AHRI
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
NEWS  | 

Million Dollar Donors Not Comfortable with Philanthropist Tag


Thursday, 9th October 2008 at 3:32 pm
Staff Reporter
Surprise findings in a US study shows nearly a third of the participants do not think of themselves as "philanthropists", despite giving an average of nearly $US1 million annually.

Thursday, 9th October 2008
at 3:32 pm
Staff Reporter


0 Comments


FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

 Print
Million Dollar Donors Not Comfortable with Philanthropist Tag
Thursday, 9th October 2008 at 3:32 pm

Surprise findings in a US study shows nearly a third of the participants
do not think of themselves as “philanthropists,” despite giving an average of nearly $US1 million annually.

The Center for High Impact Philanthropy conducted a series of structured interviews to determine how high net worth individual philanthropists (HNWP) make decisions about giving.

The Centre found a set of diverse and evolving practices, a predominant reliance on peers for information, a narrow and negative view of evaluation (despite a strong desire to make a difference), and difficulty with exiting established relationships with Not for Profits, perhaps because the transaction costs of “breaking up” seem too high.

Many expressed a reluctance to investigate the effectiveness of potential recipients for fear of inviting unwanted solicitations or appearing distrustful or overly demanding of the charities with which they already had relationships.

Most did not know about or refer to the myriad of academic and Not for Profit resources in their areas of interest.

While a few HNWP participants reported that they had always thought of themselves as “philanthropists,” the majority considered it a role they would achieve at some point in their evolution as givers.

In fact, nine HNWP participants revealed that they did not yet consider themselves philanthropists, despite giving an average of almost $1 million annually.

Some HNWPs revealed that their involvement in an organisation was a precondition to donating what they considered larger gifts. Others were comfortable giving a larger amount if someone they knew well was personally involved in an organisation.

Few HNWP participants made a practice of giving large gifts in situations where they had simply heard of and/or read about an organisation.

Interestingly, despite the fact that many Not for Profits are now rated or scrutinized based on their “administrative cost ratios” many HNWP participants thought overhead was not a useful decision criterion.

The majority of HNWP participants, however, seemed reluctant to inquire about specific costs before making an initial or repeat gift (“I think you can drive yourself nuts trying to quantify this stuff”).

This seemed implicitly, if not explicitly, related to the fact that HNWP participants did not want their giving activities to feel like work.

The survey found that current time commitments – primarily family and work – were the major constraints that precluded greater involvement beyond that of a cheque-writer.

Many said they did not want to burden Not for Profits with additional feedback requirements, nor did they want to appear to be high-maintenance donors or imply a lack of trust or commitment by asking about outcomes.

HNWP participants were similarly ambivalent about the role of evaluation in their philanthropy. Many held rather narrow views of what “evaluation” means and had a negative opinion of its value. Some did not see the importance of any kind of formal evaluation process.

Few HNWP participants indicated that they thought upfront about how and when they would exit a philanthropic relationship. As a result, many appeared to give to the same organisations each year, even when they had other priorities or indicated there was a reason to sever ties with an organisation.

The report concludes that if HNWPs are unwilling to “break up” with organisations, which most say is too hard, those who care about impact need to invest upfront in due diligence and learn how to support organisations to track their progress.

The study can be downloaded at: http://www.impact.upenn.edu/UPenn_CHIP_HNWP_Study.pdf




Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au

Tags : Donations,

 Print

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

How Not for Profits Can Build Trust and Boost Donations

Andrew Cairns

Thursday, 5th July 2018 at 7:20 am

Australians Committed to Helping Those in Need

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 19th June 2018 at 5:18 pm

Crowdfunding Platform Open For UK Charities

Wendy Williams

Tuesday, 8th May 2018 at 8:40 am

Australian Charities Urged to Enable Mobile Donations This Christmas

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 12th December 2017 at 3:03 pm

POPULAR

Man Battling Cancer and Centrelink Raises Social Media Storm

Paul Carter

Tuesday, 10th July 2018 at 12:42 pm

Shorten and Abbott Defend Catholics Against ACNC Probe

Luke Michael

Monday, 16th July 2018 at 4:25 pm

New Research Looks to Improve Disability Employment Rate

Luke Michael

Monday, 9th July 2018 at 2:35 pm

The NDIS: Why ‘Customer-Centricity’ Counts

Diana Ferner

Tuesday, 10th July 2018 at 3:21 pm

AHRI
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

The social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!