Study finds giving circles benefit members

A study titled “The Impact of Giving Together” looked at the effects of giving circles and found:

1. Giving circles influence members to give more.

2. Giving circles influence members to give more strategically.

3. Giving circle members give to a wide array of organizations.

4. Giving circle members are highly engaged in the community.

5. Giving circles increase members’ knowledge about philanthropy, nonprofits and the community.

Since its inception in 2000, Servant Christian has recognized the importance of giving circles and sponsors several. For more information on how you can get involved, send us an email at info@servantchristian.com. You can read the entire article highlighting the study here.

Giving in the news: Women Take the Lead in Couples’ Charitable-Giving Decisions

Women Take the Lead in Couples’ Charitable-Giving Decisions

Published May 19 in The Chronicle of Philanthropy

By Paula Wasley

Women are taking an increasingly prominent role in determining their household’s charitable giving, with high-income women in particular more likely to seek financial advice and use sophisticated methods when making donations, according to a new study sponsored by Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund.

An online survey of 1,000 adults who had given $1,000 or more to charity in 2007 — half of whom had donated $5,000 or more — found that more women than men act as their household’s primary decision maker in determining how much to donate to charity and which causes to support.

Among participants in the survey — 80 percent of whom were married — the majority of male respondents named their spouse as the primary influencer in charitable-giving decisions, while women in the study were more likely to name a range in influencers that included family members, friends, and co-workers.

Women in the survey also felt more strongly about involving their children in philanthropy. Nearly half of the women in the study (48 percent) strongly agreed that it was important to them that their children continue their tradition of charitable giving, as compared with 39 percent of men in the study.

Upper Tier

While the average household income for participants in the survey was $136,000, the study particularly looked at the giving habits of the 11 percent of respondents who were women with household incomes of at least $150,000.

The survey found that, in comparison to the other respondents, these high-income women were more likely to make public rather than anonymous gifts to charity, to use more complicated financial structures to make gifts, and to seek the guidance of financial advisors when making charitable contributions.

For example, 7 percent of women in this group said they had made gifts of securities to charity, as compared to 4 percent of all respondents, and 3 percent of men of comparable household incomes.

And 16 percent of high-income women said they had used a donor advised fund, charitable remainder trust, or a private foundation to make contributions, as compared with 9 percent of all donors, and 10 percent of high-income men.

High-income women were also more likely than others in the survey to donate to health and science causes and to make additional gifts to charity in response to increasing needs and difficult economic times, the survey found.

The survey’s findings offer insights into how women are likely to shape the future of philanthropy, says Sarah C. Libbey, Fidelity’s president. “Women have always had a hand in their household’s charitable outreach, but that role is evolving as women increasingly create their own wealth and become beneficiaries of wealth transfers because they live longer,” said Ms. Libbey, in a written statement. “We, and other nonprofit organizations, should pay more attention to this very influential group of donors.”

Researchers also grouped respondents into four distinct donor “profiles” based on their giving patterns and attitudes toward philanthropy.

The “mainstream contributor” — which accounted for 52 percent of those in the study — was less likely than others to increase giving in difficult economic times. And, when cutting back on the percentage of the household income contributed to charity, donors in this category tend to give to the same number of causes as in previous years but decrease the size of their gifts. Donors who fell into this category gave an average of $6,842 to charity in 2008.

Nearly a third of the respondents in the study were identified as “empathetic givers” who were more likely to give more in tough economic times and to respond to a cause when personally touched by illness or tragedy. Respondents in this group gave an average of $7,287 in 2008.

About 15 percent of those surveyed were described as “reactive contributors” who, in comparison to the other groups, give a smaller percentage of their household income to charity and are more likely to reduce their donations in difficult economic times. Total donations from individuals in this group averaged $3,687 in 2008.

Just 4 percent of respondents were identified as “pioneering givers.” Donors in this group gave away the highest percentage of their income to charity, were more likely to give to new and lesser-known causes, and more frequently used credit cards or securities to make donations. Individuals in this group gave an average of $7,347 to charity in 2008.

Giving in the News: Body: The End Of Conspicuous Philanthropy?

The End Of Conspicuous Philanthropy?
Forbes
By Judith H. Dobrzynski, May 5, 2009

Anyone who scowled in 2008 when the New York Public Library announced that it would rename its historic Beaux Arts building on Fifth Avenue the Stephen A. Schwarzman building and chisel his name into it five times to mark his $100 million pledge, might have smiled at the news last week: The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that anonymous giving is soaring. In this re-calibrated world, it seems, some big givers no longer want such notoriety.

Analyzing gifts greater than $1 million announced between June 2008 and April 2009, the Chronicle noted that 80 were made anonymously, or nearly 19% of the 422 total for the period. By comparison, during the past decade only about 3% to 5% of such gifts were made anonymously, according to data compiled by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Chronicle said.

The proportion is somewhat inflated by one mysterious donor who this year has bestowed nearly $75 million on at least 14 colleges headed by women on the condition that no one know or try to find out. Subtracting that, the Chronicle says, would lower the proportion to about 16%–still three to five times normal.

And thank goodness, you may say. “Naming gifts” have proliferated like swine flu. In 2003, the writer Christopher Mason published a hilarious piece in The New York Times outlining the craziness at Disney Hall in Los Angeles–”Every atrium, every staircase, every reception room, even every escalator in and around Disney Hall carries the name of a benefactor”–and citing the mouthful “Ron Burkle-Ralphs/Food 4 Less Foundation Auditorium” as one example. At some institutions, even the restrooms are named, I’ve been told.

But as much as relief from over-the-top credit-taking is welcome, anonymous giving has a downside.

Giving is highly correlated with how the economy is doing, and as wealth exploded over the past 10 years, so did philanthropy. It reached its highest total to date in 2007, when Americans donated some $306 billion to charity. The stats for 2008 are not in yet, but Changing Our World, a philanthropic consultancy, says that figure generally ranges between 1.7% and 2.2% of the economy as a whole, which forebodes a decline.

The best givers are those who’ve already given, and perusing lists of gifts is a big way that fund-raisers find prospects. If anonymous gifts grow, development officers will have a tougher time finding new supporters: Where will they go for clues if donors go underground to avoid new solicitations?

Meanwhile, the mega-philanthropy of the last decade has thrived in part because of “conspicuous philanthropy.” This competition was kicked off in the mid-1990s, when Ted Turner bemoaned the proliferation of rich lists, arguing that they deterred giving by people who didn’t want to drop in the rankings.

Turner advocated the trumpeting of philanthropic gifts–and many publications obliged. Donors swiftly rose to the occasion–especially from laggard communities like the technology industry–and mega-gifts grew in number and size. In 2006, Peter B. Lewis, the chairman of the Progressive Corp., an automobile insurance company in Cleveland, famously gave $101 million to Princeton University specifically to top the previous largest gift, $100 million. Lewis had already given Princeton $119 million in smaller gifts.

But this is a new era. Conspicuous consumption is out: Some shoppers, according to press reports, are even leaving luxury shops like Hermés and Louis Vuitton with their purchases in plain brown bags instead of signature sacks. Many people who are doing well don’t want to rub other people’s noses in it, even with philanthropic gifts.

So the age of competitive mega-philanthropy may have ended with a whimper. Along with it, the inspirational role it played in encouraging smaller donors may also be lost (and donors in other countries as well).

Only twice in the past 40 years, according to Changing Our World, has there been more than a one-year absolute decline in U.S. giving–during the oil crisis of the mid-1970s and following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In economic terms, last year–and maybe more to come–are likely to be at least as bad as the ’70s, when total giving dropped a steep 5.4%. Making matters worse, there are more nonprofits chasing the fewer dollars now.

So while those five engravings of the Schwarzman name on the NYPL continue to seem particularly egregious, the end of that philanthropic era is not necessarily something to cheer. It’s something to be wary about.

Judith H. Dobrzynski writes about business and the arts for many publications, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and blogs at www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts. (Joel Kotkin’s column will appear tomorrow.)

Giving in the News: The National Christian Foundation Celebrates $2 Billion in Grants

The National Christian Foundation (NCF) reached a major milestone in giving with the distribution of its two billionth grant dollar since 1982. This record illustrates the exponential growth of the non-profit as it took almost 25 years to reach their first $1 billion grant mark, while the $2 billion grant milestone came in just over three years.

NCF President, David Wills said, “We attribute this growth to God at work in and through believers as they seek to be wise and faithful stewards, even in these difficult economic times. Additionally, our expanding network of over 37 Affiliates around the country has allowed us to work more closely with those whom we are privileged to serve.”

Currently, NCF and its 37 Local Christian Foundation Affiliates are ranked as the nation’s
22nd largest charity.¹ Givers make contributions to their donor-advised funds at NCF and then recommend grants to organizations that are making a difference here and around the world.

The $1.5 million grant that made this milestone possible was recommended by “The Green Fund to Reach the Children,” a donor-advised fund of Hobby Lobby, one of America’s fastest growing arts and crafts retail chains. Their grant will go to help needy children.

David Green, C.E.O. of Hobby Lobby says, “At a time when our nation’s charities need help like never before, we are delighted to be a part of this new milestone in the history of American giving. With the help of NCF and their Kansas City affiliate, The Servant Christian Community Foundation, Hobby Lobby is able to give more to the causes that are closest to our hearts, such as needy children.”

¹ 2008, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Non-Profits Ranked by Revenue