Women’s philanthropy research and the woman who shaped it

Posted on June 20, 2018 by Abby Rolland

Almost 26 years ago, Dr. Debra Mesch arrived at IUPUI as an assistant professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) and began teaching classes in public administration. In July of this year, Dr. Mesch will step down from her role as the director of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute (WPI) but continue as a professor of philanthropic studies and the Eileen Lamb O’Gara Chair in Women’s Philanthropy.

How did she go from teaching public administration courses to holding an endowed chair and the directorship of WPI? How did her journey coincide with the development of WPI and its role as the center of academic research and teaching on gender and philanthropy, and what vision does she have for WPI in the future?

It began for Dr. Mesch with a connection to the then-Center on Philanthropy after arriving at SPEA.

“I connected with colleagues here, who were studying race and gender issues in giving and volunteering,” she said. “The Center on Philanthropy resonated with me in terms of my research interests, and so my affiliation with the Center became increasingly stronger over time.”

Fast forward to 2008. Dr. Gene Tempel asked Dr. Mesch if she would step into the role of the director of WPI part-time, while also continuing to hold her professorship at SPEA.

“Originally, the WPI was a free-standing, nonprofit organization. It wasn’t focused on research as much as development and leadership training for people interested in women’s philanthropy,” Dr. Mesch said. “WPI moved to the Center on Philanthropy in 2004, but there wasn’t an established leadership position until I became the director in 2008.”

As director, Dr. Mesch’s main task was to strengthen the research component of WPI.

“It was a new challenge for me, but I was very excited to take on this role,” she said.

Ten years later, she’s lived up to that challenge.

“I wanted the public to view us as the go-to place for understanding gender and philanthropy. That vision was grounded in research. We would be the place where most, if not all of the research on gender and philanthropy would be conducted,” Dr. Mesch said. “I believe we’ve achieved that.”

To build the strong basis for high quality research, Dr. Mesch had to institute several key components. One was a research committee.

“I looked at all of the research that was being done at the time and who was doing it. I formed the international research committee based on individuals who were studying gender and philanthropy. That has worked out tremendously well,” she said. “We continue to meet biennially and discuss the latest research on gender and philanthropy. The academics involved with this committee very much support what we do at WPI.”

Then, Dr. Mesch formed the Women’s Philanthropy Institute Council, which consisted of a group of individuals working in the sphere of women’s philanthropy.

“Council members come from a wide variety of sectors and professions, which gives us a diverse range of perspectives,” she said.

Debra Mesch (right) with Kathleen Loehr, incoming WPI Council chair, in Denver for the launch of Women Give 2018.

The Council encouraged Dr. Mesch to have a signature research project that could be applied both academically and practically. That idea led to the Women Give series, which was first published in 2010.

Since that initial report, WPI has produced a Women Give study every year. In addition, a transformational grant from the Gates Foundation in 2014 gave Dr. Mesch and WPI the chance to greatly expand research around gender and philanthropy.

“First, they asked us to submit a complete literature review of all of the research that’s been done on gender and philanthropy,” she said. “Then, they gave us a much larger research grant to accelerate the research.”

The result? A bevy of research projects, including the Women Give series, high net worth donors’ support for women and girls, gender and #GivingTuesday, giving circles, and more.

With the increase in research projects, Dr. Mesch realized that it was time for a new phase for WPI.

“We’re rolling out new research reports almost every month, which is pretty incredible,” she said. “We want to present this research and make sure that nonprofit leaders, donors, fundraisers, and other individuals in the sector can really utilize it. It’s important for us to have this practical focus, so I’ve realized that it’s time for a new director.

“This director will be solely focused on the external side of WPI and disseminating this research broadly. We have to figure out what practitioners find useful from the research and how they have implemented strategies to incorporate our research. That’s the next vision, and how a new director can help grow WPI.”

Dr. Mesch will move into a full-time faculty position and continue to conduct research on gender and philanthropy. The impact she has made as the director of WPI on the field of gender and philanthropy is tangible and powerful.

“When I became the director in 2008, I conducted an initial literature review of the field; there wasn’t much there,” she said. “Looking back at the initial review, I see how far the field has come.”

She holds fond memories of her tenure as the director.

“I’ve been overwhelmed by the responses I’ve received from audiences I’ve presented to,” Dr. Mesch said. “Seeing the ‘ah-ha moments’ from not just nonprofit leaders, but donors who have witnessed the power of women’s philanthropy in their giving circles, women’s funds, or other giving vehicles, but until that moment did not have the research evidence to support their experiences, is inspiring. The conversations about philanthropy gives them confidence to know that the data supports what they’re doing.

“I like to ask a question at the beginning to get participants engaged in the conversation. I’ll ask, ‘what is the most memorable gift that you’ve made?’ The thought that goes into that and emotion of the women that talk about their most memorable gift is a very powerful discussion. Through that conversation, we’ve created a space for them to discuss the importance of their philanthropy and how meaningful it is to them. It’s a moment when they realize the importance of women in philanthropy.”

Her impact on WPI is noticeable, but Dr. Mesch notes the influence of the then-Center on Philanthropy and now school on her.

“I never imagined 25 years ago that I would be in the place I am now,” she said. “To be able to focus on research that really resonates with me has been incredible, and that’s a result of my connections with colleagues here. When I arrived, this was a pretty amazing place and it’s become even more amazing as the place to study and understand philanthropy.”

As for her long-term goals, Dr. Mesch hopes that we always consider the role of gender in philanthropy.

“It would be a real achievement and a testament to WPI when every research study analyzes what this means for women vs. men, do women and men behave differently, etc.,” she said.

“I hope that thinking about gender and philanthropy is integrated into everything that we do.”

Abby Rolland is the blog content coordinator for the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Giving USA: The context and the collaboration

Posted on June 18, 2018 by Abby Rolland

Dr. Una Osili presents the findings of Giving USA 2018 at The Columbus Foundation. Photo Credit: The Columbus Foundation

You may have seen the exciting numbers for Giving USA 2018. For the first time, charitable giving by individuals, bequests, foundations, and corporations in the U.S. has risen to over $400 billion ($410.02 billion to be exact), according to Giving USA 2018: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2017.

You can find out more about the comprehensive and detailed report, but I sought to dig a little deeper and find out about the history and relationships that underlie the report. When did it begin? Who writes it, and what’s that experience like? What I uncovered was a huge project, with many intersecting and important partnerships that ensure thorough, applicable, and highly-regarded research and information.

For context, I spoke with Dr. Una Osili, associate dean for research and international programs at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Dr. Anna Pruitt, Giving USA managing editor, and Tessa Skidmore, Giving USA visiting research associate.

First, Skidmore shared background information about the study.

“Giving USA is the longest-running, most comprehensive annual report on charitable giving in the United States,” she said. “The report was first created in 1956 by the American Association of Fundraising Council (today’s Giving Institute), which endeavors to advance philanthropy through research and education. Giving USA is now published by the Giving USA Foundation, established by the Giving Institute in 1985, and has been researched and written by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy since 2001.”

One component that the interviewees highlighted was the importance of collaboration. For example, information and data on foundations comes from the Foundation Center. “It’s an independent and very well-respected research institution,” Dr. Pruitt said.

In addition, the school also partners with Blackbaud Institute to obtain data that offers context for Giving USA’s estimates in some of the chapters. “We use the most accurate and updated data, including data from the IRS, in order to strengthen the report,” Dr. Pruitt added.

And that’s just the data side. When it comes to writing the report, the school also relies on partnerships to ensure best practices and applicability for the nonprofit sector. It begins with the thorough vetting and selection of volunteer chapter authors, many of whom are alumni or current students at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. These master’s and Ph.D. students contribute strong analytical skills and expertise on various areas of giving, including religion, bequests, and other topics.

“Many of them are fundraising professionals doing work in the field, so they bring unique expertise that really adds value to the chapters,” Skidmore explained.

“I think it speaks to our student base in general at the school,” Dr. Pruitt said. “We have people wanting to apply analytical and writing skills they’ve been learning immediately after graduating or during their time at the school.”

Next, the collaboration continues into the review stage. “We work very closely with an editorial review board, who are volunteers from Giving Institute member firms. They donate their time and expertise to review the chapters,” Dr. Pruitt stated. “They ensure that what they see in the field matches what we find from the academic research. They also provide applicable, actionable insights for how to use the information in the chapters in practice.”

The school also partners with an advisory council on methodology. “This council is made up of scholars from universities, think tanks, and other organizations. They advise and provide feedback on the data collection and analysis procedures used to produce the estimates that appear in Giving USA,” Dr. Osili said.

In addition to individuals from Giving Institute member firms being involved with the editorial review board and advisory council on methodology, the Giving USA Foundation (established by the Giving Institute in 1985) serves as publisher of Giving USA and manages sales and marketing of the report.

What does all of this collaboration lead to? Strong research, strong data, and a strong report. “This report is so robust because of the many diverse levels of collaboration. In the long run, it’s to our benefit to have this rigorous process and research approach in order to ensure the best possible report,” Dr. Pruitt said.

The result this year is a thorough, extensive report that shows that for the first time, charitable giving has topped $400 billion. In addition, giving by all four of the sources (individuals, foundations, corporations, and bequests) experienced growth, while giving to eight of the nine major types of recipient organizations increased. According to Dr. Pruitt, it’s an exciting time for the nonprofit sector: “There’s widespread growth in both the sources of giving and the areas those sources are donating to. This does not happen every year, and it tells us that people are giving to many different kinds of organizations. In other words, charitable giving is not all concentrated in one area. It’s an exciting time for philanthropy.”

For Skidmore, it reinforces ideas about the relationship between the economy and charitable giving: “When the economy is performing well and people are doing well financially, they give generously to the variety of causes that are of interest to them.”

For the researchers, the end product is well worth the time and collaborative effort spent on the report. “It’s a very reliable source for fundraisers and scholars,” Dr. Pruitt said. “It’s gratifying to know that it’s a resource people trust and one they turn to, regardless of their personal views. People across the board know they can rely on our data. In addition, I feel that it’s stronger because it’s such a deeply collaborative effort. It strengthens the project at every step because of these great long-term partnerships we have.”

“I enjoy the combination of very rigorous research and it also being a resource that people can use. It has wide applicability and accessibility across the sector,” Skidmore added. “It’s also exciting to see every year how patterns shift and to learn about the trends in each source and use of giving.”

Abby Rolland is the blog content coordinator for the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Philanthropy in Europe from two perspectives

Posted on June 14, 2018 by Abby Rolland

Michael Alberg-Seberich discusses the implications of the findings of the Global Philanthropy Environment Index.

Two weeks ago, the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy traveled to Berlin, Germany to discuss the findings from the recently-released 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index. Today, we’re featuring two diverse perspectives from this event.

The first is from a panelist and a renowned expert in the field of philanthropy.

By Michael Alberg-Seberich

Originally published in Alliance Magazine

In Bob Dylan’s song Subterranean Homesick Blues it says, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…” Well, in philanthropy we at least need a weatherperson to map the environment overall a bit better. The 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University is such a data guide. The interpretation of the data brings us in part back to Bob Dylan, because in Europe there is a common sense about the direction of the wind.

The Index is a report that provides an overview of the philanthropic environment in 79 countries. It examines the incentives and barriers facing individuals and organisations when donating. It is based on five standardized indicators, like the ease of operating a philanthropic organization or the political environment that are assessed by country-based experts around the world.

Last Friday the 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index was presented at the BMW Foundation Herbert Quandt in Berlin. This was the index’s European premiere. It already has been discussed in events in Washington D.C. and Indianapolis in the last weeks. The findings of the index were explained by Professor Una Osili, who is a professor of economics and associate dean for research and international programs at the Lily Family School of Philanthropy.

One of these findings is that around two-fifths of the countries included in the report have a restrictive philanthropic environment. The index also points towards migration and natural disasters as key influences of philanthropy in the surveyed time period from 2015 to 2018. Another finding of the report is that cross-border giving is becoming more restricted because of new regulations.

It should be added that the country reports of the index really could turn into a go to source for understanding the philanthropic environment of the surveyed countries. These reports are worth reading as an introductions to a countries giving culture and current trends.

After the presentation the results were reflected in a panel discussion, that I also had the pleasure of being a part of, facilitated by Max von Abendroth from the Donors and Foundations Networks of Europe. Together with Dr. Carol Adelman from the Hudson Institute and Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Prof. Helmut Anheier from the Hertie School of Governance, Alessia Gianoncelli from the European Venture Philanthropy Association and Charles Sellen from Agence Française de Développement we dived into a lively reflection of the results of the index.

The discussion demonstrated the value of the index but also showed the longing for more qualitative data. The later seemed for the panelists especially important to better understand the motivations, values for giving in different country contexts but also its overall meaning for a society, impact.

Back to weather and wind it became very clear in the discussion, also through questions from the audience, that in Europe many people are concerned with effects of the changing political climate all over Europe but especially in Eastern Europe for philanthropy. This is the kind of wind that you do not need the “weatherman” for. Still, the 2018 Global Philanthropy Environment Index confirms this storm front.

Michael Alberg-Seberich is a managing partner at Active Philanthropy and Beyond Philanthropy.

The second reflects a study abroad student’s final day in Berlin.

By Hannah Reeves-Herran

Friday was the final day of our trip in Berlin. That morning we had a little break in which some of us took the opportunity to do some last-minute exploring which meant finding unique Haribo gummy shapes. On our mission to find the gummy bears, we stumbled across a small thrift shop that had an array of unique items from furniture to small trinkets. We ended up leaving the shop with some groovy outfits and a German book about cats.

Several study abroad students smile outside of the Global Philanthropy Environment Index launch

After collecting an impressive variety of candy, we made our way to the BMW Foundation event that afternoon. The panel posed some interesting questions that discuss the dynamics of philanthropy and what the future of philanthropy may hold in America but also abroad. Shortly after this discussion, we had the chance to chat with the panelists and hover over the hors d’oeuvres table. As our evening came to a close, a few of us decided that the only way to end our trip is with ice cream sundaes in the hotel lobby.

These past two weeks trekking Berlin have been truly unforgettable. This study abroad trip gave us the opportunity to learn more not only academically but also about one another. Ice cream in the lobby and sharing the experiences with the members of our group exposed us to different perspectives on topics that we may not have thought about before. Throughout the road bumps, from finding a place to eat and surviving hours of extreme heat on the train, we still came together as a Lilly family.

Hannah Reeves-Herran is an undergraduate political science and global and international studies student at IUPUI.

From politics to philanthropy: the making of a master’s alum

Posted on June 12, 2018 by Abby Rolland

Eric Richards (l) speaking to current students at an alumni panel

Eric Richards did not originally intend to go into philanthropy. The Franklin College graduate and local Hoosier believed that he wanted to go into politics. However, when a unique opportunity arose his senior year of college, he switched directions.

Deeply involved in his fraternity, Lambda Chi Alpha, Richards was asked if he wanted to become a traveling consultant and visit chapters around the country to conduct and oversee standards of chapter excellence. After accepting the position, he spent a year visiting Lambda Chi Alpha chapters all along the eastern coast of the U.S.

After that year though, he realized that he didn’t want to travel as much (“It was a great experience, but I knew that I didn’t want to travel as much the second year.”). He worked hard and after that year ended, earned a promotion through the fraternity.

At that time, he began going to graduate school for a master’s in public affairs while working full-time for the fraternity. Richards soon realized that he needed to make a program switch.

“I didn’t realize when I began my master’s degree that the philanthropic studies program existed,” he said. “I wanted to be a fundraiser, so when I found out about the master’s in philanthropic studies, I knew it was the best fit for my career path.”

It took about four and half years of part-time school, full-time work for the fraternity and later its foundation, and working on schoolwork in airports and hotels, but Richards graduated with a master’s degree in philanthropic studies in 2005. After working in development at Little Red Door Cancer Agency, he now serves as the president and CEO of Cancer Support Community Central Indiana, a local affiliate of a national organization.

In his role, he manages and works with other staff and board members, helps plan the organization’s signature fundraising event “Laughing Matters,” fundraises, plans staff development, and manages finances and strategic plans for the organization’s future growth (and even changes a light bulb here and there)!

Richards strives to make Cancer Support Community a welcoming environment for everyone.

“One of my goals is to create a place where employees feel appreciated, valued, and acknowledged for a job well done,” he said. “I also think it’s important to advocate on behalf of people who don’t have a voice when we do. We can talk to the public about what people experience when they have cancer, even if they don’t have the opportunity to do so. We need to be one of the voices out there saying there are issues that need to be addressed.”

To this day, he still uses knowledge gained from his experiences at the then-Center on Philanthropy to inform his thinking.

“The coursework is fantastic and top-notch,” Richards said. “It’s not only the coursework though, it’s the ability to network with other individuals who were in the program at the same time and are working in leadership positions. I’m able to talk with and bounce ideas off of other leaders in the nonprofit sector.”

In addition, Richards uses research produced by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy to inform his thinking about current philanthropic trends and policy.

“I want Cancer Support Community to be fiscally responsible and continually synonymous with credibility and quality,” he said. “The school produces incredible research, such as the research on tax reform and how it will affect charitable giving. If donations drop off, I know because of the school’s research why that’s happening.”

He continues to support the school as well, serving on the alumni board and alumni panels to talk about his experiences and career with current students (“It’s great to be reconnected with an institution of higher learning that’s doing phenomenal work.”).

In addition, Richards also regularly donates to the school: “I’m a donor to the school because it impacted my life. I want to give back so that others can have the same experiences that I had so they can be impacted and go out into the nonprofit world and make the world a better place.”

Research, the public good, and immigration

Posted on June 8, 2018 by Abby Rolland

By Dr. Una Osili, Professor of Economics and Associate Dean for Research and International Programs

This article was originally published in the Indianapolis Business Journal.

The United States has a rich tradition of welcoming newcomers. For two centuries, newly arrived Hoosiers have brought their skills and talents to contribute to and invest in the success of their new home.

My two children, like so many Americans of the 21st century, have an immigration story. With grandparents from two different continents, my children have learned first-hand about the economic and social investments that immigrants make.

My maternal great-grandparents were entrepreneurs and owned a candy store in Brooklyn, New York, and they taught their grandchildren (my mother) the values of hard work, excellence, thrift, and investing in their communities. Likewise, my paternal grandmother in Awka, Nigeria was also an entrepreneur who worked hard to improve the lives of others.

Here in Indiana, as across the United States, we have seen shifts in the demographic and

cultural composition of our cities and towns. The share of immigrants has grown steadily over the past decade. From recent U.S. census data, the fraction of Hoosiers that were born outside the United States has reached 6.3 percent compared to 1.7 percent in 1990.

Perhaps less well known is that the new immigration to the Hoosier State contributes to a critical source of diverse and skilled talent. Thirty percent of the foreign-born population in Indiana holds a college degree or higher. Immigrants account for nearly 10 percent of business owners in the Indianapolis metropolitan area and are twice as likely to start a business compared to their native-born counterparts. Whether it is because they are willing to take risks, or, like my grandparents, possess an entrepreneurial drive, immigrants create jobs and expand economic opportunity.

With the rising visibility of new immigrants, the public debate surrounding immigration policy has grown more divisive and controversial. A vocal group has argued that new immigrants—even when they contribute to our workforce and tax base—place a burden on U.S. communities. Others have suggested that recent immigrants may not adapt rapidly to U.S. social and economic institutions.

The heated climate led me to update my research on how the new immigration affects net contributions to public goods. My study examines how immigrants and natives compare in their contributions to local public goods over the past decade. More than any other industrialized country, the U.S. relies on private contributions towards public good provision in education, healthcare, and social services.

Voluntary contributions of money and time are also key indicators of “social capital,” which is defined as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating cooperative outcomes.

In contrast to popularly held beliefs, my study finds that immigrants tend to adapt relatively quickly to U.S. institutions. Importantly, immigrants and their children are less likely to be a net burden, and they contribute toward the provision of public goods. Immigrants are also less likely to receive assistance from government and non-government sources as their lives stabilize compared to natives.

Further research can help us identify how immigration can contribute to Indiana’s economy. To grow our regional economies, business and community leaders can play an important role by developing strategies that can better integrate newcomers.

Like many young Hoosiers, our two children have grown up with the new immigration. They have had immigrant teachers, coaches, nurses, doctors, and mentors from Nigeria, Congo, Ghana, China, Russia, Mexico, Haiti, Ethiopia, and the Philippines.

Importantly, their lives have been enriched by the powerful example of newcomers who invest their time and talent to make lives better for Hoosiers.

The views expressed in the article do not reflect the official views of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.