Effective promotion of legacy giving: A presentation of new research findings and theory - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Effective promotion of legacy giving: A presentation of new research findings and theory PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 5815b2-MzgxY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Effective promotion of legacy giving: A presentation of new research findings and theory

Description:

Effective promotion of legacy giving: A presentation of new research findings and theory Presentation at Legacy Promotion Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, 26 July, 2010 – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:193
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 110
Provided by: mylegacyI
Learn more at: http://www.mylegacy.ie
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Effective promotion of legacy giving: A presentation of new research findings and theory


1
Effective promotion of legacy giving A
presentation of new research findings and theory
Presentation at Legacy Promotion Ireland, Dublin,
Ireland, 26 July, 2010
Russell James III, J.D., Ph.D. Associate
Professor Director of Graduate Studies in
Charitable Planning Texas Tech University Russell.
James_at_ttu.edu
2
Previous studies
  • One time survey
  • Non-response bias if the whole survey was about
    charitable giving
  • After death distributions
  • Only for taxable estates
  • Rare single county probate studies

3
Current study
Longitudinal Same people asked every two years
Distributions After death nearest relatives are
asked about final distributions
4
New Questions
Changes Not just who has charitable plans but
when do they add and drop them
Intentions v. Outcomes Did during life plans
result in after death distributions
5
Details
  • Nationally representative of over 50 population
    since 1998.
  • Over 20,000 people per survey.
  • In person interviews, some follow up by phone.
  • Started in 1992
  • Questions within larger Health Retirement Study
  • Respondents paid

6
What share of people over 50 in the U.S. have
made provisions for any charities in their
will or trust?
7
U.S. Over 50 Population
Weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
8
U.S. Over 50 Population
Weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
9
What share of over-50 charitable donors giving
over 500 per year indicate that they have a
charitable estate plan?
10
Donors giving 500 per year, weighted
nationally representative 2006 sample
11
Can that be right?
  • Maybe a lot of donors will eventually get around
    to making a charitable plan?

Will donors ever get around to making a
charitable plan?
12
Projecting based on age, gender and mortality or
tracking actual post-death distributions
88-90 of donors (500/year) over age 50 will
die with no charitable estate plan.
13
You mean 90 of our donors will die without
leaving a gift?
You mean we could generate 9 times more estate
gifts from our current donors?
14
Among donors (500) over 50 with an estate plan,
what is the single most significant factor
associated with having a charitable estate plan?
Age? Education? Wealth? Income?
15
Among Donors (500) with an Estate Plan
Family Status indicating a charitable estate plan
No Offspring 50.0
Children Only 17.1
Grandchildren 9.8
16
Regression Compare only otherwise identical
people
Example The effect of differences in education
among those making the same income, with the same
wealth, same family structure, etc.
17
Likelihood of having a charitable plan(comparing
otherwise identical individuals)
  • Graduate degree (v. high school) 4.2 points
  • Gives 500 per year to charity 3.1 points
  • Volunteers regularly 2.0 points
  • College degree (v. high school) 1.7 points
  • Has been diagnosed with a stroke 1.7 points
  • Is ten years older 1.2 points
  • Has been diagnosed with cancer 0.8 points
  • Is married (v. unmarried) 0.7 points
  • Diagnosed with a heart condition 0.4 points
  • Attends church 1 times per month 0.2 points
  • Has 1,000,000 more in assets 0.1 points
  • Has 100,000 per year more income not significant
  • Is male (v. female) not significant
  • Has only children (v. no offspring) -2.8
    points
  • Has grandchildren (v. no offspring) -10.5
    points

18
Find your estate donor
A makes substantial charitable gifts, volunteers regularly, and has grandchildren B doesnt give to charity, doesnt volunteer, and has no children
19
From an Australian study by Christopher Baker
including 1729 wills
Australian will-makers without surviving
children are ten times more likely to make a
charitable gift from their estate
20
How did giving during life compare with post
death transfers?




21
Estate giving and annual giving for 6,342
deceased panel members
Offspring Last Annual Volunteer Hours Average Annual Giving Average Estate Giving Estate Gift Multiple
No Children 32.6 (6.6) 3,576 44,849 12.6
Children Only 25.4 (7.1) 1,316 6,147 4.7
Grandchildren 23.2 (2.1) 1,497 4,320 2.9
Total 24.3 (1.8) 1,691 8,582 5.1
22
When did people drop charitable plans?
23
Yes!
Yes!
No.
What happened here?
24
Factors that triggered dropping the charitable
plan 1. Becoming a grandparent 0.7226
(0.2997) 2. Becoming a parent 0.6111
(0.3200) 3. Stopping current charitable giving
0.1198 (0.0934) 4. A drop in self-rated health
0.0768 (0.0461) Some factors that didnt seem
to matter Change in income Change in assets
Change in marital status
Fixed effects analysis including 1,306 people
who reported a charitable plan and later reported
no charitable plan. Coefficients show relative
magnitude of factors.
25
When did people add charitable plans?
26
  • Factors that triggered adding a new charitable
    plan
  • Starting to make charitable gifts .1531
    (.0882)
  • An improvement in self-reported health .0927
    (0.0446)
  • A 100k increase in assets .0061 (.0023)
  • One factor dramatically reduced the likelihood
    that a new charitable plan would be added
  • The addition of the first grandchild -.4641
    (.2732)

27
Do the estates of people who make charitable
estate plans grow differently than the general
population?
28
After making their plan, charitable estate donors
grew their estates 50-100 faster than did
others with same initial wealth
29
Demographics and future projections
30
The Fall and Rise in Live Births - US
31
Dramatic increases on the horizon
Temporary drop in key demographic population
32
The fall and rise in live births - UK
33
Persons alive in the UK, 2008-2030
34
Ireland population pyramid, 2001
  • Without the large post-war baby boom, expect less
    rapid growth in older ages
  • Growth will come primarily due to improved
    longevity

35
Projecting future bequest giving
  • Frequency of future bequest gifts
  • Change in population
  • Change in tendency to make bequest gifts

36
Charitable Estate Planning among US Adults Aged
55-65
37
Increases in charitable planning are driven by
increases in childlessness and education
Time trend disappears when including
childlessness and education
Time trend exists
Variable Estimate (s.e.) p-value Estimate (s.e.) p-value Estimate (s.e.) p-value
Year 0.0138 (0.0032) lt.0001 0.0033 (0.0034) 0.3298 0.0015 (0.0036) 0.664
Any children -0.6251 (0.0345) lt.0001 -0.6224 (0.0479) lt.0001
Years of Education 0.1412 (0.0048) lt.0001 . full set of .
control variables control variables
Probit analysis of all respondents age 55-65 in
1996-2006 HRS. Outcome variable is the presence
of charitable estate planning.
38
Charitable estate planning among adults aged 55-65
39
Basic relationship
  • This suggests that the overall trend of increased
    charitable estate planning may have been driven,
    in large part, by changes in childlessness and
    education.
  • Such a relationship has important implications
    for predicting charitable estate planning levels
    in the future.

40
Upcoming cohorts and childlessness
  • Childlessness among women who will be entering
    the 55-65 age group over the next decade will be
    substantially higher than those in the 55-65 age
    group during 2006 (the year of the latest HRS
    survey).
  • Women in the 56-61 age group during 2006 reported
    a childlessness rate of 16.0 in 1990 when they
    were aged 40-44 (Dye, 2005). In comparison,
    women in the 40-44 age range in 2004 (i.e., those
    who will begin entering the 55-65 near retirement
    age group in 2015) reported a childlessness rate
    of 19.3 (Dye, 2005).

41
Similar trends in U.K.
Source http//www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.as
p?id369
42
http//www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_t
rends/birthstats_pt94.pdf
43
Upcoming cohorts and education
  • Similarly, a college education is much more
    common among the upcoming cohorts of individuals
    nearing retirement age than among the current
    55-65 group (Stoops, 2004).
  • In 1996, less than 27 of those in the 35-54 age
    group had at least a bachelors degree.
  • By 2007, over 31 of those in the 35-54 age group
    had at least a bachelors degree (Current
    Population Survey, 2007).
  • Thus, one can expect the upcoming cohorts of
    individuals nearing retirement to be more
    educated than individuals currently in the 55-65
    age group.

44
Big take-aways
  • Dont just recruit estate givers by giving level,
    also know your donors without children
  • After making their intention, charitable estate
    donors grew their estates 50-100 faster than
    did others.
  • Future demographics are generally positive based
    on population, childlessness, and education

45
New Ideas for legacy promotion from a theoretical
framework
Applying The Generosity Code
46
Why theory instead of just a list of techniques?
  • Limitations of war stories research
  • So called best practices may just be practices
  • Theory based strategies are more flexible
  • New techniques can emerge as circumstances change
  • Guides practice even where, as in bequest giving,
    interim measurement is difficult.

47
What does a fundraiser do?
  • Bring in money?
  • This description is true, but not very
    informative. Applies to essentially all private
    sector jobs.
  • What does a Lawyer do? Makes money. What does a
    grocer do? Makes money. What does an artist do?
    Makes money.
  • You could bring money to your organization from
    government contracts, operation of a charitable
    business, or other means, but it wouldnt be as a
    fundraiser.

48
What does a fundraiser do?
A fundraiser
49
What does a fundraiser do?
A fundraiser Encourages Generosity
50
Encouraging generosity
  • An issue of fundamental human significance
  • An independently valuable mission separate from
    (although complementary to) your organizations
    mission

51
Understanding generosity
Giving occurs when the potential energy of a
gifts potential value is unlocked by the
catalyst of a request
52
Quality of Request (Catalyst)
Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy)
Gift (Energy Released)
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
53
  • Interdependent Utility
  • (Recipients experience)
  • I am happy because you were benefitted
  • Empathyi X Change in well-beingi

Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
54
  • Self-Identity
  • (Donor as giver)
  • I am happy because I am generous, faithful,
    concerned, etc.
  • Importance of value and felt adherence to it

Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
55
  • Self-Efficacy
  • (Donor as change agent)
  • I am happy because I was the one who benefitted
    you
  • My actions were the cause of the change that I
    selected

Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
56
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) I
receive benefits from the recipient or
representative charity
Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
57
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) I
receive benefits from others because of my giving
Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
58
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) I
influence others in the way they behave towards
others
Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
59
Theoretical background These value channels
exists for reasons rooted in social psychology
(proximate causes) and natural selection
(ultimate causes)
Act of Receiving
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Act of Giving
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Others Responses
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
60
Theoretical background We can rearrange by their
value type including both material and
psychological value sources
Psychological benefits to donor
Material benefits to similar others
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Material benefits to donor
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
61
Understanding generosity
Giving occurs when the potential energy of a
gifts potential value is unlocked by the
catalyst of a request
62
Quality of Request (Catalyst)
Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy)
Gift (Energy Released)
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
63
DefinitivenessHow clearly is a decision
required?ObserversWho observes the decision?
  • Definitiveness
  • How clearly is a decision required?
  • Observers
  • Who observes the decision?

64
Quality of a request Definitiveness
Requires a definite no
Indefinitely deferrable response
General support concept
General issue awareness
Specific request
General request
No request
  • Definitiveness The degree to which a request
    demands a definitive yes or no
  • The enemy isnt no, it is no response

65
Quality of a request Definitiveness
Requires a definite no
Indefinitely deferrable response
General support concept
General issue awareness
Specific request
General request
No request
100,000 children have died in West Africas
current food crisis.
66
Quality of a request Definitiveness
Requires a definite no
Indefinitely deferrable response
General support concept
General issue awareness
Specific request
General request
No request
100,000 children have died in West Africas
current food crisis. Please help one of the
relief agencies if you can.
67
Quality of a request Definitiveness
Requires a definite no
Indefinitely deferrable response
General support concept
General issue awareness
Specific request
General request
No request
Please give 50 to Oxfam to support relief
efforts for children caught in West Africas
current food crisis.
68
Quality of a request Definitiveness
Requires a definite no
Indefinitely deferrable response
General support concept
General issue awareness
Specific request
General request
No request
We are sending an office gift to Oxfam on
Friday. Put in whatever you like and I will stop
by to pick up your envelope in the morning.
69
Quality of a request Observers
Observation of a decision point adds a social
cost to saying no and a social benefit to
saying yes based upon
  • Perceived likelihood of observance
  • Observers social significance and
  • level of commitment to beneficiaries

70
Office beverages available with payment on an
honor system. Picture above payment
instructions rotated weekly. Payments were
higher when picture of eyes was posted.
M. Bateson, D. Nettle G. Roberts (2006). Cues
of being watched enhance cooperation in a
real-world setting. Biology Letters 2, 412414.
71
Two groups with two computer backgrounds. Each
person receives 10. Computer question Do you
want to share any of it with another (anonymous)
participant?
A
B
K. J. Haley (UCLA), D.M.T. Fessler (UCLA). 2005.
Nobodys watching? Subtle cues affect generosity
in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 26, 245256
72
K. J. Haley (UCLA), D.M.T. Fessler (UCLA). 2005.
Nobodys watching? Subtle cues affect generosity
in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 26, 245256
73
Applications to legacy giving
Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy)
Quality of Request (Catalyst)
Gift (Energy Released)
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
74
Unfortunate reality of legacy giving
74 of the UK population support charities and
when asked, 35 of people say they'd happily
leave a gift in their will once family and
friends had been provided for. The problem is
only 7 actually do. From www.rememberacharity.
org
75
Donors giving 500 per year, weighted
nationally representative 2006 sample
76
So, why is legacy giving so low? What is missing?
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
77
People may not consider charity during document
creation (practice of advisors and mistiming of
communications from charity).
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
78
Will drafting and legacy planning is easy to
postpone (avoid facing mortality).
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
79
Will drafting is not public, and not an
acceptable forum for peer observation.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
80
Most legacy giving benefits can only be
anticipated, not actually experienced.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
81
Reciprocity or social exchange is limited. Prior
to the gift, the intention is revocable. After
the gift, the donor is gone.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
82
Charitable bequests may be viewed as competitive
with transfers to offspring
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
83
What strategies within this framework might
improve participation in charitable bequest
making?
84
Spend more efforts with those donors who do not
have offspring (and thus lower competing
interdependent utility).
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
85
Promote self-identify of the planned legacy donor
as a current identity of social worth.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
86
Legacy club members have a love for animals
that lasts more than a lifetime.
Identify an important value. Associate current
planned giving status with that value. Create
experienced gift value today, rather than only
anticipated post-mortem value.
Become a legacy club member today.
87
Death creates a natural self-efficacy void.
Emphasize giving opportunities with permanence.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
88
Self-efficacy in legacy gifts
  • With death we disappear, a serious imposition
    on self-efficacy.
  • The desire to overcome this is natural.
  • Humankind develops memorials emphasizing
    permanence.

89
Self-efficacy in legacy gifts
Legacy giving can also help fulfill the desire
for permanence. But may depend on how the
charity will use the gift.
Logo from http//www.rememberacharity.org.uk
90
Self-efficacy in legacy gifts
  • It is easier for the wealthy to imagine
    charitable gifts with permanent impact.
  • Buildings, large charitable foundations, parks,
    art
  • Consider developing permanent giving
    opportunities for mid-level donors.
  • Named giving opportunities limited to legacy
    donors (so as not to pull from current giving)
  • Permanent memorial trusts for legacy donors only
  • Scholarships, lectureships, sponsor a child,
    sponsor a rescued pet, annual performances, etc.

91
Develop small permanent giving opportunities
exclusively for legacy gifts.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
92
Emphasize data on how quickly inheritances are
spent by family members as compared to longevity
of a permanent gift
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
93
Legacy societies to publicly recognize planned
donors and create functioning donor communities
through social events.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
94
Always reminding so that the option is top of
the mind whenever planning happens to occur.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
95
Creating planned giving campaign deadlines to
interfere with ease of postponement.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
96
A small organizations two-year campaign to reach
100 planned legacies
http//www.fcs.uga.edu/alumni/legacies.html
97
Encourage will making in donor population.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
98
Provide free planning services to donors with
high potential.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
99
Create immediate commitment pledge devices with
follow up verification.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
100
Targeting advisors to include charitable
questions in their document creation process
through information and recognition.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
101
Why not recognize the intermediaries?
  • Intermediaries, such as a will drafting lawyer,
    are essential to the process.
  • Often the simple act of specifically asking about
    a gift to charity by an advisor is key.
  • A new idea?

102
Magdalen HospitalList of Contributors,
1760From Sarah Lloyd, A Person Unknown?
Female supporters of English subscription
charities during the long 18th century, Voluntary
Action History Society Research Conference,
Canterbury, UK, July 14-16, 2010
103
Recognizing intermediaries
  • Friends of charity solicitors society
  • Sponsoring free CPD (continuing professional
    development) charitable planning related
    education opportunities
  • Advertising those who have completed the CPD
    program.
  • Publishing recognition of active solicitors
    authoring charitable wills probated in most
    recent 6 months in particular county, town.
  • Shows frequency of professional activity.

104
Consider legacy arrangements that involve
children in charitable decisions.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
105
Public notice of founding of the Bible Society
(1804)and listing of donors
The Morning Post (London, England), Monday, March
19, 1804 pg. 1 Issue 11061. 19th Century
British Library Newspapers Part II.
106
Executors become voting Governors for life
107
The framework doesnt provide automatic answers,
but may help generate ideas about value creation
and realization in your context.
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
108
Quality of Request (Catalyst)
Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy)
Gift (Energy Released)
x

1. Definitiveness 2. Observers
Interdependent Utility (Recipients experience)
Self-Identity (Donor as giver)
Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent)
Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor)
Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others)
109
Thanks for listening
These slides (and others) are posted at
www.slideshare.net/Generosity
About PowerShow.com