these scholarsfrom San Diego State University have undertaken aprogram of research on encroachment on publicrelations by the marketing function (Lauzen, 1990;1991; Dozier and Lauzen, 1990). Although thesestudies have contributed greatly to our understandingof factors related to encroachment, they have limitedthemselves to the phenomenon of marketing en-

croachment, particularly as it occurs in the for-

profit sector.Lauzen (1990) conducted a study similar to this

one, LI which she interviewed 16 public relationsmanagers and identified five reasons for encroach-ment. Two of her reasons, or factors, were internalto public relations: (a) technician role aspirations,and (b) lack of manager competencies. The otherthree were external to public relations: (a) per-ceived lack of manager competencies, (b) topmanagement confusion about public relations, and(c) marketing imperialism, which Lauzen defined asagressive expansion of marketing into responsibilitiestraditionally held by the public relations function.Based on her interview findings, Lauzen collapsedtwo of her external factors, perceived lack of mana-ger c.,a-ii.ietencies and top management confusionabout public relations, into one variable, role sent,and added organizational turbulence to develop amodel of encroachment.

The theoretical foundation of Lauzen's (1990)study, which also is used in this study, was publicrelations role theory, as developed by Broom andDozier (e.g., 1986). Using the parsimonious ex-planation of manager and technician, Lauzen definedmanager competencies as "the behavioral skillsnecessary to engage in the activities that constitutethe public relations manager role" (p. 4). She saidsuch skills are acquired through formal educationand experience and included these variables alongwith strategic planning and issues management asindicators of the manager role.

Summarizing the encroachment model concep-tualized by Lauzen (1990), the role enacted (i.e.,technician or manager) by the most senior person inpublic relations is a function of the interactionbetween his or her role aspirations and competenciesand the role sent by top management. The roleenacted determines whether public relations isregarded as a primary or secondary function in theorganization. Encroachment occurs when the func-tion is perceived as secondary and when organiza-tional turbulence and marketing imperialism arepresent. In other words, Lauzen theorized thatmarketing encroachment is the result of an organiza-tionally weak public relations department and anaggressive marketing department, particularly duringunstable times.

2

Although such studies contribute to our knowle-dge of marketing encroachment on public relationsin the for-profit sector, little research has been doneon the parallel encroachment by fund raising, ordevelopment, in the nonprofit sector. This studydraws from previous research on marketing en-croachment, particularly Lauzen's (1990) theoreticalmodel, to examine the occurrence and factorsassociated with encroachment on public relations bythe fund-raising function.

METHODOLOGYTwo sets of depth interviews were conducted

with public relations managers in 11 nonprofitorganizations in Maryland and in 8 nonprofit or-ganizations in Louisiana. A qualitative researchtechnique, the depth interview was deemed anappropriate tool for exploring the reasons leading toencroachment. As recommended by Glaser andStrauss (1967), however, the findings of this studyare tentative and will be tested using more rigorous,large-sample quantitative research.

Using a purposive sample, all respondents werepublic relations managers who worked for 501(c)(3)charitable organizations that employed at least onefund raiser. The Maryland interviews were con-ducted by the author in June 1991 by telephone.

The Louisiana interviews were conducted in-personand by telephone by graduate students enrolled inthe Contemporary Issues in Public Relations Seminarat the University of Southwestern Louisiana duringthe 1991 Fall Semester. Both sets of interviewswere guided by the same interview schedule, al-though interviewers were encouraged to go beyondthe schedule when fruitful lines of inquiry presentedthemselves.

The organizations represented in the purposivesample fall into four of the six major categories ofrecipient organizations, or uses of tax-deductiblegifts, as defined by the American Association ofFund-Raising Counsel (AAFRC) Trust for Philan-thropy (1991): (1) arts, culture and humanities, (2)education, (3) health, and (4) human services. Notrepresented in the sample are (5) religion, whichtraditionally receives the most U.S. charitabledullars, and (6) public/society benefit, which receiv-es the smallest percentage. As shown in Table 1,the public relations respondents worked for nineeducational organizations, ranging from elementaryto doctoral levels, five arts, culture and humanitiesorganizations, three human services organizations,including a United Way unit in Maryland and onein Louisiana, and two health organizations.

Table 1Types of Nonprofit Organizations Represented

Education:

Private SchoolPublic School SystemPublic 2-Yr. CollegePrivate 4-Yr. College (3)Public University (3)

Arts, Culture and Humanities:

Aquarium/Zoo (2)Museum (2)Public Television Station

N = 19

Human Services:

Goodwill Local UnitUnited Way Local Unit (2)

Health:

American Heart AssociationState Unit

Local Cancer Center

FINDINGSDirectly addressing the occurrence of fund-

raising encroachment, interview subjects were quiredabout public relations' position in the organizationalchart, the structural relationship between public rela-tions and fund raising, and reporting lines. The

findings are presented in Table 2, which categorizesthe 19 organizations by the structural subordination,separateness, or dominance of the public relationsfunction to the fund-raising function.

3

PR Subordinate toFund Raising (N=7)

Private SchoolPrivate 4-Yr. College #2Private 4-Yr. College #3Public University #1Public University #2United Way #1Museum #2

N= 19

Table 2Structural Relationship Between Public Relations

and Fund Raising in 19 Nonprofits

PR Separate from PR Dominant overFund Raising (N=12) Fund Raising (N=0)

Public School SystemPublic 2-Yr. CollegePrivate 4-Yr. College #1Public University #3GoodwillUnited Way #2Aquarium/Zoo #1Aquarium/Zoo #2Public TV StationMuseum #1American Heart AssociationLocal Cancer Center

The fact that public relations does not managefund raising in any of the 19 nonprofit organizationsstudied contradicts Grunig and Hunt (1984), whoincorrectly stated that most charitable organizationsplace the fund-raising function within the publicrelations department. The only source they cited asa basis for their conclusion was one article in thePublic Relations Journal that described the success-ful integration of public relations, marketing, andfund raising at one nonprofit hospital.

In contrast, the national survey of members ofthe Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)who work for educational and cultural organizations,conducted by Kelly (1992a), provided evidence insupport of the findings of this study (i.e., in mostcharitable organizations, the public relations functionis kept separate from or is subsumed by fundraising).

The absence of public relations management ofthe fund-raising function also runs contrary to those,such as Kelly (1991), who defines fund raising as aspecialization of public relations (i.e., the manage-ment of communication between a charitable or-ganization and its donor publics). Indeed, it con-ti adicts the Body of Knowledge Task Force of thePRSA Research Committee (1988), which clearlyintended that fund raising should be defined as acomponent of public relations when it incorporatedthe subheading, "Fund-Raising," as the seventhelement and function of the professional practice ofpublic relations, along with media relations, corn-

t)

munity relations, financial and investor relations,internal relations, public affairs, and marketing,marketing support, and consumer relations.

Supporting Kelly and the Body of KnowledgeTask Force, 73 percent of the educators in a recentnational study (N=79) agreed that fund raising is aspecialization of public relations (Kelly, 1992b).Yet these exploratory data indicate that few publicrelations departments in America's more than700,000 charitable organizations incorporate thefunction of fund raising, or managing donor rela-tions.

The fact that the public relations function issubordinate to the fund-raising function in 37percent of the organizations in this study bodespoorly for the vitality of public relations as amanagement function and for its aspirations tobecome a profession. For example, Kelly (1992b)found in the study of educators just mentioned thatapproximately one-third of all graduates of publicrelations programs housed in departments or schoolsof journalism and mass communication go to workfor nonprofit organizationsas opposed to corpora-tions, PR agencies, and government. It is doubtfulthat these new practitioners will find the oppor-tunities to observe, learn and develop into roles aspublic relations managers if their function is manag-ed by a fund-raising practitioner (i.e., encroachmenthas occurred).

Furthermore, the survival and success of non-profit organizations depends on managing environ-

4

mental interdependencies with multiple publics, notjust donors. Subordination of the public relationsfunction through fund-raising encroachment focusesundue attention on donors at the expensive of otherstrategically important publics, leaving the organiza-tion vulnerable to loss of support and even attack bythose who have been ignored (e.g., legislators,employees, or clients).

Addressing the former point as it relates to thesubcategory of higher educational institutions, 30-year veteran practitioner Michael Radock (1983)wrote: "Not only are these audiences numerous,they are prone to 'participate' in the operation of theinstitution. Thus the college public relations personmust be deft in balancing a broad spectrum ofinterests, alert to rapidly changing concerns amongvarious publics, and imaginative and agile in meet-ing the demands of these special publics" (p. 324).

Providing a macro perspective of the function,Cutup, Center and Broom (1985) stated, "Publicrelations . . . helps organizations anticipate and reactto significant publics' perceptions and opinions, newvalues and life styles in the marketplace, powershifts among the electorate and within legislativebodies, and other changes in the social, economic,technological, and political environment. Withoutthe public relations function, organizations wouldbecome dysfunctional due to their insensitivity tochange" (p. 19).

In short, fund-raising encroachment forces publicrelations practitioners to concentrate on the concernsand demands of only one public, effectively placing"environmental blinders" on the function and theorganizations they strive to serve. Based on systemstheory, such an imbalance eventually will result indysfunctional organizations susceptible to crisesinvolving strategic publics other than donors.

Far from being alarmed, many would applaud thefinding that in the majority of organizations in thisstudy, public relations is structurally separate fromthe fund-raising function. In the earlier study ofencroachment, Kelly (1992a) found that members ofPRSA's Educational and Cultural OrganizationsSection overwhelmingly believed an equal, coopera-tive, and separate relationship with fund raisers isthe ideal. According to one association PR prac-titioner in that study who reported equality with aseparate, related fund-raising foundation, the situationwas the ideal because: "Our public relations func-tions have such a profound effect on the organiza-tion and education as a whole that it shouldn't bediluted with the fund-raising responsibility."

A number of public relations educators appear toshare the popular opinion that a separate, equalrelationship between the two functions is the ideal.Cut lip, Center and Broom (1985), for example,stated, "The two functions must work in closecooperation, but as a general rule it is best not tocombine the functions, whether in a university or inthe Alliance for the Arts" (p. 520). In recentcorrespondence, Cut lip, who is a visible and vocalcritic of marketing encroachment, provided personalobservations in support of his opinion that publicrelations and fund raising should be kept separate.Pointing out weaknesses he partially attributed tothe combination of the two functions at the Univer-sity of Georgia, he wrote, "in contrast, at Wisconsinthe two functions are totally separate and bothfunction effectively. Look at UW's fund raisingfigures and the national publicity [Chancellor] DonnaShalala gets."

Cutup and those practitioners who believe thatseparate and equal status is the ideal relationshiphave not considered the possibility that such astructure may leave the public relations functionvulnerable to fund-raising encroachment. It is

recalled from Lauzen's (1990) model of encroach-ment that organizational turbulence, or unstabletimes, is a factor leading to encroachment of thevablic relations function. Given the fact that decrea-ses in federal funding during the Reagan years andcurrent wide-spread state reductions are forcingcharitable organizations to increase their dependenceon fund raising, and that fund raisingas arguedby Kelly (1992a)is dependent for its success onpublic relations, it can be concluded that an indepen-dent public relations department in any charitableorganization will have difficulty fending off aggres-sive efforts on the part of fund raising to take itover.

Furthermore, separate departmental status withinan organizational structure does not ensure publicrelations equality with fund raising. An imbalancein organizational power and access to the dominantcoalition can conceivably create de facto fund-raising encroachment (i.e., the concerns and demandsof strategic publics other than donors will be ignoredby or under-represented to the organization's topmanagers). The data from this exploratory studylend support to the concept of de facto encroach-ment and reinforce Lauzen's (1990) suggestion thatfuture research should investigate how the power-control perspective can be used as an explanatorydevice for encroachment.

The depth interviews included measures oforganizational power and access to the dominantcoalition, including participation in policy decisionsand strategic planning. The standardized interviewguide also covered such indicators as differencesbetween public relations and fund raising in staffsizes, salaries, and titles of the most senior officer.An examination of the responses of those publicrelations managers who reported that their functionwas structurally separate from fund raising revealswidespread inequities that diminish the contributionof public relations to organizational effectiveness andthat may be antecedents to actual encroachment.

Structurally Separate DepartmentsOf the 12 public relations managers reporting a

separate departmental structure, only 3 providedevidence that such a structure has protected theautonomy of public relations and is stable. Morecommon is the case of Public University #3, whosenew president already has expressed an interest inhiring a vice president with "proven fund-raisingabilities" to oversee both the fund-raising and publicrelations departments. The chief public relationsofficer, who has worked at the university for 22years, including the last 18 as director of publicaffairs, did not appear to be threatened by impend-ing encroachment and, indeed, defined public rela-tions as a support function for fund raising. As heexplained:

Fund raising is essential to the continued successand growth of any university, especially oneoperating in this sort of economy. Without themoney generated by fund raising, the universitywould not be able to operate. Therefore, the roleof the public relations department is to providesupport services to fund raisingkeeping theuniversity's name out in front of the public so thatwhen [the fund raiser] goes asking for donations,the public will know who we are and what we do.This is true for any nonprofit organization.

Similarly, the director of public relations andcommunity affairs at the Local Cancer Centerasserted that fund raising and public relations areseparate functions in his organization, but added thatit might not be like that much longer. Althoughprodded, he was unwilling to elaborate about pro-posed changes because nothing had been concretelydecided.

In other words, although separate departmentalstructures may be the ideal, they provide littleprotection for the autonomy of the public relationsdepartment, particularly in unstable times such asthe current recession.

C)

5

Focusing on the self-perception of public rela-tions as a supportive, rather than a primary or-ganizational function, Lauzen (1990) reported thatseveral of the public relations managers she inter-viewed argued that public relations is often takenover by other departments because the public rela-tions department cannot prove its contribution to the"bottom line." As demonstrated by the quote justgiven, this same self-perception was common amongthe practitioners interviewed for this study on fund-raising encroachment_ The chief public relationsofficer for United Way #2 defined his department'sfunction as "telling and selling of United Waystories through a number of outlets," whereas thefund raising department "contributes to the bottomline by bringing in the money."

This distinction between the "bottom-line"contribution made by fund raising and the "story-telling" contribution made by public relations toorganizational effectiveness appears to have somevalue in predicting fund-raising encroachment andshould be tested in future studies. In a number ofthe 12 cases reporting a public relations departmentseparate from fund raising, expressions about thisdistinction were commonly linked to signs of defacto encroachment. For example, the chief publicrelations officer for United Way #2 just quoted saidthat although he and the head of the fund-raisingdepartment both report directly to the local unit'sexecutive director, his department has no power inthe decision-making process of the organizationunlike the fund-raising department, which has somepower in decisions. He complained, "A publicrelations representative should have somewhat moresay-so in the meetings. It's almost like we are notincluded in such an important process."

According to the student interviewer, this prac-titioner opened up at the conclusion of the interviewand freely discussed the domination of the fund-raising department in his organization. He said thatthe fund-raising function is more important to topmanagement because of monetary reasons andpredicted that the public relations department willremain subordinate to fund raising, but will maintaina positive and functional relationship. This pes-simistic, yet idealistic prediction reflects the attitudeof 20 percent of the respondents (N=184) in theearlier study conducted by Kelly (1992a).

In addition to exclusion from the decision-makingprocess and explicit statements about fund raising'sdomination, it was found that the fund-raisingdepartment in United Way #2 has three professional

6

staff members, whereas the public relations depart-ment is a one-person shop. This imbalance in staffresources was noted in 4 of the 12 organizationswith structurally separate departments: the threecases already discussed (United Way #2, the LocalCancer Center, and Public University #3) andPrivate 4-Yr. College #1, with proportionally greaterfund-raising staffs ranging from 44 percent to 600percent.

It should be noted here that three of the or-ganizations represented in the category, "PR Separatefrom Fund Raising," have incorporated publicrelations within a department headed by a managerwith a background other than PR or fund raising.In other words, 3 of the 12 managers reporting aseparate relationship with fund raising alreadypractice public relations under encroachment, al-though that encroachment is not from fund raising.Three of the four arts, culture and humanitiesorganizations included in this category are so struc-tured. For example, the head of public relations atthe Public Television Station reports to the seniorvice president of international and national produc-tion, whereas public relations is part of the market-ing department in both Aquarium/Zoo #1 and #2.

This evidence of encroachment by marketing andfunctions other than fund raising is hardly goodnews for those who approach public relations as amanagement function and an emerging profession.The director of public relations for Aquarium/Zoo#2, whose function is incorporated within themarketing department, declined several times tocompare the fund-raising and public relations func-tions in his organization. He said that it was likecomparing a graduate student to a professor, becausedevelopment, or fund raising, was "a much largerand more complex function than public relations."He said a more valid comparison could be madebetween fund raising and marketing as these depart-ments are of equal footing and salaries paid to theirrespective vice presidents are equal.

Of the remaining five organizations reportingstructurally separate departments of public relations,one, the state unit of the American Heart Associa-tion, has equal staff sizes (1 each) for both publicrelations and fund raising, whereas four reportedslightly larger staffs in public relations: the PublicSchool System, Public 2-Yr. College, Museum #1,and Goodwill. In the first two organizations, fundraising is a relatively new function, one that theorganizations added 10 years or more after employ-ing their first public relations practitioners. For

example, the Public School Systemas part of arecent national trendhired its first fund raiserduring the last five years, but has had at least onefull-time, paid staff member to carry out publicrelations duties for more than 15 years. Museum#1, which is owned by state government, has apublic relations staff of three professionals, butrelied on volunteers for its fund raising efforts untilit employed its current director of development, whoonly works on a part-time basis.

The difference in time between the establishmentof the two functions may be a predictor of fund-raising encroachment (i.e., the longer an organizationhas had a fund-raising department, the more likelyfund-raising encroachment will take place).

Only the Goodwill local unit has a slightly largerstaff in public relations (3) as in fund raising (2)and has had both functions for approximately thesame length of time, 10 to 19 years. As mentionedearlier, only 3 of the 12 organizations categorized asstructurally separate provided evidence that such astructure has preserved the autonomy of publicrelations and is stable. Those three organizationsare Goodwill, Private 4-Yr. College #1, and the stateunit of the American Heart Association. To explorefactors that may be related to such a status, theanalysis turns to a comparison of titles, salaries, andinternal characteristics of the public relations func-tion.

Comparisons of Titles and SalariesIt was assumed that differences in levels of

organizational titles of the most senior persons inpublic relations and fund raising and in salaries ofpractitioners in both departments are indicators oforganizational power, which may help predict defacto and actual encroachment. Comparing the titlesof the most senior managers in public relations andfund raising in all 19 cases included in the studyrevealed that titles are a weak predictor of encroach-ment. In about half of the organizations (9), thetitle of the most senior manager in fund raising washigher in the organizational hierarchy than that ofthe public relations manager. For example, in sevenof those nine organizations, the most senior fundraiser was a vice president of equivalent, whereasthe most senior public relations manager was adirector, manager, officer vi associate vice presi-dent. In the remaining half of the organizations(10), the titles were equa , with the senior managersof both functions holding the same title: director ormanager. In no organization was the title of the

poi 7

most senior person in public relations higher in theorganizational hierarchy than the most senior personin fund raising.

Salaries, on the other hand, appear to be a strcagindicator of organizational power. Of those inter-view subjects who answered questions about salarycomparison and who work for an organization thatemploys at least one fund raiser full-time, 12 of the13 respondents (92%) reported that salaries forpublic relations practitioners and/or the senior PRmanager in their organization generally are lowerthan salaries for fund raisers. Although three of thesubjects reporting lower salaries attributed the dif-ference to the chief fund raiser's longer tenure withthe organization and/or higher academic credentials,the majority of the respondents gave no extenuatingreasons or expressed their opinion that fund raiserdeserve more because they contribute more to the"bottom line."

Illustrating the absence of reasons for salarydifferences, the public relations director at Private 4-Yr. College #3 admitted that her salary is lower thanthat of the director of development even though shehas worked at the college four years longer and hasmore college education. Again, there were noorganizations represented in the study that paid theirpublic relations practitioners more than their fundraisers.

This finding, although drawn from a small andpurposive sample, contradicts the most recent salarysurvey by PRSA, which included "fund-rais-ing/philanthropy" for first time ("PRJ salary survey,"1991). In the table, "Salaries by Area of PublicRelations," fund raising is listed as the third lowestsalary at 538,544, below even PR education, al-though the table warned that the fund-raising datawere drawn from a small base of only 29 of the2,606 completed questionnaires (p. 21).

Yet publications that focus on nonprofit organiza-tions have consistently reported higher salaries forfund raisers than for public relations practitioners.For example, The Chronicle of Higher Education ( "-Administrators' median salaries," 1992) recentlyreported the results of the annual salary surveyconducted by the College and University PersonnelAssociation, which showed that the median salaryfor the chief development officer for all highereducational institutions is $64,000 in 1991-92, ascompared with $43,048 for the chief public relationsofficera difference of approximately $20,000 (p.A15). The difference in 1990-91 was approximatelyS19,000 ("Median salaries," 1991, p. A15). Perhaps

I u

an additional incentive for fund-raising encroachmenton the public relations function in those charitableorganizations with higher educational missions is thefact that the chief development and public relationsofficer earns a median salary of $71,000, or $7,000more than those fund raisers who do not manage thepublic relations function.

Similarly, an article in The Chronicle of Philant-hropy ("Cash compensation," 1989) reported theresults of nine separate studies compiled by Indepen-dent Sector (IS) that showed the top public relationsperson in all types of nonprofit organizations earnedapproximately $10,000 less than the top fund raiser,$54,300 v. $64,000, (p. 28). Moving away fromsenior managers, the IS report showed that publicrelations students entering the job market can expectto earn much more as fund raisers than as PRpractitioners. A fund raising/grant position in alltypes of nonprofit organizations paid a median salaryof $55,600, whereas a public relations position paid$35,000, or $20,600 less.

Returning to the study at hand, only one respon-dent reported that in his organization, salaries ofpublic relations practitioners are equal to salaries offund raisers. This organization was the Goodwilllocal unit, which has a public relations departmentseparate from fund raising.

Although Goodwill has had both functions forapproximately 10 to 19 years, the public relationsdepartment has one more staff person than the fund-raising department. Furthermore, although the mostsenior fund raiser holds the title of vice presidentfor development and the most senior public relationspractitioner holds the lower title of director ofcommunications ani planning, they both report tothe chief execr.tive officer.

Obviously, there are factors other than structuralrelationship, titles, and salaries that would helpexplain fund-raising encroachment.

Internal Characteristicsof the PR Department

Of the 12 organizations categorized as having apublic relations department separate from fundraising, only threethe state unit of the AmericanHeart Association, the Goodwill local unit, andPrivate 4-Yr. College #1were found to have apublic relations department that appeared to holdorganizational status equal to that of the fund-raising department in a structure that was stable.

To explore the factors accounting for what manypractitioners and educators consider this ideal state

8

of separate and equal, the paper turns to individualanalysis of each of the three organizations.

As repeatedly pointed out by the director ofcommunity programs and communications for theAmerican Heart Association, the public relations andfund-raising functions operate as two separate andequal departments at the state unit level becausethey emulate the structure, relationship, and degreeof organizational power of their counterparts at thenational level. Even standards in terms of employ-ment categories and ranges of salaries are set by thenational office of the American Heart Association,and although these standards are not mandatory, thestate unit adopted them as proposed. In otherwords, a factor related to the absence of fund-raising encroachment in this human services agencyis the organizational model set by the organization'snational headquarters.

Such a factor does not provide long-term stabili-ty. For example, the American Red Cross recentlymerged its fund-raising and communication depart-ments into a "Department for Public Support" at thenational level ("American Red Cross," 1989).According to an article reporting the merger, theorganization wanted to expand the duties and func-tions of the fund-raising department. Explainingthe reasons behind the reorganization, the newdepartment's vice president was quoted as stating,"We were moving into a more diversified form offundraising [sic] which relates heavily to media &pr" (p. 4). As the article concluded, the merger/ -name change only was made for the American RedCross' headquarters in Washington, DC, "but somechapters are following suit" (p. 4).

The case of the Goodwill local unit providessupport for Lauzen's (1990) model of encroachment.It is recalled that, according to this model, the roleenacted (i.e., technician or manager) by the mostsenior person in public relations determines wheth-er public relations is regarded as a primary orsecondary function in the organization. Encroach-ment occurs when the function is perceived assecondary and when organizational turbulence andmarketing imperialism are present.

Although no quantitative measures were made ofthe roles enacted by the public relations practitionersparticipating in this study, subjective conclusions bythe "iterviewers placed the majority of the cases inthe role of technician. For example, the practitionerat the state unit of the American Heart Associationexpressed her preference for working on communityprograms, as opposed to the research tasks which

1

were recently added to her job description and forwhich she has little experience. The public relationsdirector for Aquarium/Zoo #2 described his primaryduties as seeing that news releases get published andaired. Although he said that he spends a great L..21of time making personal appearances on radio andtelevision, his office does not do any research.

The director of public relations at Private 4-Yr.College #3 described her primary duty as producingthe college's newspaper, for which she does every-thing from photography to editing. She emphasizedthat she loved the creativity of her job and referredto public relations as a "catch-all-office."

Variables such as these have distinguish ycl

technicians from managers in role studies by Broomand Dozier (e.g., 1986).

Basically, researchers have found that prac-titioners functioning in the technician role are hands-on people who primarily are concerned with produc-ing communications, oftc' without knowledge of theproblem prompting the communication or its in-

tended results. They are not part of the manage-ment team, and as such, they have little or noimpact on organizational decision making. Man-agers, on, the other hand, are viewed by an organiza-tion's senior management as experts in publicrelations. They are given autonomy and are in-cluded in policy making. Unlike technicians, theyuse resean;h, such as environmental scanning, tohelp an organization manage its environmentalinterdependencies. Both research and participationin the organizational decision-making process havebeen associated with role differences.

Most recently, preliminary results of the seminalresearch project on public relations excellence,sponsored by the International Association of Busi-ness Communicators (IABC), show that participationin strategic planning is a significant distinguishingvariable between managers and technicians (J.

Grunig, personal conversation).Returning to Goodwill, it is enlightening to

repeat that although the senior most practitioner inpublic relations is only a directorwhereas the mostsenior fund raiser is a vice presidentthis prac-titioner's full title is director of communication andplanning. Although generally titles were proven tobe poor predictors of encroachment, in this case, thetitle emphasizes the fact that, according to theinterview subject, strategic planning for the entireorganization comes out of the public relationsdepartment. In other words, the most recent vari-able distinguishing between the enacted role of

technician or manager, strategic planning, wasobserved in the case of Goodwill and provides someexplanation for the absence of fund-raising encroach-ment in that organization.

In addition, the current separate departmentalstructure between public relations and fund raisingmay be more stable in Goodwill than in otherorganizations because of the fact that Goodwill,unlike many other charities, generates 90 percent ofits revenue nationally from goods and services, asopposed to government allocations and private gifts.For example, the local unit participating in thisstudy averages about 7 percent of its revenue fromprivate support. Following this line of thought,organizational dependence on fund raising, par-ticularly in times of economic uncertainty, may bean antecedent to fund-raising encroachment on thepublic relations function, whereas diversified sourcesof revenue may deter fund-raising encroachment incharitable organizations.

Participation in strategic planning provides insighton the value placed on public relations by seniormanagers of the organization. As stated throughoutthis discussion, many public relations practitionershold a self-perception of lesser contribution of theirfunction to organizational effectiveness than thebottom-line contribution of fund raising. TheGoodwill practitioner did not express such a self-perception; rather as the source of strategic manage-ment, he viewed his department as critical to hisorganization's success.

Similarly, the senior public relations practitionerat Private 4-Yr. College #1 viewed her function'scontribution as primary, rather than secondary, andattributed her equal status as a vice president to thevalue placed on public relations by senior manage-ment. This value, she admitted, was greatly heigh-ten by a recent crisis faced by her organization.

Historically a women's college, the institutionwas forced by declining enrollments to change itsmission to coeducational approximately six yearsago. The performance and leadership of the publicrelations department throughout the resulting crisisconvinced the president and other senior managersthat a public relations department, autonomous fromfund raising, was essential to the organization'ssurvival and success. Before the crisis, the seniorPR practitioner was a director, who only participatedin senior staff meetings on an ad hoc basis. Afterthe crisis, she was promoted to vice president andbecame a regular member of the college's seniorstaff, along with the vice president for development.

9

As argued by Kelly (1992a), this organization'ssenior managers recognized that fund raising con-cerned itself with one publicdonorswhereaspublic relations concerned itself with all publics thatcould affect the organization's success, such asalumnae, students, community leaders, trustees, andthe media. As such, it was essential that the seniorpublic relations practitioner participate in the decis-ion-making process and strategic planning. In otherwords, it took a crisis for the senior mana<ers ofPrivate 4-Yr. College #1 to value the contributionof the public relations function, a fact readilyadmitted by the interview subject.

The rich, descriptive data gained from thisparticular case open a new line of inquiry regardingencroachment How does the occurrence of a crisisaffect an organization's appreciation and value of thepublic relations function? Why does a previouscrisis serve as a deterrent to fund-raising encroach-ment? It may be that the public relations functionis and will remain vulnerable to fund-raising en-croachmentregardless of other factorsuntil anorganization experiences a crisis with publics otherthan donors.

CONCLUSIONSFollowing J. Grunig (1992), the research program

of fund-raising encroachment represented by thisstudy is based on the central premise that autonomyis a fundamental goal of an organization because thesuccessful attainment of all goals is dependent onsome degree of autonomy and that the purpose ofpublic relations is to help an organization manageenvironmental interdependencies in order to protectand enhance the organization's autonomy. As statedby Grunig and Grunig (1992), "Public relationsincreases the effectiveness of organizations bymanaging the interdependence of the organizationwith publics that restrict its autonomy" (p. 313).

Because most organizations are linked to adiverse range of publics, one function must beresponsible for monitoring the organization's statuswith all. Potentially, every public that is affected byan organization (e.g., employees, community resi-dents, government agencies, media, consumers,stockholders, donors, and activist groups) has theability and the power to limit an organization'sautonomy through loss of revenue, increased costs,regulation, disruption of operations, increased taxa-tion, decreased productivity, opposition to expan-sion, negative publicity, damaged reputation, and soforth. Each potential means, if enacted, limits an

10

organization's ability to pursue its self-determinedgoalswhether they are profit-related goals of thecorporate sector, mission-related goals of the non-profit sectar, or public service-related goals of thegovernment sectorand limits the organization'smeans to pursue those goals (i.e., they limit theautonomy of the organization).

Public relations' value to an organization, there-fore, is diminished when encroachment takes place

whether that encroachment comes from themarketing function, the fund-raising function, oranother organizational function such as humanresources. When managed by an individual fromanother profession, the primary purpose of publicrelations is displaced by the functional goals of themanager (e.g., increasing sales or tax-deductiblecontributions). Other organizational goals and thecritical publics related to them are ignored, and theorganization becomes vulnerable to crises involvingthose publics and eventual loss of autonomy.

This study documents the occurrence of fund-raising encroachment in four of the six major typesof charitable organizationsa phenomenon thatcurrently is diminishing the status and organizationalcontribution of public relations in the nonprofitsector.

Whereas only 7 of the 19 organizations repre-sented in the study are in a fund-raising encroach-ment state, 3 more practice public relations underencroachment from a function other than fund

raising, such as marketing, and of the remaining 9public relations departments reporting a structurallyseparate relationship with fund raising, 7 appear tobe vulnerable to fugue encroachment.

Following Lauzen's (1990) model of encroach-ment, this vulnerability is related to the role enactedby the most senior person in public relations, whichin turn determines whether public relations is regard-ed as a primary or secondary function in the or-ganization, and by the presence of organizational tur-bulence, which places a greater dependency on fundraising.

Although titles were found to be weak indicatorsof organizational power, higher salaries paid to fundraisers and the participation of the public relationsfunction in the decision-making process were foundto be strong predictors of vulnerability, or antece-dents, to fund-raising encroachment.

Based on these findings, Figure 1 presents amodel of fund-raising encroachment adapted fromLauzen.

Figure 1A Theoretical Model of Fund-Raising Encroachment

OrganizationalTurbulence

4Role Sent by Dependency onSr. Management Fund Raising

Role Enacted PR Regarded as Primary Fund-Raisingor Secondary Function Encroachment

Role Aspirations &Competencies ofSr. PR Practitioner

Adapted from Lauzen (1990)

The findings of this qualitative study confirmprevious research and opens new lines of inquiry,creating questions and hypotheses that must betested in large-sample, quantitative studies. For

example, how strong of a predictor of fund-raisingencroachment is participation in strategic planning bythe public relations function? What is the relation-ship between organizational experience with crises

1

and encroachment on the public relations function?Why do some public relations departments in

charitable organizations perceive their contribution asless than that of the fund-raising department?

Finally, further research is needed to determinewhat precautions, if any, public relations prac-titioners can take against what appears to be agrowing trend in fund-raising encroachment. Kelly(1992a) argued that in its own protection and forthe benefit of the organization, public relations prac-titioners and scholars must reconsider their world-view of fund raising as a separate function andinstead approach fund raising as one of publicrelations' specializations. In other words, encroach-ment on the fund-raising function by public relationsmay be the only effective defense to fund-raisingencroachment.

As Ralph Frede (cited in "Special message,"1989) warned nonprofit practitioners upon his retire-ment as vice president of public affairs at BaylorCollege of Medicine, "If you want to do [nonprofit]PR, you must learn fundraising [sic]. You don'tenter a corporation and say, 'I don't give a damnabout the bottom line.-

REFERENCES

Administrators' median salaries up 2.6%, trailing inflation.(1992, February 5). The Chronicle of Higher Educa-tion, pp. 1, A14-A15, A17).

American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel (AAFRC)Trust for Philanthropy. (1991). Giving USA: Theannual report on philanthropy for the year 1990.New York: Author.

American Red Cross merges fundraising & comn deptsinto "public support." (1989, September 25). prreporter, p. 4.

Body of Knowledge Task Force of the PRSA ResearchCommittee. (1988). Public relations body of kr,ow-ledge task force report. Public Relations Review,14(1), 3-40.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1986). Advancementfor public relations role models. Public RelationsReview, 12(1), 37-56.

Cash compensation of executives of non-profit organiza-ticns. (1989, October 17). The Chronicle of Philan-thropy, p. 28.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1985).Effective public relations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

I

11

Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (1990). Antecedentsand consequences of marketing imperialism on thepublic relations function. Paper presented to thePublic Relations Division, Association for Educationin Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis,

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies dor qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relationsand effective organizations: An overview of the book.In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relationsand communication management: Contributions toeffective organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of publicrelations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.),Excellence in public relations and communicationmanagement: Contributions to effective organizations.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing publicrelations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations:A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Kelly, K. S. (1992a). Fund-raising encroachment on thepublic relations function in charitable organizations.Paper presented to the Public Relations Interest Group,International Communication Association 42nd AnnualConference, Miami, FL, May 1992.

Kelly, K. S. (1992b). Fund rasing: Functional elementin public relations education. Journalism Educator(Summer 1992), pp. 19-25.

Lauzen, M. M. (1990). Losing control: An examinationof the management function in public relations. Paperpresented to the Public Relations Division, Associationfor Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,Minneapolis, MN, August 1990.

Lauzen, M. M. (1991). When marketing imperialismmatters: An examination of marketing imperialism atthe manager level. Paper presented to the PublicRelations Division, Association for Education inJournalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA,August 1991.

Median salaries of college and university administrators,1990-91. (1991, January 23). The Chronicle ofHigher Education, p. A15.

Radock, M. (1983). Public relations for educationalinstitutions. In P. Lesly (Ed.), Lesly's public rela-tions handbook (3rd ed.), pp. 313-328. EnglewoodCliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.

PRJ salary survey. (1991, June). Public RelationsJournal, pp. 18-23.

Special message to nonprofit practitioners. (1989, Sep-tember 18). pr reporter, p. 2.