USF MPA Exploring Non-Profit Fundraising

Click here for transcripts

Ixchelle Hicks: Good afternoon, everyone thank you all very much for participating in our University of San Francisco online Master of Public Administration presentation on Non-profit Fundraising with Dr. Richard Waters. Just want to go over a few house rules for everyone. We ask that you keep your phone lines muted. You do have an opportunity to submit any questions or if you have any technical difficulties via our chat window. So please feel free to send us a message, via the chat window, whether be a question or if you need technical assistance.

My name is Ixchelle Hicks; I am the enrollment advisor for the online Masters in Public Administration degree program. And my colleague is Malini Seearam she is the program coordinator for our program. As the enrollment advisor I’ll be your point of contact to answer any program questions, any application admission questions. Malini’s role is your student support in the program. so she will answer any type of registration questions, ordering text books but we are here to help and you can reach us anytime via telephone or email.

We are really excited today to have Dr. Richard Waters with us today to speak on a very topical area of non-profit fundraising. This has been a question that comes up quite a bit in our conversations with perspective applicants so we’re really grateful that he’s taking this time today to go into a little bit more depth into some components of fundraising for non-profits.

Dr. Waters is an associate professor in the school of Management at the University of San Francisco, where he teaches strategic communication and public relation courses. He’s the author of more than seventy-five peer reviewed journal articles and book chapters. He is the associate editor of Case Studies in Strategic Communication and serves on the editorial review board of the Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review and the Journal of Public and Non-Profit Sector Marketing. His latest book Public Relations in the Non-Profit Sector Theory and Practice was published in January 2015, by Peter Lang. Professionally he was a fundraising practitioner in California for the past five years before earning his doctorate degree from the University of Florida. So we’re really excited to have him here with us today, for our online Masters in Public Administration students. Dr. Waters does teach PA-685, which is our Strategic Management of Public Communications course. So we’re very happy that you’ll have an opportunity to meet with him today.


Dr. Waters are you on the line?

Dr. Richard Waters: I am, are you able to hear me?

Ixchelle Hicks: We are, is there anything that you would like to add to your bio as a brief introduction before we move on?

Dr. Richard Waters: Nothing about the bio but let me just give a quick preface to the talk itself. This does focus on Non-Profit fundraising but it is one of those things that this is the style of content that I think you would find across the MPA curriculum. So it’s a little bit theory but also mostly focusing on the practice to help make an informed decision.

Ixchelle Hicks: We appreciate that, thank you. So we’ll move on and we’ll just speak a little bit to the online MPA program. The online MPA program offers 100% course work that is offered online. It’s a total of thirteen courses that can be completed in 24-months if our students pursue the program year round. It’s a well-designed learning goal oriented curriculum. Meaning that you can take what you learn into the program and apply it directly into your work environment. We do have three enrollment periods, traditionally fall, which is our august start, spring, which is our January start and then summer is May. And of course a lot of people look at our online Masters in Public Administration program because we are highly ranked in the reputation of University of San Francisco. And we have top faculty that have professional as well as academic experience, in the field of Public Administration.

So we’re going to go straight into our presentation for today, because we do recognize that you all are joining us during your lunch break, and for those of you on Central Standard Time and Eastern Standard Time, we appreciate you taking an hour of your day to be with us. So we’ll go ahead and get started with our Non-Profit Fundraising, Dr. Waters?

Dr. Richard Waters: Thank you very much, good afternoon everyone and thank you for joining us on this webinar. So let’s just dive right into the content here, so one of the things that I teach, not only in the Non-Profit Administration program, but also in the Strategic Management and Public Communication course, in the MPA side, is the importance of relationship building with an organization and its external stake holders. And so here today we’re going to talk specifically about fundraising in the Non-Profit sector, but really the concept of relationship management and growing that relationship, strengthening it through organizational behaviors. Certainly applies to the public administration and the public sector side of things as well.


To talk about fundraising, one of the things that we as fundraisers really try to strive for is the notion of getting individuals connected to the organization so that ultimately, whether it’s through web solicitation, direct mail solicitation, a telephone call we move individuals up from the annual giving donor. We try to strengthen that relationship so that we can hopefully move some of them up to become a major gift donor. And then ultimately a lot of donors wind up wanting to leave an organization in their will, do some sort of plan giving effort, to really make that lifelong commitment to the non-profit organization.

And so what I’m going to talk to you a little bit about today is this notion of relationship management theory. Because that’s really going to serve as sort of the platform for not only fundraising, but also for how we as public agencies go about growing our relationships with our stake holders. And so one of the things that we see, this sort of theoretical perspective argue. And let me say from the beginning that even though the word theory is out there please doesn’t be scared by that, because I really try to take a practical approach when introducing theory. So I all myself a ‘pracademic’, so someone that has the academic has, but also has a strong practical side. I don’t think theory is really useful, unless we can actually see it play out day to day. So with this relationship management theory, what we ultimately see is that there is some trigger that gets people connected to our organization.

So as you see on the screen we’ve got this external Antecedent, and for fundraising in the non-profit sector, maybe that’s going to be something that’s something as simple as seeing a public service announcement maybe we have a family member or a friend who’s gone through a program or service and we’ve seen the impact of that non-profit. But there’s something that brings us into that relationship. And once we have made that initial sort of connection to the organization, ultimately those internal stake holders. So those people in this organization who are the fundraisers, those people who are on the management team, those that are doing any sort of external client facing role; they’ve got a variety of different strategies that they can do to build and grow that relationship. Because what we ultimately see is that strategy there, and sort of that center box on that bottom line of the screen, ultimately is what we’re really using to connect and really strengthen the relationship with the public.


But what our relationship management theory perspective argue is, is that that relationship between the organization and that external stake holder, really can be measured through different relationship outcomes. And we’ll see on this next slide sort of an extension or an elaboration of what this initial model looks like. Because ultimately we have the organization, here on the far left side, using a variety of different strategies, there in that center column, to impact the audience or the public’s real perception of the relationship. And what we’ve seen be most successful in predicting behaviors, is that by measuring trust, the balance of power in a relationship, whether it’s one sided, or it’s an equal partnership, the commitment to the organization, the commitment to the mission that the non-profit is pursuing, and ultimately the satisfaction with the interactions that an individual has with the organization. Those four outcomes really have been shown to be very strongly predictive of whether or not somebody is going to be involved with an organization. In this particular context, you know we’ve tested it in the fundraising realm. But it’s shown to be successful with voting, it’s shown to be successful in the consumer realm. So looking at purchases, we’ve seen it work in volunteer; we’ve seen it work in the human resources, so the employee/employer relationship. So this perspective has had quite a bit of success in really determining and predicting who is going to be involved with particular organization.

So let me talk a little bit about these different strategies, because I think that’s going to be helpful to understand how this really plays out in the fundraising realm. Open this really talks about and really looks at and explores an organizations dedication and willingness to be accountable and transparent. So it really looks at providing those IRS-990 forms for non-profits. Giving annual updates or different measures, or different reports to let people know what’s going on.
Networking really sort of talks about the organization being a community citizen rather than being sort of an isolationist. So with networking in the fundraising realm what it really sort of looked at was whether or not the non-profit was connected to other non-profit addressing the mission. Was it connected to foundations, corporations, the community at large, really trying to show that it is really trying to reach out and connecting to all realms of the environments that it is working in.


Access, focused on the ability to the donor to feel like they can reach out and talk to someone, or email someone at the organization. So that if they have a question they have the ability to reach out and do their best to get an answer by that organization. They feel they’ve got the communication flow that they can establish.

Sharing of tasks looks at how the organization actually can work with the individual in particular, to really deliver those programs and services of that non-profit. So in many ways this is sort of where networking looked at the organization’s role in the community, sharing of tasks really looks at that partnership or collaboration between the organization and the donor.

Assurances looks at whether or not you as the donor, if you have concerns about the organization or any sort of questions, this is what really focuses on the organization letting you know that it’s acting on those concerns and questions. And will let you know that your concerns are important and are being taken seriously.

Positivity looks at generally just being pleasant. You know the interactions that you have with everyone really boils down to whether or not you feel good after those interactions.

And stewardship this last one on this column really is a representation of four different strategies that are sort of collapsed into stewardship here, for space reasons. But stewardship really looks at four different strategies, reciprocity, which basically boils down to saying thank you and demonstrating some level of public recognition for those that are involved with your organization. Responsibility, which basically is, keeping promises. So as we’re talking to different stake holder groups, we may make promises to them. So for a donor I may say that I may raise funds for a particular cause, and I have to make sure that that money raised goes to the particular program goes to particular services that I raised it for, rather than using it for other organizational expenses. But stewardship also argues that responsibility and keeping the promises isn’t enough. I also have to engage in the third, sort of dimension of stewardship which is the recording. Which means that I have to make sure that everything that I do as a fundraiser, and to keep my promises, I need to make sure that I’m letting you know and actually report back to you so that you’re fully informed and in the loop of what’s going on. The final dimension of stewardship really looks at relationship nurturing and that really focuses on whether or not you as the donor really feels that you are informed of organizational decision making and why things are progressing the way that they are with the organization.


So one of the courses that you’ll take with the MPA program, focuses on strategic planning, and so this demission, relationship nurturing really ties a lot in to strategic planning, in the sense that when you as that organizational representative are making decisions, you want to get to a point where you’re not so organization centric. That you’re not thinking about how the decisions may impact those outside the organization, so as relationship nurturing what you’re doing is really making sure that the wants, the needs the concerns of the external stake holders are really brought into play and into consideration when making a decision. So what we’re going to talk about today, is how these different relationship cultivation strategies, ultimately impact those different level relationship outcomes. So the trust all the way down to your satisfaction on the right side of the screen. And one of the things that we first did to figure out which relationship feelings were most important, was really sort of stopped to see which ones made the biggest difference in terms of the overall relationship outcome. The relationship with _____.

So what we did with this particular research study was work with three hospitals in Northern California who gave us permission to work with their donor data base once they had it anatomized so that nobody knew who was participating by name, we just had basic numbers to look at. But we sent out a survey to them to assess the different levels of relationship and terms of those four relationship feelings, trust down to your commitment. But also asked them to assess the impact of the various relationship cultivation strategies. And so what we then wanted to do was to take those data that were collected and really match them up to their previous giving history. Because one of the things that you’ll see with fundraising, if you’re not already familiar with it, is that it’s much easier for a fundraiser for a non-profit organization to raise funds from somebody who has already given, then it is from somebody who is a potentially new perspective donor to the organization. So one of the things that we were looking for here, on this particular slide is to try to figure out which relationship feelings. Made the biggest difference in terms of predicting someone that had given in the past. Because those have given in the past are more likely to give in the future.

And so one of the things that you see, and I wouldn’t expect you to jump into this and understand the underlining statistics, because it’s fairly complicated but the key thing that you really should be able to take away from this particular slide, really sort of look at the ability of this relationship management theory to be able to predict who gave and who did not give. And the hospitals most recent fundraising campaign.


And if you look at that table, you can see that the formula that was created by the statistics that was based on the data from the individuals, wind up showing that it was fairly successful, around 75% to 80% successful. In positively predicting in those that did give based on their evaluation of the relationship and it was able to predict those who did not give, as well, based on their evaluation of their relationship. And so what I’m able to sort of take away from this, is that overall the relationship management theory perspective, upholds to its roots in this particular fundraising context. But that discriminate function score line gives some pretty important information for me the fundraiser. Because what it shows is that trust and satisfaction are the two main emotions that donors are using to evaluate that relationship. So even though relationship management theory argues that all four outcomes are important, really its trust and satisfaction that I want to focus on as that fundraiser. Commitment and balance of power really had minimal effect on the overall relationship. And so this next slide really presents a very hideous ugly academic diagram, but it was important to go through this full predicted modeling process because I wanted to test all of those different relationship behaviors. On the left side of the screen, to really see what impacted trust and satisfaction. Because if I know what content or what behaviors I can do as a fundraiser to make someone more trusting of my organization or make them feel more satisfied, those are the things that I want to focus on so that ultimately I’m going to have a greater likelihood of them participating, in future fundraising campaigns.

So one of the things that you’ll see here is that with this particular task we had a 1700 respondents, 1200 of them came from the annual giving side of fundraising and the other 500 came from major gifts. And so when you look at the literature on the types of fundraising campaigns. Annual giving tends to be those gifts that come in on an annual basis either in fall or spring and it generally hovers around $10,000 or less. And generally speaking these are going to have many more donations come in on that smaller side of that scale. But to sort of give an idea of where things fell out in that particular sense, the average donation wound up being around $750. And so that’s the average of everything. The median that middle point of data if we put them all in order going from smallest to greatest, the middle point was somewhere in the $150 range. So this really does represent a large group of that annual giving spectrum.


But if I advance to this next slide to see what behaviors really made the biggest difference for annual giving donors. So again this is that 1200 donors who really are the subset of that larger group. What made a difference for them? And the thing that you saw have some surprising outcomes is that assurances, so telling a donor that their concerns or their questions were legitimate and you would get back to them with answers, really had a negative influence on all outcomes. So this was a task or a behavior that I want to avoid as a fundraiser. Likewise and this was probably the most surprising because it runs counter to everything that fundraising really focuses on; telling someone at the annual giving level. Sending them a thank you letter, letting them know that their gift was appreciated, actually had a negative outcome on trust. And so through some follow-up interview with donors who had agreed to participate in a second wave of this study, one of the things that we wound up seeing was that with assurances donors were saying that being told that their ides, or concerns and questions were important really was a matter of lip service until they actually saw things happening. You know, until they got that response, until they saw an organization change its behavior letting them know that their concern was important really didn’t make a big impact. For them, except for in the negative direction.

The other thing with reciprocity and why we had such a negative impact on trust, again thinking about this particular group, it represents relatively small donors, in the bigger picture. You know up to $10,000 but most of the donors who responded were at that $150 gift or less. And so a lot of people said that sending a personalized thank you letter, some of them were hand written was really a waste of organizational resources. Because they were connected to the organization they saw thanks in newsletters, they didn’t need that personalized level of attention that many of that level of donors received. Another dimension that made reciprocity negative for some was that some donors expressed that they really wanted it to be a quite anonymous gift. You know for many different religious and cultural groups, giving is more of a personal thing it’s not meant to be publicized. And so a lot of the donors really had an adverse reaction to receiving a thank you letter, simply because it was meant to be a quiet, private transaction. And that really took away from the philanthropic effort behind it.


The behavior that had the biggest impact however, was that of responsibilities, or keeping the promises that were made to the donors. The networking so showing your organization as a community player, so you’re connected to others and not that isolationist and then also relationship nurturers. Again sort of being that organization, consciences of the organization you have that fundraiser inside, making sure that your donors concerns and needs are heard when decision making is actually taking places.
So take a look at annual giving model here, for one second, because when I switch to the next slide you’re going to see a vastly different result for major gift donors. So again thinking about I want to focus on trust and satisfaction because that’s what gets people connected. The key lines that stand out here now are significantly smaller in terms of the overall quantity. I really only have three lines that are connecting to trust and only two that are looking at satisfaction. So the things to really sort of take away reporting, so again sort of keeping people up to date. I’ve kept my promises with the responsibility but we’re reporting them now and letting them know what actually happens. Giving them those updates, it actually had a negative influence on a donor’s satisfaction. If your follow up conversation with major gift donors this represents individuals who were giving $10,000 and up and so the average gift made here, by major gift donors, was actually in the realm of $35,000. So these are pretty heavy hitters in terms of contributing to these non-profit organizations. So what makes them tick is really what we want to look at for long term viability.

But what we saw was that reporting, they didn’t necessarily wait for a report to be sent to them. If you’re giving at that major gift level, you already have contacts inside of the organization. And so the donors were saying that I’m not waiting to get an IRS-990 report, I’m not going to go find the audited financials or read the annual report. When I’m giving at this level, I pick up the phone and I make a phone call, or I have a meeting already set-up to talk one on one with a fundraising practitioner. And I’m going to actually wait for my questions then, I don’t want you to report to me but I will come back to you with my own questions. So the reporting actually worked against the organizations for the major gift donor. But the things that made the biggest differences, and again looking at stewardship down there at the bottom, reciprocity. Saying thank you, giving that public recognition, when you’re giving at that $35,000 level, you know for that average there for this particular step, you expect some level of thanks but also public recognition, so whether it be naming a building after a donor maybe it’s making a particular engraving on a donor wall, maybe it’s naming something after them, ultimately there’s a high level of public recognition and gratitude being shown for our donors that are giving at this high level.


Again responsibility, so keeping promises is very important for the major gift. Ultimately when you’re giving at that high of a level, you’re moving more towards a one on one style of communication. Where promises are certainly made over the negotiation table with these gifts; and so it’s up to the fundraiser that internal contact at the organization to make sure that those promises are actually kept.

Again relationship nurturing highlighting that key concern, talking about being the organizational conscience and really sort of making sure that your donor’s concerns, their questions, what they need is considered when organizational decisions are made. And then finally that last one there access, and I think it really sort of underscores all of this with a major gift, you know I’m giving at that level, I better believe that I have the ability to reach out and talk to people. So whether it’s the development officer, maybe it’s somebody on the board of directors or the executive director. As that major gift donor I better have the ability to reach out and talk to someone. And so it’s one of these things, that ultimately what relationship management theory does, and here again very specific to the fundraising realm, but it’s been tested in other Public Administration roles as well. So looking at the political party, the voter looking at different public agencies, and their impact on the public at large, we see that this particular theory can help inform our behaviors to make the best decisions that are going to help that agency move forward with its external stake holders. And that’s one of the things that we talk about in the Strategic Management of Public Communication courses that I teach in this online MPA program.

And so, I’ll open it up to questions right now before I turn it back over to the other presenter. But does anybody have questions?

Ixchelle Hicks: We invite our participants to submit their chat questions via the little chat box. Dr. Waters, as an enrollment advisor we do hear, on the phone when speaking with potential applicants, individuals that are interested in various areas of public sectors. You so clearly stated that the relationship management theory is a theory that can be applied anywhere, whether it’s operations, human resources or whether you’re working with non-profits. How would a participant listening to this webinar today, take this information and share it with someone in an executive director position or a leadership position, where they don’t have components such as networking because of lack of resources; or maybe a stewardship in transparency those things are not as easily accessible and visible within an organization, so how would a student or someone just listening to a webinar today, take this back to their organization?


Dr. Richard Waters: Well one of the things that I would say really makes a difference with a relationship management perspective is that you may not currently be able to offer high levels of reporting or high levels of access, or maybe it is the networking as you mentioned. But what this allows us to do is ultimately go back and reassess the behaviors that we are engaged in as an organization. And you know looking at the public administration in the public sector, you know ultimately there are some restrictions for things that we have to do, you know policies that we have to abide by. But I would say that if you wound up going back and looking at that list of different behaviors, ultimately organizations regardless of the sector that they come from, they know that there are key stake holders out there, you know whether they are groups or individuals. But there are people that they can talk to, to learn a little bit more about what important what makes the biggest difference for those particular groups. And so what I would say to sort of take away from this, because ultimately these results really are limited to that healthcare that hospital environment but the concept should be something that any organization should do. Go back have those conversations with those key stake holder groups that you’re trying to look for or trying to reach out to. What makes the biggest difference to them? Listen to what they have to report back to you so that you can sort of modify your own behaviors based on that.

You know if it’s one of those, say someone comes back to you and says well you know you’re a great agency, you do good work, but you’re not really connected to other aspects of the community. You know maybe that’s a real sort of criticism for us to go back internally and think about our role when we are networking. Maybe it’s something that we haven’t been able to put a lot of focus on, you know dedicate a lot of time and attention to; but because we’re hearing that outcry, maybe that’s something we need to go back and really reconsider. How are we going to be able to incorporate this into our own work? And so the relationship management theory, it presents a variety of organizational behaviors and organizational actions, and you don’t have to jump to the advanced sort of statistical modeling, that we talked about today. To really sort of see some easy benefits from it. You know maybe it is just having a couple of quick conversations, with key individuals who ultimately will be able to steer your organization’s direction to naturally or organically producing those feelings of trusty and satisfaction. You know maybe for some public agencies it is a balance of power and commitment that makes a lot of difference.


But that’s something that you’ll actually go through the program itself. And when you go through the program evaluation course, learn about different methods of measurement so that you can understand what is most appropriate for your particular agency or organization that you’re representing.

Ixchelle Hicks:
Great, thank you thank you very much. We’re going to, let’s see, we actually have a question from one of our participants. This participant, Rossa, asked a question, I have applied RMT, which I believe stands for the Relationship Management Theory and it worked very well. I believe actions speak louder than words and I agree with Dr. Waters. Thank you Rossa for sharing that feedback.

Dr. Richard Waters: Yeah you’re absolutely right, and I think that’s why you saw that negative correlation there with assurances, that it was really the words there that people were hearing, and not seeing the action. So you’re absolutely right, you know, take the results from this study, and really translate them into action for behaviors that your organization can model. And that’s something you can do with any sort of public agency, once you’ve gone through this process.

Ixchelle Hicks: Great, thank you Dr. Waters. We’re going to move on to give an overview of the curriculum. Dr. Waters I will interject after I go through the course structure just for you to speak a little bit more on the Strategic Management of Public Communications course, but I want to go ahead and share the curriculum overview with our participants today.

The online MPA program is comprised of thirteen courses. Our students take four foundational courses which are: the public administration as a field and practice in contemporary society, the leadership ethics, quantitative methods, and then management in organization theory. Then your core courses which consist of twenty-four credits, those are courses such as: public policy analysis, which is a very interesting course and a course that most of our applicants are looking forward to participating in. Human resources planning and management, economics and finance for the public managers, strategic management of public communications, which is the course that you actually teach in the program. So Dr. Waters do you mind speaking a little bit to the strategic management of public communications course?


Dr. Richard Waters: Sure absolutely. So going back to my background, my focus in purely in public relations and marketing. And so to be able to bring those together in the realm of public communication campaigns, really is one of those things that I was thrilled to be able to do here in the online program. we at the University of San Francisco, and our MPA program were accredited through NASPA and NASPA identified Public Communication and being able to work with the media as one of those ten critical skills that public administration students really need to have under their belt, so they’re able to be successful in the modern environment. So with the strategic management and public communications course, what we wind up doing is looking at what it takes to be successful in putting together communication campaigns and so thinking back about some famous, public communication campaigns that are out there; you know you’ve got “would the owl give a hoot don’t pollute”; you’ve got McGruff the crime dog, the crash test dummies. We’ve seen a lot now with don’t text and drive campaigns, all of these types of messaging’s there’s a lot of work that goes into developing those and so the strategic management of public communications campaigns looks at what it takes to really put together those comprehensive communication efforts. So it involves working with media, so we go through media relations training. Putting together press releases and you know thinking about what works from a theoretical level, as well as the practical level. So thinking about how we can choose our words, and the rhetoric behind what we’re saying to really make the biggest impact on our audience.

And so we have traditional media represented, we also do quite a bit with social media communication, so what can I do on Facebook, on Twitter, on Pinterest, you know you name the platform, that’s all out there in the open to be able to be played around with by organizations. But some things that we do in that realm make more of a difference than others. And so learning what works, you know what I can do to trigger likes and comments and shares and retweets, those sorts of things. What can I do to get people to suddenly pay attention to the infographics that I’m putting out there? All of that comes all under the realm of public communication.


And so this course in particular we go through the different modules really learning sort of the different steps of the communication campaign process. Though what I’m really excited with this particular course at the end of the day, is that the final project really is one that gets you the students to put together your own campaign, based on scenarios that I present to you. So I think this particular semester they are looking at something in relation to the food pyramid, or its evolution. So it’s really an exciting type of project that allows the student to really sort of test out their own perceptions of communication, and really go and do some research to put together a campaign that they think ultimately is going to be successful for whatever that situation may be.

Ixchelle Hicks: Thank you very much; we did have a question regarding the impact of social media. Do you know that’s one of your areas of high interest; so how do you see social media impacting the public sector world?

Dr. Richard Waters: So here’s my assessment of social media, because when you look back at the research that I’ve done, quite a bit of it comes from focusing on social media communication and really seeing what works. There are two basic ‘take- aways’ that I have in regard to social media. Ultimately we have to operate in this realm knowing that for many of us, myself included in this particular comment, we don’t want organizations in the social media sphere at all. You know and I say that, I am a Disney dork, I love Disney World, I love certain brands in particular, but I don’t want them on my Facebook page. That’s a very personal private space. But that’s me, and there are others, and I’ve taught them the MPA program, I’ve taught them in the Non-Profit management program, that don’t mind reaching out to organizations. And so it’s one of those, that we have to realize that we’re not going to be able to capture everyone, that we would like to. And in fact we’re going to run into multiple people that don’t want to be connected to us in that realm, but those that we are able to connect to, the area that we see the biggest impact for organization and social media is not the behavioral component it really focuses on education and awareness.

And so where we see social media communication and social media efforts really succeed is getting people to know more about an issue, getting them to learn. And then it’s up to me, as that organizational communicator to use some of the skills that we’ll talk about in that strategic management of public communications course, to transition them from being a social media, or an online follower to someone who’s going to engage in offline behavior. Because one of the things that we really focus on in the strategic management of public communications course is this notion of needing to go through the communication process, which first focuses on knowledge and educating someone about your organization, your agency? From knowledge it goes to attitude change it’s not enough for me to know about you, I have to feel that I should be connected and that involves an additional layer of persuasion and communication to get you to that attitude change perspective.


And that’s not easy to get to, awareness is easy. Attitude change is difficult within that final change, you know once you’ve got the attitude shifted you then want to engage in behavior that becomes even more difficult. Social media has not shown great success in moving beyond that knowledge portion. So with social media, whoever asked the question, what you really want to do is build that awareness, educate people about an issue, an organization and then use other communication channels to get them involved in an offline contest. Because that’s where you’re going to see the biggest impact in terms of attitude shifting, and ultimately that behavioral change.

Ixchelle Hicks: Thank you very much Dr. Waters. Not only did we get to learn about fundraising for non-profits we also got to learn a little bit more about the social media component of a campaign. Within the program our students will also be able to take classes such as: the public sector budgeting, immerging technologies for public managers, strategic planning and implementation, policy and program evaluation, and then our students wrap up the program with the capstone course.

Our faculty for the online MPA program are all faculty members from the University of San Francisco. Currently we have twelve full-time faculty members and seventeen part-time faculty members. And our faculty members have experience in areas such as city management, program directors, police chiefs, as well as budgeting directors. So you’ll definitely get a diverse background in regards from your faculty as well as your peers.

The online MPA, the program encompasses the Jesuit values of social justice, commitment to service, effective in community oriented governments and ethical responsibility. This is a key point for many of our perspective applicants that work in public administration in the public sector. That whole concept of social justice. It also will help you apply organizational behavior in management theory to real life public and not profit sector based, scenarios by using a variety of hands on learning techniques. Such as what we just discussed this afternoon. Employ innovative methods in planning and evaluating public programs, and well as emphasize technologies utilized in the management of public organizations including social media.


Why you need the MPA, this is feedback that we’ve gotten from our perspective applicants and students in the program. Students pursue the online MPA for the flexibility but they pursue the Masters in Public Administration degree because they want to become better strategic leaders in public management. They want to build partnerships and strengthen your community in non-profit or advocacy management. They want to gain and strengthen and sharpen skills that will regulate and implement public policy. They want to stay competitive, maximize career impact, increase earning potential and keep up with the changes in industry. So we invite you all, all of our participants today, if you have further questions please don’t hesitate to contact me directly. If you have questions for Dr. Waters, he has kindly agreed to respond to any questions you all email to me about his topic or any other questions that you may have. We are now expecting applications for fall of 2015. Our deadline is July 1st and classes begin August 25th. My name is Ixchelle and I’m your enrollment advisor for the program and I’m available to answer any questions about the online Masters in Public Administration degree. I do want to thank Dr. Waters for his time this afternoon, we want to thank all of our participants for joining us during their lunch hour and for staying engaged and active, so please feel free to email any questions or give me a call directly and we look forward to working with you through the applications process for fall of 2015 or a future term. Thank you all for your participation. Dr. Waters any closing words?

Dr. Richard Waters: Well I’ll just say again, to reiterate exactly what you said, thank you for joining us this afternoon. Certainly feel free to reach out with questions I’ll be glad to help answer and sort of help you with that decision about attending the University of San Francisco and enrolling in the online program and also if you’ve got particular questions about the fundraising content that was presenting I’m glad to be here to answer any questions that you may have. So please, if you’ve got those questions, you have other concerns, reach out to us, because we are here to help you at the end of the day.


Ixchelle Hicks: Thank you very much, you enjoy the rest of your afternoon and you all have a wonderful day. Thank you.

Dr. Richard Waters: Thank you.


Close X

call to action
Post a Comment or Question

Leave a Reply

+ seven = 12