Women More Likely to Give to Most Types of Charities

Our friend and colleague Lisa Witter, chief strategy officer at Fenton Communications, WPI Council member, and co-author of The She Spot:  Why Women are the Market for Changing the World and How to Reach Them, released the second part of Women Give 2010 at the sold-out TEDWomen conference in Washington, DC on December 7.  Causes Women Support finds that women are significantly more likely than men to give to almost every type of charitable cause and are equally likely to support the rest, after controlling for education, income, and other factors that influence giving.

Lisa shared these two findings at TEDWomen:

1.       Female-headed households are more likely or as likely to give as male-headed households in every charitable subsector.

2.      The top five areas in which female-headed households are significantly more likely than their male counterparts to give are the international, community, religion, health care, and youth & family.

From the practitioner and societal perspectives, this study is a powerful tool for enriching people’s perceptions about women’s philanthropic behavior in all charity subsectors.

1)      The results document that women and men are equally and deeply engaged throughout the nonprofit field.

2)      Anecdotal reports from years of working with groups of women donors suggest that women appreciate the affirmation that they are part of a larger picture, a team, a network that is working collaboratively to solve pressing societal issues.  Causes Women Support finds that only are women not alone giving to causes they care about but they eclipse men in 8 of the 11 categories in terms of likelihood of giving and give as much as men in the other 3 areas. 

3)      Fundraisers working in all charity subsectors can use these findings to buffer their fundraising strategies to ensure that as many women as men are approached for gifts.  Keeping in mind the results of the first part of Women Give 2010, fundraisers may expand their female donor base across all income levels.

From the research and methodology perspective, the knowledge base about the effects of gender on philanthropy is enhanced in these ways.

1)      Because the research analyzes female and male single-headed households only, the findings provide a clear, more definitive perspective on differences between men and women’s giving.   

2)      In examining the likelihood of giving across all charity subsectors, the results provide a more comprehensive overview of gender differences in giving.

3)      The sample size of approximately 2500 households and the use of controls distinguish this study.  Other studies may rely on descriptive statistics of mean or median giving; these do not provide an accurate picture of giving patterns. 

The Women’s Philanthropy Institute is committed to “pushing the knowledge out” about the powerful role of women in philanthropy.  The two parts of Women Give 2010 are one example of this effort.

20 Women and 1 big problem

In Indianapolis, the community where I work and live, our business journal (the IBJ) recognized 20 Women of Influence who are outstanding leaders in their chosen fields.

Each of these women is in a high-profile position of power in both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. For example, Jennifer Pope Baker, Director of Women’s Fund of Central Indiana and one of her board members, Myrta Pulliam, were honored as philanthropic leaders.

And, Dr. Lisa Harris, CEO and Medical Director of Wishard Health Services, was honored for her work in overseeing the third largest safety net health care system in the nation, while also playing a leadership role in building a new hospital from the ground up.

Even with the recognition of Jennifer, Myrta, and Lisa and the 17 other tremendous women leaders, there is still one big problem.

The problem is that women of influence don’t roll off the tongue as easily as do the names of their male counterparts. As an example, who do you think of when I say the word “philanthropist?” Probably Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Rockefellers, etc.

Why don’t women’s names roll off of our tongues as easily?

Check out the recent blog by Amanda Ponzar, Director of Communications for Global Corporate Leadership at United Way Worldwide. In her blog, Amanda reminds us that a simple internet search found hundred women philanthropists (they DO exist) -- but she hadn’t heard of most of them.

I challenge us all to be intentional about recognizing and engaging women leaders and philanthropists and to learn their names in your own communities and around the world.

Don’t forget to check out the most recent research findings about women’s philanthropy in the report Women Give 2010.

Guest blogger Angela White is Senior Consultant and Chief Operating Officer of Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates, Greenwood, IN.  Angela is also a faculty member of The Fund Raising School at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, a faculty member for the Women's Philanthropy Institute and a member of the WPI Educational Services Committee.

Women Are More Generous Than Men: But Why?

The recent Women Give Report 2010 continues the line of recent research supporting the finding that women are more generous than man, when comparing women and men with similar economic characteristics. These findings can help women all over the world realize that they too have a potential to give, and to give generously.  This is important from a sociological perspective: people display behavior that is accepted and preferably stimulated by peers. Showing that women are generous, even when they have small purses, can and will facilitate future donations by other women.

           

However, one question that remains largely unanswered, and which I find very interesting, is why women are more generous than men (under similar economic circumstances). In the literature we can find some suggestions for answers to this question.  A first answer can be traced back to the different in evolutionary development of men and women. From an evolutionary perspective, women are more generous than men, because they benefitted more from displaying prosocial behavior. As primatologist Frans de Waal argues in his recent book The Age of Empathy, empathic concern can be traced back to early primal evolution and was developed simultaneously with parental care. Females expressing empathic concern for their offspring had greater reproductive success than their counterparts without this prosocial trait. Empathic concern -feeling concern for others-  facilitates helping behaviour, among which we today include financial generosity towards unknown others. A first explanation for gender differences in generosity can thus be found in the different evolutionary development of empathic concern in men and women. WPI Research Committee member and sociologists Chris Einolf has published research in support of this gender difference. He shows that women score higher on prosocial psychological traits, such as agreeableness (which is closely related to empathic concern) and prosocial role identity, than men do. This drives part of the gender difference in generous behaviour.

           

Sociological research has put great emphasis on the importance of social networks for generosity behavior. Research shows that up to 85% of the charitable gifts are made following a request. Women typically have larger social networks, and particularly religious networks. Through these networks they receive many requests for donations. And from other research we know that people (both men and women) are more likely to comply with a request for a gift when asked by someone you personally know. Because women have larger social networks, they receive more personalized requests for donations then men do, and hence they donate more often and higher amounts.

           

A final explanation for the difference in generosity between men and women comes from the stronger religiosity of women. A large portion of charitable donations are made to religious organizations and institutions. People who are more religiously affiliated give more to religion, but give more to secular causes as well. On average, women are more religious than men. Not only do they express stronger feelings of religiosity, they also attend religious services more often than men do. Thus, because women have stronger religious affiliation, this impacts their generosity.

These are three examples of explanations for the stronger generosity of women compared with men. Future research by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute is needed to explore more explanations to answer the intriguing question of why women are more generous than men.

Guest blogger Pamala Wiepking is Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. She is a member of the Erasmus Center on Strategic Philanthropy (ECSP). Her research focuses on interdisciplinary explanations of international philanthropy, and is funded by a four year grant from the Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO). Pamala initiated the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), which currently has over 70 members in 17 countries, and is currently serving as a board member. She is also an Adjunct Fellow affiliated with the Australian Center of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. Pamala is a member of the editorial board for the International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing.  Dr. Wiepking is a member of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute Research Committee.

"Time is Money" or Is It?

People choose to donate to philanthropic causes through donations of both time and money.  Given that a person must give up an hour of some other activity (like paid work) to give an hour to a charity, how do people view the relationship between gifts of time and gifts of money?  Do people choose to give time, when they have relatively more available time versus available money?  Or is it that certain people are the “giving type” thus they choose to give both time and money.  Previous research has found that people who give money are more likely to give time (e.g.  Brown and Lankford, Journal of Public Economics, 1992), so it may appear that some people are just the “giving type”.[i]

If we believe that certain people are “givers” of both time and money, then when we find that a particular group is especially likely to give money, we may naturally want to check if they are also more likely to give time.  The recent report “Women Give 2010” by Women’s Philanthropy Institute finds that over all income levels single female headed households were more likely to give monetary donations than single male headed households.  After reading this report, as a PhD candidate in Economics at UC San Diego, I naturally started to wonder if women were also more likely to give time than men. 

At first glance, I wasn’t certain that women would give more time than men in the recent past.  Women have likely surpassed men in their monetary donations because women have become increasingly more educated and more involved in paid work.  Increases in education and paid work may lead to higher household income and greater availability of money to donate to philanthropy.  But, this increase in paid work may also be coupled with less time available to volunteer.  In fact from 1965 to 1993 married working age women decreased their weekly hours volunteered (Tiehen, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2005), and full time employed women have a lower propensity to volunteer at their child’s school than part time employed women (Gee, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2010).

Yet, using a very basic analysis, it appears that women are not only more likely to donate money, but in general they are also more likely to donate time as well.  Using roughly the same income categories as the “Women Give 2010” report, I found that on average single women in 3 of the 5 income categories had a higher average rate of volunteerism than single men.[ii]  If I include married persons, then women have a higher average rate of volunteerism in all but one income category.  Note that these are simply the average rates of volunteering, and so they are not directly comparable to the data included in the “Women Give 2010” report, which controlled for a number of other variables (age, education etc.).

Guest blogger Laura Gee is a doctoral candidate at the University of California San Diego and recipient of the 2010 WPI Dissertation Fellowship.

---

[i] I am not claiming that gifts of time and gifts of money are compliments in the economic sense of the word.  For a great analysis of whether time and money are substitutes or compliments see Feldman, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2010.

[ii] Income range 1: $0-$24,999, Income range 2: $25,000-$49,999, Income range 3: $50,000-$74,999, Income Range 4: $75,000-$99,9999, Income Range 5: $100,000 and above.

This HOT Trend in Philanthropy is a CLASSIC

The HOT trend in philanthropy has been emerging on the landscape for forty years; her influence and impact are felt in communities across the world.  Although women have been philanthropic throughout history, women’s evolving economic position and social roles over the past forty years have begun to create a seismic transformation in their ability to give treasure as well as time and talent.  More women are college graduates and beyond.  More women are in the workforce.  Women have increasing access to income and wealth.  Family structures have changed.  These cultural, social, and economic shifts have accentuated conditions for more women to be philanthropically engaged. 

Research on the role of gender in philanthropy over the last ten years is ahead of practice.  Research findings from a variety of substantive, empirical studies affirm the key role of women as givers and philanthropic decision-makers.  The most recent study conducted by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and released today in the report Women Give 2010 firmly places women as less of a trend and more of a classic on the philanthropic landscape.

For Women Give 2010 we examined giving by single men and women across five income groups, ranging roughly from $23,000 to $100,000+ a year, controlling for factors that affect philanthropic behavior such as income, wealth, education, race, number of children, religion, and health of household.  The results show that women across nearly every income level compared to men are MORE LIKELY TO GIVE and GIVE MORE than their male counterparts – in many cases, nearly twice as much.

Other research conducted in the last five years at the Center on Philanthropy examined empathy and caring, two motives for giving.  Males scored significantly LOWER on both of these motives and were significantly LESS LIKELY to give than women.  Another study on charitable decision making in households found that the wife is more than TWICE AS LIKELY as the husband to decide how much to give and to what causes. 

Research shows that males and females approach giving differently.  They think differently about giving and give to different causes.  Better understanding how men and women give will enable fundraisers to tailor appeals to more closely meet all donors’ interests and needs.

The Women’s Philanthropy Institute is the only institution that delivers research about the spectrum of women’s philanthropic activity worldwide.  Our vision is to change the way people think about women and philanthropy.  Current research by our colleagues is expanding and deepening understanding of how and why gender is important to philanthropy.  Tomorrow you will hear from Laura Gee, the 2010 WPI Dissertation Fellow who is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Californian San Diego.  Next week Dr. Pamala Wiepking, Department of Sociology & Erasmus Centre for Strategic Philanthropy at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, will respond to the Women Give 2010 study from an international perspective.

We’d like to hear from you, too. How do you think this research will change the environment for women’s philanthropy.  

Philanthropy - a Hot Topic in China

Welcome guest blogger Heng Qu!

Autumn is my favorite season. It has always been the beginnings of most wonderful things in my life. For example, my first contact with China’s nonprofits happened in the fall of 2005.  It was the first time I felt the power and potential of the nonprofit sector in China. Through research about a grassroots NGO that mainly serves migrant workers in Guangzhou, I became aware of NGOs’ capability to fill the gap in social services and their role in democracy.  I learned they were hampered by their weak organizational capacity as well as limitations set by the government. The experience starting from that fall motivated me to come to the US to study philanthropy systematically. And this fall, I began to work with the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the IU Center on Philanthropy. As a young Chinese woman studying for a Ph.D. in Philanthropic Studies in the US, I have a great opportunity to do a research project on women’s philanthropy in China. I am quite sure this is just another wonderful event of my life starting at magical autumn. 

China’s nonprofit sector and philanthropy have developed rapidly over the past few years. Only five years ago, there were no private foundations in Mainland China and grassroots nonprofits struggled just to survive.  They lacked the necessary infrastructure support, management skills, and operating resources. The Sichuan earthquake in 2008 was a turning point for China’s nonprofit sector. It stimulated an outpouring of volunteerism and public donations.  Many nonprofits responded almost immediately from all over the country to the disaster.  It is believed that as a result of cooperating with the nonprofit sector for the earthquake relief and recovery, the government’s attitude toward the sector began to change. After that, several other major natural disasters along with China’s global “coming-out” events such as the Olympics and the World Expo have stimulated more awareness and attention on the sector than ever before. Philanthropy now has become a hot topic in China. As a result, professional knowledge is urgently needed in this rapidly growing sector.

I am gaining knowledge about nonprofits and philanthropy by studying at the Center on Philanthropy in hope of applying it to the development of nonprofits and philanthropy in China in the future. Working with WPI gives me the first opportunity to combine my knowledge about American philanthropy with my desire to strengthen China’s nonprofit sector. Moreover, at WPI, I am more aware of my gender as a female than ever before. Gender inequality is a bitter reality not only in China but also around the world. On the other hand, it is exciting to know some women leaders are making great impact in the areas such as education, poverty relief, environmental protection, and women’s rights through philanthropy in China. And I can’t wait to inform Chinese women through my research project that they have the power to make an impact through philanthropy, a new way to hold up half the sky.

Heng Qu is from Anhui Province, China. She is a second-year PhD student at the Center on Philanthropy and a research assistant at the Women’s Philanthropy Institute.

The Times - They Are Changing

Two articles, juxtaposed in the Sunday New York Times (9/19/2010) reminded me how times have changed for women in business and philanthropy.  Roxanne Rivera, Chief Executive of the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Mexico, described how she built her business and succeeded in the predominantly male oriented construction field.  Award winning jewelry designer Judith Ripka wrote about how “hard it was to find a voice in an industry dominated by men.”  What struck me was how many comparisons to the world of women’s philanthropy reverberated throughout the narratives.

In the 1970s and 80s, when these pioneering women started their companies, philanthropy was the province of rich white men.  To some it still is.  But Rivera states, “[i]f you are a woman hesitating to seek a desired career in a traditionally male-centric company, know that the current climate is in your favor.  Management is starting to recognize that women can perform as well as men – and that we bring qualities to the table that men often lack.”  Ripka remembers that in 1977 women were “few and far between and not taken as seriously.  In hindsight, it was a blessing because it caused me to work even harder.” 

Today, women around the world are working harder, bringing high energy, new ideas, and innovative ways of effecting change to philanthropy.  Candy Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving in 1980 shortly after her 13 year old daughter was hit by a repeat drunk driving offender.  By gathering information, bringing attention to the issue, and focusing on policy and legislative changes, Candy and her team developed a movement against drunk driving.  Today MADD has more than a $50 million annual budget.

Sisters Helen LaKelly Hunt and Swanee Hunt are the driving force behind the Women Moving Millions campaign which raised $181 million through 101 gifts of $1 million or more from women philanthropists to create sustainable social change in women’s funds.  They exceeded their initial goal by 20 percent and changed how the world sees philanthropy.

Donna Berber started A Glimmer of Hope Foundation with her husband Philip to help the rural poor in Ethiopia lift themselves out of poverty.  She had been deeply moved by the images of the Ehtiopian people during the famine in the mid 1980s.  Following the sale of the couples’ company to Charles Schwab she guided the development of the social profit enterprise.

Rivera, Ripka, Lightner, Hunt, and Berber are trailblazers, illuminating the path for others to follow.  Yet, Rivera reminds us that more is needed.  “But remember that many traditions die hard and that prejudices linger in many industries and companies.  Only if more women enter these fields will lasting change occur.”  The possibilities are great and the opportunities limitless for women’s voices to be heard in philanthropy.  Join the conversation today.