The isty-bitsy spider went up the spout again.

Welcome back! Took a break after a welcome "rain" last fall of lots of work. Still have lots of work but am convinced by my good friend Kirsten Bullock that blogging again is worth the time. Thanks, Kirsten!

Some changes coming for 2012. I will write less about our family's giving, as our two oldest children head off to college so the "family" at home gets smaller. I will write more about my take on writings and research about giving. So, toward that new goal, here is the beginning of a review published last week by The Foundation Center. My take is a little different than many others....what do you think? Read the rest of the review and comment on it by following the link at the end of this excerpt.

From Off the Shelf, February 7, 2012
The Foundation Center

Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World
Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen (Hoboken, NJ : Jossey-Bass, 2011)

By coincidence, the day I started reading Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World, I also attended a presentation by Dr. Jen Shang, who argued that, for women at least, the charitable act brings the giver closer to her "ideal, moral self." Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen's book is a vivid illustration of that precept. Arrillaga-Andreessen wants you to give and volunteer, in part, to improve your sense of personal fulfillment and (perhaps) your standing in the cosmos. There's a lot going on in Giving 2.0. Arrillaga-Andreessen covers the gamut of ways to give, from volunteering, to "checkbook giving," to family foundations and donor-advised funds, to venture philanthropy. Each chapter combines stories from donors (including those who volunteer time and talent), insights from the author, and questions to ask as you begin to explore that type of giving.

But the book suffers from the very problem it tries to address: there are so many ideas packed between its covers that it's hard to assimilate all of them.

To continue

Thanks for reading!

Melissa

Nature or nurture?

Why does anyone give to charity at all, when they could keep money for themselves and be “better off”? This question puzzles scholars the world over. Surprisingly the results are remarkably consistent across cultures. Some people give everywhere research has been done, albeit sometimes more or less often.

Why does anyone give? Increasing evidence suggests that it is an important form of social bonding. A recent article in The Economist summarizes it like this: “The benefits and chances of future encounters ….. [show] that it pays to be trusting, even though you will sometimes be cheated.”

But some people are either naturally distrustful or learn to be wary of others. A study in Israel found that people who did not give or gave very little in a laboratory game had a genetic variation compared with those who did.

A Center on Philanthropy analysis of charitable giving in three different years by the same people found that 15 percent of folks did not give at all in those years. Households that did not give tended to be lower income, so genetic variation does not necessarily play a role there. But maybe … if genetic variations are associated with trust, perhaps people whose genes lead them to low trust also have a harder time than others learning skills for, then finding and keeping a higher-paying job? A good research project for someone.

So what besides a possible genetic predisposition is associated with a lack of social trust? Basically, recent or persistent bad experiences. Alesina and La Ferrara found with U.S. data that people with low trust were likely to report any one or more of the following: recent trauma such as severe illness, job loss, or divorce; identification with a group historically subject to racism or bias; a low level of education or earnings; or residence in a community that is racially very diverse or in a community that includes people with very high income and people with low income. (Side note: Riots in parts of the U.K. this year and in France last year make a lot of sense in this context: those rioting are among the poorest in their societies and are often the victims of systematic bias.)

Psychologist Dacher Keltner's research finds that as a species, humans are Born to Be Good. However, experience shows that some people have more opportunities to act good--happy, compassionate, mirthful, etc.--than others.

Gretchen Rubin at The Happiness Project offers all of us, no matter what our genetic make-up and recent experiences seven tips for how to be happier in the next HOUR. One of them is "Do a good deed."

What will YOUR good deed be? It could be a charitable gift, contribution of volunteer time, making an appointment to give blood (and keeping it), or helping someone you know accomplish their own goal. Whatever it is, all research shows: do it and you'll feel better, and the world will be a bit better, too.

The latest data

So this morning, I wrote 350 engaging words about research into WHY people give. If you want to read that, stay tuned for another day, because in the process of preparing that post, I discovered that last week the IRS released final data about charitable giving in 2009.

SO.....ta da. A quick look at what changed between 2008 and 2009 in the world of individual, itemized charitable contributions.

The short, short answer is that itemized giving fell -- as anticipated -- from 2008. The total decline for the amount claimed in charitable deductions was 9%.

Interestingly, though, tax returns with income UNDER $200,000 actually gave an AVERAGE amount that was 3% more than the average amount given in 2008. However, tax returns with income over $200,000 declined in number by 10%, saw a 20% drop in income overall, and reported 18% less in all itemized contributions -- and a 9% decline in the average charitable contribution.

The biggest drop overall, not shown on the table attached, was in gifts that count as "other than cash." Usually that means securities, and since the stock market in 2009 hadn't even started looking up yet, that isn't a surprise.

Word from my friends in fundraising is that many organizations have seen increases in charitable amounts received in the first half of 2011. What will happen with annual campaigns this fall? If you have thoughts, post them in the Comments area below.

Thanks!

Melissa

Goosey Goosey Gander

Research shows over and over that women are more likely to give – and give more – than men after controlling for income and education. So imagine my surprise when twice last week, my spouse asked me to put gifts to organizations into our household budget. Typically, one of the kids or I propose the contribution.

It is said that men often expect something for their gifts. For some guys, it is football tickets….for my guy, it is free parking at an art museum. So, the gift goes out so he can go in.

The second gift was essentially a vote for his political perspective in a year without an election. The recipient is the research foundation associated with a partisan newsletter about public policy and shenanigans inside the Beltway. So, while this gift is not necessarily about impact or achieving meaningful change in our lifetimes, it satisfies his need to DO something already about the quagmire that Congress and the Executive branch are slogging through.

As for the four gooseys in this household, Ann asked for funding for an event tied to the start of school next week (yes, in Indiana, we start in early August!). Lia wants to keep supporting organizations that seek cures for AIDS and cancer. Elle is 17 and 3/4ths, so rolls her eyes and shrugs if I ask. I just made an admittedly token gift to alleviate some of my guilt at being an over-fed American when people in Africa and elsewhere (including here) are literally starving to death. The photo on the front page of a recent issue of New York Times was horrific to see. Sometimes, even if you know the drop is tiny in a huge ocean of need, you just have to do it.

Political gifts are not charitable, but charitable gifts can be political

Ants that our dogs chase on the driveway are part of a huge community that extends far past our lot. In a similar interconnectedness, our suburban lives link to an enormous system of trade and exchange within the U.S. and beyond. Just as our purchases are part of the global economy, our charitable gifts to U.S. organizations are inextricably part of the worldwide exchange, whether we are giving for international aid or not.

I’ve been wondering lately how to use our giving (in a small way) to help create jobs and grow the U.S. economy, just as I try to do by buying from local businesses and deliberately looking for Made in the USA labels. There are several approaches through which giving can stimulate employment. One is gifts to (re)training programs, so that people can develop skills in fields where hiring is on an increase. Another is support for projects like one-stop jobs centers that link people with existing skills to open positions.

But more important in the U.S. economy now than helping people find jobs is generating demand for goods and services, so that more companies and organizations need to hire. Nonprofits can help stimulate demand, too. One method is through nonprofit support for entrepreneurs, because new products and services create new demand (anyone buy an iPad or Kindle lately?) JumpStart, a successful Ohio program, recently announced plans to go national, with JumpStart America. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation has many programs that support entrepreneurs, and many organizations, including universities, are setting up “social entrepreneurship” programs, to help create and market products or services that benefit people’s lives—things like micro-lending, water filters, safer cook stoves, “green” technologies, and so on.

Another strategy is to give enough to nonprofits that they can create jobs in their own organizations. However, in recent years, funding for new initiatives and capital projects has generally lagged giving for operations and immediate needs. With recent state actions and budget crises, plus proposed cuts in domestic spending at the federal level, nonprofit organizations are in a world of hurt that philanthropy alone will not heal.

Still, even small donations can make a difference, according Give A Little by Wendy Smith. The "butterfly effect" instructs us that even small acts in complex systems have consequences. In addition to thinking about a match between our values and a program's mission, the organization's capacity to address the issue(s), and its impact, I will be adding another criterion to our charitable choices: might it help boost demand in the U.S., leading in some tiny way to more employment?

Payday = Give Day

My family gives every month to four charities. Each gift is relatively small, but over the course of a year, we give more than 1 percent of our income. One gift is charged automatically to a credit card; three are paid by our bank after I set them up as recurring “bill payments.” Interestingly, only one charity regularly sends a gift acknowledgement.

Gleaners Food Bank sends a letter and an envelope for another gift each month. Thank you!

Doctors Without Borders sends “updates,” which include appeals for more gifts. They also sell or trade their mailing list to numerous other groups, which is a common practice.

Indiana Youth Group (IYG) sent a sort-of thank you at the end of 2010, which was really an appeal for more money. This is the first time we’ve heard from them since starting our contributions in fall 2009. Not even a newsletter in more than a year.

The executive director of Ensemble Music Society contacted us after our first gift, also in fall 2009, to ask for the full amount of our “pledge” to the capital campaign. Since the gift is unrestricted with no end date, I couldn’t answer his question.

So, you might ask, WHY do we keep giving to these groups. Mostly it gets down to mission and how these groups work toward goals that we hold as individuals. While research says giving is irrational, I see our donations as “votes” for our values.

As I’ve said before, we are committed to trying to assure better food security, so the Gleaners gift is a no-brainer for us. The gifts to Doctors without Borders reflect daughter Ann’s interests. Plus I like all of the address labels, gift wrap and note cards from the other groups that buy or rent that list! IYG ties to the other daughters’ volunteer work, first Elle and now Lia, with the high school Gay Straight Alliance. The Ensemble Music Society reflects my husband’s strong interest in high culture, even though he no longer attends their concerts.

Our secular giving is about average. American donor households give one percent of their income to secular causes. Households that participate in worship services give two percent of their income to religion, on average.

I’d love to double our giving to secular causes so that we could give 2 or even 3 percent of our income in total, going even further than the Foundation Beyond Belief. We’d probably add more charities, rather than increase the gifts we make now. The stack of requests just keeps growing – four more last week by mail.

Just writing this makes me realize that it is time we re-evaluate the organizations we give to. We set up those automatic payments more than 18 months ago. If we are “voting” for our values, we need to check in with each other about what might have changed since then. My husband will probably have the same choices, but the teens' preferences have likely shifted, and our giving should reflect those.

P.S. In addition to the automatic withdrawals, last week we wrote checks to Relay for Life for the June 4 event. This week, I’ll make our contributions by credit card in memory of Bob Payton, $88 to Center on Philanthropy Scholarship Fund and $22 to Payton Library, following the votes on the poll. Thanks!

One two, buckle my shoe

They are called micro-gifts, and they add up. We had requests at Costco, PetSmart, and our local grocery in the past week to add a dollar (or five or ten) to a purchase to give to a charity. There is even “an app for that,” developed by three teens, although it isn’t clear how they vet charities to fit the marketing line that they are "carefully selected service organizations”

I asked my teens Ann, Elle, and Lia what they think about this form of giving. They all said that these gifts are a good thing for the charities because they can raise more money from lots of small donations. They liked that the amounts requested fit easily within their income or allowance.

But they also said that such giving does not teach care for others. Instead, the donors are likely already people who give (two-thirds of households in the U.S. are donors) or are literally acting on impulse, like buying a bag of chips or a candy bar at the check-out line.

Ann said it was like an electronic version of the Salvation Army bell ringers – you drop a little money in, but you don’t really think about the needs. Elle wondered how the checkout personnel feel in the campaigns where they have to ask, “Do you want to give a dollar to….?” She wants to follow-up with her friends who work in retail because she is concerned that they might develop negative attitudes to charitable giving in general through a requirement of their jobs. Lia pointed out that people who do not like this kind of request might go shop elsewhere. I suspect there are no studies about that unintended consequence.

Our daughters thought that if someone acted on impulse, that was better than not giving, but it would be even better if they acted from principle, from knowing that giving was the right thing to do. Without coaching from me, these 15- and 17-year olds differentiated giving motives identified by Rene Bekkers and Mark Wilhelm in a very well-done study of motives. Basically, empathy is good but the “principle of care” is fundamental to helping others.

As for us, we picked up the card at the market to give to the food pantry, but we did not add a dollar for the local children’s hospital or funding for homeless pets. Basically, we used micro-gifts to support causes that we already support. I wonder how many others do the same.