Really interesting conversation so far and I had a chance to discuss with our team today.

I think there are reasons to be skeptical of the idea that shifting social norms are the key driver of the decline in charitable donations. While it's true that people who are more religious also tend to give more, that may not be entirely due to social values. These are people who also tend to be asked to give more often, presented with more opportunities to participate, and are provided with a sense of belonging from public collective action (and peer benchmarking). Arguably, some of these things are components, and drivers, of social norms. However, a sustained focus on large donor stewardship means that charities are leaving a lot of people out of their engagement.

For example, I was on a panel with Jeannie Infante Sager today where she shared data about the prolific nature of women givers and their readiness to be generous, and discussed how organizations tend to under-estimate and under-engage these givers. If we're engaging fewer people / leaving out certain groups, is it fair to say that the issue is those givers, rather than our lack of relevant communications with them? We find that generosity, while certainly impacted by various influences like economic security, is not only diverse and prolific, but also quite robust. I would argue that if people continue to be generous with their money and other resources, that the issue is not their lack of inclination, but rather how effectively we're reaching them.

This is not just speculation either: When organizations come together to broadly engage grassroots givers on GivingTuesday, they get a strong result. Not only lots of dollars donated, but lots of other generous actions as well. GivingTuesday is the biggest single day for donor acquisition and those donors are retained at higher-than-average levels. Those givers also look a little different than the profile of charitable donors overall. I think this is because those people were engaged and asked for a change. In practice, lowering the "price" and celebrating any and all contributions has a net-positive effect on charitable donation, not the opposite.

Likewise, I think there's scant evidence that various giving opportunities are driving the price down. Firstly, because the longer-term trend has been toward more money and higher average donations, not less. Importantly, we also see no evidence of crowding out, and in fact it appears to be the opposite. Low barriers to entry open the door to more givers and the best indicator that someone is going to give is that they've done some other giving. Our data show that significant numbers of people who give money also give time, donate items, and advocate for causes (31%) and larger proportions take these behaviours. The number of people who only give money is only 8%.  We also see that giving mechanisms and recipients are not competitive. We think there is more opportunity to build on the more positive motivations people have around causes and issues they want to support.

We have seen what the potential is for more broadly inclusive approaches that include grassroots givers, and we also see the substantial negative impact of an industry that has focussed on a small pool of large value donors. I think that's short sighted and has equity implications. Who has a say over how problems are solved and how civil society institutions are structured?

- Low Income Donors may be more predictable supporters -- Meer and Priday find that rates of charitable giving are largely flat across different income groups.  (N.B. this is a preliminary finding) Our GivingPulse dataset indicates that rates of giving around low- and middle-income groups are largely stable across fluctuations in the stock market, whereas high income donors are more likely to reduce contributions as stock market indices fall. Our analysis certainly showed that organizations with a broad base of support that included smaller donors were more resilient through the 2009 recession.

- Young Donors -- This could have the effect of disenfranchising the contributions that low-income donors make -- particularly younger donors. Some studies of large donors indicate that the most generous donors have been engaged in causes over a long time. Figures from RNL data indicate that the average $25,000 donor takes nearly 12 years from their first gift to their larger donation. We have seen that young people tend to be more generous in terms of their actions but have less money to give (for now at least) but that does not diminish the collective value of their contributions.

On the question of "Tech-enabled frictionless giving", I don't think the overall influence is that dominant. Our data show that in several large markets sizeable portion of giving happens through people making direct donations through an organization's website. This is hardly the kind of frictionless giving that we envision is driving down donations. Our figures from last year show that "Over 40% of all donors of money in the USA, Canada, the UK, and India made a donation via the recipient’s website, with many others making donations via 3rd party websites. In an era that appears to be leaving websites behind in favor of more immediate and interactive digital channels, this is an eye- opening finding." In the end, I think the tool isn't nearly as important as how it's used though. We should not expect technology itself to be a significant driver of result anymore than technology is to blame for negative trends.

Overall, I think the evidence is that people are generous and they're generous to charities when they are effectively motivated. The nonprofit sector has been too focused on too few "high value" people and that has disenfranchised large portions of the population who are demonstrably willing to give when they're included.

Woodrow Rosenbaum
Chief Data Officer
GivingTuesday

-----Original Message-----
From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> On Behalf Of john.hallward@giv3.ca
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:35 PM
To: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
Subject: RE: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly Share

Thanks for sharing Casey.

In support of your book  (good luck with that!), I feel compelled to say/share that based on my years of survey-based research in the sector I have come to conclude that a good part of the declines in generosity are related to the lowering of the 'social charitable norm' within society (in addition to the many forms of economic pressures).  This is a combination of a lack of awareness of what such a social norm might be, and the lower value of such a norm.   And this decline is chiefly a function of the decline in religiosity in the Western World (+ Japan) since WW2.    Those who are religious, today, have a better sense of the social charitable norm, and feel it is higher than those who do not have such a sense and/or are not religious.   And they are much more generous.  ....     This then ripples through society and is under-mining social values.    Yes, Americans are still sympathetic and philanthropic.  It is just that they are getting to feel warm and fuzzy at a much lower level (perhaps, in part, fueled by 'low cost' giving mechanisms (.e.g. a $5 donation via SMS, or a 'round-up-your-store-receipt').  These acts of generosity are simply much lower than 50 years ago, and are pale in comparison to tithing (literally, one tenth of income).   - Do you have research in your book about this?  I would love to discuss if so.

John Hallward
Founder/Chairman, GIV3
President, Sector3Insights
Mobile:  514 705 4848

-----Original Message-----
From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Casey Hanewall
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:06 PM
To: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
Subject: Re: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly Share

This is a topic I myself have become obsessed with since the post I made nearly two years ago kicked off a similar dialogue/debate on this listserv and a subsequent pop-up session. Over the past year, I have been researching and writing a book on the topic of donor-base collapse that I hope to get published sooner than later. The work and insight of many people on this listserv have been invaluable to this writing project. Here are a few highlights to add to this conversation...my apologies for the length:

The collapse in donor numbers in the US since the Great Recession has been a case study of the effects of growing economic inequality in America over the past 40 years. Due to many structural reasons, the charitable marketplace is more at risk from this issue than most other economic sectors, which is why it is experiencing a faster decline in its "customer base" than perhaps any other part of the modern economy.
In real numbers, there are likely 20% fewer total donors now than there were as recently as 2008, a decline of perhaps as many as 16 million households. To put that figure into perspective, that's equivalent to the state of California. Given the correlation between income/wealth and race, Black and Hispanic households have been abandoning traditional charitable spending at the fastest rates, although non-Hispanic white households represent the bulk of the donor decline due to simple demographic math.

At the same time, this growing affordability issue has compounded numerous other societal/political/social shifts - too many to mention here - each of which has otherwise suppressed charitable spending in one way or another since the 1980s. Long-term marketplace disruptions are nearly always a consequence of many slow-rolling phenomena stacked one on top of another, and the charitable sector is no different on this front. Recognizing that point illustrates that the way to address donor decline requires far more radical and systemic solutions than what is typically discussed, while also accepting that the previous peak donor-capture rate - 75% or more of Americans as recently as the 1990s - is no longer remotely achievable. Arguably, that's not entirely a bad thing when understanding the full story of marketplace evolution.

Donor decline is easy to ignore given the healthy long-term growth in total donation revenue - increasingly fueled by, and subject to, S&P
500 returns largely captured by the wealthiest households (which, in turn, has supercharged a demand for tax shelters such as DAFs) - and total revenue has long been the nearly exclusive focus of the charitable sector when assessing its health. To wit, the number of donors per active nonprofit has dropped by a shocking two-thirds over the past three decades, a data point that does far more to explain the growing financial struggles of nonprofits than more en-vogue theories.
The long-term economic and political fallout of this ongoing trend is likely to be significant but goes largely unrecognized in the social sector in part because only the positive aspects of evolving charitable behaviors tend to be discussed. Oddly, that lack of introspection on the growing existential risk to the nonprofit community, which has long been an essential part of the economic and civic fabric of the nation, has held even after coming out of a year -
2022 - exhibiting record or near-record declines in donation revenue, donor numbers, and trust in nonprofits.

The improvement in the financial position of most Americans during
2020-2021 was indeed unprecedented and fed directly into the only period of increased donor participation since 2008, a turnaround that persisted for just one year. This was ultimately the consequence of record levels of stimulus spending aimed at the very households that had long been abandoning charitable spending. However, the subsequent inflationary effects of federal spending have once again quickly turned the tide on the wealth and disposable income trendlines and, consequently, are now driving what are some of the steepest drops in donor numbers ever recorded by the Fundraising Effectiveness Project.
(Although Survey of Consumer Finances data is useful, https://realtimeinequality.org/ is arguably better because it provides post-pandemic insight.)

A final key point to keep in mind about the plummeting rate of household giving is that the people dropping out of the charitable marketplace are largely middle or low-income households that historically spend very little money per year - often less than $100.
The circumstances these households face are nothing at all like those confronted by the much smaller number of wealthy households that provide the bulk of charitable dollars and therefore get most of the attention of the sector. Low-dollar donors have always been relatively passive spenders and were long dependent on a core set of relationship-dependent service-providing intermediaries - churches, fraternal organizations, and workplace-giving nonprofits -- to provide a low-effort, largely frictionless donation experience. But those donor-capture channels have by and large collapsed, even as underlying motivations for altruism haven't changed as much as people tend to state, and thus the typical small-dollar donor indeed faces far greater barriers when considering a donation at present, an ironic circumstance in some regards given the proliferation of tech solutions. (Ben Soskis' excellent research on 'prescription' posted earlier in the week presents one of the many barriers that have been added in recent years, although most social sector participants don't per se view what he describes as a barrier even as reports like Independent Sector's most recent trust survey indicate the opposite.)

Ultimately, there seems to be less understanding now than in the past of the long tail of middle or low-income donors. This lack of awareness within most nonprofits of the motivations and financial circumstances that underlie the decision-making framework of a $20 donor in the modern economy is one of the biggest structural failings in need of addressing.
I would posit that one of the reasons why Giving Tuesday has been particularly successful in driving donor numbers is that it most closely replicates the bygone relationship-centric channels for drawing non-wealthy households into the charitable marketplace, but that is more about the social/relational dynamics it fosters than it has to do with the tech side of the equation.

Casey Hanewall
Seattle, WA

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 6:55 AM Mari Kuraishi <mkuraishi@dupontfund.org> wrote:
>
> I feel a little bogus posting here as I'm esconced at a private foundation in Florida, but I am struck by some things that I'm directly involved in, as well as the arguments made here by Oktay, Vic, John, Lucy, and others.
>
> Tech is still a small slice of the pie, and the tail, not the dog. Has focus on the tail caused us to ignore the dog? Maybe. To wit:
> I'm at the CEP conference (as no doubt others on this list are too, hi!) and was struck by Danielle Allen's juxtaposition of the March on Washington and the Jan 6 assault on Congress. The fact that 250k people showed up at the March on Washington was the result of painstaking community organizing, the Jan 6 assault was, as she put it, a "flash mob."
> I ran a public outreach effort here in Jacksonville during the pandemic on how residents accessed the riverfront and how they would use it if they had access to it, and I was struck by the demographic challenge--despite targeted advertising the sample we were able to get was overrepresented in the richer white zip codes and underrepresented in the poorer and more African American zip codes. We ultimately had to engage in door to door outreach, which no doubt wasn't all that effective because we were in the middle of a pandemic.
> Maybe the way to explore these tensions is to look at tech that creates real connections between people and how that might be inserted into the giving experience.
> Separately, I did commission research from the GivingTuesday team focused on <45 cohort in Florida and their giving proclivities, and what factors influence them to give. They are posting the raw data to the Data Commons platform (should be ready really soon), and will send out the link on this list as soon as I get it.
>
> ________________________________
> From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> on behalf of Allison
> Fine - allison at every.org (via GreaterGivingSummit list)
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:32
> Cc: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly
> Share
>
> Amazing convo, friends, thank you (especially the incomparable,
> irreplaceable Lucy Bernholz!)
>
> A quick anecdote: I hosted a political fundraiser a few weeks ago. The candidate spoke and a dozen people pulled out their checkbooks, literally, to write him checks. We had, of course, sent a link to donate before hand, they all knew they could give online, but when I asked them why they brought their checkbooks (not sure I could find mine!) one person said they she want to be, "caught in the endless online spam system."
>
> In my opinion, it is this transactional style of fundraising that is dampening response rates - in both the immediate and long terms.
>
> I want to lift up two things mentioned: Lucy mentioned the significant drop in the number of individual donors, and Piyush mentioned the need to dig into response rates.
>
> My three cents:
>
> * The "tech" I'm most interested in right now is AI and how it can,
> potentially, hopefully, possibly, be used to create customized and
> meaningful engagements between orgs and donors at all levels of
> giving. This can create a new chapter in relational fundraising done
> at scale for all donors.*
>
> * My fear that too many orgs/vendors will use AI to do more of the same transactional fundraising that is forcing people to find their checkbooks. While also remembering how hard the work is for orgs, how much they're trying to do with so few resources that creates incredibly high staff burnout rates.
>
> * The need to dig into the qualitative experience of donors - more
> specifically how did the org make them feel once they gave.  (if
> anyone can find a nonprofit willing to ask their donors how they made
> them feel when they gave, I'm all ears. I've been asking orgs to ask
> the question for a long time with no response.)
>
> Hope this is helpful, thanks to Beth for kicking us off and to everyone for participating!
>
> Allison
>
> Every.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:09 PM Jason Hausske <jason@cauzecharitable.org> wrote:
>
> so much to unpack.
>
> How do we define "tech" in philanthropy - There is the application of technology in the industry and then there is the investment in innovation. Application is texting to give. Innovation is startups in the space. Tech innovation can change behavior, where I believe there is a massive opportunity. Automated payroll deduction to United Way is much different than automated payroll deduction to your own foundation. The first is the application of technology, the second is an innovation in technology.
>
> Investment in giving tech - yes, the industry has applied technology to its businesses (albeit lagging behind other industries). However, investment in giving innovation/startups is anemic. There should have been $1B invested in philanthropy startups by now.
>
> Consumer tech is nuanced - 5M people giving $1 instantly (and collectively) to a collection of nonprofits does not exist and never has existed. Texting is not collective. Going to a website is not instant. Giving $10 is not giving $1.
>
> Consumer behavior is nuanced - Giving when inspired is a different human behavior from giving when asked. Being inspired by a Netflix documentary is quite different from being asked to give by Jerry Lewis. Being asked to give to a friend's facebook birthday fundraiser is different from giving a gift of good to a friend for their birthday.
>
> I guess my perspective is that measurable investment, in the thoughtful application of technology, combined with a nuanced (researched) understanding of human behavior could dramatically increase philanthropic engagement at a cultural level.
>
> jason
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 3:07 PM Lucy Bernholz <bernholz@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason, John and everyone else
>
>
>
> Yes, agreed – this is a tough way to have a conversation. Happy to
> have it another way – especially in response to Jason’s last because
>
>
>
> The trend lines matter because for there has been ongoing, deliberate attempts to use technology to improve giving by everyday givers (or whatever term you prefer) for (at least) the last 20 years. Including by many on this listserv. Tech as tool to increase giving has been big type of innovation over the same time period that participation dropped. Absolutely worth questioning the logic and efficacy of innovations that have received great deal of attention and funding, especially since there’s a great deal of overlap between those interested in tech/giving and those who claim to be interested in outcomes as measured quantitatively.     Look at it this way – if participation rates had skyrocketed during time of tech investment, tech would claim the credit. So, we need to examine why that didn’t happen.
>
> Your example in #2 has been tried at least in digital news – not sure
> it yielded anything – but others (perhaps some here) have tried it.
> In fact, judging from the TV that I watch,  asking for money while
> pulling people’s heartstrings and making it easy for them to give with
> a phone call or website is working – that’s why we get what feel like
> 10 minute ads on television for abandoned puppies, kids at St. Jude’s
> and wounded soldiers. I could make a snarky comment about who they’re
> targeting with phone numbers but I don’t know for sure – however, one
> really has to wonder, would a QR code make a big difference over an
> 800 number? If so, for whom and how do you know? I’m guessing QR codes
> might lower giving from some who prefer an 800 number. Certainly, it’s
> an easy a/b test
>
> I picked 20 years to capture the tech focus – just to pick a time frame. The drop in participation rates (not total giving) is new and doesn’t quite fit all the old “reasons” for drops in giving, as I understand the research done. I’m a million years old, I could have taken this back to the beginning of data collection on giving in USA.
>  Regarding $1T in giving – again, I’m talking about participation rates, not total dollars. This percentage used to be around 80%; recent surveys have put it barely above 50% of people who say they make financial contributions to charitable nonprofits. If those percentages are even close, that’s a 30% drop – during the time period of giving tech investment.
>
>
>
> I very much appreciate the comments on non-tech reasons and their implications for giving. I think this is multivariate. AND I am still interested in what to make – informed by research – of the participation drops as tech pervades (excuse the shorthand).
>
>
>
> To Jason’s proposal about collective giving/Lady Gaga – I think we’ve seen the first step in this happen (ice bucket challenge anyone? Every online crowdfunding contest from back in the day) but your comment (“What if this becomes a habit”) is the detail hiding the devil, as some might say. As you note, we do have hundreds of examples of one-offs, but many fewer (any?) of them becoming habitual. Which ties in (maybe) to Piyush’s question about response rates.
>
>
>
> I bet this community has some of the data, most of the questions, and
> some of the interest in actually understanding what tech has actually
> done and might reasonably do more of, and what other innovations are
> needed to inform theories of giving. In other words, we can use data
> we have generated over decade of experimentation to inform future
> investments – but we can only do that if we’re willing to entertain
> the possibility that tech alone aint it.*
>
>
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
>
>
> *especially since we’re all fielding lots of hype about the next newest biggest bestest tech ever – AI.
>
>
>
> Lucy Bernholz, Ph.D.
>
> Director, Digital Civil Society Lab
>
> Sr. Research Scholar, Stanford PACS
>
> 559 Nathan Abbott Way
>
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>
> New Books:
>
> How We Give Now: A Philanthropic Guide for the Rest of Us
>
> Digital Technology and Democratic Theory
>
>
>
> https://linktr.ee/lucybernholz
>
>
>
>
>
> From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> on behalf of Jason
> Hausske <jason@cauzecharitable.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:35 PM
> To: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly
> Share
>
> Lucy - I appreciate the thoughts, and my comments are directed at our industry as opposed to you or any specific individual.
>
>
>
> First, I don't understand how more tech and less giving are correlated, let alone causative. If less giving is a trend line we agree on, we could overlay a hundred other trendlines in the opposite direction... but that has nothing to do with causation.
>
>
>
> For example, specialty coffee revenue in the US has grown at a compounded rate of 15% a year for the last twenty years. Is that to blame for giving going down? College kids don't have the money to give, but they somehow find $5 to buy a skinny latte every day.
>
>
>
> Second, I do not believe tech has been effectively applied to philanthropy, and I think we have a massive opportunity to do so. All of us can share hundreds of examples.
>
> Someone watches Seaspiracy on Netflix and is inspired to act (giving being one of action). Why can't they hold their phone up, scan a code and give to a curated collection of nonprofits impacting the seafood industry? In this industry, we tend to discount that average individual, because we believe that any respectable altruist would spend hours researching how best to give, and then dedicate their life to solving the problem. Why can't we apply tech, empower them to act, celebrate intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and engage them in the conversation of philanthropy? Heck, what if it was a ten year old kid watching and wanting to act?
>
> Third, I don't believe we've even scratched the surface of the amount of money that could be going to nonprofits in the US on an annual basis. Twenty years ago is only relevant in relative terms. In 2003, I don't remember a cultural zeitgeist around charitable giving. Maybe, the reality is that $1T/year should be going to nonprofits in the US.
>
>
>
> I do agree that a linear email is not the best for this kind of discussion... a Slack channel seems more appropriate.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:30 PM Lucy Bernholz <bernholz@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason
>
>
>
> Thanks for all this. BJ Fogg’s work is predicated in market situations, which I would argue has meaningful limits when trying to understand altruistic behavior. Perhaps it is this very mismatch that might hold some explanation of why the mega trend lines I mentioned are moving the way they are – more tech, less giving.
>
>
>
> My next question, following from all you lay out, is “if these theories hold, how do you explain the crossing trend lines?”
>
>
>
> I’d be more likely to question the theories, rather than the data (even as I am among the many who believe these data are incomplete in measuring generosity, and are only measures of giving to nonprofit orgs. Here, too, I recognize that giving more money to nonprofits is precisely the metric that most giving-tech innovators strive for).
>
>
>
> I also have a question about your final comment that the power of the crowd has yet to be harnessed. I’m not sure what you mean here, given the very large role that individual donors used to play in the giving ecosystem (as measured by GivingUSA) and that the time periods being discussed (last 20 years) have seen such an explosion of new tech but giving participation dropping. I don’t have the data here to look at, but if giving participation was higher earlier in the time period, then the tech infusion is – at least – correlative with the participation drop, if not causative.
>
>
>
> One thing tech has inarguably brought is an increase in available data. How much do we want to learn from the crossing trend line data (which at least in my mind raises lots of questions about how much more giving we can induce with tech)  how much are we looking for evidence for what drives/sustains giving behavior versus wanting data to show our proposed solutions will work?
>
>
>
> Thanks. And I imagine there may be a better forum/different forum for this conversation – we may be bugging others on this list.
>
>
>
> Lucy Bernholz, Ph.D.
>
> Director, Digital Civil Society Lab
>
> Sr. Research Scholar, Stanford PACS
>
> 559 Nathan Abbott Way
>
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>
> New Books:
>
> How We Give Now: A Philanthropic Guide for the Rest of Us
>
> Digital Technology and Democratic Theory
>
>
>
> https://linktr.ee/lucybernholz
>
>
>
>
>
> From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> on behalf of Jason
> Hausske <jason@cauzecharitable.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:19 AM
> To: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly
> Share
>
> John is pulling from BJ Fogg's Behavior model of B=MAP.  BJ started
> the behavior lab at Stanford - https://behaviormodel.org/
>
>
>
> The first question is... what is the desired Behavior? "Tithing" is much different than "giving when inspired", which is different from "giving when asked", etc.
>
>
>
> My personal perspective on changing giving behavior is to start by making giving an inspiring, collective, daily, social experience accessible to every person... with the goal of creating a cultural shift from consumption to compassion.
>
>
>
> Assuming the Behavior change we want is more people giving more money, let's look at the elements.
>
>
>
> Motivation - A blanket statement that people are "motivated" to give is too simple. That's like saying we're all motivated to get in shape, to eat healthy, to vote, and to watch less reality TV.
>
> Motivation happens in waves, and depends on the situation. We're more motivated to give to our kid's fundraisers, than we are to most anything else.
> Motivation is more than just intrinsic - the philanthropy industry is very high brow about why people give. Intrinsic is critical (and still a big opportunity for tech to impact), but so is extrinsic motivation. Consider reputation and reciprocity in a social community.
>
> Act - The ability to act is directly correlated to the motivation to act. When I hear "it's so easy to give", I pull my hair out (see my profile picture on linkedin to see the result).
>
> The current expectation is that people are motivated enough to research which nonprofits to give to... then to go to a nonprofit's website, pull out a credit card, fill out twenty fields, get on an email and direct mailing list and track their receipts. And we say it's "easy".
> Easy is relative. The nonprofit industry are laggards in tech. Applying tech that is five years behind cultural norms, is not an effective application of tech.
> For example, most of us give locally. Yet 99.5% of local nonprofits are way behind on the application of tech. (To be fair, most small local businesses are behind). If we look at the websites of the five most popular nonprofits in our communities, the simplicity to transact/give is 1999 era technology.
>
> Prompt - Prompts come in different forms, and I would argue that prompts to give are plentiful.
>
> There are nonprofit prompts - full day fundraising takeover on your local NPR affiliate is an example that we all loath.
> But there are many others... the news, the ask at the grocery story, etc.
> Heck, what if prompts were embedded into our daily lives in activities that have nothing to do with an ask from a nonprofit?
>
> Motivation to give, the ability to give and prompts to give are all critical to changing behavior in giving.
>
>
>
> The full power of the crowd has yet to be harnessed, and the application of technology is absolutely critical to creating a tectonic shift in giving.
>
>
>
> let's discuss,
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 12:01 PM Lucy Bernholz <bernholz@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi John
>
>
>
> Interesting – let’s take your proposed pillars as a starting point. The way you present them, it would appear they don’t interact with one another. That seems unlikely. If they do interact with one another, the next question would be “has tech made giving as easy as it possibly can?” If so, then innovation in the space should move on to something besides tech. If the answer is no, then I would ask if making it easier is the best thing to be done, since it’s been made easier over the years and giving participation didn’t increase.
>
>
>
> Of course, the more interesting question is “can giving be made too
> easy?” Does “set it and forget it” actually lead to “forgetting it”?
> And, in matters of action and heart, is “easy” really the best
> endgame? Maybe making giving just like every other financial
> transaction isn’t a good thing in the long run? (Certainly it doesn’t
> align with many cultural traditions or expectations of giving of
> oneself.)
>
>
>
> What if there are diminishing, let alone counteracting, returns to making giving easier and easier?
>
>
>
> One important thing to note in your proposed structure is the lack of externalities – such as taxes. I don’t know if you meant to leave them out – but doing so certainly jibes with the research in How We Give Now. Also raises great questions about other public policy proposals which might make giving/engaging easier for more people. Two ideas that always come to mind in response to such a question – universal childcare and broadband.
>
>
>
> Thanks for thinking out loud with me
>
>
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
> Lucy Bernholz, Ph.D.
>
> Director, Digital Civil Society Lab
>
> Sr. Research Scholar, Stanford PACS
>
> 559 Nathan Abbott Way
>
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>
> New Books:
>
> How We Give Now: A Philanthropic Guide for the Rest of Us
>
> Digital Technology and Democratic Theory
>
>
>
> https://linktr.ee/lucybernholz
>
>
>
>
>
> From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> on behalf of
> john.hallward@giv3.ca <john.hallward@giv3.ca>
> Date: Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:39 PM
> To: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org>
> Subject: RE: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly
> Share
>
> If one considers behavior (i.e. donating) as a function of three pillars:   (1)  Motivation/Desire to do the behavior, (2) Ability to do the behavior, and (3) A reason/trigger/prompt to do the behavior, then I feel we can better decompose the behavior we are witnessing.
>
>
>
> Motivation:
>
> I think the data shows that philanthropic sentiment is high and strong
> in the USA, but the ‘price/cost’ of realizing the ‘Giver’s High’ is coming down as religion declines.
> What was once a clearly established norm (i.e. tithing..... literally, one tenth), we are likely experiencing a decline in the social norm as religiosity declines in America.
>
>
>
> Ability:
>
> With inflation, and economic pressure, the ability to give is under pressure for a greater incidence of the American population.   – Hence the concentration of less than 10% of society donating the vast majority of donations.   More and more of Americans are struggling to give (even though they still have good philanthropic sentiments).   This is an important explanation for lower donations.
> The second aspect of ability is the ease of giving.  Or, said another way, the lack of barriers.   I think this is where the ‘Tech’ comes into play.   In my mind, ‘Tech’ has improved the “Ability pillar”.  Most Americans will likely agree that it is easy to mechanically donate.  This implies that Tech is not the cause of the decline in behavior.
>
>
>
> Triggers:
>
> There are many triggers, reminders, and on-going solicitations.   I do not believe this pillar explains the negative trend in giving.  The success of GivingTuesday is a positive example of how more triggers work well.
>
>
>
> In summary, I believe two macro elements are leading to decay in giving:   (1)  Economic pressure, and (2) a decay in the social norm to be giving.
>
>
>
> Other thoughts?   Make sense?
>
>
>
>
>
> John Hallward
>
> Founder/Chairman, GIV3
>
> President, Sector3Insights
>
> Mobile:  514 705 4848
>
>
>
> From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Lucy
> Bernholz
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 5:43 PM
> To: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly
> Share
>
>
>
> Hey Beth
>
>
>
> Great prompt – my thoughts (which I posted here )
>
> Tons of digital tech created to boost giving in last 20 years –
> everything from crowdfunding to text giving to donate now to online
> DAFS etc etc According to analyses of GivingUSA data, giving participation over last 20 years has dropped So, does more tech = fewer givers?
>
>
>
>
>
> à what other hypotheses explain this?
>
> Tech drives giving that doesn’t get counted in GivingUSA –
> crowdfunding, direct venmo payments, political giving Tech doesn’t
> boost giving Tech doesn’t boost enough to counter downward pressures
> It’s only a USA trend, tech does drive giving in other contexts such
> as…..(show me)
>
>
>
> Would love to know both what people on this listserv think explains the above AND if anyone has any actual research on this, I’m all ears….
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Lucy
>
>
>
>
>
> Lucy Bernholz, Ph.D.
>
> Director, Digital Civil Society Lab
>
> Sr. Research Scholar, Stanford PACS
>
> 559 Nathan Abbott Way
>
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>
> New Books:
>
> How We Give Now: A Philanthropic Guide for the Rest of Us
>
> Digital Technology and Democratic Theory
>
>
>
> https://linktr.ee/lucybernholz
>
>
>
>
>
> From: GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org> on behalf of Beth
> Kanter <beth.kanter@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:53 AM
> To: Greater Giving Summit Listserve
> <GreaterGivingSummit@list.gatesfoundation.org>
> Subject: October Greater Giving Summit Community Listserv Monthly
> Share
>
> Happy Tuesday!
>
> How is October already?   The month is filled with lots of conferences and webinars, research and articles publications, and more related to giving ecosystems.   With that mind, here's this month's prompt:
>
>
> What's the most provocative idea or discussion you've had about the giving ecosystem at a conference or read about in a recent article or research finding?
>
> As always, please feel free to share updates from your organization about transitions, new job openings, recently published articles or research, events, and requests for advice.
>
>
>
> We'll send out a summary at the end of the month.
>
> For information on how to start a new thread and community guidelines, click here.  And, if you need any assistance posting or have questions, please reach out to me directly.
>
>
>
> Error! Filename not specified.