The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, qut
Download 4.28 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Types of host organisations
- Why decide not to be a host
- How to choose and work with a host
- New questions that have emerged
- Giving circles and ethnicity
- Donors who have left giving circles
- NPOs ‘being found’ by giving circles
- Time cost to NPOs of receiving grants from giving circles
- Philanthropic versus government responsibilities
- A choice between grassroots-ness and impact
- Conflict between needs of donors and needs of beneficiaries
- Trust, safety and anonymity of giving circles for donors
- Everyday philanthropists
- Maturing of giving circles
- Measuring impact and reporting requirements
- Value of receiving funding from a giving circle
HostingQuestions around hosting giving circles within other existing organisations arose as a key issue from the literature. Being hosted means that giving circles do not have to become registered organisations themselves, and the host usually manages the financial and grant distribution aspects (Eikenberry 2009). The relationships between host organisations and giving circles are often mutually beneficial, but occasionally complex and sometimes frustrating. Types of host organisationsHost organisations may be public or private foundations, NPOs or associations, financial services companies, or a university or other public institution (Bearman 2007). The majority of giving circles are ‘hosted’ or ‘sponsored’ by a community foundation or other public foundation, itself a registered charitable NPO which is able to offer tax deductibility to giving circle donors (Ray 2013). Close to 70% of hosted circles indicated a relationship with a community foundation, but women’s foundations, NPOs, financial services companies and private foundations also serve as hosts (Rutnik and Bearman 2005). Giving circles, as a relatively new giving structure, are yet to engage with the range of institutions that might serve as hosts. When hosted by a community foundation a circle is generally set up as a donor-advised fund where the donor makes recommendations to the host charity (but not binding decisions) for charitable grants to be made from the fund. According to a survey of 160 giving circles in the US (Bearman 2007), most (68%) had a host organisation, many of which provided a basic level of service such as administrative and financial support to a typically volunteer-led group. Community foundations made up just over half (52%) of hosts. Other hosts included public foundations, associations of grantmakers, NPOs, hospitals, universities and schools (Eikenberry and Breeze 2015).
Why be hosted?There are multiple motivations for giving circles in being hosted, most centring around the support received in grant disbursement and financial management of the giving circles’ pooled funds. Creating a new charitable NPO can be a complex and time-consuming process, whereas a host organisation provides a way for donors to immediately benefit from a tax deduction for their gift (Rutnik and Bearman 2005). The appeal of connection with larger organisations and networks often lies in the credibility and legitimacy that the giving circle acquires by being associated with a trusted entity. Some giving circles may initially choose to be hosted, but later decide to establish their own organisation (Rutnik and Bearman 2005). Being hosted is likely to be sought by some small groups (Eikenberry 2005b, 2009, 61,66,69). Other giving circles may not require support from an established organisation, preferring and having the capacity to manage their giving circle through volunteers. Why be a host?Motivations for hosting a giving circle vary. Some host organisations actively create and promote giving circles (Bearman 2007; Eikenberry and Bearman 2009, 8). Hosting a circle brings new people to philanthropy, boosts a host foundation’s donor prospect list, and raises the host’s profile in their community (Rutnik and Bearman 2005). A host-initiated circle also allows the host to influence the focus and operation of the circle. Some host organisations also may provide matching funds, whether to help seed new giving circles or on an ongoing basis (Dean-Olmsted et al. 2014). Why decide not to be a host?Giving circles may have difficulty finding a host despite having capable institutions in their community. Circle founders sometimes have to convince potential hosts that a giving circle will benefit rather than burden the host organisation. Several factors influence the decision not to host a circle. These include staff capacity and institutional readiness, the organisation’s existing donor cultivation framework, the cost of serving a circle and the uncertainty of realising a short- or long-term benefit from investing organisational resources in giving circles (Rutnik and Bearman 2005). Staff capacity is the most significant of these, particularly for ‘smaller community foundations that lack infrastructure to take on circle management responsibilities’ (p. 10). For some potential host organisations the decision comes down to administration costs. Circles may generate limited revenue for the host, yet have high staffing demands. Some community foundations also find that giving circles do not fit within their existing donor cultivation strategy. Potential hosts may be cautious, given the lack of research to date about how membership of a giving circle influences a donor’s long-term philanthropic behaviour. Without sufficient infrastructure to properly host the circle the host’s standing in the community and relationship with current and future donors may be at risk. However, many organisations have had success partnering with a giving circle and negotiated mutually beneficial relationships. Finally, community foundations and other philanthropic institutions in the UK and Ireland appear to increasingly devote staff and resources to start and support giving circles, with the assumption that these groups will increase giving and its impact (Eikenberry and Breeze 2015). Evidence suggests that this may be the case for giving circles in the US (Eikenberry and Bearman 2009). How to choose and work with a hostChoosing a giving circle host may be complex and the terms of the hosting relationship should be carefully considered and put in writing at the outset. The agreement should outline the nature and extent of the relationship, including the program, finance, donor services and communications (Rutnik and Bearman 2005). This will help ensure that all parties share the same understanding of the relationship and helps prevent unequal expectations or capacity differences. Recognising that many clients (including giving circles) desire multiple services, some hosts offer service options to their donor-advised fund holders that include higher levels of support (at a higher cost). By offering tiered services, the host can promote their expertise and generate additional revenue. Experiential learningPerhaps more than other giving structures, giving circles focus as much on the experiential education of the giver as they do on the eventual allocation of charitable dollars to recipients. The experience of participating in a giving circle demonstrates that philanthropy itself can be a means for identity building, community-building and community engagement (Dean-Olmsted et al. 2014). Collective giving can be viewed as part of the ‘experience economy’, where consumers (donors) want more than a service or product; they want an experience (Eikenberry 2006). Unlike individual donors, giving circle members tend to become involved in the practice of giving through formal and experiential learning opportunities (Bearman 2007). Because of the apparent important effect of experiential learning, giving circle members should be encouraged to engage in grantmaking and work with funding recipients. Socialising is also important for engaging and retaining members, and social events are important in influencing changes in members’ giving (Eikenberry and Bearman 2009). In general, the goals or focus of giving circles in the UK and Ireland appear to be developing philanthropy by maximising the experience of giving, in particular making giving meaningful and more personal. This was mentioned in all types of giving circles (Eikenberry and Breeze 2015). The hands-on nature of this type of giving is part of its power as it helps partners to expand their own capabilities through volunteering: ‘“There’s nothing like experiential learning,”’ he says. “When you do a strategic plan or a marketing strategy for a nonprofit you learn a huge amount—you can’t put a price tag on that”’ (Shoemaker, quoted in Arrillaga-Andreessen 2012, 33). New questions that have emergedGiving circle contribution amountsGiving circles that seek to attract a diverse membership in class, race and experience need to keep the cost to participate in the group low. However, this then limits the resources the group has to give away, and decreases their capacity to address community problems (Eikenberry 2007). There is a compromise to be made: limiting participation to have impact, or encouraging diverse participation at the cost of impact. Different approaches have been adopted by different circles in response to this issue. When the Dasra giving circle in Singapore decided to cultivate potential members from the Indian diaspora community, one of its members underwrote the cost of a membership place to be shared by six or seven others who would each contribute one equal share. The syndicate collectively has one vote and contributes as any other member in discussions and project monitoring. Lowering the financial hurdle to participation through syndication is an interesting initiative that could be copied elsewhere (John 2014, 87). Many giving circles have a deliberate mission to grow philanthropists and the minimum donation to the circle is deliberately set as an ambitious gift such that it might be the largest single donation that members have given.
As more collective philanthropic groups emerge within these communities more strategic partnerships will develop between the professionalised field of philanthropy and groups who, through their giving, are working to improve communities. Donors who have left giving circlesSurveying and interviewing past members of giving circles to understand how they engaged with the giving circle, why they left and what might have motivated them to stay is vital. Given the importance of level and length of engagement on the beneficial effects of giving circles, understanding why people leave is critical (Eikenberry and Bearman 2009). NPOs ‘being found’ by giving circlesMany nonprofit leaders are using the fundraising model of donor pyramids and direct mail and are not benefiting from the broader changes taking place in philanthropy (Eikenberry 2005b) and the shift to a more engaged, donor-driven philanthropy (Eikenberry 2006). The focus for NPOs is both finding donors and enabling donors to find them, as giving circles often are not always open to approaches. Eikenberry (2005b) suggests that many nonprofit professionals become members of giving circles with the goal of gaining access for their organisation. Time cost to NPOs of receiving grants from giving circlesHow do giving circles compare to other modes of philanthropy from the perspective of the nonprofit NPO manager? Does more engagement mean a greater burden or boon for NPOs? Circles deliberately engage their members in the grants review process, with close to 70% of circles reporting that members conduct site visits (Rutnik and Bearman 2005, 13). Grant recipients appreciate giving circles’ focus on capacity building, help from volunteers and staff, and the positive impact that funding brings to their organisation’s reputation. However, the relationship can be very time-consuming, and the types of NPOs attractive to giving circles (small, grassroots organisations) may not have the capacity or readiness to respond (Eikenberry 2005b). Philanthropic versus government responsibilitiesGiving circles appear to have an effect on members’ perceptions about the impact of giving on the community and the responsibility of government to address inequities and ensure a decent standard of living. People’s perceptions seem to shift when they are in a giving circle in terms of their attitudes towards the role of government. Over time, it seems that giving circle members become less confident of their own ability to affect meaningful change by volunteering and they feel more strongly about government’s role (Eikenberry and Bearman 2009). People may become more pragmatic over time, with increased knowledge in regard to the impact of their own giving and the need for government funding. Understanding this change in perception will have implications for civic engagement. A choice between grassroots-ness and impactThese philanthropic groups are called ‘circles’ because members are attracted to the egalitarian, non-hierarchical and inclusive concept. However, a central issue for voluntary associations is the compromise between grassroots independence and the ability for giving circles to adequately and comprehensively address community problems. This can be summarised as the tension that arises for giving circles between formalising and resisting formalisation. Giving collectives may create closer relationships between grantees and funders and this engagement may build a sense of unified purpose that is often not possible in other, more traditional, models of philanthropy, where the sheer size of a foundation can create both financial and social distance between the donor(s) and the ultimate beneficiaries of their contributions. Through the intentional, proactive grantmaking process of a giving circle, donors find grantees beyond the ‘usual suspects’ of nonprofit grant recipients, such as niche grantees and emerging organisations where their contributions have greater impact. Many giving circles ‘cited the greater importance they felt their grants had for newer organisations and those with budgets under US$1 million’ (Dean-Olmsted et al. 2014, 15).
Short-term fundersThere is a direct contradiction in the literature in regard to the term of the grants made by giving circles. Some studies find that giving circles fund for only the short-run. Especially in the case of funding from loose networks and small groups, funding recipients may receive a one-time gift (as opposed to multiyear gifts, which are more often the case with formal organisations). Regarding such short-term giving, one person described giving circles as ‘flavor of the month’ givers, and another described funding from the giving circle as a ‘bonus’ (Eikenberry 2008, 148). On the other hand, Giving Forum (2009) found that giving circle members are more likely to give to support a vision for change and to make multiyear gifts (p. 2). Conflict between needs of donors and needs of beneficiariesThere is strong motivation for giving circles to focus on enabling donors to participate in the community in their own way and following their own interests, instead of allocating funding where it is most needed. Ostrander (2007) finds that donor networks and giving circles can increase the distance between donors and recipient groups at the same time as they provide donors with opportunities to exercise closer control over how these groups use their money. Instead, these forms develop and strengthen relationships among wealthy donors. When wealthy donors establish giving circles that do not regularly include people from nonprofit recipient groups as participants in their funding decisions this practice constitutes a form of donor control. Although researchers appear to agree about the growth of giving circles, more research is needed to determine how many wealthy individuals have become more highly engaged with their social investment partners and how they create genuine partnerships—true collaborations with shared power over the use of philanthropic resources. Trust, safety and anonymity of giving circles for donorsMany members were also attracted to the safety and anonymity the giving circle provides in the early stages of grantmaking. Giving circles provide a place to ask questions and learn the practice of grantmaking (Eikenberry and Breeze 2015). This reflects the idea of trust in giving circles, both trusting other members in the group and trusting beneficiaries. Everyday philanthropistsAlthough there has been research regularly conducted on very wealthy donors, less is known about the rest of us and how we give. Studying giving circles therefore informs about everyday philanthropists, beyond the mega-wealthy (Giving Forum 2009). For some giving collective participants the giving process leads to a new understanding of personal, familial and communal histories, which helps promote a sense of group pride and solidarity: ‘It goes back to our history. I’ve never … considered myself a philanthropist. Whenever you heard of philanthropy it was at the Bill Gates, Warren Buffett level. And then also we were never exposed to African Americans who gave at that level. But philanthropy, giving, or giving circles have been a part of our culture from back during the days of slavery. So it was interesting to get that perspective of how it started, how it originated, and really what philanthropy means.’ (Participant in an African American collective, quoted in Dean-Olmsted et al. 2014, 10)
However, planning for leadership transitions was seen as very important for the future (Bearman 2007). Leading a giving circle can be time-consuming and intense, and long-term success may rely on the founder’s ability to pass on their knowledge. Attracting new and more diverse members is another main concern for long-running giving circles. Simply recruiting new members to replace those who leave may be a challenge; ‘For others, the challenge was to grow the circle’s membership to its desired level’ (Bearman 2007, 18).
‘When I support [an Asian American woman artist], it totally makes me cry. I know for the grantees it feels totally different to get money from an Asian American group. She [the artist] told me she felt like a body of elders was on the sidelines cheering her on.’ (Co-founder of an Asian American circle, quoted in Dean-Olmsted et al. 2014, 11) Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2016 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> The united church of canada 2016 -> Idan raichel biography – May 2016 Brief Producer, keyboardist, Lyricist, composer and Performer Idan Raichel 2016 -> An introduction to centre’s interventions expanding access to justice 2016 -> Sanchar Shakti 2016 -> Unit analysis should help here. We want number of bananas 2016 -> The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates 2016 -> The Great Heat and the Rhode Island Deep Water Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) Fishery 1875-1905 Download 4.28 Mb. Share with your friends:
|