Increasing professionalism: the role of trustee companies in philanthropy

Posted: 3 May 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, culture of giving, grantmaker/grantee relationship, grantmaking, philanthropic sector, Philanthropists, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

It has been expressed to me on more than one occasion that philanthropy is becoming too professional. I work in the sector, so I try not to take it personally but I think it is time to pick apart the debate a little. We’ve previously tackled on this blog the delicate balance that good philanthropic grantmaking must attempt to strike: a warm heart and a cold eye. There have been a number of good posts and speeches about the nature of philanthropy and the belief that altruism is unique and embedded within human nature. There are also the economists of this world and other theorists who believe altruism, like all other human behaviours, is incentivised and can be moulded into form.

It appears the nonprofit sector, with the exception of a couple of amateur sporting codes (Gaelic football comes to mind), is the final domain of debate around whether increased professionalism diminishes rather than increases the value of a sector. Does increased professionalism, and the development and employment costs it carries, remove much needed funding from the service coal face, or ultimately help to deliver more while building efficiencies?

With relation to professionalism within philanthropy I hear two main complaints:

  1. There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of spruiking the value of professional organised philanthropy and/or;
  2. Philanthropy has lost its benevolent heart and is no longer organic or enjoyable.  In short, it’s become work rather than play.

The question of philanthropy profiteering is more often than not pointed in one direction – trustee companies. With the enormous growth in private ancillary funds and the governance arrangements they carry there is suddenly money to be made in giving away money. Of the 5,000 or so estimated trusts and foundations in Australia more than half are thought to be held within trustee companies.  These pots of funding are held outside of the public view and are managed and coupled with investment and other financial services. To the cynical, trustee company philanthropy is perceived as tax-break grantmaking and the philanthropic services they offer is viewed as being muddled up with, and merely ancillary to, the bigger bucks of the financial services game.

Equally, those who lament the loss of the benevolent heart of philanthropy are genuinely fearful that philanthropy is the latest victim of fads and bureaucracies that add little value and ultimately deter people from giving. In the world of strategic grantmaking, venture philanthropy, philanhrocapitalism and engaged philanthropy, the concern is that the joy of giving has been lost and with it, potential philanthropists.

It would surprise some detractors perhaps to learn that despite concerns around profiteering and the loss of the joy of philanthropy, it appears that financial advisers and trustee companies might actually be playing an important role in both attracting people to and educating people about philanthropy.  A report from the Queensland University of Technology, Foundations for Giving: why and how Australians structure their philanthropy, documents responses from 40 people involved in structured, formalised philanthropy.  Virtually all respondents indicated that advisers and other intermediaries played some role in their philanthropy and the views expressed were generally positive.  In fact, the negative views expressed by respondents around advisers seems to suggest a greater level of expertise in philanthropy and skills in grantmaking would be preferable.

Philanthropy is and always will be a ‘people’s’ game.  Its about people being inspired by other people.  Its about people trusting and believing in other people.  Most of all it is about people wanting to create better lives and communities for others. It is hard to imagine that the heart of philanthropy will be lost simply through increased professionalism. In fact there is mounting evidence to suggest that the opposite may actually be true. Some of Australia’s trustee companies are driving not only increased professionalism within philanthropy, but also a greater diversity in practices and approaches to grantmaking. Some of our most vocal proponents for greater levels of giving among Australia’s wealthy, increased investment in organizational capacity support and improved engagement and evaluation of grantmaking approaches, are coming from within the trustee company sector. The gags many individual philanthropists are compelled to wear when talking about their philanthropy are less evident within adviser circles.

Good trustee companies will be passionate about their philanthropy and the approaches available to their clients.  Poor trustee companies will see philanthropic services as ancillary, and more than likely will charge a hefty price for the pleasure. As is the case with all services, donors should shop around, the cream of the crop will quickly become evident.

The professionalism that trustee companies bring to client services is beginning to have an impact on philanthropy as it is delivered in Australia.  It’s a diversity that the sector absolutely needs.  More choice for donors and potential philanthropists is important as is greater debate on grantmaking approaches and philosophies.

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay via @cat_fay on twitter and the eggs via @3eggphil

2012 Trends in Philanthropy: Data

Posted: 14 February 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, crowd funding, culture of giving, evaluation, grantmaking, NFP, philanthropic sector | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

This is the final installment of our three-piece post examining what 2012 has in store for philanthropy. We’re taking our lead from Lucy Bernholz’s Philanthropy and Social Investing: Blueprint 2012 which notes three big shifts in store for the sector this year. Today we’ll be taking a look at data and it’s role in creating the social good.

Data and the desire to accumulate it tends to fall in and out of fashion in Australian philanthropic circles. Opponents compare the collation with the chains of government bureaucracy or worse still, that overly self-indulgent practice of ‘naval gazing’. On the flip side of the argument you have proponents espousing data as a commodity every bit as important as the currency distributed through grants.

Gone are the days of data being considered simply numbers on a spreadsheet.  The Blueprint paints a wonderful picture of the changing face of data and how we use them:

In reality, anything that can be digitized can become data. This includes items that start out digitally – photos, videos, cell phone calls, text messages, Facebook posts, and blog comments. It also includes things we convert to digital form – books, old newspapers, films, music, and the content of our file cabinets. Once this material is digitized and we can click on it, “like” it on Facebook, or share it via Twitter with friends we create another layer of data.

Data allows for the impact of our philanthropy to be captured, shared and understood in ways like never before. Equally we can better and more quickly measure the campaigns people respond to and as a result help to bring resources and effort to major issues more quickly. As individuals we can donate via text messaging (not as well as we should be able to here in Australia), crowd funding, Twitter, Facebook, online newspapers, and an array of other web tools – all of which leave a trail of giving data behind. We respond and interact with data in today’s world – we are the creators the next role is to become the curators.

So has philanthropy in Australia responded to this changing landscape of data collection and use? In grantmaking philanthropists have long backed data collecting and building in the area of medical research but the sciences have a longer history of utilizing the power of data in their research and storytelling.  For the community sector the sell to philanthropy is much tougher. Research, evaluation and data collection doesn’t excite philanthropists in the same way that getting tangible things done on the ground does.

The community sector is not alone in being under resourced to measure and understand its own impact. The philanthropic sector, which houses huge amounts of data, makes precious little use of any of it. The tide is slowly turning however.  The Centre for Social Impact is undertaking mapping work, led by former Philanthropy Australia CEO – Gina Anderson,  to examine where some of Australia’s major trusts and foundations are making gifts. Research at Queensland University of Technology’s Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Non-profit Studies is exceptional and building, while Swinburne University continues to grow its credentials in this space.  All of these are positive advances but more can be done and is required.

Data is powerful.  It helps us to tell our stories.  To excite and teach us.  Data helps us to build a picture of where we are as a society and where we might be headed.  How we use and interact with data in 2012 has the potential to influence the trends we will be seeing in 2013.  Is Australia’s philanthropic sector ready for this shift?  I have my doubts but there is a slow movement occurring. Let’s revisit at the end of the year.

If you have not already done so, head to the Philanthropy 2173 Blog to get your hands on a copy of the Philanthropy and Social Investing: Blueprint 2012

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay or the Blog via @3eggphil

2012 Trends in Philanthropy – Political Advocacy

Posted: 24 January 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Advocacy, Australia, culture of giving, grantmaking, NFP, philanthropic sector, Philanthropists, USA | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

As promised this post is going to continue to examine some of the trends for 2012 highlighted in Philanthropy and Social Investment Blueprint 2012 – the annual industry forecast produced by Lucy Bernholz.  In my last post I looked at the first of three major shifts identified in the Blueprint, today I’ll be moving on to trend number two: the implications of the US Supreme Court‘s Citizens United ruling on philanthropy and social investing.

There is no doubt that grantmakers here in Australia have a lot to learn from philanthropy overseas. I am often reminded however that much of how and why we practice philanthropy is unique.  By constantly casting an eye towards North  America and Europe we risk failing to recognise and value the innovation taking place in our own backyard. So what can we here in Australia possibly learn from examining the potential implications of the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision?

Before I address that question in detail, it probably serves to give a quick rundown on what that Supreme Court decision actually amounts to. In short Citizen United removed prior restrictions on spending by corporations on election campaigns; in essence allowing these bodies the similar first amendment rights to free speech as everyday American citizens. These newly available dollars will certainly come into play in 2012, the first presidential election year since the ruling was handed down. Rather than promoting and opposing political candidates or parties directly, much of the funding from corporations is likely to flow via non profit organisations advocating on issues that serve their purpose. It is the implication of that funding process has some interesting cross over with Australia.

Around the same time that Citizens United was taking it’s case to the US Supreme Court, here in Australia an international aid watch dog called Aid/WATCH was taking its fight to hold on to its charitable tax exemptions to the High Court. In Australia, like in the US, the judges ruled in their favour. The decision asserted that Aid/WATCH, as an independent watch-dog examining how aid is distributed, may well be involved in political advocacy.  Because the generation of public debate created by Aid/WATCH through their advocacy focused on the relief of poverty through foreign aid, the Judges ruled that it should not be excluded as a charitable activity. This ruling opened up direct funding of political advocacy by charitable trusts and foundations, ensuring that neither the donor, or the non-profit they were supporting, put their charitable status at risk. The Eggs have posted previously on the new place for advocacy in the Australian non-profit sector, but perhaps we have not explored the potential implications for donors in full.

In an environment more open to political advocacy from our non-profits, what are the potential implications on donors and ultimately donations? In the US, it’s likely that the Citizens United decision will lead to not only more political advocacy from non-profits but also more non-profits being created with a focus on raising money for or against their preferred candidates and issues.  Here in Australia, the likelihood is that we’re gong to see a greater intensity of out and out advocacy.  For some funders, the thought of seeing their long supported charities engaged in the political might be too much to bear.  For other funders it will open up spheres of influence like never before.

I’ve spoken with people on both sides of the advocacy fence, those that find philanthropic support of political advocacy unseemly and those that see it as critical vehicle in mission based philanthropy. Not all philanthropic organisations in Australia believe or want to be mission driven, the warm heart of benevolence for many is still the greatest motivator. There will always be a place for both. I do sense however, that the new wave of youth and online philanthropy in this country will drive a new era of donor funded advocacy.

Should you wish to learn more about the trends in philanthropy and social investment for 2012, I’d encourage you to get your hands on a copy of Blueprint 2012:

  • Hard copies from Lulu
  • PDFs at Scribd
  • Kindle version from Amazon
  • eBook from Smashwords. Also available for Amazon Kindle, B & N Nook and others.

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay or the blog via @3eggphil

The LLEAP Survey Report: A conversation starter for education funders

Posted: 8 November 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, culture of giving, evaluation, grantmaker/grantee relationship, grantmaking, NFP, philanthropic sector, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

It was exciting yesterday to see the release of the 2011 Survey Report for the Leading Learning in Education and Philanthropy (LLEAP) research study. The Report documents the responses to the inaugural LLEAP survey provided by 300 schools, non-profits and philanthropic bodies working in the education space.

The release of the Report marks the first real milestone for the LLEAP team and everyone involved in shaping the research program. Those organisations and individuals who have given their time generously to be involved in the interview phase, focus groups and in the completion of the survey have done so out of a commitment to finding better ways to work towards improving educational outcomes.

The LLEAP research is the first of its kind in Australia to bring together schools, non-profits and trusts & foundations to examine the role and impact of philanthropy in education.

For me, one of the more eye-opening aspects of the Report relates to the number of disconnects in priorities and target audiences among respondent schools, non-profits and philanthropic organisations. This is perhaps best demonstrated by schools clearly ranking teachers and teacher quality highly in terms of need for support and yet this need is not reflected in the highest priorities of philanthropic and non-profit respondents.

There are three main themes to come out of the Report with respect to the barriers faced by schools, non-profits and philanthropy.  For schools, it’s that their capacity to find and access philanthropic dollars is poor. For non-profits, the issue of short term funding and program sustainability is hindering their capacity to be as effective as they could be. For philanthropy the barriers are what the report refers to as “knowledge issues” (specifically the who, how and why of collaboration and best practice).

The great thing about the Survey Report is that it is a conversation starter.  The survey results are simply that; survey results. How we use and interpret the results however can potentially influence our practices and decision making. We’ll be exploring some of the issues the Report has thrown up on this blog in the coming weeks and would love you to join in the on the conversation.

Caitriona Fay is a member of the LLEAP Project Team. You can follow her musings on Twitter via @cat_fay and get the latest from the Eggs via @3eggphil

Prevention at the expense of the cure

Posted: 29 September 2011 | Author: | Filed under: culture of giving, disadvantage, grantmaking, philanthropic sector, Philanthropists, Transparency | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Let’s face it, these days it’s simply not in vogue to be considered a philanthropist (or philanthrocrat) driven by a spirit of benevolence.  We have entered the era of the venture philanthropists, the philanthrocapitalists, the tactical philanthropists.  In philanthropy, strategy is now the name of the game. Philanthropists and their foundations are finding smarter ways to give and more innovative ways of funding for impact. If this group of strategy driven philanthropists had a mantra it would likely be prevention, prevention, prevention. But when everyone wants to be the funder helping to build the fence at the top of the cliff,  what does that mean for those people who need the ambulance at the bottom of it?

The philanthropic sector in Australia is racing towards a new level of maturity.  It’s vastly more professional than it was as little as five years ago. But professionalism has led to a recognition that supporting prevention and mitigation programs offers greater bang for the funder’s buck.  There is no disputing the fact that prevention is less costly than the cure. However, if we as a sector are encouraging a greater focus on prevention, perhaps it’s important to stop for a moment and consider at what cost?

Photographer : Cybele

I’m fortunate enough to work for a foundation that has the capacity and the inclination to fund across the grantmaking spectrum. Funding programs that seek to mitigate against homelessness are great, but there is still a desire at Board level to make sure issues of food security and the need for refuge are also addressed. For some, funding the ambulance at the expense of the fence might appear counter-productive but we’ll always need the balance.

I wrote recently about the growing recognition that great philanthropists can balance the head and the heart. Perhaps the reality is that the benevolent urge to help those in need is the heart of funding. Trying to make progress on the problems and difficulties (a great post here on the difference) that affect our communities is more a challenge for the head.

I remember reading once that Bill Gates sat his young daughter down and tried to explain to her the work the Gates Foundation was doing to find a vaccine for malaria. As they flicked through pictures of the devastation caused to those individuals already struck down she asked ‘who is helping them?’.  It was a reminder to Gates, and should be to all of us, not to forget those with immediate and real need for support. It’s important that we don’t leave behind those organisations working at the bottom of the cliff for the sake of increased bang for the buck.

For some funders, prevention is the best way to give within their limited resources.  For others, their philanthropy will be driven by a desire to address the need they see every day. I don’t ever think we’ll get to a stage where all funders are focusing prevention at the expense of the  ‘cure’. We do however, need to be careful not to dismiss programs and organisations working to provide immediate support,as having no place in strategy driven philanthropy.

As a sector, philanthropy needs to be more introspective.  Perhaps it’s time to shift our focus from funding where government can’t or won’t and start looking more closely at where the philanthropic gaps are. That requires new levels of collaboration and a transparency around our foundation missions and objectives.  If we can get the balance right and find a way to solve problems and service our society’s greatest difficulties, then as a sector we will be more impactful.

You can connect with Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay or any of the eggs via @3eggphil.  

The administration obsession

Posted: 9 September 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, grantmaker/grantee relationship, grantmaking, philanthropic sector, Transparency, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

You may have seen a couple of articles run in the Sydney Morning Herald a fortnight ago examining the administration and transparency of some of Australia’s better-known celebrity foundations.  In the firing line were the McGrath Foundation, The Shane Warne Foundation, the Cathy Freeman Foundation and others. The journalists rightly point out a number of inconsistencies regarding the required public transparency of the non-profit sector here in Australia. Both articles contend that without adequate transparency the donating public can never know how much of their dollar is actually making it to their cause of concern.

The inconsistencies raised in the articles are nothing new to non-profits.  The sector has long struggled under the burden of a fragmented regulatory system and been crippled under the red tape of multiple compliance obligations. It’s hoped that the establishment of the Australian Charities and Non-profit Commission (ACNC) will help to reduce the burden on the non-profit sector while providing a new level of transparency sector wide.

What the two articles also helped to highlight was that there continues to be a lack of wider public understanding around administration costs in the non-profit sector. Held up for high praise were those organisations with the bare minimum of administration costs, while those with professional staff and overheads were the inferred to be less effective and somehow less impressive.

It might well be that those organisations highlighted in the article are ineffective but examining administration and fundraising costs will only paint a partial and sometimes misleading picture.

I’ve worked for a grantmaking organisation that was incredibly strong on applicant organisations submitting ‘real world’ budgets. A budget submitted without a provision for administration costs and contingencies was considered poor, full stop.  Administration costs were considered realistic if they were in the 8%-25% field (depending on the project type).  Any lower or higher and it deserved some prodding. Equally, it was considered poor project management if an applicant didn’t factor at least 10% of the total project costs for contingency costs.

For that particular grantmaking organisation, low administration costs increased the risk of the project operating at the margins, which in turn increased the risk of the project failing.  As a grantmaker they decided to mitigate against that risk. When I called organistions to ask why they had submitted application budgets with low or no administration costs their responses were generally the same – most thought putting the actual administration costs in the budget would reduce their chances of success with the grantmaker.

I’m reluctant to suggest that there is any ‘right’ range for administration fees. What’s really important is that donors examine the administration figures within the context of the organisation’s activities and mission. There is no one rule.  As a donor you need to be more savvy and a donating public we need to expect that administration costs are a reality for charities.

I’d also encourage donors to recognise that staff within the non-profit sector deserve to be adequately reimbursed for the work they do. One of the great tragedies of non-profit sector is our high staff turn-over, and inadequate remuneration is partly to blame. Working in the most challenging of areas, doing the toughest of work, it’s imperative that the non-profit sector hold on to good staff. That includes senior managers and CEOs whose leadership is so valuable in ensuring the ship is pointing in the right direction.

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay

Two little BIG words

Posted: 6 July 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, culture of giving, disadvantage, grantmaker/grantee relationship, Philanthropists | Tags: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

I hate it when people don’t say thank you. Maybe it’s my upbringing? Whenever we were given anything Mum would always go – “what do you say?” – and me, my brother and sister would chime, “Thank youuuu“. After Christmas, birthdays, or any other occasion which involved us receiving a gift from someone, we’d be sat down to write thank you letters to let people know we’d got and liked their gift. The importance of saying thank you was instilled in us to such a degree that these days if I hold the door open for someone, for example, and am not thanked, it’s not entirely uncommon for me to say slightly sarcastically “no, problem, it’s my pleasure”. Or maybe it’s nothing to do with my lovely Ma and it’s just Curmudgeonly Claire rearing her head again?!

One of the things I love most about my job is when I get to tell someone they’ve been awarded a grant. If I’ve been in contact with an applicant during the review process, they’ll know when a decision’s being taken on their application and they’ll be expecting a call. There’s usually a nervous, anticipatory silence at the other end of the phone which, if I was sadistic, I’d draw out before letting them know the decision, but I’m not so I try to cut to the chase as soon as possible (and because I’m excited to tell them!). It’s so lovely when you hear a delighted “thank you!”. Makes all the hard work so worthwhile.  I can’t tell you how disappointing it is to call someone to let them know they’ve been given thousands of dollars if I get little reaction and no thanks.

I’m not saying grantee gratitude is the be-all and end-all in the decision making process. Of course it’s not. A poorly conceived project isn’t going to be supported simply because an organisation said thank you for a grant in the past. But it is important, and it is remembered. It comes back to that all-important grant maker/grant seeker relationship again (How to make friends and influence philanthropy and Too much or not enough?).

And it seems I’m not the only one that notices when someone says thank you. The June/July edition of Fundraising and Philanthropy Australasia had a story about a donation of $1m to Queensland University of Technology, recently gifted by Peter and Heather Howes.

The Howes’ have a long association with QUT: both are ex-QIT students (QUT’s immediate predecessor) and have a daughter who graduated from QUT; both were lecturers at QIT; and Peter was a member of QUT‘s School of Management Advisory Board.  They first contributed financially to QUT in 2009 and 2010 in its annual alumni appeals, when they gave relatively small amounts of money in support of the Learning Potential Fund – an endowment fund to support bursaries and scholarships for QUT students in financial need.  They began discussions with the University about the potential for them to make a larger gift after July 2010 when they sold the very successful human resources consultancy business they had jointly founded in 1982 (the sale giving them greater capacity to consider giving more significantly to QUT).  Before the year was out, these discussions came to fruition in the form of The Howes Family Gift: a $1m donation which was added to the larger LPF endowment, but to be used to fund discrete Howes Family Learning Potential Scholarships for disadvantaged students.

One of the factors behind the Howes’ decision to increase their philanthropic engagement with QUT was the phone calls they received from LPF fundraising staff thanking them for their 2009 and 2010 appeal gifts. Apparently this was the first time they’d got such personal thanks from an organisation they’d given financial support to.  As a consequence of this very simple gesture, the very neediest of QUT students can now apply for annual scholarships of $5,000 to support the cost of their study (more than standard LPF scholarships and bursaries offer), and there is also talk of the Howes contributing more money to QUT in the future to enable more scholarships to be offered. I wonder if LPF fundraising staff had any idea how powerful those two little words would be?!

While we’re on the subject of saying thank you…. thank you!!  Since we launched 3eggphilanthropy back in April, we’ve had almost 2,600 views of our site and enjoyed some fantastic thoughts and opinions on the blog site, and on Twitter and Facebook. We’ve also had some amazing contributions from fabulous guest bloggers which added so much to the conversation. It’s been a fantastic first couple of months and we look forward to everything that’s to come.  Scrambled, boiled, or poached….  Thanks again!!

If you haven’t subscribed to the blog yet, why not do it now?! That way you’ll be first to know when our latest musings have been hatched!

It’s a question of validity

Posted: 5 July 2011 | Author: | Filed under: AEGN, NFP, philanthropic sector | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

I’ve noticed lately a few really interesting and exciting surveys are circulating the philanthropic sector, trying to track how much and where Australian philanthropy is giving.  I’ve enjoyed seeing an increasing research presence in the sector.  It feels in many ways that it’s the next phase of sector growth and maturity, as we attempt to learn more about our giving practices as a nation.

Last week I attended the Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network (AEGN) 2011 Conference.  The AEGN is a great organisation supporting environmental philanthropy in Australia and the conference was a special day focusing on Indigenous environmental granting. Sitting at the conference among a committed band of environment funders I was reminded that it was not long ago that the AEGN launched the 2010 Green Philanthropy Report. The report, supported by a survey filled in by a a touch over 50 funders, demonstrated to the Board of the AEGN that they needed to up the ante in trying to attract philanthropists to environmental grantmaking. That is what capturing this basic information should do, it should inform our practices, our approaches and our priorities as a sector. We should be looking at areas to improve and grow but data is critical to understanding the current landscape.

It is this need for data that has got me thinking. What is the quality of the information philanthropy is currently capturing?  Sure, it’ easy to talk broad figures e.g Foundation X distributes $1million in grants annually. But what if  we wanted to scratch the surface of that giving a little more, is philanthropy in Australia currently equipped to provide accurate data genuinely reflective of its giving practices? I work for a Foundation that has spent the better part of the last 3 years trying to better ‘code’ or ‘categorize’ the grants we make.  I can tell you it’s not been an easy process, there have been a lot of staff hours poured over what information we should capture and still we are left with the reality that the coding process is ultimately subjective. One persons ‘Youth’ program is another persons ‘Education’.

Thankfully Philanthropy Australia (PA) has provided an outline for a grant classification system that encourages funders to capture data using a common sector language. PA’s website states that The intention (of the classification guide) is to standarise the terms used across the Australian philanthropic sector as far as practical, so that grantmaking can be documented and useful statistics on philanthropy collected in ways that contribute to shared understandings. I highly recommend this document as a starting point for those philanthropists or trusts and foundations looking to better capture their data.

While I know the process that my organisation has undertaken to record and capture basic data, I am less clear about the practices and consistencies across the rest of the sector.  And this is, in a lot of ways, the source of some of my discomfort. We as a sector need to be able to rely on the validity of the data that is being captured.  Equally, if we want researchers to continue to take an interest in where and who we are funding, then it’s important that they too feel that foundations aren’t working to a guesstimate. Again and again I feel it comes back to the issue of philanthropy needing to invest in itself to improve it’s value and credibility to the not-for-profit sector.

I’d love to hear your views on how the sector might better capture its basline data.  The work of organisations like the AEGN and Philanthropy Australia in undertaking membership surveys, is slowly helping to shape and influence practice. I just hope the we can provide them and our research partners with increasingly better quality data.

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay

The economics of altruism

Posted: 27 June 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, culture of giving, philanthropic sector, Philanthropists | Tags: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

I like trying to understand what it is that motivates people to give.  On a personal level, I find it deeply satisfying to hear stories from philanthropists like David Hardie, who shared his journey to becoming a philanthropist on this blog over last two weeks. With so much pessimism about, stories like David’s provide a little dose of inspiration. But can we ever truly understand what it is that motivates some to give and others to accumulate wealth?  Is it as simple as some people having an altruistic spirit and others being, well… greedy? We could look to philosophy, psychology (as Claire Rimmer did in her blog last week),  sociology even anthropology for the answers, but it’s actually economists who appear to have done the most work in this space.

Economists believe humans act rationally with our actions influenced by incentives. This point is important and at a surface level feeds the assumption that most people are, at their core, simply out for themselves. But what a crappy thought!  After reading David Hardie’s blogs I find this really hard to believe.

Economists have developed a series of ‘games’ to experiment with what exactly drives a person to act altruistically.  Using the Dictator Game initially, economists found results that seemed to indicate that people were hardwired for altruistic behaviour. If you’re not familiar with the Dictator Game, here’s the breakdown of the experiment to assess people’s altruistic behaviours:

  • volunteer 1, let’s call her Jane, is given $10 and is told that she can divide the money with volunteer number 2, let’s call her Barb, in any way she likes.
  • Jane is also told that Barb has no idea that she has been given the money or the option of dividing it. The anonymity bit is important because it means that Jane is neither rewarded or punished for her actions (it also means that the ‘emotional’ pulls, evident when we give money to disaster relief or charities we are connected with, are removed)

Regardless of where the experiment was conducted, in the USA or Mongolia, the ‘dictator’ Jane tended to hand over about 20% of her money to the unknowing Barb. Wow! Giving away 20% of your money without any potential of reward seems to indicate that people act without any consideration of personal incentives. But, of course, the optimism around this amazing altruistic spirit didn’t last long. Enter John List.

John List, a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, is the person who really stepped up altruism experimentation. List devised a form of the Dictator Game that once again provided Jane with some cash, this time $20, and gave her three options whereby she could either:

  • keep all of the $20
  • give away any percentage to Barb or
  • take $1 from money that had been provided to Barb.

If you have 10 mins to spare it’s definitely worth checking out this RSA animation based on the List experiment by ‘Freakonomics’ and ‘Superfreakonomics’ co-authors, Economist Steven Livett and the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Dubner. Alterntively, if you’d like to read the excerpt of the chapter from Superfreakonomics on which it is based you can check it out via The New York Times.

What List found was that in his version of the game only 35% of the people in the Jane role gave any money to Barb, 45% didn’t share at all and remaining 20% took the $1! As List played with the experiment and increased the amount Jane could take from Barb he saw a drop in the number of people who gave any money at all.  In fact when given the option of taking all of Barb’s $20, 60% of Janes took every cent.

List did run another important experiment whereby volunteer Janes and Barbs needed to earn their cash, usually through filling out a long survey.  Once again Jane was given the option of taking Barb’s hard earned cash but this time only 28% (a big drop from 60% in the original experiment) took the money and ran. Apparently it does matter how the person came into having the money (windfall v earned altruism experiments are fascinating and for another blog).

These experiments have since taken on a life of their own.  The percentage of money Jane gives to Barb changes drastically if Jane is told that Barb is aware of the choice she has.  Equally and definitely the topic for another blog, is that if Jane is actually a John the giving percentages change again (gender is a factor in how and why we give).

There are so many external factors in how we give and the amount we give that List and other economists came to a bit of startling conclusion.  We are not hardwired for altruism.  In fact, many economists concluded that when we give we are simply responding to incentives.  Perhaps its to feel good, or less bad.  Perhaps it’s because of social expectation (which might explain the recent media around high net worth individuals not giving enough), even to fit in or gain access to a social group (The Giving Pledge perhaps…) or in some instances to impress someone. For many, it’s simply the tax breaks they get.

Now the idea that you give because you get something out of it might not appeal to most.  But think about it carefully, list the reasons in your own mind as to why you give, if you give at all. Ultimately, incentives might form a reason as to why or whether we give at all, and frankly, that’s fine with me. Whether it’s for the tax breaks or that warm fuzzy feeling you get in your stomach, I just want to see more people give.

Giving is sexy!

Posted: 23 June 2011 | Author: | Filed under: culture of giving | Tags: , , | 12 Comments »

Following all the chat among 3egg and co recently about the lack of giving in Australia and the offering of thoughts on what might be done to encourage it, I have something to throw into the mix!

What would you say if I said giving is sexy? Would it appeal to you? Would it make you grimace? It made me snigger – philanthro-geek that I am – but it did get me thinking. It’s definitely not the sort of language that is normally used around philanthropy but a UK report written for the Philanthropy Review in April 2011 suggests that this small but significant change in how we frame giving could be the key which unlocks all those “hidden” AU philanthropic $$ that we keep talking about.

The study, The Aha: Why donors give, why non-donors don’t and what to do about it, written by Carol Fiennes (CEO of UK Climate Change Charity, Global Cool Foundation) suggests that the reason some people don’t give is because they simply aren’t motivated to: that the way that giving is generally talked about only appeals to a certain group within the population.

The study draws on the outcomes of research carried out by the UK company, Cultural Dynamics, Strategy & Marketing, to determine what drives people to do what they do. CDSM surveyed more than 8,000 people with over 1,000 questions and, with the data gathered, was able to identify a series of fundamental psychological needs that we as people are trying to satisfy – the needs which drive our behaviours and the vision of the person we want to become – and segment them. They called this the ‘Values Modes’ segmentation.

The segmentation identifies that there are three types of people:

  • Sustenance Driven (SD)
  • Outer Directed (OD) and
  • Inner Directed (ID)

In a nutshell:

  • SDs are socially conservative – they’re wary of change, keep to the rules and want to be directed by authority. Their key need is to feel safe and secure;
  • ODs are driven by needing the esteem of others and want to be seen to succeed. They are a higher energy, fun-seeking group and are instinctive rather than analytical; and
  • IDs are always questioning and looking for ethical and intellectual stimulation. They don’t find change worrying and see global issues as their issues. They’re more analytical than instinctive.

The ‘Values Modes’ segmentation’s been used successfully for over 30 years in over 30 countries – for purposes which range from selling soft drinks to determining voting behaviours – and has predicted Value Modes with over 97% accuracy. For more info on CDSM’s work, click this link to their website. CDSM

If you hadn’t guessed already, us Philanthro-niks (Fiennes’ word for us philanthropeeps and my favourite to date!) are defined as Inner Directed people. I did the survey and despite giving answers that I was sure would lead to me bucking the trend and being an OD, surprise surprise, I was categorised as an ID.  If you’d like to do the short survey and find out which of the segmentations you are, click here: Value Modes Survey

Apparently much of the thinking in The Aha draws on Fiennes’ work at Global Cool, which is a charity that aims to get more people to adopt a lower-carbon lifestyle. Global Cool was looking into how to “sell” green lifestyles to people and realised that the way that they’d been doing it had resulting in them preaching to the converted: with campaigns developed by IDs which only appealed to IDs. They realised that their challenge was to make low-carbon living attractive to the OD and SDs of the world who they knew, generally speaking, were less interested in the issue. So they developed a series of campaigns to get people to make green lifestyle choices based on the things that motivate them. For example, one campaign works to entice people to turn down the heat in their homes by “turning up the style” instead – wearing beautiful, fashionable woolly jumpers to combat the cold with the added benefit of keeping their skin from drying out! Through the campaigns they seem to be capturing the broader imagination.  Brilliant!

I have to be honest when I first read the report, I found myself curling my lip and rolling my eyes at the suggestions it makes to encourage broader giving (maybe that‘s because I‘m an ID….and a bit of a curmudgeon?!). It all sounded kind of patronising….“make giving fun & social“, “make giving easy“, “avoid people feeling that giving is a loss“, instead of promoting giving at music festivals or in a serious newspaper, do it at a yacht club or a glitzy event with business leaders. Essentially, diamond encrust the carrot that’s dangled and make the promise of a feature story in Grazia magazine (for the ODs at least). But with a track record as strong as the segmentation’s in terms of determining motivations and behaviours, I did a 360 and started to think it’d be well worth trying it. If this is all it might take to increase and broaden giving, why not?!

One thing that stood out when I read the report, which worried me a bit given all the negative press here just now around giving, is that rather than talking about the lack of giving we should instead celebrate giving: to normalise the notion of doing this rather than exacerbate the trend to not give. It makes sense, I think. Talking about a wealth of giving creates the feeling that there is a scale of investment which makes problems tackle-able, rather than making them feel too big and too hard to deal with, creating a desire to sweep them under the carpet.

So…the question is….what do you think?  Should giving be ”sexy”?!

← Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers