'Highlighting stewardship, giving, and gratitude will have ripple effects for generations'

‘Highlighting stewardship, giving, and gratitude will have ripple effects for generations’

Posted on July 3, 2019 by Anne Brock

By Jenna Olson Popp

I came into the fundraising profession right out of college, moving into a full-time position at The Lutheran Center, a campus ministry I called my church home throughout college. Though I could speak about the ministry from a very personal perspective, I still looked for quality effective fundraising education.

We are continually seeking new ways to reach donors, especially since the members of our church (college students) are not the ones keeping the lights on. The big question for us is always, “How do we regularly connect and reach out to the alumni and donors who make this ministry possible when we don’t see them every week in the pews?”

Pastor Adam—the campus pastor at The Lutheran Center—told me that I should go to the Executive Certificate in Religious Fundraising (ECRF) course after learning about it from a campus ministry-focused Lilly Endowment, Inc. conference.

I knew it would be a great opportunity because Lake Institute on Faith & Giving just gets it. They get where churches are, they understand the struggles we face, and they are determined to strategize and adapt as the times change. However, as a campus ministry with a small staff and a pinched continuing education budget line, I wouldn’t have been able to attend without financial help. The scholarship was key in making this opportunity possible for me.

(more…)

The importance of the buddy system, and how corporate foundations connect cause to mission

Posted on July 1, 2019 by Abby Rolland

Master’s student Jenny Convey shares information about a Dutch corporate foundation she met during study abroad, and how corporate foundations can connect their company’s work to their mission to serve others.

By: Jenny Convey

Our first stop of the day was the beautiful Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam’s most well-known and magnificent art museum. We all locked up our bikes and happily made our way onto the museum campus, grateful to be indoors where it was dry and the coffee was flowing. And what a treat to get to have our morning lecture in such a cultural institution, especially knowing we would have time to explore the museum afterwards and get to see eight centuries of Holland’s national treasures, from Vermeer to Van Gogh to Rembrandt and beyond.

For our first appointment of the day, we learned about corporate foundations and corporate philanthropy in the Netherlands. We had a fascinating presentation from Mark Versteegen, Director of the KPN “Mooiste Contact Fonds” (its name roughly translates to “the beautiful connections foundation”), which is the corporate foundation of Dutch telecommunications company KPN.

Mark explained that their mission is just as the name suggests: paralleling their parent company, the corporate foundation is in the business of connecting people and they focus on combating loneliness and social isolation in the Netherlands, which we learned is a huge issue in this country. The foundation’s work focuses only on projects that allow KPN to use the company’s knowledge, skills, technology, and/or employees to tackle the loneliness problem, and they do so together with their nonprofit partner organizations.

KlasseContact is one of the programs KPN’s foundation seems the proudest of and promotes the most. It supports children in Holland who have long-term chronic illnesses by installing a state-of-the-art rotating camera device in the child’s classroom and in their home or hospital room so that they can still participate in their school classroom in a dynamic way. In this program, KPN uses their technology to power their philanthropic work.

On the other hand, within their Zilverlign initiative, the foundation uses the people-power of KPN by asking their employees to volunteer to call elderly folks who live alone—often because their spouse has died—at the same time each week to chat and check in with them. They are extremely touching programs that KPN highlights in beautiful promotional videos that really tug at your heart strings, but I did find myself juxtaposing the level of need in the population they have chosen to serve (the lonely) with some of the marginalized groups or causes in the United States who I would view as having much more urgent needs, from victims of gang violence to those experiencing homelessness and other issues.

We learned today about how innovative corporate philanthropy can be as businesses like KPN marry their cutting-edge technology and business savvy with their philanthropic endeavors and invest in au courant practices like corporate social responsibility (CSR). Companies in this day and age have come so far from the back-breaking, dangerous and uncaring workplace of the industrial period, for instance, and instead seek both to do good in the world and at the same time attract employees, customers, and shareholders based on a positive reputation they build in part through their foundation, cultural sponsorships, and CSR.

Yet despite this seemingly modern approach, it struck me how similar the human condition and philanthropic responses to it can be even across eras. In particular, just the other day, we covered the history of almshouses in the Netherlands going back about 400 years and philanthropists at that time were also focused on supporting widows—just like the Zilverlign or other KPN programs for lonely seniors, who are very often widowed—and were also highly motivated to give back in order to enhance their reputation in the community.

To conclude, one very simple—and very cute!—way that KPN and their corporate foundation tries to foster a positive reputation in the Netherlands is with their mascot, Maatje. Maatje means “buddy” in English, and he serves as the mascot for the KPN Mooiste Contact Fonds, which gives out plush Maatje dolls to lonely children so that they can always have a little buddy to share their worries with. Our whole group was lucky enough to each receive the gift of a Maatje to bring home with us! In my view, philanthropy is always more meaningful when you do it with a buddy, so I am sure he will serve us well back in the States!

Sharing the story of World Vision: Reshaping narratives about religious history and global humanitarianism

Posted on June 27, 2019 by Abby Rolland

David King, Ph.D., Karen Lake Buttrey Director of Lake Institute on Faith & Giving and assistant professor of philanthropic studies recently published a book about the global and religiously-affiliated humanitarian organization, World Vision. Here, King sits down with communications project manager Abby Rolland to discuss the book, the research behind it, and why King utilized an interdisciplinary approach to study World Vision over its 70-year history.

How did you become initially interested in studying World Vision?

DK: I was always interested in the global picture, especially when I lived overseas as an undergraduate.

In my research, I’m continuously thinking about how conversations around religious history as well as in philanthropic and nonprofit studies can include a more global context. The World Vision story, like many international NGOs, begins to look differently if you think about the exchange back and forth between recipients, donors, and staff on the ground overseas with donors here in the U.S.

You began studying World Vision for your doctoral dissertation. What did you learn about the organization and the people involved during that initial research phase?

DK: The first step was building trust with individuals involved with World Vision and explaining why I wanted to share their story.

Then, I had to find creative ways to access the history. Unlike a university, nonprofits—particularly those working in emergency frontline service—often focus on their current work rather than recording what they did and when they did it. Creating an archive is not front of mind.

As a result, I relied on interviews, meeting notes, personnel files, public media, and many other methods to unpack World Vision’s story.

After completing your dissertation, why did you decide to continue on and conduct more research on World Vision?

DK: Their story stands as illustrative of a larger story of humanitarian work. World Vision is the largest Christian humanitarian organization in the world, with 40,000 employees, so their footprint is large, which makes it an important organization to discuss.

In addition, they’ve experienced a great deal of change over time. They started as an evangelistic organization that evolved in a way that didn’t veer from that religious identity, but developed a broader and more holistic understanding of missions, humanitarianism, and faith-based relief and development work.

Where they had been and where they are now attracted me, and individuals’ reflections about their experiences allowed me to dive deeper and share their story with a broader audience.

About that change over time you mentioned – what’s a recent one?

DK: There’s been a stronger emphasis on advocacy work. In the past, they would have talked about their work as being apolitical, with a sole focus on relief missions and development work. Over time, they realized that you can’t do one without the other. When it comes to questions about advocacy, they have realized that sometimes their expertise forces them to speak out politically or prophetically on certain issues.

What was one of the most interesting or surprising things that you learned during your research?

DK: As someone who’s been trained as a historian, hearing stories from people who were present at places during important moments in history was very interesting.

For example, learning about World Vision’s experience in the late 1960s and 1970s in Vietnam and Cambodia opened my eyes to how politicized the nonprofit world was at that time, but also to the necessity of the roles these actors were playing in those spaces.

For instance, how did aid workers account for bombing raids by the U.S. armed forces that caused some of the issues they tried to solve? Aid workers found themselves on both sides of political divides, but still found common motivation to serve those that needed help.

What did you enjoy the most about writing the book, and what’s the most rewarding part about having it published?

DK: Putting the puzzle pieces together – finding the stories and threads to help shape the narrative was the most exciting part.

As for most rewarding, holding it in my hands and seeing it in print is exciting. Although more than that, I’m excited and honored to share the stories that people have entrusted to me. I hope that those stories will give a more full picture of what we mean we talk about philanthropy broadly.

Could you go more in-depth with that last point about expanding philanthropy?

DK: It’s not just about the Gates and Rockefellers of the world. An organization like World Vision was built around small, individuals donors who gave $5-$10 a month. They were intentionally committed, but not at the major donor level.

Now, as the organization has diversified and receives government grants and major and corporate donations, studying how philanthropy has changed is part of that story.

In addition, I hope to draw on conversations about religious identity, and change over time. I also want to highlight conversations about interreligious diversity, what do we mean when we say an organization is religious vs. secular, and how different and diverse types of nonprofits work together for shared mission.

I also hope to shine a light on the religiously-affiliated organizations that have long brought particular experiences, expertise, and scale to broad and important conversations about relief and development work.

What’s the importance of having a book that encompasses multiple disciplines and touches on different facets of philanthropy?

DK: The great gift of a field like philanthropic studies is that there is no automatic, singular home for research in this space. It can be challenging at times to define where a philanthropy book should fit within academic disciplines, but it’s exciting to consider that it invites in readers and conversation partners from a number of different disciplines. I hope that people engage in ongoing conversations in their own fields about how to do this work differently or better.

My ultimate hope is that as the book tells stories in a global context, it reshapes narratives in American religious history and shifts conversations to focus on a more transnational context.

Any future books in the works?

DK: Philip Goff, Ph.D., professor of American studies and executive director for the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture, and I have an edited collection about religion and philanthropy in the U.S. that will be published next year with Indiana University Press. It’ll cover a variety of religions’ and religious actors’ engagement with philanthropy across time during the late 19th and 20th centuries.

We also hope to publish articles and a possible book about the National Study on Congregations’ Economic Practices findings in the future.

You can learn more about King’s book and World Vision on Patheos’s Anxious Bench blog.

White men shouldn’t be the only philanthropists you can name

Posted on June 25, 2019 by Jacqueline Ackerman

Nicole Robinson, Vice President of Community Impact at Greater Chicago Food Depository

I recently came across a thought-provoking article: Is philanthropy driven by altruism, ego, or the human desire to cheat death? The title immediately piqued my interest – at the Women’s Philanthropy Institute, we have read and written a lot about what drives philanthropy for women and men. The article reviews some research about why people give to charity to unpack the question – do people give for “good” reasons or for “bad” ones, i.e. altruism or self-interest? The author highlights a few drivers of philanthropy:

People give because it feels good.
People give to improve their image.
People give when they’re asked.
People give to leave a legacy – what the author refers to as the desire to “cheat death” by giving their lives meaning that will outlast them.

The author concludes that no one explanation paints the whole picture – people are both egoistic and altruistic at once. What struck me was the pessimistic tone of the article, and the cynical commentary on wealthy donors – who contribute a disproportionate amount of total charity in the U.S. The author suggests that the rich give to relieve their guilt; they only give enough to get their name in an annual report or on a building; and they don’t take deep, meaningful action to address society’s ills.

If I saw philanthropy in such a negative light, I would have to find a different career! And I can suggest one way the author might get a different perspective…

Ask yourself: What does a philanthropist look like?

Literally every researcher or philanthropist mentioned in the article is a man – and most are white men. At the Women’s Philanthropy Institute, we are working to change this image. We know that women are more likely to give than men – and this is the case for nearly every charitable subsector.

Our most recent study examines how diverse communities, and especially women of color, give to charity. The message is clear: if white men are the only researchers whose work you’re reading, and the only philanthropists you’re paying attention to, you’re missing the whole picture of philanthropy!

Research from the Women’s Philanthropy Institute and others has already answered this author’s question. Women tend to give for more altruistic reasons; men are more likely than women to cite self-interested reasons for giving. Women are less motivated by things like giving levels or putting their name on a building, and are more likely to give anonymously.

As a sector, we should push back on a narrow definition of philanthropy. Highlighting women’s philanthropy, especially giving by women in diverse communities, can change this perception of who a philanthropist is. Together with YWCA Metropolitan Chicago and Facebook, WPI is showcasing stories of diverse women leading through philanthropy. Please watch the video, share, and join the #IAmAPhilanthropist conversation to tell your philanthropy story.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn.

Giving USA: An in-depth process and look at giving throughout the year

Posted on June 21, 2019 by Abby Rolland

Last year, we discussed the collaboration and thorough research process behind Giving USA 2018: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2017. To mark the release of this year’s report, we’re diving deeper into the process of how an individual chapter is written and how it covers and curates other important giving reports released throughout the previous year.

Anna Pruitt, Ph.D., serves as the Managing Editor for Giving USA and coordinates the writing process for the book’s chapter writers. Over the last several years, she has worked hard to convey a consistent tone across all chapters, working with chapter writers and along with Giving USA’s editorial review board, reviewing and editing each chapter multiple times for consistency of tone and message.

The thorough process of writing, editing, rewriting, editing and tweaking again, and more doesn’t take place within a small timeframe. Instead, Pruitt and the other writers collect articles, research reports, and other information for the book throughout the year.

“It’s a continuous process,” she explained. “We’re always keeping an eye out on materials, information, and reports that can be used be in Giving USA and would be useful for practitioners to know. Reviewing these reports and articles then helps us determine whether this information needs to be included in this year’s Giving USA or next year’s, and also helps us continuously track and stay aware of the conversations around philanthropic giving during that given year,” she explained.

Doing so also helps Pruitt and the research team see what the media covers around philanthropic giving, as well as similarities or differences with what practically happens in the field. “It’s important to us that we’re listening to those conversations and having those conversations.

“Overall, there’s never a time that the chapter writing process stops. We’re either collecting new information, or we’re in the active chapter writing process.”

For that chapter writing process, Pruitt has worked hard to provide a template for chapter authors to work from, making the process and what reports have to be included clear at the outset. This process helps the writers have a basis for what to cover and how to cover it. “Providing this template, combined with the author’s thorough research and writing process, produces an original and detailed report that can be read and understood by anyone working in the field,” she explained.

“In addition, it’s important to ensure that the chapter writers learn throughout their experience writing and working for the team. It’s an enormous task to write and prepare these chapters, and we’re so grateful to have intelligent and hard-working professionals within the field who volunteer to do so. We believe that it enhances the report in so many ways by having these writers so dedicated to the field and to this report.”

Tessa Skidmore, Women’s Philanthropy Institute visiting research associate, wrote the chapter on individuals and their giving this year. Interest by nonprofit professionals in certain topics ensures that some are included in the report every year. Policy changes, online giving, high net worth donors, giving vehicles, and demographics of givers are all topics discussed every year in the chapter on individual giving. In addition, Skidmore was also able to analyze more deeply the impact of high net worth donors, their influences on giving, and implications for that giving.

As a result, reports such as Blackbaud’s Charitable Giving Report, the Association of Fundraising Professional’s (AFP) and Urban Institute’s Fundraising Effectiveness Project Quarterly Fundraising Report, and the Nonprofit Research Collaborative’s Nonprofit Fundraising Study are discussed in the individuals chapter, as they are every year.

“Blackbaud’s data provides additional context for overall giving, and it also looks specifically at online giving, which the Giving USA data doesn’t cover,” Skidmore said. “In other words, it gives fundraisers additional context when it comes to the utilization of different giving platforms, while the AFP’s and Urban Institute’s project breaks down small gifts versus large gifts, and the Nonprofit Research Collaborative’s report measures giving to different-sized organizations.”

“These reports all study and analyze giving, but they frame their analyses in ways that result in different data among the reports. By including these reports in Giving USA and explaining the nuances behind each one, we hope that it helps people have a comprehensive view of how giving fared in multiple contexts.”

Pruitt added: “Presenting these other reports alongside the Giving USA data gives people a more holistic view of the state of philanthropy as a whole. By partnering with other institutions, we’re able to present information that nonprofit professionals and others can learn about and apply to their own organizations.”

However, chapter authors also have the opportunity to include specific stories from that year as well.

“Several books were released last year critiquing philanthropy and donor influences. I looked at not only the critiques, but also other reports and articles focusing on the more positive side of philanthropy. We ensure throughout the report that we take a balanced approach to analyzing every issue,” Skidmore said.

Pruitt: “It was vital to include these critiques of philanthropy and how they were covered. Tessa was able to wrap that into the Giving by Individuals chapter, and not only talk about the critiques on philanthropy, but also include responses to those critiques and actionable steps people can take to address them.”

Another interesting note about this year’s report? While Giving USA always covers generational differences in giving and demographic characteristics, Skidmore noted an increase in reports and studies on diverse donors (including donors of various races, genders, and sexual orientations).

“For the first time that I am aware of, we included an academic study on how LGBT households versus heterosexual households manage their giving differently,” Skidmore said.

“We also always include coverage of different giving vehicles, but we looked more deeply into the uses of tools like impact investing and donor advised funds. Since there are so many giving tools and options available, individuals have been using these tools to modify and adapt their giving every year.”

And how is this information useful to practitioners?

“Giving USA is a comprehensive tool that situates various reports, news articles, studies, and data within the current context and distills that information so that it is useful for many different nonprofits and other organizations,” Pruitt said.

Skidmore added: “Learning about the data on giving itself is important, but the environment in which giving, specifically individual giving, takes place is also incredibly impactful. It’s not just about how much people give, but understanding the nuances behind their giving and the environment in which giving takes place is also vitally important.”

Both relish the opportunity to coordinate and contribute to the research project.

“I’m always looking for articles relevant to the chapter,” Pruitt said. “When I read reports or news articles, I always take into consideration whether or not they fit in with the major themes we’ve discussed for Giving USA that year. Conducting research for the report has also taught me how to fit in pieces of information that reflect events happening at the time and see the philanthropic sector within a larger environment.

“I’m dedicated to providing a resource to nonprofit practitioners to thoroughly understand giving throughout a year. It’s vital to communicate and articulate everything we’re seeing in the field.”