News & Updates
Philanthropy and Gender: Not Your Mother's Bake Sale
By Martha Keates, Senior Consultant, Marts & Lundy
That American women are gaining economic power is a well-documented trend: in 2005, women constituted more than 46% of the nation's top wealth-holders, with their share of assets growing by 50% over the last decade to more than $6.3 trillion. By 2010, women will control 60% of wealth in the United States. Women start more than 400 new businesses each day, twice the rate as men.1Add to this the tide of wealth being conferred through the intergenerational wealth transfer (and the undisputed fact that women live longer than men) and, to paraphrase Senator Dirksen, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
But when it comes to giving money away, are there differences between men and women and their philanthropic behavior? If so, there are important implications for our clients and those in the business of encouraging gifts to nonprofit organizations. Numerous studies and countless anecdotal observations suggest that there aresignificant differences. We explored just a few of these findings and reflected on our own experiences in the field to offer these observations.
Women are more generous than men. In a study conducted in 2001, economists James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund evaluated philanthropic behaviors and found marked differences between the sexes. Specifically, the study found that women tend to exhibit preferences to share evenly and to be "more generous when altruism is expensive"; whereas, men are more generous when altruism is cheap, and "men are more likely to be either perfectly selfish or perfectly selfless."2 The Women's Philanthropy Institute (WPI) at Indiana University finds that single women are far more likely to give than single men; married individuals are more likely to give than single men. The WPI has also found that women who participate in donor education programs are more likely to give larger gifts, to give unrestricted gifts, to develop a
By 2010, women will control 60% of wealth in the United States.
long-term giving plan, and to hold leadership roles on nonprofit boards. When we remember that women make 83% of household consumer decisions, it fits that women will disproportionately influence how money is given for charitable causes.
For many women, volunteering and philanthropy are equal, nearly interchangeable, concepts. There is a strong history here, starting in the Civil War with nursing aid societies, and growing in significance and impact through the start of the 20th century. Some of this activity can be attributed to limitations in women's access to education and the board- room. While their fathers and husbands wielded power in those settings, and brokered philanthropic exchanges (you give to my cause and I'll help yours), women built their own power structures in their communities and churches. Some of the most important and enduring charitable activities were conducted by women mobilizing in support of causes they felt warranted their attention, including war relief, women's access to education, healthcare, and political issues of the day regarding equal rights and suffrage.
Some of the most important and enduring charitable activities were conducted by women mobilizing in support of causes they felt warranted their attention...
Today, women still outnumber men in volunteer activity and are gaining financial parity as wealth-holders. The U.S. Department of Labor reported in 2004–2005 that 25% of men and 33% of women volunteer. There is a strong correlation between women's involvement in an organization and willingness to support it financially. Bruce McClintock, chairman of Marts & Lundy and consultant to several women's colleges, states, "Men like to be involved with the institutions they support, but women demandit." Is it that women's long history of voluntarism continues to be a familiar and effective practice that leads to philanthropic investment? Or are women wired to favor hands-on involvement, wanting to understand fully every nuance of an organization and its impact before following that with monetary gifts?
Maybe both. "Giving circles" have long been the domain of philanthropic women. For example, in the late 1880s, Mary Elizabeth Garrett and a few female friends, calling themselves the "Friday Evening Group," met to discuss how they could use their wealth to effect social change. The group decided to launch a fundraising campaign to endow a medical school at Johns Hopkins University and eventually established the Women's Fund Committee across the country to meet their goal.3 Even among very wealthy women, "Women's Funds" are still used for collaborative and democratic approaches to giving and making changes in communities. Conversations with our clients, and our own experiences, indicate that participation is nearly always a precursor to giving, and lengthy involvement is a predictor of even larger gifts. Collaborative or group decision making is more often seen with women than with men. It is rare for women to make spontaneous or transactional gifts; it is far more likely that they will have given small amounts, year after year, and attended events or meetings at their favorite organization, before considering a large or transformational gift.
At Scripps College, trustee and alumna Elizabeth Hubert Malott gave consistently and generously throughout the decades following her graduation. But it was not until her alma mater decided to create a building on campus that reflected her own priorities of community and architectural beauty that the idea of making a very large gift even occurred to her. Even then, the decision to make the lead gift was painstakingly considered, right down to the location of the elevator and the decorative stenciling on the ceiling (details on which she was consulted). Tellingly, she also worked to ensure that she had the vote of every member of her family, whose opinions she cherished, before the gift was made. Or, as she put it to the vice president: "I have to be pregnant before I give birth." No men in our experience have put this process in quite the same memorable way.
There are generational differences in the way women give, reflective of their experiences and the cultural framework in which they find themselves. Marjorie Houston, Executive Director of Development at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, has studied this issue for several years. Through a series of surveys and interviews, she has observed some trends that can be helpful for practitioners to keep in mind as they work with their constituents.
Perhaps the most important take-away of Houston's study is that the growth in economic power parallels the trend away from the proliferation of "women's funds" in favor of increased numbers of major gifts made by individuals. Women are increasingly discovering the power of philanthropy and flexing their giving muscles through personal gifts: eight of the top 50 gifts made in 2005 were made by women (seven of whom were over age 75).
- Among her findings:
- Women in their 80s, those born between 1919 and 1927, are less inclined to see the money as "theirs," and often give to causes their husbands supported. They are influenced by the lean years of the Depression. They are collaborative and frugal.
- Women in their 70s respond to conversations about their passions and interests. They are motivated less by recognition and more by being engaged with the organization. Interestingly, this decade reflects some discomfort with the notion of "volunteering," associating it negatively with the "white gloves and pearls" set.
- The women's movement is a key part of the experience of women now in their 60s.Depending on her relationship to those events, a 60-something donor may view philanthropy as a way to enact social change. She likely sees philanthropy as personal, and sometimes selfless, as in giving in honor or memory of others. Women in this decade are less collaborative than those in their mothers' generation.
- Women in their 50s have both inherited wealth and time to continue working and earning more, bringing a greater sense of independence with regard to making philanthropic decisions. They understand and are empowered by giving, and more often than prior generations make gifts with restrictions. Responsibility and accountability are associated with gifts from this cohort.
Women are increasingly discovering the power of philanthropy and flexing their giving muscles through personal gifts...
Mandy and Babs give back
We observed at the start of this paper the parallel philanthropic track women had to travel before achieving gains in the financial and educational worlds. Women themselves were the change agents in higher education and access for their own gender, a pattern still carried out today. Innumerable stories are associated with these remarkable pioneers; among our favorites is Mary Lyon, one of the country's early fund-raisers, who in 1837 established Mount Holyoke College after crusading tirelessly for higher education for women and collecting money to establish the first of the "seven sisters" colleges. Sophia Smith was the first woman in America to endow a college for women out of her own resources, which she did in 1871. Smith said, "It is not my design to render my sex any the less feminine, but to develop as fully as may be the powers of womanhood and furnish women with means for usefulness, happiness, and honor now withheld from them." Legions of women following Mary Lyon and Sophia Smith have opened doors to education for others. Today, women outpace men in college enrollments, and by the 2009–2010 school year, women are projected to receive 142 bachelor's degrees for every 100 for men.4
We wondered if these collective observations would be translated into giving behavior in higher education, so we consulted the most recent year's Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) report. Marts & Lundy analyst Angela Seaworth took the 50 top-performing liberal arts colleges (as measured by total philanthropic income) and, within that cohort, compared performance at the top 42 coeducational colleges with the top eight women's colleges (including three that were historically for women only and later became coed).
* Formerly single-sex; now coeducational |
Sophia Smith was the first woman in Americato endow a college for women out of her own resources ...Smith said, "It is not my design to render my sex any the less feminine, but to develop as fully as may be the powers of womanhood and furnish women with means for usefulness, happiness, and honor now withheld from them." |
In all of the charts, “top” is defined as falling within the top 50 when all liberal arts colleges and universities are ranked according to total giving in FY 07. “Women’s Colleges” = all women or formerly all women.
We found that alumni/ae of these colleges, which have mature development programs and strong philanthropic traditions, competed very favorably with their coeducational counterparts:
- Consistently raised more for total giving category
- Had higher per capita giving than coeducational group
- Had highest % of dollars from alumni giving as a % of total dollars given
- Had highest total endowment market value (significantlyhigher) and endowment per student
- Had significantly higher foundation giving
- Had larger boards of trustees in actual members and raised more $ from their boards
- Had more bequests (numbers and dollars) and deferred gifts than the comparison group Where the top eight women's colleges lag in performance:
- Slightly trail the Top 42 in alumni participation percentage
- Corporate giving less than comparison group
- Parent giving trails the comparison group
- Sum of the 3 largest individual gifts at Top 8 Women's colleges slightly lower than at the Top 42 comparison group
All otherwomen's colleges (those performing below the top 50 group) in the VSE data compare less favorably than their coeducational counterparts, suggesting differences in resources and philanthropic culture as determinants in bottom-line performance. However, much more research needs to be done to determine cause and effect.
Eight lessons for practitioners
This paper is not meant to suggest that gender differences alone should determine how we should work with our female prospects and donors. However, we do recommend reflecting on some historic facts and behavioral trends as you form strategies to maximize major gift activity at your institution.
- Women have been leading in philanthropy for a long time. Many of the behaviors of women philanthropists established a century ago are still practiced.
- Women tend to be entrepreneurial. They had to be, in order to find ways that were as effective as the men making change through business and education. Remember when forming strategy for particular female prospects that entrepreneurial problem- solving approaches can be very appealing. Be flexible and responsive to clues for how giving to your organization can address their interests and passions.
- Women often work collaboratively, in groups, or they are known to seek opinions to achieve their philanthropic goals. Be inclusive of the opinions of others in your donor's orbit.
- Volunteering is equal to giving in defining women's philanthropy. Don't differentiate between these terms. Getting your female prospects involved in your organization is one of the best strategies for cultivating toward a major commitment.
- Volunteering leadsto giving. Women like to see/feel/experience/imagine change. The giving will follow when the outcome feels certain.
- Do not underestimate the role women play in determining the philanthropic activity of a family. Whenever possible, include the spouse of the donor when cultivating and negotiating gifts. This goes both ways, but since women often control the "purchasing power" at the household level, it makes sense to include a male prospect's wife in the discussion. She will feel respected and included, and can likely influence the outcome of the request. If you are conducting a feasibility study, schedule the interview with both spouses.
- Women value education, and comparisons in their philanthropic behavior among the top colleges reveals higher performance in many categories. Be fearless and unapologetic in soliciting gifts to support education for women and girls.
- Women tend to be less transactional, more experiential in their philanthropic detail. Leave time for gestation.
Details matter. Ignore them at your own risk.
Just as the location and paint color of stenciling are part of one woman's decision to make a major gift, so too are the particulars of a woman's relationship to her favorite charitable enterprise. This is why many successful organizations pay close attention to their female constituents' families, hobbies, birthdays, interests, and job status.
The job of the stewardship officer should go well beyond reporting on the last endowed scholarship gift and into minding the details of their donors' lives. If it is true that significant gifts are the result of meeting the donor's philanthropic objectives, this tenet is particularly true with women — and it will not hurt to remember the grandchildren's names. Trish Jackson, vice president for development at Smith College, is grateful to the staff person who scours press clippings and alumnae class notes for the latest promotion or achievement. "She sees to it that our president writes a note of congratulations to that alumna and thanks her for being a graduate in whom we take great pride," says Trish. "We often do this before the alumna herself notifies us. Paying attention to these details has reinforced the feeling of connectedness and pride in being a Smith graduate. Do this regularly and you have legions of alumnae who feel personally connected to their alma mater."
Don't details matter to men? Of course they do, but we have found few examples of men who use a perceived snub as a reason to skip the annual fund gift that year (though they may vote in a bloc to send a message to the administration). We have heard many stories of women withholding their single annual fund "vote" to make a statement of protest after being passed over for a volunteer position or when their grandchild was not offered a place in the freshman class.
1 Center for Women’s Business Research
2 Andreoni, James and Lise Vesterlund. (2001). “Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics.,116(1), pp. 293-312.
3 McCall, Nancy and Elizabeth Peterson. (2002). Mary Elizabeth Garrett. In Notable American Philanthropists: Biographies of Giving and Volunteering,edited by Robert T. Grimm, Jr., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 107-112.
4 USA Today,6/9/03