Dublin Legacy Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Dublin Legacy Presentation

on

  • 1,485 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,485
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,469
Embed Views
16

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
68
Comments
0

2 Embeds 16

http://www.linkedin.com 13
https://www.linkedin.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/article.asp?ID=618&Pos=3&ColRank=2&Rank=176
  • http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/NPP2008/NatPopProj2008.pdf

Dublin Legacy Presentation Dublin Legacy Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 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@ttu.edu
  • 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
  • Current study
    Longitudinal
    Same people asked every two years
    Distributions
    After death nearest relatives are asked about final distributions
  • 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
  • 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
  • What share of people over 50 in the U.S. have “made provisions for any charities in [their] will or trust?”
  • U.S. Over 50 Population
    * Weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
  • U.S. Over 50 Population
    * Weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
  • What share of over-50 charitable donors giving over $500 per year indicate that they have a charitable estate plan?
  • * Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • Among Donors ($500+) with an Estate Plan
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Find your estate donor…
  • 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”
  • How did giving during life compare with post death transfers?
    $
    $
    $
    $
  • Estate giving and annual giving for 6,342 deceased panel members
  • When did people drop charitable plans?
  • Yes!
    Yes!
    No.
    What happened here?
  • 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 didn’t 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.
  • When did people add charitable plans?
  • 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)
  • Do the estates of people who make charitable estate plans grow differently than the general population?
  • After making their plan, charitable estate donors grew their estates 50%-100% faster than did others with same initial wealth
  • Demographics and future projections
  • The Fall and Rise in Live Births - US
  • Dramatic increases on the horizon
    Temporary drop in key demographic population
  • The fall and rise in live births - UK
  • Persons alive in the UK, 2008-2030
  • 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
  • Projecting future bequest giving
    Frequency of future bequest gifts
    Change in population
    Change in tendency to make bequest gifts
  • Charitable Estate Planning among US Adults Aged 55-65
  • Increases in charitable planning are driven by increases in childlessness and education
    Time trend disappears when including childlessness and education
    Time trend exists
    Probit analysis of all respondents age 55-65 in 1996-2006 HRS. Outcome variable is the presence of charitable estate planning.
  • Charitable estate planning among adults aged 55-65
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • Similar trends in U.K.
    Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369
  • http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/birthstats_pt94.pdf
  • 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 bachelor’s degree.
    • By 2007, over 31% of those in the 35-54 age group had at least a bachelor’s 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.
  • Big take-aways
    Don’t 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
  • New Ideas for legacy promotion from a theoretical framework
    Applying “The Generosity Code”
  • 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.
  • 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 wouldn’t be as a fundraiser.
  • What does a fundraiser do?
    A fundraiser …
  • What does a fundraiser do?
    A fundraiser …
    Encourages Generosity
  • Encouraging generosity
    An issue of fundamental human significance
    An independently valuable mission separate from (although complementary to) your organization’s mission
  • Understanding generosity
    Giving occurs when the “potential energy” of a gift’s potential value is unlocked by the “catalyst” of a request
  • Quality of Request
    (Catalyst)
    Potential Value
    of Gift
    (Potential Energy)
    Gift
    (Energy Released)
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s experience)
    I am happy because you were benefitted
    EmpathyiX Change in well-beingi
    Act of Receiving
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Reciprocity
    (Response of Recipient to Donor)
    I receive benefits from the recipient or representative charity
    Act of Receiving
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Social Exchange
    (Response of Others to Donor)
    I receive benefits from others because of my giving
    Act of Receiving
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Cultural Norms
    (Response of Others to Others)
    I influence others in the way they behave towards others
    Act of Receiving
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Theoretical background
    These value channels exists for reasons rooted in social psychology (proximate causes) and natural selection (ultimate causes)
    Act of Receiving
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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
    (Recipient’s experience)
    Cultural Norms(Response of Others to Others)
    Reciprocity
    (Response of Recipient to Donor)
    Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor)
  • Understanding generosity
    Giving occurs when the “potential energy” of a gift’s potential value is unlocked by the “catalyst” of a request
  • Quality of Request
    (Catalyst)
    Potential Value
    of Gift
    (Potential Energy)
    Gift
    (Energy Released)
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Definitiveness
    How clearly is a decision required?
    Observers
    Who observes the decision?
    Quality of request
  • Quality of a request: Definitiveness
    Requires a definite “no”
    Indefinitely deferrable
    response
    General support concept
    General issue awareness
    General request
    No request
    Specific request
    Definitiveness: The degree to which a request demands a definitive “yes” or “no”
    The enemy isn’t “no”, it is “no response”
  • Quality of a request: Definitiveness
    Requires a definite “no”
    Indefinitely deferrable
    response
    General support concept
    General issue awareness
    General request
    No request
    Specific request
    “100,000 children have died in West Africa’s current food crisis.”
  • Quality of a request: Definitiveness
    Requires a definite “no”
    Indefinitely deferrable
    response
    General support concept
    General issue awareness
    General request
    No request
    Specific request
    “100,000 children have died in West Africa’s current food crisis. Please help one of the relief agencies if you can.”
  • Quality of a request: Definitiveness
    Requires a definite “no”
    Indefinitely deferrable
    response
    General support concept
    General issue awareness
    General request
    No request
    Specific request
    “Please give £50 to Oxfam to support relief efforts for children caught in West Africa’s current food crisis.”
  • Quality of a request: Definitiveness
    Requires a definite “no”
    Indefinitely deferrable
    response
    General support concept
    General issue awareness
    General request
    No request
    Specific 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.”
  • 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
    Observer’s social significance and
    level of commitment to beneficiaries
  • 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, 412–414.
  • 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. Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256
  • K. J. Haley (UCLA), D.M.T. Fessler (UCLA). 2005. Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256
  • Applications to legacy giving
    Potential Value of Gift
    (Potential Energy)
    Quality of
    Request (Catalyst)
    Gift (Energy Released)
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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
  • * Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
  • So, why is legacy giving so low?
    What is missing?
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • People may not consider charity during document creation (practice of advisors and mistiming of communications from charity).
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Will drafting and legacy planning is easy to postpone (avoid facing mortality).
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Will drafting is not public, and not an acceptable forum for peer observation.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Most legacy giving benefits can only be anticipated, not actually experienced.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Charitable bequests may be viewed as competitive with transfers to offspring
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • What strategies within this framework might improve participation in charitable bequest making?
  • Spend more efforts with those donors who do not have offspring (and thus lower competing interdependent utility).
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Promote self-identify of the planned legacy donor as a current identity of social worth.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • [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.
  • Death creates a natural self-efficacy void. Emphasize giving opportunities with permanence.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Develop small permanent giving opportunities exclusively for legacy gifts.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Legacy societies to publicly recognize planned donors and create functioning donor communities through social events.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Always reminding so that the option is “top of the mind” whenever planning happens to occur.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Creating planned giving campaign deadlines to interfere with ease of postponement.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • A small organization’s two-year campaign to reach 100 planned legacies
    http://www.fcs.uga.edu/alumni/legacies.html
  • Encourage will making in donor population.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Provide free planning services to donors with high potential.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Create immediate commitment pledge devices with follow up verification.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Targeting advisors to include charitable questions in their document creation process through information and recognition.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Consider legacy arrangements that involve children in charitable decisions.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • 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.
  • Executors become voting Governors for life
  • The framework doesn’t provide automatic answers, but may help generate ideas about value creation and realization in your context.
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Quality of Request
    (Catalyst)
    Potential Value
    of Gift
    (Potential Energy)
    Gift
    (Energy Released)
    x
    =
    1. Definitiveness
    2. Observers
    Interdependent Utility
    (Recipient’s 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)
  • Thanks for listening
    These slides (and others) are posted at www.slideshare.net/Generosity