giving, philanthropy and creating a democratic society. findings from studies of donor choice

Giving, philanthropy and creating a democratic society Findings from studies of donor choice Beth Breeze, University of Kent CGAP Conference, 9th May 2013

Overview

1. Why do people give?

2. Findings from three studies:

- How donors choose charities

- User views of fundraising

- Corporate philanthropy from the shop floor

3. Implications and conclusions: can philanthropy create a democratic society?

www.shaw-trust.org.uk

Presenter

Presentation Notes

As Angie said, philanthropy is considered important and a ‘good thing’ – but that doesn’t mean it has an intimate and automatic connection to everything else that is considered to be good – including democracy. Some kinds of philanthropic causes advance democracy, but many don’t. And as I expect we’ll hear from Rob Reich tomorrow, some actually stand in the way of a more equal and democratic society. This shouldn’t be a surprise. There is no legal obligation for charity to be pro-poor or to advance democracy. Historically it has been focused on promoting religious causes, and today it is still dominated by causes that have no, or only a tangential impact on redistribution, such as advancing knowledge in universities and supporting excellence in the arts – to name two of the cause areas that tend to top the Million Pound Donor list which I also compile. But today I want to use my 15 minutes to share with you some of the research I’ve done within CGAP that comes at this question from different angles.

Why do people give?

Economic theories Personal benefits Future benefit/Public Good theory Enlightened self-interest Warm glow

Psychological theories Empathy-altruism hypothesis Negative-state relief model Identification/In-group membership

Sociological theories Social embeddedness Network ties Cultural contexts Role modelling Identity work


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Before I get to my findings I want to share this grossly reductionist slide, which attempts to summarise the key answers produced by academics from various disciplines to the question - ‘why do people give?’ As you’ll have noted, none of these theories suggests that a concern with democracy is key to understanding why people give. Of course, some giving does achieve that end (as Angie described) but it’s more often a nice unintended consequence rather than the driving force behind the gift. Does that matter? I think not, and here’s why: Democracy is the concept at the heart of the political sphere, whereas the central concerns of the philanthropic sphere are concepts such as kindness, generosity, a better society’ and a more enriching life for donors and recipients. But that’s all rather abstract, so let’s move on to some concrete examples.

Study 1: How donors choose charities

Research question How do donors choose from the c.80,000+ fundraising charities, when it’s not possible to research or process the merits of all alternative recipients? Methodology 60 semi-structured telephone interviews conducted between January-August 2009 with a sample recruited in 3 waves with the assistance of the Charities Aid Foundation. All 60 interviewees are CAF account holders c.1/3 high income, 1/3 middle income, 1/3 lower income (self-described) Interviews lasted on average 25 mins (min=12 mins; max= 46 min) 22 women, 38 men c.1/3 from the North, 2/3 from the South Spread of ages from 30s-80s with 60s most highly represented decade


Giving decisions are difficult

“The trouble is there’s so many”

“I couldn’t really have any definite reason for saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but you can’t support the lot. I stick a pin in”.

“It’s amazing what comes through the door, and you’ve got no means of making an objective judgement”.

Why did I choose those particular ones? Well, that has been a bit haphazard to be quite honest with you. I mean, I’ve sort of come across them as I’ve gone along”

“I don’t think I go into it that deeply. If I’m satisfied it’s being helpful and there’s a need... you know, we’re keen to help”

“I’m not methodical about it... I don’t have any very good way of choosing… I just go by gut instinct I suppose”.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Donor strategies – Box and Birthday/doormat

Donors believe giving decisions should be needs-driven “To be a charitable concern, a recipient had to be ‘in need’” (Fenton, Golding et al 1993:23) Why do charities exist?

“To help needy people”

“To do something worthwhile”

“To do good works”

“To help people without a voice”

Who do charities help?

“The needy”

“The underprivileged”

“People in a disadvantaged position”

“People who can’t defend themselves”

“People I feel sorry for”

“People who are worse off than me”


Yet we find 4 non-needs-based approaches to giving

1. Taste-based giving

2. Decisions related to donors’ personal background

3. Decisions based on perceptions of charities’ competence

4. Decisions driven by desire to make an impact


Taste-based giving

“It’s really what in one’s own mind one thinks is a deserving cause, and it does range, you know, hugely widely, and totally irrationally. I mean, I would support deserving dogs but I wouldn’t support cats [laughs] because I just happen not to like cats” “I donate to the RSPB [Royal Society for the Protection of Birds] because birdwatching is one of my great obsessions. It’s my, kind of, my treat to myself, if you like”. “I’m a passionate skier, so a personal favourite is a charity that provides snow sports opportunities for people with disabilities” “Appropriate beneficiaries are people who are hard up… [but] I did put a rather large sum into helping to buy and restore an old Victorian steam engine… I hope maybe when it gets going I might be allowed to stand on the footplate and blow the whistle!”


Donors’ personal background “I grew up by the sea so I support the RNLI”

“I have a child and the very first thing I started off doing was child sponsorship”

“My brother died of bowel cancer so I give to cancer research”

“[I support] butterfly conservation. When I was a boy I collected butterflies so I’m trying to give back, if you like, the damage that I did [because] in those days you were encouraged to kill butterflies and collect them, so that’s an important one”


Perceptions of charities’ competence “I don’t think you want [to support] people who’ve got great big offices and give great big salaries and things like that”.

“I understand X charity are extremely good at delivering their money on site, so to speak, and they keep their administration costs as low as they can, but so much of this is hearsay isn’t it? Unless you pore over the books and understand what you’re reading, I think it’s very difficult”

“If they send too many [pieces of direct mail] I feel they’re just wasting the money, not spending it properly and so we cut them out”

“If they get my address wrong, they don’t get a gift”


A desire for personal impact “I support them, but as there are a million members I don’t feel I need to respond to every appeal from them, somebody else can!”

“The impression I got is they are well-off compared to other charities”

“We didn’t really want to support things where we felt our contribution was negligible”

“I probably have gone for major charities because I feel they have more clout”

“I hate to think that we’re doing things that the government ought to do”

“With things like the XXX, I mean they’re quite well funded but it’s just something I believe in”


Conclusions

• Donors are not just limited by money, but also by the amount of information they are able to gather, their ability to compare the merits of alternative recipients, and the amount of time they are willing, and able, to devote to decision-making.

• Donors are social beings whose charitable outlook is shaped by their life-long social experiences.

• Donors retain an expectation that charities exist to serve the needy, yet in reality do not give to the most urgent needs - they give to things that mean something to them.


Study 2: User views of Fundraising

Research question What do the beneficiaries of homelessness charities think about the representation of homeless people in fundraising literature? Methodology Five focus groups held in 2010/11 with users of a range of services at homelessness charities and hostels in cities across England: 38 participants, all with direct personal experience of homelessness. Users of hostels, drop-in centres and family centres. 19 men and 19 women, majority aged 16-25. Mix of ethnic backgrounds. Participants asked their opinion on images from a variety of fundraising campaigns

•Do the images in these campaigns reflect what it is like to be homeless? •Why do you think homelessness charities choose certain images? •Do you think the public understand homelessness?


Presenter

Presentation Notes

The second study I want to share with you jumps from a focus from the donors to the recipients.

Findings

1. Income maximisation is the priority, despite frustration at simplified fundraising imagery that fails to educate donors.

“If the organisation haven’t got their money in the first place to help you then the whole system breaks down, really and truly. Just get the money, by hook or crook, y’know?”

2. A preference for adverts that tell the story of how people become homeless.

“I think that focusing on how it happens will make everyone think: ‘Oh god, it could happen to me’, instead of: ‘It’s alright, I haven’t got a beard and I don’t drink that much’!”

3. A dislike of fundraising campaigns that use ‘pity pictures’ to merely arouse sympathy rather than elicit empathy.

“For the majority of people, you show a young kid looking sad, you show an old man freezing to death, it’s gonna play on people’s heartstrings… but I don’t think it’s gonna do anything about the issues”


User view: the most popular image

“That is exactly what homelessness is. There’s no people, it’s just whoever is on that bit of cardboard in the snow, that’s what being homeless is” “It crosses all the stereotypes, there’s no one there so you can use your own imagination and think: ‘Wow, try sleeping in it’” “If there’s someone in it, you could make them play the victim card. You can make a judgement if there’s someone there… cos usually you just see big old men in duffel coats. I mean, that’s the initial thought of a homeless person. Whereas that one, anybody could be sleeping on that.”


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Rawlsian veil of ignorance – it could be you?

Study 3: Corporate philanthropy from the shopfloor

Research questions 1. Why do shop floor employees get involved in workplace fundraising activities?

2. What criteria are involved in the selection of charitable beneficiaries?

3. What, if anything, is distinctive about the shop-floor perspective?

Methodology Observational methods in ten different workplaces in the South East of England

Anonymity promised, includes 2 supermarkets,2 retail banks, a restaurant, a gambling company and an administrative office within a larger institution.

Fieldwork took place between August 2011 and May 2012


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Studies of corporate philanthropy have focused on why it takes place, this study looks at how charities are chosen in the workplace. Corporate donations are better known but in 2011 employee fundraising became the most common feature of UK charity-corporate partnerships. There is some evidence of increased staff involvement in corporate philanthropy decision making - evidence from Civil Society annual survey of corporate charity partnerships - from 1 in 7 in 2009 to a quarter of decisions in 2011.

Findings

1. Corporate philanthropy remains primarily controlled from the top and driven by a business case

2. Despite some devolution of decision-making, the company expects some alignment with company objectives

3. Staff involvement in selecting charitable beneficiaries can be rather tokenistic

4. Staff do not always take up the offer of participation

5. Decision-making by shop floor staff reflects personal experiences and preferences

6. The spread of more democratic procedures favours more established charities and ‘safer’ causes

7. Despite selecting serious causes, shop floor staff expect that the process of supporting charity will be fun and will enliven their working lives

8. As well as opportunities for light-hearted fun, employee fundraising also creates temporary opportunities to challenge corporate hierarchies

Presenter

Presentation Notes

“This money [for corporate donations] has to be used to work as hard as the marketing budget” “We are directed by a business need to be visually active in certain areas” In a typical example, a long-list of ten charities drawn up by a senior manager was presented to the staff group from which they could vote to select the short-list of five charities who were then invited to pitch to a committee of senior managers who made the final choice. “[the email about choosing charities] comes round on a Friday when we’ve just got too much to do, there’s no time to sit down and think about it properly”, “It’s better not to fill the survey in, if you don’t know enough to make good choices”, “I’d rather someone picked who knew more about it” “It’s a really difficult question to answer, how we pick which charities get help. It all depends on the individuals circumstances. If someone has got, say, cancer in their family they have an affinity with that. Children’s charities are always popular – people always want to do things for children” “It’s usually the big boys, to be quite honest”

SF fundraising = ‘good enough’ cause + fun

“You’ve got to make it fun, cos you don’t get many fun days down there, believe me. Down there on the shop floor. You know, it’s hard work. People are working constantly. They come in and do a long shift, lugging boxes, putting things on the shelves, bringing things out of the chillers you know, and they do work hard. So it’s nice to have a bit of fun. You go down the chilled meat, and there’s some guy standing there in a blue wig and some Elton John blue sunglasses. It’s just a bit of fun and the customers love it as well, they comment and they chat to them then.” “Last year we had all of our section leaders and half our managers having their legs waxed and chests waxed. [More animated voice] Yeah! It was cool. We were meant to have a waxer come in, but she let me down at the last minute so we let the colleagues come and do it [lots of laughter]. Yeahh! [more laughter]. Some of them had their chests done, some of them had their backs done, some of them had their legs done.” www.shaw-trust.org.uk

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Shift from ‘Chairman’s Choice’ to more democratic procedures is real, but can also be tokenistic or not widely taken up. The motivations of owners, board members, senior management and shop-floor staff are quite divergent. Owners/Board:Company reputation / Brand management HR/Management:Staff recruitment, retention and development Shop floor:Fun and fulfilling experiences Employees think about charities at work and at home in a similar way, such that personal experiences and preferences dominate charitable choices. But charitable activity at work has additional dimensions: it creates opportunities for fun and carnival that enliven mundane working days. It enables staff lacking autonomy and status to temporarily subvert otherwise rigid workplace hierarchies.

Why do people give – a simpler explanation?

So what?... some overall conclusions

• Charitable giving and philanthropy is – and always have been – supply-led rather than demand-driven.

• Donor autonomy - the freedom to distribute as much as one wants, to whom one chooses - is what differentiates giving from paying tax.

• Policies may affect levels of giving, but it is donors’ tastes, experiences, enthusiasms and opinions that drive their specific giving decisions.

• Despite hopes apparent in much philanthropy policy making, donors resist the notion of giving as a substitute for public spending.

• Despite other hopes by people concerned about democracy and social change, these are not primary concerns of donors.

• Philanthropy can enrich both the public good and donors’ lives, but it cannot be relied upon to ‘fill the gaps’ in public sector spending cuts nor to create a more democratic society. Wt cannotw.s, passions and

chaw-trust.org.uk

Can philanthropy create a more democratic society?

Yes, of course it can – but there’s no reason why it should.

How could we ‘nudge’ that along?

1. Donor incentives (e.g. matched funding / preferential tax breaks)

2. Charity / Cause support – e.g. strategic funding for capacity building

3. Social norms – greater celebration / affirmation for certain types of giving?


Please feel free to stay in touch

Dr Beth Breeze Centre for Philanthropy University of Kent

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @UKCPhilanthropy

Blog: https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/philanthropy/


giving, philanthropy and creating a democratic society. findings from studies of donor choice

Travel