Fundraising or Promoting

8/3/2019 Fundraising or Promoting

1/14

Int. J Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 10:137-149 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.8

Fundrais ing or p r o m o t i n gphi lanthropy? A qualitative studyof the Massachusetts Cataloguefor Phi lanthropyAngela M. Eikenberry*School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Public Administration and Policy,Virginia Tech, USA Philanthropic institutions are increasingly involved in efforts to promote or expand

philanthropy in the US,yet little research has been done in relation to such efforts withinthe "new philanthropy" environment. This qualitative study examines one sucheffort: theMassachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy. Thestudy focuses on understanding what keyindividuals associated with the Catalogue think ahout its purpose(s) as a means ofbeginning to answer the underlying questions: How are these new philanthropypromotion projects different from traditional fundraising and to what degree are theycontributing to a new philanthropic paradigm? Results and data analysis indicate thatparticipants have varying opinions about the purpose of the Catalogue that come fromtwo perspectives. One sees the Catalogue as a tool for institutional fundraising for smallcharities featured by theCatalogue in the annually published Catalogue or Philanthropy;the other sees the Catalogue as a mechanism for the overall promotion of philanthropy inthe state by educating donors, creating a new conceptualization of philanthropy, andstrengthening philanthropy.

Copyright 2005 fohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction the size of the philanthropic pie in the US has. . . . remained thesame for the last 30 ormore yearsErrorts to promote and expand philanthropy , . , ,,, c . -,,r~ ^ x, . , ,

\ , , , . (about 2% of the US Gross National Product),are increasing throughout the United States. -i, ^ i i i i._ , . . , " . " , with individual giving stagnant at less than2%This IS due in part to new information .. , . ,n i -./w x * J J- . ,. . ^ / , * ,x ,. . . ^i personal income (Burke, 2001). Addition-indicating a $41 to $136 tnllion transfer of ,. ., .TC TA _ ^ T-, . . , ^,, ,^ , . , ^ ally, the US Department of Treasury reportswealth in the next 50 years (Sehervish and ,. ' , ,,,. . , . ^ , ,^ , . _ . ., , . that only 19% of those paying federal estateHavens, 2001) and to the avai ability of more . , ^ i J J^r^^^^^, . ^ . . . taxes (estates valued at $600,000 or more)comprehensive data on giving from the Inter- _ u . ui u . t -. -m.-, ^ . ,,^^ ,J , , , reported charitable bequests in 1992. Thisnal Revenue Service (IRS). IRS data show that , , , , ^ .,,. , , ,,,. ^ ,totaled $8 million, oronly about 8%of total networth CJoulfaian, 1998). These individuals gaveaway, on average, only half of 1% of their net

'Correspondence to: Angela M. Eikenberry. Center for ^ ^ , ^ , ^ ^^ ^^^-^ l i fe t imes. Rosenberg est i -Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech, 104Draper Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA. "^ ^t es th at if A n i e n c a n s g a v e c l o s e r to t h e i rEmail: [email protected] "c om fo rta bl e ca pa ci ty, " th ey co uld give an


2/14

13 8 A . M. Eikenberryadditional $244 billion or more a year(Rosenberg, 1994). Realizing that over 80% ofprivate giving is done by individuals (AAFRC,2003), the implication is that there is substan-tial capacity for greater charitable giving byindividuals in the US.

Faced with this information, as well asincreasing political pressure for charitableorganizations and their philanthropic suppor-ters to provide social services and pub lic good s(Salamon, 1997; Rom, 1999), philanthropicinstitutions and regional coUaboratives acrossthe United States are initiating projects toincrease overall charitable giving, especiallyamong individual donors. Though there are acont inuously growing number of these pro-jects, some examples of such efforts includethe Independent Sector 's "Give Five" cam-paign, the NewTi thing '" Group, and theMassachusetts Catalogue for Ph ilanthropy.

Give Five is a cam paign that be gun in 1987 toenco urage peo ple to give five hou rs a week and5% of their income to causes and charities oftheir choice. The campaign sp reads its messagenationally through public service announce-ments on televi.sion and radio, billboarddisplays, and magazine and newspaper adver-tisements (Independent Sector, 2002). TheNewTithing^'^ Group is a national initiative toeducate the public and their advisors aboutmaking "comfortably affordable charitabledonat ions through sound budget ing" (New-Tithing^^ Group, 2002). It does this byproviding educational resources includingPmdentPal" Charitable Giving Planner (anonline budgeting tool) and IRS-based researchon wealth and affordable donations, updatedannually. As noted inmore detail below, theCatalogue for Philanthropy is a statewidesystem to promote giving in Massachusetts. Itdoes this mainly through the publication of amagazine-sized booklet, the Catalogue forPhilanthropy, as well as through the G eneros-ity Index^'^, w hic h ran ks states on their relativelevel of generosity {Catalogue for Philan-thropy, 2003-2004) .

The Donor Education Initiative (DEI)describes this philanthropy promotion trendas falling within the new field of "donor

educat ion;" a cottage industry that can bedivided into tw o m arkets or levels of impact:"retail" or "boutique" side of the ind-ustry . . . is composed of organizations whoprimarily educate, engage and advise highnet worth individuals and families one-on-on e or in small groups, with programstailored to their individual needs ...."Wholesale" donor education organiza-tions, on the other hand, address widermarke ts of citizens rather than individualsand small groups. These organizations areones that produce knowledge products andsupport services for wider circles ofdonors.... (Siegel and Yancey, 2003)

Some initiatives work at both theretail andwholesale levels. For a description of donoreducation efforts see the DEI report, "Philan-thropy's Forgotten Resource? Engaging theIndividual Donor" (Siegel and Yancey, 2003).Th e inten t of this study is primarily focused onthose wholesale donor education projects thatseek to expand and promote phi lanthropy.The Massachusetts Cataloguefor PhilanthropyThe focus of this study is on on e philan thropyprom otion effort the Massachusetts Ca talogue for Philanthropy. Initiated in 1996 by theEllis L. Phillips Foundation, and now supportedby several corporations, foundations, andindividuals, the Catalogue is one of the fewexamples of a statewide comprehensive sys-te m to promote phi lanthropy in theUnitedStates. Its main pro jects are the p rod uc tion of ahard copy Catalogue for Philanthropy and theGenerosity lndex^"^. The hard-copy Catalogueis amagazine-sized, high-quality booklet pub-lished annually and sent during the year-endholiday season. Currently, about 85,000Catalogues are mailed to Massachusetts 'families with annual incomes of $500,000 andabove as well as to foundations, corpo rations,bank trust officers, tax-accountants, tax-attor-neys, brokers, and other financial advisors.

Each year, the Catalogue features approxi-mately 100 small charities (with budgets


3/14

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy 139

Fig ure 1. The Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy

under $2 million) and projects of "excel-len ce" represen ting all fields of philanthrop yin the state. As opposed to listing everycharity in the state working in a particulararea, charities and projects featured in theCatalogue are chosen by a prominent groupof philanthropists and philanthropic profes-sionals, through a statewide Request forProposals (RFP) process, to represent thebest exam ples of charities wo rking in variousissues and areas. This "vetting" process isdone to ensure well-run, trustworthy andcompelling charities are featured; represent-ing the best that philanth ropy has to offer andto excite a donor. All the money donatedthrough the Catalogue goes directly to thecharities. Additionally, as noted on the Cata-logue's website, witbin the Catalogue

Are many innovative elements: a donor-friendly taxonom y of charities, organizingthem for presentation to the public as anintelligible, sensible, navigable tool or find-ing philanthropic fields and specific chari-ties one might enjoy supporting; the GivingForm, enabling "one-stop" year-end givingand facilitating gifts of stocks; a rigorousconceptualization of philanthropy, clarify-ing its role and significance in history,particularly in Am erican history: a freshvocabulary describing philanthropy inmore precise, constructive, attractive, andeven co?npelling, terms; a new view of thephilanthropic sector i.e., an annual show-case or snapshot of the entire ield n a given"market", displaying current work beingaccom plished or proposed iti ail fields, allacross that market, focusing on the 92 % ofal l charities with budgets below $ 2 million,that are otherwise relatively invisible andunknown to the public because they cannotafford junk mail, junk telephone calls, ormedia advertising, and are of only rareinterest to the media. (Catalogue for Phi-lanthropy, 2003-2004)

Finally, the articles and the charity "write-ups"are matched with attractive and "graphicallyarresting" photography meant to convey solu-tions to the problems being addressed byphilanthropy. With all of these facets, tbeCatalogue is a bigh min ded, e legant, a nd familyoriented, beautiful piece that recipients reportthey cannot bear to throw away.Tb e (lenero sity Index^"^ is anothe r invent ion

of the Catalogue tbat provides an annualranking of states by the differences betweentheir ranks in having (average household IRSadjusted gross income) to rank in giving(average household IRS itemized cbaritabledeductions). The Issuance of the hard copyCatalogue is com bined witb the disseminationof the state rankings each year. See Table 1 forthe Generosit>' Index^^ rankings for tax year2001 , published in 2 0 0 3 . Other activities of theCatalogue include the Catalogue website(www.catalogueforphilantbropy.org), an an-nual meeting where charities featured in tbe


4/14

14 0 A . M. EikenberryTable 1. 2003 Generosity Index^" RankingsState

MississippiArkansasSouth DakotaOklahomaAlabamaTennesseeLouisianaUtahSouth CarolinaIdahoNorth DakotaWyomingTexasWest VirginiaNebraskaNorth CarolinaFloridaKansasMissouriGeorgiaNew MexicoMontanaKentuckyAlaskaNew YorkIndianaIowaOhio(al ifomiaWashingtonMaineMarylandHawaiiDelawareIllinoisPennsylvaniaConnecticutVermontVirginiaOregon(ColoradoArizonaMichiganNevadaWisconsinMinnesotaMassachusettsNew JerseyRhode IslandNew H ampshire

Havingrank50474S434 13544303942461819483427212629163749402542 83633611385311410221329247

2 01713231232158

Givingr a n k

6581093122142 02 91

4332 1151319231132453827731424317224918442824361647254126403734463930355048

R a n kre la t ion

444237333 23 23 22 82 5221717151513128765542

- 2- 3- 6

- 1 0- i l- 1 1- 1 1- 1 3- 1 3- 1 4- 1 4- 1 4 15- 1 5- 1 6- 1 7- 1 9- 2 0- 2 0- 2 1- 2 3- 2 7- 2 7- 3 3- 3 5- 4 0

G e n e r o s i t yi n d e x

12345678910t l12

131415161718192 0212 2232425262 72 829303132333435363738394 041424344454647484950

Catalogue have the opportunity to networkand receive fundraising training, and promo-tion of a state "Giving Day"' toUowing theThanksgiving holiday. In a more informal

capacity, the Catalogue has also played afacilitative role in bringing together variousnonprofit organizations, associations, andothers to discuss ways to restructure particularfields of philanthropy, such as domesticviolence, to be more effective.Given the nature of the project, it is difficultto determine the full impact and outcomes ofthe Catalogue. Anecdotal evidence suggests ithas increased the capacity of charities featuredin the hard copy Catalogue, created newrelationships between donors and Cataloguecharities, raised a substantial amount of moneyfor the charities (at least $12 million), helpedbring about the creation of five new commu-nity' foundations in the state, prompted mediacoverage about philanthropy locally andnationally, may have stimulated an increase inthe number of private foundations created inthe state, and may have motivated an increasein overall charitable giving in the region(Massachusetts moved from 50th place in theGenerosity Index in 1997 to 47th by 2003.Since 1997, Massachusetts has doubled itscharitable giving and appears to be the fastestgrowing state in the nation in increasingcharitable giving) {Catalogue for Philan-tbropy, 2003-2004). Additionally, the Catalo-gue model has been adopted in at least fourother states since this study took place.Purpose of studyOf primary interest to this study is gaining ins-ight into the purpose(s) of the MassachusettsCatalogue for Philanthropy within what hasbeen called the "new philanthropy" environ-ment (Schweitzer, 2000; Bianchi, 2000; Byrne,2002; Cobb, 2002; Streisand, 2002). Cobbwrites that the emergence of a new philan-thropy has largely been in response to severalsocio-economic factors including technologi-cal innovation, the creation of large newfortunes, the dominance of market ideology,new demographics particularly the growingdisparity between rich and poor and govern-ment retrenchm ent (Streisand, 2002). Asopposed to the modem or 'mainstream"philanthropy dominant in the last century, led


5/14

Fundraising or promoting phitanthropy 14 1by large philanthropic institutions such asfoundations and federated giving programs,and chara cterized by competiti


6/14

14 2 A . M. Eikenberr)'and target populations (i .e. , wealthy, young,women, and minori ty communit ies) . The TPlrepo rt do es not provide details abou t individualphilanthropy promotion projects (The Philan-thropic Initiative, 1997).

Several of the recommendations from theTPI report influenced the creation of the NewVen tures in Philanthropy program , initiated bythe Regional Association of Grantmakers. NewVe nture s is a national initiative to su pp ort localefforts to promote thegrowth of new givingvehicles and new permanent phi lanthropiccapital. Unlike the TPI report , the NewVentures website provides more detailedinformation about many of the local andregional projects funded by New Venturesand which seek to promote organized philan-thropy (Forum of Regional Association ofGrantmakers, 2004). New Ventures hasawarded a total of over $8.2 million to 42regional or multi-state coalitions across thecountry. These projects use multiple andvarying strategies to reach numerous targetpop ulations , similar to those described by theTP! report. New Ventures has also publishedseveral evaluation re ports as an outc om e of theprogram, which include information ongran-tee accomplishments, challenges, promisingpractices, and elements of success (Forum ofRegional Association of Grantmakers, 2003).The evaluation reports do not analyze specificprojects or the underlying purposes of theprojects in relation to the new philanthropyenvironment . The Donor Education Initiativereport mentioned above also lists informationabout donor education projects, but provideslittle more than categorical summary informa-tion about these projects (Siegel and Yancey,2003). Because so little is kn ow n ab ou t specificefforts to expand overall philanthropy amongdon ors, describing such a project in mo re detailmay facilitate better understanding of thistrend; and its role within the n ew philanthro pyenvironment, provide direction for similarefforts and future research, and provide insightto fundraisers and philanth ropic p rotessionals.Additionally, understanding projects and pro-grams that serve to expand phi lanthropy maybe invaluable to those inother countr ies who

are facing the chal lenge of growing a newculture of phi lanthropy.MethodologyQualitative inquiry was theapproach used toguide this study. Qualitative research m etho dsare appropriate to use when exploringnew areas where litt le is known and forunderstanding complex projects or concepts(Marshall and Rossman, 1995; Creswe ll, 1998).Because mult iple methods of data collectioncan enhance understanding of the phenom-eno n un der study (Creswell, 1998; Berg, 2001),multiple methods, including unstructured andsemi-structured interviews and document ana-lysis were employed. To further ensure trust-worthiness, drafts of the study design,methodology, and results were reviewed byresearch participants and a panel of researchcolleagues.A purpo sive sam ple of eight individuals w howe re most directly involved w ith the C ataloguefor Philanthropy participated in the study.Because the intent of the study is to understand

the intended purpose(s) of the Catalogue,individuals who were most familiar with itsoperat ions were interviewed. It was assumedthat those most intimately involved with theactivities of the Catalogue would have the bestsense of its purpose(s) . Of the eight studyparticipants, three have been involved with theCatalogue since its inception in 1997. One ofthe part icipants is deeply involved with allaspects of the project as inventor, coordinatorand key spokesperson while the other twohave also been heavily involved but in a lesscom preh ensive fashion. Additionally, tw o par-ticipants are consul tants who have beenassociated with the Catalogue since 1999.The remaining three participants were rela-tively new to the Catalogue at the time of thestudy. Of thes e, o ne w as a full-time staff per sonfor the Catalogue and the o the r two werevolunteers interested in more substantialinvolvement with the project in the future.

Several modes of interviewing were usedin this study. Two individual, unstructured,in-depth interviews, for 30 minutes and


7/14

Fundraising orpro^notingphilanthropy 14 32 Vz hours, were conducted with the Catalo-gue's project coordinator. These interviewswere based on an active interview orientation(Holstein and Gubrium, 1995). All other inter-views were semi-structured with open-endedquestions using an elite interviewing strategy.Of the semi-structured interviews, one indivi-dual interview was held for 20 minutes; onegroup interview, with four participants, washeld for appro xima tely 1V^ hou rs; and an oth ergroup interview, with two participants, wascond ucted for approximately 1 hour. Theseinterviews were held in a group format toaccommodate individual schedules and timeconstraints. All interviews took place in May2002. The questions for these interviews werevalidated th roug h a pe er debriefing by partici-pant collaborators the project coordinator(who is well acquainted with all of theparticipants) and the project assistant for theCatalogue (Creswell, 1998). The questionswere conversational, with the quality of inter-viewing enhanced by probing to clarify whatwas said (Kvale, 1996). All interviews wereaudio taped for transcription. Interviews weretranscribed and participants were asked toexam ine transcripts for accuracy as a validationstep (Creswell, 1998).

Documents were purposively selected andincluded: five issues of the hard copy Cata-logue (1997-2001), various documents ( i .e . ,grant proposa ls, mem os, etc.), emails from theproject coordinator and project assistant, andinformation on the Catalogue website, includ-ing a draft of a book being written by theproject coordinator. It should be noted thatthe project coordinator authored a majority ofthe documents used in the study.

NUD*IST 6 ( N 6 ) qualitative data analysissoftware was used to systematically organize,code, and analyze the data. Transcripts,documents available in electronic format,notes from hard-copy documents, and reflec-tive memos were imported into the softwareprogram. A total of 31 docum ents wereimported for analysis. Analysis followed astrategy set out by Maxwell (1998), whichinvolved an iterative process including con-textualizing and categorizing strategies. This

entailed reading interviews and other docu-me nts com pletely throug h to get a sense of thewhole, rereading and coding segments, re-coding and grouping codes into broad clustersof similar topics or nodes, and creatingreflexive memos. Clusters were then iterativelyre-coded into more specific and simplifiednodes. This process continued until no newcode s em erged . Tree nod es were then analyzedin relation to the main objectives of the study.

ResultsAt least five major purposes of the Catalogueem erged throu gh analysis of the interviews an ddocumentat ion: educat ing donors, creat ing anew conceptual izat ion of phi lanthropy,increasing the visibility of small charities,strengthening philanthropy, and raising fundsfor charities featured. Each pu rpo se is dis-cussed in more detail below.

Educat ing donorsEducating donors about philanthropy, accord-ing to six participants and several documents,is a major pu rpo se of the C atalogue. This entailspnjviding information and creating awarenessabout philanthropy and small charities todon ors. As one pa rticipant put it: \ . . itbecame an education process in sorts of allthe great things that can be consideredout there and all the needs that are in fact outthere." While there is indication that donoreducation may be seen as an end goal, i t wasmo re often discussed in reference to increasingcharitable giving or changing the culture ofphilanthropy. For example, one participantstated: forem ost th e greatest thing is thedonor education aspect of it , ways to getpeo ple m aybe wh o either are only giving a littlebit to United Way becau se it s e as y .. . get themto make t ha t nex t s t e p . . . "Creating a new conceptual izationof phi lant l iropyFive participants and documentary evidencesuggest another purpose of the Catalogue,


8/14

14 4 A . M. Eikenberrywhich is to create a new conceptualization ofphilanthropy. There are three components tothis idea. One is discussed in interviews with afounding participant as well as in severaldocuments. This is the view that the C^atalo-gue 's projects can be used as tools for creating anew definition of American philanthropy and anew vocabulary' for philanthropy. The Catalo-gue defines philanthropy as "private initiativesfor public good, focused on quality of life." Aswritten in one document:

. . . We decided to go all-out by presenting aconstructive, reasoned, alternative view ofphilanthropy as a whole, including apolitical theory of governance and laiv inthe sector, explaining how governingboards represent the public interest in eachorganization, to guaran tee that publicbenefit, and not private pro fit, results fromits activities... .A bove all, we asserted thatthe absurd and stupid terrn "nonprofit,"which describes what the sector and itsinstitutional members are not, should bereplaced by nam ing it for what it is andought to be: the "benefit" sector.Along with this is the idea of creating ormodeling a new infrastructure for philan-thropy. There is a need for this role, as oneparticipant stated it, because: "there's nobodyin philanthropy wh o s saying, think aboutphilanthropy as such, isn't this great?" Severaldocum ents, written by the project coordinator,outline the need for this new infrastructure tobe "donor-friendly," meaning philanthropy

needs to be presented in such a way that isnaturally coinciding with donor interests, anduser-friendly in navigation helping donorssearch for and find charities they would like tosu p p o rt .. ." as was stated in one document.Finally, this new conceptualization of phi-lanthropy has to do with conveying a sense ofquality and trust in philanthropy, somethingthat has deteriorated with fundraising scandalsin recent years, as noted by one participant.The three participants who were new to the

Catalogue, as well as one consultant, com-mented on the important role the hard-copy

Catalogue plays in providing a high-quality,trustworthy view of philanthropy to donors.According to one participant:. . . and I've heard this from, several peoplethat knew our role in it [the Catalogue] thatsaid the book just bas this great quality to itan d 1 think that goes part and parcel to theidea that your money is in good handshere.... A nd that Just resonated withme. . . . what the Catalogue became wasthis pure, grassroots, honest, the way youthink it should he, that your money is allgoing to this cause...

Increasing the visibility of small charitiesIncreasing the visibility for small charities ingeneral, and the charities featured in theCatalogue specifically, was a purpose notedby four of tbe participants and several docu-ments. For example, one participant, who isalso a major donor to some of the charitiesfeatured in the hard-copy C atalogue, stated: "Ifelt as a reader of it, that it was givinginformation and access to organizations thatwere doing work that I cared about and w antedto support but which because of their size Iwould never have been able to identify them bymyself." In this way, the Catalogue serves toconnect donors with a variety of small cha-rities. Additionally, according to one docu-ment, the hard copy Catalogue serves to linkdonors of every^ possible philanthropic interestto small charitable organizations that match aparticular interest.Strengthening philanthropyThe goal of strengthening philanthropy wasnoted by two founding participants, one newparticipant, and various documents. Strength-ening philanthropy was defined in severaldifferent ways as: improving donors' philan-thropic decision-making, enhancing donorsatisfaction, broadening donors' horizons,increasing the cost-effectiveness of giving,aligning personal charitable giving more clo-sely with a donors income and wealth,


9/14

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy 14 5deepening donor commitment, facili tatingpersonal involvement, and increasing theamount of giving by the public in general(especially high net worth individual donors)and among those who already give. Increasedgiving was mentioned the most by participantsand documents and is cited as an indicator ofthe need to change the culture of philanthropyin Massachusetts and New England. As articu-lated in one docum ent:

The probletn we were addressing wasthat charitable giving in New England,and especially Ma ssachuse tts, custom arilylagged significantly behind that of the restof the country^... Ch ronic low charitablegiving in a state or region h as to be acultural problem reflecting the public sknowledge, understanding, and evalua-tion of,philanthropy in general

It is important to note that for the foundingmembers, this does not refer to fundraising forindividual charities in the Catalogue. Forexample, describing the purpose of the Cata-logue, one do cum ent s tates:Its aim is not fust to find a few new dollarsand donors for the charities listed in this on ecatalogue this year, bu t to discover whethe rwe can create a new and continuing sourceof new dollars and new donors for philan-thropy itself nationw ide, in perpetuity, aswell as a new an d continuing way toeduca te future generations in the valuesand practices of sophisticated philanthropy .

Raising funds for charit iesThough several par t icipants and documentstake pains to define the purpose of theCatalogue as not about fundraising for thespecific charities featured in the hard-copyCatalogue, half of the participants seemed tounderstand amajor purp ose to be largely ab outfundraising for these charities. All of thefounding participants interviewed noted thatthis was a recurring misunderstanding theyfaced with the phi lanthropic community.According to one of these participants:

/ think for the [Ellis L . Phillips] foundation,tbe goal of the Catalogue was always toprom ote philanthrop y. I think for the out-side world, that goal wasn 't as obvious andthe bottom line that people always asked uswas how m uch money did you raise foreacb cbarity?

The sam e participant believes this is changing:"\ think it s only been m uch mo re recently thatthat has not bee n the first question that p eop leask. They ap prec iate sort of the bigger p ictureof promoting philanthropy than actual dollarsfor charit ies."How ever , two of the par t icipants new to theCatalogue and one of the consultants notedfundraising as an important purpose. Discuss-ing the charities that might be in the Catalo-gue, on e participant, wh o also has a fundraisingbackground, stated:A lot of organizations are very nervousright now , for the one's that get chosen [tobe in the Catalogue] there's kind of like ahope out there, they don't really have to doanything, and they don't have a lot ofresources to do anything, but there's achance of money coming in and increasedvisibility which is wha t we all need...This view is also reflected in suggestedimprovements articulated by several partici-pants. One of these was to put more emphasison gathering data from charities regarding fun-draising outcomes. One participant stated inreference to charities featured in the Catalogue:

Thats one area that I think that could beimproved upon is getting them to reportbetter back, change in the way that theyreport back, so that you have your idea ofwha t the Catalog ue is reaching ... if youcould have a clear statement, a clear idea ofits increased this, or its reached this ma ny,you kn ow, it's raised tbis much money, orwha tever it is.Another suggestion was to include highlightsof fundraising outcomes in the hard-copyCatalogue. One participant stated:


10/14

14 6 A . M. Eikenberry.. .It w ould be really neat to be able toshow that due to the unds Just raised by theCatalogu e and nothing else, for instance,

bought 30 acres conserved, you know, wesave 30 acres of land, or we were, youknow, ahle to deliver 1 00 books or some-thing to a school, or we were able to put 10kids through a program so that there iskind of an end result. . .

DiscussionThe main puq>ose of this study was to under-stand better the purpose(s) of tbe Massachu-setts Catalogue for Philanthropy within tbecontext of the "new phi lanthropy" environ-ment. Specifically, the underlying questionsdriving this study were: How are philanthropypromotion projects, such as the Catalogue forPhilanthropy, different from traditional fun-draising and to what degree do they c ontrib uteto a ne w p hilanthrop ic paradigm? Because verylitt le research h as been c ond ucte d on efforts topromote philanthropy in general, the findingsfrom this study, though limited to one casestudy, may offer useful information for othersinterested in expanding phi lanthropy in theUnited States and elsewhere.

An important issue for any group or com-munity creating a system to encourage philan-thropy is deciding on the fundamental purp oseof such an effort. In the case of the C^atalogue,there is a struggle to define the purpose byreference to a ne w paradigm that is not alwaysund erstoo d by those sti ll ope rating in t h e ' 'old ' 'paradigm, including some who work directlyfor and with the Catalogue. Data analysissuggests the study participants, those mostintimately involved with the Catalogue, see thepur pos es from tw o perspe ctives or fromboth the old and newly emerging philanthropyparadigms which are not exclusive of oneanother. Figure 2 provides a visual repre.senta-tion of these two perspectives or paradigms.

On one side is the view that fundraising forsmall charities featured in the hard-copyCatalogue is a major pu rpo se of the Cataloguefor Philanthropy. Those new to the Catalogue,

Raise l-undstor SpecificCharitiesreate NewConcept ofPhilanthropv

Figure 2. Two perspectives oti the purpose of theCatalogue for Philanthropy

and others in the philanthropic community, asindicated by the study participants, seemedespecially prone to this point of view. This"institutional fundraising" view is a key asp ectof the traditional paradigm that has dom inatedphilanthropy since the late 19th century (ThePhilanthropic Initiative. 2000; Schervish andHavens, 2001). In this paradigm which con-tinues today, the philanthropic world ischaracterized by fragmented philan throp icconstituencies, competit ion among charitableorganizations, professionalization, and thedominance of fundraising by and for largecharitable institutions.

The other point of view is that the focus ofthe Catalogue is and should be on expandingand enriching philanthropy in general. Thosewho have been with the Catalogue since itsinception are especially close to this point ofview. For these individuals, raising funds forthe charities featured in the hard-copy Catalo-gu e is an important part of the project, bu t no tits main purpose. The money raised throughth e Catalogue is seen as one indicator ofsuccess in promoting philanthropy, not an endin and of itself. Other indicators of .success inpromoting phi lanthropy include: educat ingdonors, creating a new conceptualization ofphi lanthropy, and s trengthening phi lanthropy.Thus, as opposed to the traditional paradigmthat focuses primarily on raising money for andpromoting individual charitable institutions,this paradigm refers to a philanthropic com-munity collaborating to promote philanthropy


11/14

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy 14 7in general. The founders of the Catalogue anddocumentat ion state that it is out of thisparadigm that the Catalogue initially em erged .

This paradigmatic split is problematic onseveral counts. If the Catalogue seeks to be acatalyst for expan sion an d changing the cultureof philanthropy in Massachusettsa monu-me ntal task to do so is m uch m ore difficult ifthe key peop le involved with the Catalogue arecoming from different directions. In a sense,they may beworking at cross purposes. Theque stion in this case is: Is it possib le to be bo thfiindraiser for individual charities and facilita-tor /enhancer for philanthropy? As has beendiscussed by Gmce and Wendroff and others,donors of the new philanthropy are notattracted by traditional fLindraising methods;they wan t to seek solutions to problem s rath erthan have organizations seek them (Grace andWendroff, 2001). Because of this, workingtowards the puq^ose of fundraising for specificcharities (the institutional fundraising para-dig m ) is not ver>' effective for incre asin g givingand enhancing other philanthropic efforts.Efforts topromote phi lanthropy, on the otherhand, may increase funds for institutions whilealso making the philanthropic pie bigger.Furtbermore. for the Catalogue to continue tohave funding, and therefore continue to exist,i t must convince its supporters that it is morethan about fundraising. Coming from theinstitutional fundraising paradigm, it is easy toargue, as some have according to studyparticipants, that it would be more efficientto just give the money directly to the charitiesrather than taking the trouble of supp orting theCatalogue's operations. In other words, theyargue that it is not cost-effective to s pe nd such alarge amount of money producing a Catalogueeach year to feature only 100 small charities. Ifthe major purpose were to raise money forsmall charities, this would be t rue. However,this argument is mute if the Catalogue iscontr ibut ing to a new paradigm of promotingphilanthropy, where it does much more thanraise money for individual charities.

Preliminary findings from another researchproject have shown that this problem ofstraddling paradigms is not unique to the

Catalogue and the tensions that come withthis (Eikenberry A. 200 5. Giving Circles and theDem ocratization of Philanthropy. Unp ublisheddissertation , University of Nebraska at Om aha ).An organization in Omaha, Nebraska has faceda similar problem in its campaign to get w om ento create giving circles. Giving circles aredescribed as a cross between a book club andan investment group, and entail individuals"pooling their resources in suppor t of organi-zations of mutual inte rest" (Schweitzer, 2000 ).Some of the organizat ion's board memberswonder if it is wor th the cost and effort topromote tbe creation of giving circles if theorganization itself does not benefit directlyfrom donations made by the giving circles.Oth ers see giving circles as awonderftil tool forpromot ing women s philanthropy in the city,which will ultimately benefit many groupsserving women and girls including theirorganization.

Conclusion and future researchThis study is a first step in gaining betterund erstand ing of the grow ing trend for philan-thropic institutions across the US to initiateefforts to promote phi lanthropy. As hasbecome clearer with this study, there are atleast two perspectives from which such aproject might emerge: one is the view thatprojects are meant to raise funds for specificcharities or institutions, the other is the viewthat what is necessary is to promote greater andbette r giving in general. Future research mightinvolve a more detailed analysis of the Catalo-gue for Philanthropy as well as other efforts toencourage phi lanthropy in the US. It would behelpful to know what their intended purposesare and out of which paradigm tbey haveemerged, as well as more about their impactson donors, beneficiaries, and tbe regions inwhich they take place.

Biographical noteAngela Eikenberry is assistant professor at theSchool of Public and Intemational Affairs,Center for Public Administration and Policy at


12/14

14 8 A . M. EikenberryVirginia Tech. She completed her Ph.D. inPublic Administration at the University ofNebraska at Omaha School of Public Adminis-tration. Dr. Eikenberry s main research inter-ests include nonprofit organizations andphilanthropy and their role in democraticsociety.ReferencesAAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. 2003. 2004 bySource of Contributions, (cited 2004 July 19];Available from URL: http://www.aafrc.org/bysourceof66.htnilBerg BL. 20 01. Qualitative Research Methods for

the Social Sciences. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.Burke C:C. 2001. Nonprofit history s new numbers(and the need for more). Nonprofit and Volun-tary Sector QuaHerly 30(2): 174-203.Bianchi A. 2000. Serving Nonprofits. The NewPhilanthropy, Inc., October, pp . 23-2"^.Byrne JA. 2002. The New Face of Philanthropy,Business Week, 2nd December, pp. 82-94.Brainerd P. 1999. Social venture partners: engaginga new generation of givers. Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly 28: 502-507.Briscoe MG, Marion BH. 2001. Capital campaignsand the new charitable investors. In New Direc-tions for Philanthro pic Fund raising: Under-standing Donor Dynamics. Jossey-Bass: SanFrancisco.Bendapudi N, Surendra NS, Bendapudi V. 1996.Enhancing helping behavior: an integrative fra-mework for promotion planning. Journal ofMarketing 60: 33-49.Cobb NK. 2002. The new philanthropy: its impacton funding arts and Culture. Tf:te Journal ofArts Management, Laiv, and Society 32: 125-

143.Catalogue for Philanthropy. 20 03-200 4. Massachu-setts Catalogue for Philanthropy: About Us.bttp://w ww . catalogueforpbilanthropy.org/cfp/abo ut/[16 July 2004].Creswell JW. 1998. Qualitative Inquity andResearch Design: Choosing Among Eive Tradi-tions. Sage: Thousand Oaks.deCourcy Hero P. 2001. Giving back the SiliconValley way: emerging patters of a new philan-thropy. In New Directions for PhilanthropicFundraising: Understanding Donor Dynamics.Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers.2004. New Ventures in Philanthropy, http://www. givingforum.org/about/ventures.btml [17July 2004].Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers.2003- New Ventures Evaluation, A Retrospective.bttp://www.givingforum.or^cgi-bitVd(x:_rep/publicAu bfolderpl'i-cat J d ^ 95&folder_id=298&subfold_ id - 53 119 July 2004].

Grace KS, Wendroff AL. 2001. High ImpactPhilanthropy: How Donors, Boards, and Non-profit Organizations Can Transform Commu-nities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.Holstem JA, Gubrium JF. 1995. Tbe A ctive Inter-view. Sage: Tbousand Oaks.Independent Sector. 2002. Give Five. http://ww w.independentsector.org/give5/givefive.html [23June 2002].Joulfaian D. 1998. The Federal Estate and Gift Tax:Description, Profile of Taxpayers, and EconomicConsequences. Office of Tax Analysis Paper 80,U. S. Department of Treasury. http://www.ustreas.gov/ota/otapapers.fitml [21 July 200 2].Kvale S. 1996. !nten>ieivs: An Introduction toQualitative Research Interviewing. Sage: Thou-sand Oaks.Lindahl WE, Conley AT. 2002. Literature review:pbilantbropic fundraising. Nonprofit Manage-ment and Leadership 13(1): 91-112 .Marsfiall C, Rossman GB. 1995. Designing Quali-tative Research. Sage: Thousand O aks.Maxwell JA. 1998. Designing a qualitative study.In Handbook of Ap plied Social ResearchMethods, Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds). Sage:Thousand Oaks.McCuIIy G. 2000. Is tfiis a paradigm shift? Founda-tion News & Cofmnentary March/Apri l : 20-22 .NewTitfiing^^ Group. 2002. Overview, fittp://www .newtitfiing.org/frames/f_aboutO].fitml[22 June 2002].Rom MC. 1999. From welfare state to op portunity,

Inc., A merican Behavioral Scientist 45iiy. 155-176.Rosenbei^C. 1994. Wealthy and Wise: How Youand America Can Get the Most Out of YourGiving. Little Brown & Company: Boston.

Scfiervisfi PG, Havens JJ. 2001 . Wealtfi and thecommonwealth: new findings on wfierewithaland pfiilantfiropy. Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly 30(1): 5-25.


13/14

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy 14 9Salatnon LM. 1997. Holding the Center: America'sNonprofit Sector at a Crossroads. The NathanCummings Foundation, New York, http://

www.ncf.org/reports/special/rpt_hc/rpt_hc_report.html 119 December 2000].Siegel D, YanceyJ. 2003 Philanthropy 's ForgottenResource? Engaging the Individual Donor: TheState of Donor Education Today & A Ix^adershipAgenda for the Road Ahead. The Donor Educa-tion Initiative, http://www.newvisionsprd.org/Initiatives/[16July2004].Streisand B. 2002. The New Philanthropy. U. S.Neu's& World Re/tort, 11th June, pp. 40-42.Schweitzer C. 2000. Building on new foundations.Association Management October: 28-39.Schervish PG, O'Herlihy MA. Havens JJ. 2001. AgentAnimated W ealth and Philanthropy: The Dynamicsof Accumulation and Allocation Amotig Higli-TechDonors, Boston College Center on Wealth andPhilantliropy. Boston. http://www.hc.edu/research/swri/publications/by-year/publications-2OO3/ll9July 20041.

Schervish PG, Havens JJ. 2001. The new physics ofphilanthropy: the supply-side vectors of charita-ble giving. Part 1: the material side of the supplyside. Tbe CASE International Journal of Educa-tional Advancement 2(2): 95-113.Sargeant A. 1999. Marketing Management forNonprofit Organizations. Oxford UniversityPress: Oxford.The Catalogue for Philanthropy. 2000. The Para-digm-Shift in Philanthropy. The Ellis L. PhillipsFoundation: Boston; pp . 60-6 2.The Philanthropic Initiative. 1997. PromotingPhilanthropy: The Experience and Potential ofCollaborative Efforts, http://www.tpi.org/_tpi/promoting/research.htm [20 June 2002].The P hilanthropic Initiative. 2000. What s a DonorTo Do? The State of Donor Resources in AmericaToday. http://w ww . tpi.org/_t pi/promo ting/research, htm [23 June 2002].Wagner L. 2002. The new donor: creation orevolution? International Journal of Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Marketing l(Ay- 343-352.


14/14

Fundraising or Promoting

Documents

Transcript of Fundraising or Promoting