nextgen donors report

7/30/2019 Nextgen Donors Report

1/80

Respecting Legacy,

Revolutionizing Philanthropy


2/80

A col laborative project of:

The Next Gen Donors research project is a collaboration o

21/64 (www.2164.org) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center

or Philanthropy (www.gvsu.edu).

The project is unded by the supporters o the Frey Chair or

Family Philanthropy at the Johnson Center, the Andrea and

Charles Bronman Philanthropies, the Max M. and Marjorie

S. Fisher Foundation, the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer

Foundation, and an anonymous donor.

A network o partner organizations helped gather data or

the project:

Association o Small Foundations

Association o Baltimore Area Grantmakers

Bolder Giving

Council on Foundations

Council o Michigan Foundations

Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy

Forum o Regional Association o Grantmakers

Grand Street

GrantCrat

Indiana Grantmakers Alliance

Jewish Communal Fund

Jumpstart

Liberty Hill Foundation

The Minneapolis Foundation

National Center or Family Philanthropy

Resource Generation

Copyright 2013


3/80

iii

Copyright 2013 | Johnson Center for Philanthropy and 21/64

Table o Contents

#NextGenDonors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Executive Summary Who are the Next Generations o Major Donors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Our Approach Listening to the Next Gen Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

I Inheriting Values, Looking to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Their Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Their Legacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Their Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Their Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Their Eagerness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

II Strategies or Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Their Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Impact First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

III Time, Talent, Treasure, and Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Hands-On Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Linked-In With Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

IV Crating Their Philanthropic Identities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Experiential Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Their Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Take the Next Gen Seriously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Appendix A:Details o Research Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Appendix B:Demographic and Other Inormation about

Survey and Interview Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Acknowledgements and Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Reerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76


4/80

1


Todays younger generations have the potential to be the most

significant philanthropists in history. But we dont know much

about them.

A relatively small group o Gen Xers and Millennials are inheriting over $40 trillion in wealth,

much o that designated or charitable giving. Many are making their own wealth, too. Tey will be

the major donors in America or decades to come; some already are.

Tese next gen donors will ace immense, complex social problems in their lietimes, requiring

them to be both generous and smart in their giving. For example, ater decades o decline in our

underperorming education system, the United States needs new ideas and new energy to ensure

good schools or all. Growing scarcity o clean water and other natural resources threatens to aect

livelihoods and cost lives around the globe. A less homogeneous nation orces more people to

engage with dierences more oten and in more corners o their lives.

Te rising generations o high-capacity donors promise to have an outsized impact on these and

other growing challenges in our world. And they hold the uture o philanthropy in their hands.

Next Gen Donors in this Study

from familiesthat give over$250,000per year

from familiesthat give over$1 millionper year

from familieswith $5 million+in endowedcharitable assets

from familieswith $100 million+in endowedcharitable assets

$250k+ $1M+ $5M+ $100M+

53% 52%

30%

10%


5/80

2


Tereore, we have undertaken the rst major eort to understand what we can expect rom them,and how they might aect everything about 21st century philanthropy.

We have experienced a long period o generational stability in the philanthropic world. Te Greatest

Generation and the Baby Boomers have created and guided almost all o our key institutions or

years. But while we werent looking, their children and grandchildren grew up.

We have conducted this study to begin a conversation not just about a cohort o donors but about

the issues and strategies that will guide major giving or decades to come. Please join us or this

discussion: #NextGenDonors (www.NextGenDonors.org).

Sharna Goldseker Michael Moody

Managing Director Frey Foundation Chair or Family

21/64 Foundations and Philanthropy

Johnson Center or Philanthropy

About their parents and grandparents:

About their networks:

About how they want to be involved as donors:

About their excitement over changes in the eld:

We find they have a lot to say, even while just beginning to develop their identities

as donors.

The peer-to-peer learning, talking to

people, is invaluable.

There are these Kiva loans and there are these

social businesses and there are these double-bottom-

line, triple-bottom-line investments. There are a million

dierent ways to be philanthropic in 2012 that there

werent in 1985.

My amily has taught me almost everything I know

about giving and how to give.

Give us a clear call to action, lets problem-solve

together. Tell us what you are working on, and lets

work on this together.


6/80

3


E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Executive Summary

Who Are the Next Generations oMajor Donors?

The next generations of major philanthropists, those who fit into Gen X (born

1964-1980) or Gen Y/Millennial (born 1981-2000) generational cohorts, will have

tremendous influence on the direction of and support for efforts to improve local

communities and solve global problems over the next several decades.1

Corporations want to know how to hire and supervise these next generation members, parents wantto know how to engage them, and everyone nonprot and or-prot wants to know how to

attract their dollars. However, we have not heard much rom these high-capacity next gen donors

themselves, outside o a couple o interviews with Forbesmagazine or the occasional conerence

presentation.

Considering how much o our uture is in their hands, we have set out to understand how next gen

major donors think about philanthropy, what and how they want to learn about it, and how and

with whom they want to be engaged in philanthropy. We need to know even more, but we hope

this report oers a good starting place.

So, who are the next gen major donors o today and tomorrow? While there certainly are entitled,

wealthy kids out there, we have discovered many people, mostly inheritors and some earners, who

are serious and responsible, who work hard to educate and prepare themselves because they know

they are poised to become the most philanthropic donors in history.

While they are not necessarily more charitably-minded than members o previous generations, the

sheer volume o unds, oundations, and other giving among people rom high-net-worth amilies is

expanding to unprecedented levels. And the Gen X and Millennial members o those amilies stand

to become the decision-makers or those unprecedented resources over the next several decades.

Even with the recent economic downturn, the trend o the last several decades toward increasing

wealth concentration among the highest net-worth amilies in the United States has continued.

1 We use the term Millennials throughout this report or ease o reerence, but the name or that generation

is still in ux. For descriptions o the general eatures o Gen X and Gen Y/Millennial members, see Howe

and Strauss (1991, 2000).


7/80

4



Scholars calculate that the U.S. is currently undergoing a massive wealth transer process, as

historic amounts o accumulated assets pass rom one generation to another. Scholars project that

at least $41 trillion will transer as bequests to the post-Baby Boom generations over the rst hal

o the 21st century. Tis large amount o wealth, along with assets passed to descendants through

pre-bequest transers and the amount o new wealth being created, has led some observers to predict

a new golden age o philanthropy (Havens and Schervish, 1999) as much o this wealth becomes

available or charitable purposes.

Alongside this expansion in philanthropic assets is a simultaneous expansion in philanthropic

innovation and entrepreneurial passion. New social entrepreneurs attract people to philanthropy

who might not otherwise dedicate as much time, talent, or treasure to doing good.

More money and more diverse ways to engage can grow and change philanthropy in ways we

have not seen since the advent o modern philanthropy in the time o John D. Rockeeller and

Andrew Carnegie. Tese major donors during the earlier golden age o philanthropic expansion and

innovation ocused on creating enduring institutions such as universities, libraries, and oundations,

and devising scientic philanthropy techniques to guide their decisions.

What will the major donors o our current era o signicant philanthropic change look like? What

kind o philanthropists will they be or become?

Tis research seeks to understand who these next gen donors are and how they think. It aims to:

Reect back to these donors what we hear them saying about themselves in order to help

them become more proactive donors, stewards, grantmakers, and agents o social change;

Encourage and inorm conversations among multiple generations involved in philanthropy

today and in the uture;

Help those who seek to engage and assist these next gen donors to do so in more eective

and productive ways, to inspire them and help them make change.

Tis report is based on rst-o-its kind data, listening to members o the next generations o major

donors, ages 21 to 40, in their own voices. A national online survey (310 total responses) and in-

depth interviews (30 total) have revealed the ollowing key ndings:

1. Driven by Values, Not Valuables: Because these next gen donors come rom amilies with

wealth and philanthropic resources, are members o generations experiencing rapid social changes,

and are currently in important developmental stages o their lives, many readers may expect them

to be entitled by privilege, careless with legacy, and eager or change. However, we have discovered


8/80

5



quite the opposite. Valuesdrive these next gen major donors, not valuables values they oten

say they have learned rom parents and grandparents. Tey are mindul o the privilege they have

inherited or that comes with the wealth they are creating. Tey seek a balance between honoring

amily legacy and assessing the needs and tools o the day. Tey und many o the same causes that

their amilies support and even give locally, so long as that philanthropy ts with their personal

values. Tey give using many o the same methods that their amilies use, but they want to explore

new philanthropic and investing tools as well. Tey are eager to share in liting the mantle o

responsibility, along with other members o their amilies, and to put their resources to work or

social good. Yet while they eel a commitment to philanthropy that comes rom the past, they plan

to meet that commitment in somewhat dierent ways in the uture. Most o all, they are ready to

be donors and all that the term entails now.

2. Impact First: Te word strategic is used probably over-used in many dierent ways in

the eld o philanthropy these days. But these next gen major donors highlight the importance o

strategy or the uture o the eld. Tey see philanthropic strategy as the major distinguishing

actor between themselves and previous generations. Tey intend to change howdecisions are made

and how research and due diligence are conducted, utilizing multiple sources or inormation and

all o the tools in the toolbox, as one o them describes it. Tey see previous generations as more

motivated by a desire or recognition or social requirements, while they see themselves as ocused on

impact, rst and oremost. Tey want impact they can see, and they want to know that their own

involvement has contributed to that impact. Tey want to use any necessary strategies, assets, and

tools new or old or greater impact.

3. Time, Talent, Treasure, and Ties: Once engaged, these next gen major donors want to go all

in. Giving without signicant, hands-on engagement eels to them like a hollow investment with

little assurance o impact. Tey want to develop close relationships with the organizations or causes

they support; they want to listen and oer their own proessional or personal talents, all in order

to solve problems together with those whom they support. Tey have grown up volunteering, and

they still want to oer their time, but in more meaningul ways, not just holding a seat on a gala

organizing committee. Like other Gen Xers and Millennials, these next gen donors are highly

networked with their peers. Tey learn about causes and strategies rom their peer networks andenjoy sharing their own knowledge and experiences with their peers. Tey believe that collaborating

with peers makes them all better donors, and extends their impact. Put simply, they want to give

their ull range o their assets their treasure, o course, but also their time, their talents, and even

their ties, encouraging others to give their own time, talent, treasure, and ties.


9/80

6



4. Crafting Their Philanthropic Identities: As much as they discuss what and how they think

about philanthropy and what they denitely want to do when they take over, these next gen

major donors are still guring out who they will be as donors. Many are in their twenties,

experiencing a move rom adolescence to emerging adulthood and developing a sense o sel. All

are rom high-capacity amilies, where wealth does not always transer easily to the next generation,

and where many adolescents come o age eeling like children waiting to inherit independence

on many levels. And lastly, events and conditions specic to these historical generations have let

lasting impressions that must aect how they act as donors. How do you crat a philanthropic

identity amid these three orces? Mostly, these donors say, through personal experience. Tey learn

most rom seeing and doing, or even hearing rom others about their own authentic experiences

o seeing and doing. Rather than waiting until the sunset o their lives to decide who they are as

philanthropists and what legacies they want to leave, these next gen major donors actively crat their

identities now and activelythink about their own legacies.

Te process o identity ormation is important to all generations in all parts o society. But the

process o philanthropic identity ormation among these particular next gen major donors is

especially signicant, not just or the eld o philanthropy, but or everyone aected by major

philanthropy in our society. Again, these generations o major donors have the potential to

become the most signicant philanthropists in history. Providing a glimpse into their emerging

philanthropic identities is the purpose o this study.

What we have ound should help us all be less araid as they take the reins. Tese next gen donors do

not plan to let the legacies o philanthropy wither away. However, while they respect their amilies

legacies and continue to give to similar causes and in similar ways as their amilies, they are also

eager to revolutionize philanthropy. Tey want to make philanthropy more impactul, more hands-

on, more networked. While these next gen donors want to change things undamentally, they want

to do so in responsible ways, honoring the past while improving the uture. Tey take their roles as

major donors seriously. And as they grow into these roles, they are also eager to be taken seriously.


10/80

7


O u r A p p r o a c h L i s t e n i n g t o t h e N e x t G e n D o n o r s

Our Approach

Listening to the Next Gen DonorsThere has been little previous research on the powerful but very private group

of young people who stand to become the major donors of the future. We know

some qualities of the Gen X and Millennial generations in general, and even have

some information about how they approach giving and social change (Achieve and

Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates, 2012; Bhagat, Loeb, & Rovner, 2010; Center on

Philanthropy, 2008, 2010). But previous examinations have not focused on these

high-capacity next gen donors who can have such influence on the future.2

Te Frey Chair or Family Philanthropy program at the Johnson Center or Philanthropy, and

21/64, a nonprot consulting practice specializing in next gen and multigenerational strategic

philanthropy, have partnered on this rst-o-its-kind research to examine the next generation o

major donors through careul, detailed study o philanthropic orientation, priorities, strategies,

activities, and decision-making. Tis project studies this crucial group directly, rather than

summarizing what others think about them.

Along with the active cooperation o a number o partner organizations (see the Acknowledgements

and Partners section), this unique collaboration allows or both adequate access to this hard-to-

reach group o donors and careul data gathering and rigorous analysis. Ater a literature review

and research scan, throughout 2012 we have listened to the next generation o major donors by

gathering data in two ways: a national online survey (310 total responses) and in-depth interviews

(30 total).

In both cases, participants have been screened to ensure that they are 21 to 40 years old and that

they t our criteria to be considered high-capacity donors. We dene high-capacity as people

currently or potentially active in their amilies signicant philanthropic processes, and/or who are

wealth creators themselves and are currently or potentially active in their own philanthropy. SeeAppendix A or more detail.

Note that this study includes, roughly, the latter hal o the Gen X cohort (the younger ones),

and the rst hal o the Millennial cohort (the older ones). Tat age range allows us to obtain

2 Some previous analyses that do ocus on high-capacity next gen donors do so by examining the experiences

o single organizations working with these donors (Goldberg, Pittleman, & Resource Generation, 2007;

Lerner, 2011).


11/80

8


inormation rom both generations, while ocusing on those people who are most likely to be

settling into their roles as major donors. When comparing many survey answers or Gen Xers versus

Millennials in the analysis, we nd ew notable dierences. Tis gives us the condence to combine

these portions o the two generational cohorts under the single category o next gen.

Te survey and interviews ocus on answering the primary research question: What is the

philanthropic identity o the next generation o major donors? o explore this question, we have

asked these donors:

How do you think about philanthropy?

What are the similarities or dierences in your views rom those o previous generations?

What are your preerred philanthropic strategies?

How do you make decisions about giving, and with what kind o inormation?

What sort o engagement do you seek in addition to giving money?

What do you consider good philanthropy?

Where and how have you learned this approach to philanthropy?

What do you hope or the uture o your philanthropy?

Troughout this report, we allow these next gen donors to speak or themselves by quoting them

directly, though anonymously. Quotations come rom either open-ended responses written by

survey participants or verbatim transcriptions o in-depth interviews.

We do not attempt to assess the value or correctness o the perspectives these donors present in

the data. However, we do highlight what seems most signicant about our ndings, given the

preconceptions about these generations, and we also discuss the ndings implications or the larger

philanthropic community.

Also, in this project, we have not gathered data on the attitudes and behaviors o previous

generations o major philanthropists. While we make occasional comparisons to what we know

rom previous research about older generations, most such comparisons in this report come rom

the next gen donors themselves rom what they have seen and what they think about their

parents, grandparents, and other major donors who have come beore.

O u r A p p r o a c h L i s t e n i n g t o t h e N e x t G e n D o n o r s


12/80

9


A Snapshot

David and Jennifer

David is a nancial advisor in his mid-20s.3 He grew up in a amily that received honors or their

commitment to local philanthropic campaigns. Davids parents encouraged him and his brothers to

give regularly, even just a ew coins, and talked to the boys about the grants the amily made rom

a donor-advised und.

Now an adult, David has moved away rom his hometown, and while he credits his parents with

teaching him the value o giving, he chooses to give in ways that he sees as very dierent rom

theirs. He eels dissatised with the traditional organizations in his new town, groups that he says

only want to talk to him about how he can be recognized as he moves rom one donor category up

to a higher category over time, and that only oer generic options or volunteering, or example,

allowing him to eed people at a homeless shelter or a day, or sit in the board meeting or no

apparent reason.

Looking or more, David has become involved with a local organization that allows him to give his

time, talent, and treasure in more meaningul and ullling ways. He loves having the chance to

oer nancial and marketing advice, his skills and interests, as well as writing a check. He loves the

deep engagement with one nonprot at a time. When I want to get involved in an organization,it is all in. I Im going to be involved with something, it is going to be 100 percent, until I eel

like I have run my course in that organization, and I will move on to something else. He loves that

this hands-on engagement contributes to his own personal growth as a man, as a proessional,

and as a philanthropist.

Jennier is in her mid-30s, and like David she actively takes charge o her own growth as a

philanthropist. In act, she has made it her career. Jennier traces her amilys wealth back through

multiple generations preceding both her great-grandather and great-grandmother. She says she has

a deeply responsible eeling o stewardship toward that wealth and toward her amilys legacy in

the Southern town in which they have been prominent donors or many years.

But the legacy o giving that Jennier has inherited is not what she would call strategic giving.

Finding hersel given a larger role in the amily oundation at a relatively young age, she has worked

hard to revamp the amilys giving processes. She encourages them to conduct extensive due

3 All names used or interviewees are pseudonyms, and some personal acts have been altered to protect their

identities.

A S n a p s h o t


13/80

10


diligence reviews and to make it a priority to und smaller organizations, those nonprots in need

o inusions o cash and a stamp o credibility, where the oundation can have a real impact.

Jennier has also started building relationships with and learning rom her peers and other next gen

donors around the country, going to conerences, and developing networks that she relies on or

occasional collaboration and requent inspiration. She spends her time hanging out with a lot o

social entrepreneurs and brings her interest in innovation, such as program-related investments or

boundary-blurring social enterprises, back to her work with her amilys oundation. She didnt plan

it this way, but philanthropy has become her ull-time job, and she is excited to be part o the next

gen group that is eagerly pushing the eld in new directions.

David and Jennier illustrate the type o major donors with whom we have spoken in

our interviews and who have described their philanthropy in our national survey. Tey illustrate

how these rising philanthropic leaders are hands-on, linked to peers, and ocused on making an

impact with innovative strategies. Tey also show how the next gen respects amily legacy and

values the lessons learned rom parents and grandparents, even while moving on to new strategies

or new hometowns.

Appendix B provides demographic and other key summary inormation about the sample o next

gen survey respondents and in-depth interview participants. O the survey respondents, roughly hal

are in their 20s and hal in their 30s, and 63.8 percent are emale. Most (60.6 percent) are married,

although only 38.8 percent have children, and they are distributed widely across the country. Tey

are well educated; 98.7 percent hold Bachelors degrees or above and 54.2 percent hold graduatedegrees. Seventy percent work ull time or are sel-employed; the rest are students, stay-at-home

parents, or work part time only. Te vast majority sel-identiy as white (95.6 percent), although

9.3 percent also identiy with another racial or ethnic category or as mixed heritage respondents

can identiy with more than one category. Most are either Christian (34.7 percent) or Jewish (32

percent), while 16.9 percent are agnostic or atheist, and 20.1 percent say they never attend religious

services. Quite a bit more identiy as liberal (55.1 percent) than as conservative (15.6 percent),

and while the same is true o their parents, the numbers are not as ar apart. Demographics or the

interviewees, like David and Jennier, are roughly similar, although the percentage o interviewees

indicating some racial or ethnic category other than, or in addition to, white is slightly larger.4

4 Because there are no good sources o data on the general demographics o 21- to 40-year-olds in high-net-

worth, high-capacity philanthropic amilies, we cannot make an objective assessment o the representativeness

o our survey and interview samples. We may have an oversample o women, Jews, and liberals, although

younger generations tend to report more liberal political attitudes than older generations.

A S n a p s h o t


14/80

11


As noted, this study ocuses on high-capacity donors in this age group, those who look to make

decisions about an unprecedented amount o charitable resources in the next ew decades. For most

respondents, their capacities or major giving come rom their amilies assets rather than their own

at this stage in their lives. As detailed in Appendix B, while 42.7 percent o survey respondents

do report personal net worth over $1 million, and 55.2 percent receive an annual income over

$100,000, most (72.9 percent) report under $10,000 per year in personal charitable giving, and

only 7.7 percent say they personally give $50,000 or more per year.

Survey respondents report that amily giving is much higher, as Appendix B and Figures 1 and 2

show. O those who know their levels o amily giving, 53.4 percent say their amilies donate over

$250,000 per year, and 29.7 percent donate $1 million or more. O those who know their amilies

levels o endowed assets designated or charity, 52.2 percent say the amily has $5 million or more,

and 9.5 percent have $100 million or more.

On the whole, interview participants report higher personal income, net worth, and annual personal

giving than survey respondents. Like the survey respondents, however, their personal capacities or

giving remain lower than their amilies capacities at this point.

Figure 1: Familys Total Annual Giving

10.4

19.3

23.7

16.3

30.4

>$5M

$1M $5M

$250K - $1M

$50K $250K


15/80

12


Figure 2: Familys Total Endowed Philanthropic Assets

1.9

7.6

20.4

22.3

24.2

>$500M

$100M $500M

$25M - $100M

$5M $25M

$500K $5M


16/80

13


I Inheriting Values,

Looking to the FutureTheir Values

Tese next gen major donors carry deeply-held eelings o responsibility. Despite popular cultures

ocus on the materialism o post-Baby Boomer generations, our data suggest that high-capacity

donors are strongly driven by their values, not their valuables. In act, many inheritors o wealth

and philanthropy describe their social positions as one o privilege. Tey say that privilege carries

with it a great sense o duty to give, and to give without a desire or the recognition that they eel

previous generations have wanted to accompany their gits.

As shown in Figure 3, when asked about personal reasons or engaging in philanthropy, Supportinga mission or cause that I believe in, and that ts with my personal values is deemed most important,

with nearly all respondents identiying that reason as very important. Fullling my duty as

a person o privilege, to give back to society is the second most highly rated. Helping the less

ortunate and the disadvantaged also ranks high on the list. On the other hand, Receiving some

sort o sincere recognition or thanks (like a mention on a donor list), Having the chance to

attend a social event, and Receiving some sort o tangible benet (like a tote bag or magazine

subscription) are among the least valued.

I I n h e r i t i n g V a l u e s , L o o k i n g t o t h e F u t u r e

Wealth is a privilege, not a right, and at the risk o

sounding clich, with great wealth, comes great responsibility.

Those who have a lot must give a lot. It was

ingrained in us that i you have you must also give back.


17/80

14


Figure 3: Importance o Reasons or Engaging in Philanthropy

3.8

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

Supporting a mission or cause that fits with personal values

Fulfilling duty as a person of privilege, to give back to society

Seeing that contribution makes real dierence and organization has real impact

Helping less fortunate help themselves, helping communities be self-sustaining

Addressing problems in local community or hometown

Supporting issues that have aected me or ones personally

Helping in times of crisis or emergency

Addressing the most pressing problems and helping the most disadvantaged

Giving back in return for help received in the past

Honoring and continuing my familys philanthropic legacy

Having an opportunity to give or volunteer together with family

Being asked to give by peers or respected others

Connecting philanthropic activities with professional activities

Supporting others who share my identity (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, politics, etc.

Giving to faith community, or in ways that reflect faith

Coordinating giving with political beliefs and activities

Having contact with the beneficiaries of the organization

Supporting alma mater

Fitting philanthropy into pre-determined giving or financial plan

Receiving some sort of sincere recognition or thanks

Establishing independence from parents and family

Having the chance to attend a social event as part of giving

Receiving some sort of tangible benefit

Other

3.2

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.2

2.2

KEY

4 = Very Important

3 = Somewhat important

2 = Minimally important

1 = Not at all important n = 241



18/80

15


Responses to this survey question begin to give shape to the character o the next gen donors in

our study. Tey are motivated by values, and they support causes in which they believe, rather than

those rom which they derive personal benet or tangible reciprocity. In this ocus on aligning

giving with values and eeling an obligation to give back, these younger major donors are similar to

older donors, as we know rom other studies o high-net-worth donors (Bank o America & Center

on Philanthropy, 2012; Noonan & Rosqueta, 2008; Ostrower, 1997; Schervish, 2005; Seran,

2012). However, they are also dierent in other ways, as later sections o this report discuss.

Many stories in the interviews show how these supposedly materialistic, even entitled, next

generations o wealthy individuals in act eel a sense o moral responsibility to give and to live

out important values. Teir stories oten describe how these sentiments are part o what they have

learned growing up in philanthropic amilies.

One man, just becoming involved in his amilys oundation, describes what he learned by watching

his amily give when he was a child.

Another young woman describes how her amily cherishes and honors the origins o this sense omoral obligation.


The tremendous resources that we have and the ease that I have in my lie has always been

tied together with that sense o responsibility or the community. We actually have a letter this is

really cool my great (maybe another great) uncle came to the United States by himsel at age 15, or

something like that. And he had a letter in his hands rom his uncle about leaving his amily and coming

to the United States. And it talks a lot about, I you should be so lucky as to make great ortune in

your new country, always remember that that comes with the responsibility and that is connected with

turning it back around and being a part o a community. It puts it in this sort o moral context. It is not

your money but money you are a steward o, and it is your obligation o he even talks about God

and it is your spiritual and moral obligation to turn that back around. I think that is very much a part

o how I see my whole lie and especially the oundation work that we do. So in terms o values, I think

valuing that giving, that connection, keeping humility about the situation we are in. This isnt our

money. The money doesnt belong to our amily. We have the good ortune o being able to shepherd

it to the programs that we are excited about, but this is the cool thing about the oundation, the money

has already been given.

Philanthropy matters. It is a part o how you engage with the world. It is

a part o being a responsible member o a community. It is part o being an

adult, doing it. Just doing it matters, doing it both with the unds you have

and with the time you have given away.


19/80

16



We hear similar expressions o responsibility, connected to amily, values, and privilege, throughout

the interviews.

Their Legacies

In adolescence, parents and children struggle with conict as young people attempt to individuate

and discover who they are, brushing up against parental opinion. As adolescents move to emerging

adulthood, they discover that with more perspective comes an ability to understand how their

parents see the world, and an appreciation or their parents as people (Arnett, 2004).

In amilies where there is wealth and/or an existing amily legacy o signicant philanthropy, thisprocess o reecting on ones own lie and belies can be intensied by looking toward parents, and

even grandparents, especially in relation to philanthropy. In discovering who they are as adults and

clariying their own identities, the next gen donors in our study seem to look back at their legacies,

the amily stories and values they have inherited, and nd some guidance as they think about their

own giving. Tis leads them to eel strong connections to their amilies giving traditions.

Figure 4 details how most o these next gen donors have inherited the amilys wealth.

For many (41 percent), their parents have created the wealth; thereore, the amily legacy

o major giving is airly new to them, and some have spent parts o their childhoods without

signicant means.

My amily has taught me everything I know about giving

and how to give. I approach it very dierently and, o course,

bring dierent things to the table as a young person with a resh

perspective. But everything that I do, my roadmap, essentially,

to giving is based upon what they have taught me.

I think the amily legacy issue is at the background, and it

speaks to our values. So I think we have all agreed that the legacy

is part o why we come together and why we continue to do this

[amily oundation giving]. That is a very uniying element and

why we are all there.


20/80

17



Figure 4: Generation that Created Majority o Wealth

7.2

2.0

41.0

34.9

12.1

I am the primary wealth creator

Other family members in my generation

My parents generation

My grandparents generation

My great-grandparents generation

Generations before my great grandparents

Dont know

2.3

0.7

percent of survey respondents

n = 307

Figure 3 in the previous section shows that all survey respondents consider Honoring and

continuing my amilys philanthropic legacy to be relatively important when compared with other

reasons or engaging in philanthropy. When directly asked about legacy in interviews, many donors

explain that legacy is an important, although not themost important, reason or philanthropy.

Tese young donors say they are committed to being good stewards o their amilies legacies, even

i, as we discuss in later sections, they intend to put their own stamps on those legacies when they

get the chance. Tey say awareness o a legacy inorms their involvement with their amilies giving

processes, and some say they also intend to teach their own kids to carry it on.

I think we would try to teach our kids that you

need to be respectul o the person that ounded

the oundation and make sure that the legacy is

carried on to his hopes, i possible.

One o the purposes o this existence o the oundation is to

engage us in philanthropy in our communities and, I think, to carry on

the tradition that my grandather really embodied o being a part o thecommunity, being very generous with the money that he had earned, and

turning it back around and putting it into the community.

My great-grandparents who came to this country over a hundred years

ago theres something about that, it really guides us in some kind o

subconscious way. And sometimes we are more aware o it, and we kind o

point it out and discuss it, but it is almost an unspoken presence that I think

serves as some kind o glue or what we are doing and how we unction.


21/80


18

Clearly, then, most o these young donors are very aware o their philanthropic legacies and want

to honor them, whether those legacies were created long ago or have been recently started by

their parents or grandparents. Also, or most, the process o carrying on these legacies is an active

process. It involves learning about philanthropy rom their parents and grandparents and very early

involvement in giving and volunteering, both on their own and with their amilies.

When asked about the people who might have inuenced their learning about philanthropy, more

next gen donors say they are inuenced by parents and grandparents than by any another group. As

Figure 5 shows, 89.4 percent cite their parents as an inuence. Note that this question does not ask

about the amount o inuence o each group, but whether each group is an inuence o some sort.

Figure 5: People Who Inuenced Learning About Philanthropy

89.4

62.6

55.5

47.1

41.0

Parent(s)

Grandparent(s)

Close friend(s)

Peer(s)

Sibling(s)

Other nonprofit leader

Spuse

Grantee

Other community leader

Teacher

Religious leader

Financial or other advisor

Other

40.5

37.9

27.8

23.8

21.6

18.9

9.7

4.4


n = 227

Still, in this inormation age, in which Millennials in particular spend much o their waking hours

on social networking sites and texting, this prominent role or parents and grandparents in teaching

philanthropy should not be taken or granted. Well-educated and well-traveled, these independent

adults still say that parents and grandparents matter. O course, close riends and peers are the

next most common groups cited as inuences, and the importance o peers is a major nding o

this research, which we discuss later.



22/80

19


But just what and how are parents and grandparents teaching these next gen major donors? How

might that teaching inuence the next generations view o the amily legacy and the approach to

philanthropy going orward?

Interviewees and survey respondents talk mostly about how their parents teach them, either directly

or indirectly, by modeling the value and duty o giving. Tey oten credit amily with teaching the

sort o philanthropic values discussed in the previous section.

Te data show that a commitment to philanthropy is instilled in these next gen donors very early

on. As Figures 6 through 8 show, most o them develop their philanthropic habits initially through

volunteering as pre-teens or teenagers, and more than hal begin giving their own money beorebecoming adults. In most cases, both o these activities take place while living in their parents

homes. Tey are also brought into their amilies philanthropic activities early on, with 40.9 percent

saying their amilies have involved them in some way beore the age o 21.5

5 Wuthnow (1995) has shown how these early experiences prove to be extremely important in teaching young

people about philanthropy.

Who Influences Next Gen Donors

PARENTS

89%GRANDPARENTS

63%CLOSE FRIENDS

56%PEERS

47%

i ii i i


One o the strongest values came rom my grandather and mymother. Because my grandather started with nothing, grew up in the

Great Depression, and was a war veteran. [He] was very successul and

lucky and built up this very successul business, but always said, Dont

orget where you came rom. Take care o those less ortunate than you

are. And, We need to help the neediest in the community.

I would say that without question, my obligation and duty to do this,

came rom my parents and the childhood that I had. They were working on

boards when we were young. They were giving money away beore I could talk.

That was the m.o., that is what we do.


23/80

20



Figure 6: Age when Started Volunteering

0.3

1.7

3.1

16.7

42.5

3135

2630

2125

1620

1115

10 or younger 35.5


n = 287

Figure 7: Age when Started Charitable Giving with Own Resources

0.7

47.2

51.0

3140

2130

20 or younger


n = 286

Figure 8: Age when First Included in Familys Philanthropic Activities

11.4

47.7

10.9

3140

2130

20 or younger



24/80

21



For some with these early philanthropic experiences, encouraged by parents and grandparents, their

involvement has created a commitment to philanthropy as a part o a privileged lie. For others, it

has shaped the specic approaches to philanthropy that they pursue today.

In general, parents and grandparents have been more inuential in teaching next gen donors the

whyo philanthropy more than the how, transerring values more than strategy. In a way, this could

be an expression o the next gen donors needs as emerging adults to balance their legacies with their

own adult identities. Many laud the lessons they have learned rom their amilies while consciously

wanting to evolve, to innovate, to bring new tools to the practice o giving, both to make it their

own and to meet the emerging needs o today.

Tis dynamic balance o the past and the uture comes through in many o the ndings o this

report. Next gen donors eel a commitment to philanthropy that comes rom the past, but they

seek to meet that commitment in somewhat dierent, maybe even revolutionary ways in the uture.

I think the legacy these early experiences let were the need to

volunteer my time and be hands-on. I am blessed by the opportunity

these days to participate in philanthropy on a much larger scale, butthis eeling o wanting to be connected on the ground to some o the

organizations we work with has persisted.

These experiences, at an age when my mind was still orming,

have completely shaped my view o the world and my priorities.

It was the norm and a part o lie. I dont even

remember actively thinking about what I was doing

[that I was volunteering]. It was just what you do.


25/80

22



Their Causes

Will the next generation o major donors give to the same causes as previous generations?

Organizations working in specic cause areas certainly want to know, as they look to engage Gen

X and Millennial donors.

Older members o philanthropic amilies also want to know i younger donors will continue to give

in the same issue areas, i not to the same specic organizations, as part o continuing the amilys

legacy o giving.

Figure 9 shows what the next gen survey respondents say are the issues they support personally,

along with those areas their amilies support. For the three most popular areas youth and amily,education, and basic needs there is little dierence between their giving and their amilies

giving. Tey are more likely than their amilies to give to civil rights/advocacy and environment/

animals causes, and less likely to give to arts and culture, religious, community development, and

combination organizations, such as the United Way or Jewish Federations. Clearly, though, the

most dramatic dierence is in giving to health-related issues. And perhaps the most surprising

similarity is in giving to international organizations, as the next generations are thought to be

relatively more ocused on global causes versus domestic.

I actively seek out dierent kinds o organizations

to support smaller ones especially, and ones doing

innovative things while my amily supports larger

organizations and institutions.

Because o my amilys extensive history with certain

organizations, I know the people involved. I know the causes that

they do. I have been intimately involved with them with my amily

and so I trust them.


26/80

23



Figure 9: Family and Personal Giving to Issue Areas

78.8

82.0

66.9

63.3

39.6

38.1

Youth & Family Services

Education

Basic Needs

Arts & Culture

Religious & Faith-based

Civil Rights & Advocacy

Environmental & Animal-related

Combination Organizations

Health

International

Community &Economic Development

Other

37.1

37.1

26.3

23.4

22.7

20.1

4.0

57.9

52.5

56.1

28.8

28.4

39.6

77.3

23.0

28.4

4.3


n = 278

personal

family

68.0


27/80

24



Te survey also poses a comparative question directly to these young donors: Do they support

similar or dierent causes than their amilies, and do they give in similar or dierent ways? Figure

10 shows, again, that these next gen donors eel they are more similar to than dierent rom their

amilies. Only 32.9 percent say they give to dierent causes. However, the act that more see a

dierence in howthey give rather than whatthey support is very signicant. Tis is something we

explore more below when discussing how next gen donors want to adopt new strategies o giving

in the uture.

l

il i

il i

lii

Comparing Generational Priorities:

Next Gen Vs Families

Shared

YOUTH/FAMILY EDUCATION BASIC NEEDS

Divergent

HEALTH RELIGION/FAITH ARTS/CULTURE

ANIMAL WELFARE ENVIRONMENT

Emergent

CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCACY


28/80

25



Additional analysis o the survey data shows this is one area where the two generations in this

study diverge a bit. A higher percentage o the Gen X cohort notes a dierence between personal

and amily philanthropy than does the Millennial cohort, suggesting that similarities decline as

next gen donors age, and as they become more condent and/or independent in their giving. Not

surprisingly, analysis also shows that those who say they are not involved in their amilies giving are

also more likely to note dierences in their causes or strategies.

Figure 10: Personal Causes and Strategy Compared to Family

Similar causes; Similar ways

Similar causes: Dierent ways

Dierent causes: Similar ways

Dierent causes; Dierent ways


n = 251

37.2

29.9

19.0

13.9

We know rom previous research that certain causes have particular appeal to older major donors,

and this seems to t with the ndings here (Bank o America & Center on Philanthropy, 2012;

Noonan & Rosqueta, 2008; Ostrower, 1997; Seran, 2012; obin & Weinberg, 2007). Health

causes, especially hospitals and medical research, are popular with older major donors becausehealth is usually a more personally relevant cause as people age. Older donors are also core patrons

o the arts and oten have leadership roles in traditional community organizations. We also know

that Gen Xers and Millennials are less engaged in ormal religious practices, and they are more

environmentally conscious than their parents and grandparents, having grown up exposed routinely

to messages about recycling, climate change, and nite natural resources.6

Given the chance to explain why they describe their philanthropy as similar to or dierent rom their

amilies, many survey respondents who note similarities attribute them to their close integration

into the amilys giving. Tose who note dierences sometimes cite religious or political dierences

that lead them to give to dierent causes rom their parents. Others oer reasons that point more

to dierences in the types o organizations rather than in the issue areas per se.

6 Because o the important connection o religiosity and giving, the dierence in religious belies and practices

o the younger generations can potentially explain a lot about their dierent levels and types o giving. See

Center on Philanthropy (2010) and Greenberg (2005).


29/80

26



Tese views suggest that next gen donors ocus more on issues, while they see the older generations

in their amilies as ocused on institutions. Like David, proled at the beginning o this report, they

are not interested in unding community institutions just because that is expected o them. Tey

want to engage with organizations with which they can connect in personal ways. Tis desire or

close, hands-on engagement utilizing personal interests and skills is a major nding o this study

that we discuss more later.

Finally, we need to explore how these next gen donors approach local giving. Many amily

oundations and community oundations that host amily donor-advised unds ace difcult

challenges in our highly mobile world. Te next gen amily members oten no longer live in the

community where the oundations giving is ocused, and this makes carrying on the amilys

legacy difcult, i that giving legacy is place-based (McKitrick & Hirt, 2011). However, despite

the salience o this concern over geographic dispersion in the eld, Figure 11 shows that this is not

a problem or over 70 percent o survey respondents because they live in the same town as their

amilies giving, or their amilies give beyond one local community.

Also, recall rom Figure 3 earlier that many survey respondents cite Addressing problems in my

local community or hometown as an important reason or giving. For some respondents, the

local community and hometown may be dierent places, however, it appears that many next gen

members areinterested in unding local institutions and causes, although perhaps not in traditional

ways. For example, we nd that the next generation is less interested in giving to combination

organizations like United Ways or Federations that raise money or local communities.

We [the next gen] are more excited about projects than we

are about place. I think i there is a project that we could choose to

und, we would do it in several locations.

[My ather] has a list o a dozen nonprots that are

well-meaning and do great things, but I might come at a

problem dierently. Where hes got a list o actual nonprots,I may have a list o problems Im interested in and then try to

research what is the best way to attack that problem.


30/80

27



Figure 11: Familys Geographic Giving Focus and Personal Residence

I live there currently,

and plan to in the future

I live there currently,

but dont plan to in the future

I dont live there currently,

but plan to in the future

I dont live there currently,

and dont plan to in the future

Not applicable. My family gives in

many dierent communities and/or

nationally/internationally

Dont know


n = 305

32.8

2.3

4.9

19.0

39.0

2.0

Tose respondents who are part o a place-based amily giving process, but who do not

live in that place, mostly say they have resolved to continue the ocus o the oundation on that

local community.

Overall, the causes supported by these next gen donors are more similar to than dierent rom their

amilies causes. However, there are also important dierences to explore, dierences that could

persist as these next gen donors acquire more decision-making power in their amily enterprises.

We are pretty spread out geographically, so we have decided

to ocus on the city where my mother and her generation grew up

and where the money was actually made and created. It has been

nice or keeping us ocused on something that we all love and care

about and also not splintering the ocus o the oundation.

The amily business has been in my hometown or vegenerations. My generation is the rst to leave and probably

never move back, but I eel we should still support the town

in some ways.


31/80

28



Their Activities

While the causes that next gen donors support remain similar to those unded by their amilies,

their activities and interests in new ways o giving suggest the potential or a very dierent, morediverse array o philanthropic activities in years to come. Te invention o new vehicles and

expansion o sector-blurring methods or pursuing social change give uel to the argument that this

is a historic philanthropic age.

In this study, we attempt to understand not just whatnext gen donors support but howthey engage.

We examine what philanthropic vehicles and methods next gen donors utilize, as opposed to the

ones their amilies use, and in what other activities they engage. o explore the potential o what lies

ahead, we have also asked interviewees and survey respondents to speculate about what they plan to

do in the uture as they step into greater philanthropic responsibilities.

Figure 12 shows the vehicles used by these next gen donors in their personal giving so ar, as well

as those used in their amilies giving. Next gen donors clearly use a range o vehicles, including

many traditional ones. In act, more o them say they give by check, cash, or workplace deduction

personally than their amilies do (at least to their knowledge). Tis is likely due to the act that in

these high-capacity amilies, philanthropic giving is very institutionalized, as the number o amily

oundations and amily donor-advised unds demonstrates.

Tere is some indication o interest in new vehicles among next gen donors, as indicated by their

greater use o giving circles or pooled unds. Also, younger donors are more likely to have donor-

advised unds, while their amilies are more likely to have oundations, but this is most likely due

to the current size o their assets to endow.

I think its a very exciting time to be involved in this.... People are just thinking

dierently about philanthropy. They are not just writing checks to established nonprots,

to the United Way or the Red Cross. Theyre saying, Well, there are these Kiva loans and

there are these social businesses and there are these double-bottom-line, triple-bottom-

line investments. There are a million dierent ways to be philanthropic in 2012 that there

werent in 1985.


32/80

29



Figure 12: Current Personal and Family Use o Giving Vehicles

84.8

59.4

57.7

17.1

14.8

12.6

Check

Cash

(incl. checkout, collection plate)

Workplace giving

Giving circle/Pooled fund

Donor-advised fund

community foundation

Private foundation

Donor-advised fund

other institution

Bequest

Corporate giving family business

Donor-advised fund

financial institution

Gift annuity

Charitable remainder trust

Charitable lead trust

Other

6.1

7.7

6.5

5.2

3.9

2.9

0.6

9.7

6.8

25.8

75.8

20.0

11.3

22.6

11.3

7.7

11.9

0.6

7.4

7.1

2.6


n = 310

personal

family

32.6


33/80

30



We see clearer evidence o these rising generations interests in new means o giving when we ask

about the more specic range o their ormal and inormal activities in the last year, ocusing on

when and where they give rather than what giving vehicle they use. Giving online directly to an

organization is the most common activity among these next gen donors, practiced by 77.7 percent

o respondents, and quite a ew people give online through giving portals as well. Giving via text

message, mobile app, or social networking sites, however, is relatively uncommon. While the next

gen is associated with technology in general, and next gen high-capacity donors do give online, they

do notgive through texts or Facebook, as might be suspected. Tese numbers match those ound

in other research studies conducted on giving by Gen Xers and Millennials o all economic levels

(Achieve and Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates, 2012; Bhagat, et al., 2010).

Asking about recent giving activities also shows clear evidence o considerable involvement in

giving time as well as treasure. Volunteer engagements and inormal helping (o riends, o peopleon the street, in person-to-person ways) are very common. Tis is to be expected rom donors who

have been encouraged to volunteer early on.

We also nd that network connections play a signicant role in next gen donors activities. Many

in our study spend time encouraging or helping others to do their own philanthropy. Encouraging

others to give, providing inormation, and promoting a cause or organization online are all very

common activities. In act, promoting a cause online ranks higher than actually giving online. Tis

interest in helping others to give, especially peers, and seeing the engagement o ones networks as

a valued philanthropic act are key ndings that we explore more later.


34/80

31


I I n h e r i t i n g V a l u e s , L o o k i n g t o t h e F u t u r e e n d o n o r s . o r g

Figure 13: Types o Philanthropic Acts in Past 12 Months

77.7

70.9

70.2

69.1

65.2

Gave online at organizations website

Gave in-kind materials

Volunteered time

Contributed to a charity event

Encouraged family, friends, or others to give or volunteer

Person-to-person request

Helped out a friend, family, neighbor, etc., informally

Provided networking information

Promoted a cause or organization using online means

Gave to someone on the street

Member of another nonprofit organization

Gave online via a donation site/giving portal

Nonprofit organization board member

Pro bono services

Raised money by other means

Gave via postal service

Raised money by participating in event or selling

Member of a religious organization

Advocated or lobbied

Peer network with other donors

Pledged over the phone

Participated in protest, rally, or social movement

Grassroots organizing

Gave via text message

Gave via social networking site

Foundation board member (other than family foundation)

Member of a service club

Gave via mobile application

Other

63.5

62.1

56.4

51.4

50.4

47.5

47.245.4

42.9

42.2

39.4

39.0

37.9

32.6

25.5

22.7

21.3

3.2

15.2

14.9

9.6

7.1

7.1

17.7

4.6


n = 282


35/80

32



Most o these high-capacity next gen donors are also involved in their amilies giving as well,

though a majority o respondents engage with their amilies in inormal and advisory ways, as

shown in Figure 14. However, recall that over 75 percent o respondents are part o a amily with a

oundation. Tis means that roughly hal o those sit on the board o that oundation, more i we

include committees, junior boards, or next gen committees. Tereore, these are not just donors

o the uture, they are donors in positions o decision-making authority now.

Figure 14: Current Means o Involvement in Familys Philanthropy

66.0

64.9

57.9

56.8

42.5

Oer opinions directly to family member

Help choose giving recipients

Help choose area or causes

Discuss family mission and legacy

Converse with board members and/or sta

Attend formal meetings to discuss giving

Review financial information

Serve on primary baord

Participate in family giving events

Attend family retreats

Volunteer for family service events

Serve on foundation committee

Serve on junior board, NextGen committee

Attend meetings, but dont vote

Serve as paid sta or family foundation

Other

39.4

38.6

37.1

35.1

25.5

20.5

16.2

16.2

13.9

6.9

4.6


n = 259

It is through these personal and amily activities that these next gen donors bring their values,

experiences, and opinions to the table. In turn, it is also a training ground where they develop

opinions about the vehicles and strategies they want to pursue in their own philanthropy throughout

their lives.


36/80

33



Interviewees concur that they are still airly limited in their own personal giving, give more with

their amilies, and are not necessarily doing philanthropy in the ways that theyreallywant. Tey

learn rom their amilies giving activities while exploring other philanthropic methods that appeal

to them, which tend to be more collaborative, peer-oriented, or online. Where they are now is not

where they want to be, or think they will be in the uture.

Many also relate their excitement about specic new innovations, about the current million

dierent ways to be philanthropic versus the ewer options o the past. Some, like the person quoted

above, mention collaborative approaches. Others discuss social businesses, social enterprises,

micronance, and other new models that blur the boundaries between or-prot and nonprot.

Tere is also considerable interest in what has come to be called impact investing investing

endowments and personal assets in ways that advance social, not just nancial, goals. Tis makes

sense given that this question o how best to invest is a very real one or this particular group o Gen

Xers and Millennials. Not everyone speaks about these new approaches, but those who do those

who have been exposed to them, perhaps through peer or proessional networks are oten very

passionate about them and want others to know o this passion.

My personal giving is inuenced by my amilys history o

giving, and much o my experience o giving comes rom modelsI have learned rom my larger amily. That is changing, however,

as my personal giving increases yearly.

There is a dierence between what I think is important

and what is actually reected in my current giving. There are

many ideals I strive or that I have not yet hit. For instance,

I think that giving collaboratively and involving others

in decision-making is critical, but I havent done a lot o it yet.


37/80

34



Their Eagerness

Next gen major donors are eager to be more involved in philanthropy, both their own and their

amilies. Tey yearn to pursue their own preerred ways o doing good, some traditional, some new.

Tey want to be taken seriously as thoughtul, engaged donors, like the woman above who wants

to prove [her] worth.

While some parents and grandparents worry about involving the next generation in the amilys

giving vehicles, this study shows that we should not ear giving next gen donors the proverbial keys

to the car. In act, respect or their predecessors leads them to be responsible stewards o amily

legacy and philanthropy, even i they want to reinterpret their amilies giving values in ways that

better address todays challenges.

As shown in Figures 15 and 16, these next gen donors ully expect to be more involved in their

amilies philanthropy in the uture. Tey also eel that their early training in volunteerism and

giving makes them experienced in philanthropy and ready to take on that responsibility. Over hal

say they are very or airly experienced, and they are eager to bring that experience to bear on

their amilies giving.

[Im] paying respect to the opportunities that I had, paying

respect to the philanthropy that I learned, but taking that and

evolving it into something that will be more uniquely my own

meaning mine and my husbands own going orward.

When is the right time or me to step up at my

oundation, when is the right time or me to have a

trustee seat or try and prove my worth?

There is some trepidation, but I would be excited

just to be brought to the table and to be able to talk.


38/80

35



Figure 15: Current and Expected Future Involvement in Familys Philanthropy

53.6

36.4

33.4

9.4

3.6

Very involved

Somewhat involved

Minimally involved

Not involved at all

24.0

10.7

percent of survey respondentsn = 308

Future Involvement

Current Involvement

28.9

Figure 16: Level o Experience with Giving and Volunteering

Very experienced

Fairly experienced

Some experience but lots to learn

Just beginning to learn


n = 281

20.3

30.6

29.7

10.0

Tis eagerness to be more involved in their amilies giving processes is oten expressed in interviews

in terms o rustration and uncertainty.

Im learning about all these amazing things that we

could and should be doing. I I had time, I would bring

them to the amily, but it is not really my role, I dont want

to step on any toes.

A lot o the [other young donors] whom I have spoken to,

they dont have a seat at their amily oundation table, and they

dont know i theyre going to have [one]. They all seem to be

struggling with the same kind o [question], Where do I t in?


39/80


36 I In he r i t i ng V a lu es , L oo k i ng to th e F ut ur e

Still, this eagerness seems to come rom a positive place, rom an appreciation o the benets and

potential rewards o being involved. Many in this next generation eel a strong desire to help their

amilies improve their giving processes, to make these processes more participatory and rewarding

or everyone. Tis suggests that involving the next gen might very well lead to change, but change

that they believe would be advantageous to donors as well as beneciaries.

What we have learned about these next gen donors so ar, however, suggests that they do not

want to change everything. As they move rom adolescence to adulthood, these young donors

nd a delicate balance between the past and the uture, between appreciating and stewarding the

philanthropic legacy o their amilies and pursuing their own interests, between learning the value

o giving back rom their parents and grandparents and learning about new innovations in the eld,

between giving to traditional causes in traditional ways and starting to create their own traditions.

In the next sections o the report we urther explore how next gen donors want to change and

improve their amilies giving and also evolve their personal giving as they learn and grow.

What I am trying to do right now is to create new habits within

our amily o talking with each other about giving, which we have not

done in the past. I want us to be more comortable talking through

our personal and collective giving and guring out together how we

want to go orward.

The eedback rom that [older] generation has

always been, Well, that is not what weve always done,so why should we do it now? What I nd in the younger

generation, 30 to 50 [years old], there is a much more

collaborative dialogue. There is much more openness to

new ideas and doing things a little bit dierently.

I think everyone really gets a lot out o the process

o being involved [in the oundation] and staying

connected to that community, and also just working

together and getting to have this project that we do

as a amily.


40/80


37I I S t r a t e g i e s o r I m p a c t

II Strategies or Impact

Their Strategies

As weve seen, Gen X and Millennial major donors are similar to previous generations in their

philanthropic values, many o their causes, and their current (i not anticipated uture) activities.

Where they see the most dierence rom their parents and grandparents, and where they talk most

about a desire to change things, is in terms o the strategies they and their amilies use or giving. As

these generations take more control o their own and their amilies philanthropic processes, theyintend to change how decisions are made and to make use o more and newer tools in the toolbox,

as one o them puts it.

When we ask these next gen donors how they dier most rom their parents or grandparents, and

what they would retain or enhance i and when they have the ability to change their amilies

giving, they routinely point to strategy changes they want to make. Tey see this as the primary

generational divide. Tey are also excited to be part o this generational shit because they see it as

necessary or making philanthropy more eective.

I wish they would just knock down all the walls at the

oundation and put drating tables in the middle o the

space and everyone just work together.

It is okay to be passionate about giving, but it is

important to do your due diligence on organizations

and hold people accountable.

I eel like, generation-wise, we are really

blazing a trail that is very dierent rom the

generation that came beore.


41/80


38 I I S t r a t e g i e s o r I m p a c t

But what specic strategies do these rising donors want to pursue? What will they change when

they have the chance? Figure 17 shows what survey respondents consider the most important

components o philanthropic strategy, and some o the strategic elements at the top o the list

t well with the model o strategic philanthropy that has emerged in the eld o giving and

grantmaking over the last ew decades.

I think the next generation just looks at problems

dierently and attacks problems dierently. I thinkits just that we are in this exciting time where there are

dierent ways to nd inormation and look at problems

dierently, and I think just that alone makes solving social

issues dierent.

I think it is a blend o accepting, learning, and carrying

out some established best practices, and in other places

pushing back or challenging other best practices or habits

that have existed.

[I I were in charge o my amilys giving,] I would have

much more o a structured approach, with governance and

guidelines around the who and what rather than the

current, ad hoc approach and personality-driven giving.

We arent very ormal about our giving right now.

My parents make the decisions, and its usually based on

connections with people, not necessarily the actual program.


42/80

39


I I S t r a t e g i e s o r I m p a c t

Top 5 Most Important Components

of Philanthropic Strategy

I conduct due

diligence and do

research before

deciding who

to support.

I fund eorts that

address root causes

and attempt

systemic solutions.

I first decide my

philanthropic goals

or ideal solutions,

and then search for

potential recipients

who fit those.

I prefer to have

information about

an organizations

proven eectiveness

or measurable

impact beforedeciding whether

to support it.

1

3

2

4

I often

recommend

a cause or

organization

to others.

5


43/80

40



Figure 17: Importance o Strategic Components in Personal Philanthropy

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.0

Conduct due diligence and research before deciding whom to support

First decide philanthropic goals, then search for potential recipients

Fund eorts that address root causes and attempt systemic solutions

Prefer info on organizations proven eectiveness or measurable impact

Often recommend a cause of organization to others

fer info on what percentage of organizations funds go to programs vs. overhead

efer info on organizations governance, leadership, and/or financial responsibility

Fund organizes attempting new, innovative approaches

Promote diversity and inclusiveness

Support groups that advocate for policy change

Work closely with the groups, giving time and expertise as well as money

Give to smaller organizations, or those that others overlook

Prefer to fund a nonprofits general operativing capacity

Prefer to give bigger donations to fewer recipients

Look for ways to be a leader or organizer, not just a donor

Believe traditional approaches to philanthropy are limited

Review evaluations or reports before renewing support

Use money in socially beneficial ways beyond just donations

Collaborate with others in my giving

Prefer to give multi-year donations

Need to designate exactly how contribution will be used

Foundations should give more than federally required 5% each year

Other

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.0

2.2

percent of survey responde

n = 261

Next gen donors are most interested in conducting due diligence, being proactive rather than

reactive in nding recipients or goal-driven giving, and searching or inormation about

organizational impact, efciency, and leadership to inorm decision-making. Tey also consider it

vital to und eorts to address root causes and attempt systemic solutions. In this, they echo the

scientic philanthropy o major donors o the past such as Carnegie and Rockeeller, although

many respondents eel that these strategic elements are not emphasized enough in traditional

philanthropy.


44/80

41



Here again we see the interest in helping peers or others to improve their giving by recommending

causes or organizations. Tese networked, linked-in generations clearly nd this process a smart

mechanism or doing good, sharing what they have learned and experienced with others who are

looking to do good.

In interviews and survey comments, many speak about this desire or inormed, outcome-driven,

proactive, and ocused philanthropic strategy.

Tere was also a airly strong interest in supporting new, innovative approaches, which suggests

a higher risk tolerance among these younger donors, something reinorced by many in their

comments. Tey oten say that risk involves giving to smaller organizations.

However, many survey responses suggest this ocus on the new and innovative is not because these

donors eel strongly about the limits o traditional approaches. Instead, they want to add new

approaches while retaining what works.

Personally, i I had my own oundation and was controlling

it with nobody else, I would be very strategic about what I was

interested in and narrow it down, educate mysel in that area,

and make some plan that I elt was going to accomplish some

sort o result, regardless o scope.

I would continue the trend pushing urther o taking risks on small, grassroots organizations

We see a major transormatio

nextgen donors report

Documents