Philanthropy in Vietnam


Published on

1 Like
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Philanthropy in Vietnam

  1. 1. Philanthropic Attitudes & Sentiments in Vietnam Today! A report by: for
  2. 2. The LIN Center for Community Development serves grassroots not-for-profit organizations(NPO) and individual and corporate philanthropists.Through bringing together NPOs & donors, resources such as expertise, knowledge, and fundscan be pooled to help local people to meet local needs.Given LIN’s aim to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic environment, Cimigooffered to conduct a study amongst the general population of Vietnam to understand theirsentiments toward philanthropic activity.This report contains the state of play of philanthropicattitudes and sentiments in Vietnam today.We hope you enjoy this report and continue tosupport LIN’s mission. 2
  3. 3. Philanthropy in Vietnam Today...In Vietnam there is a high incidence of giving (82%), but at a low frequency and with relativelysmall sums. People give what they can, but with 63% indicating they have refused to give to acharity due to lack of trust, clearly this is a barrier to opening up more sources of support.The biggest causes that trigger support relate to disaster relief and charities for children and thedisabled. This may cause problems for smaller NPOs that focus on, for example, communitydevelopment projects as this type of cause is not top-of-mind for the general population.As anywhere, people have a tendency to support causes more when they relate to that person.For example, Senior Citizens are more likely to contribute toward charities that support SeniorCitizens. This lends itself to opportunities to increase efficiency of NPO activity through reachingout to people who are connected in some way to that NPO’s specific cause.People tend to find out about charities as a result of direct contact or via friends, perhaps linkedto their need for “trust”. But actual engagement with charities is triggered by a very wide rangeof sources – from local residential authorities through to online. This fragmentation may causedifficulties for smaller NPOs to manage. 3
  4. 4. Areas of support for NPOs that LIN may want to explore further…The data would suggest that there are some key areas that LIN and partners may want to explorefurther to help support NPOs in gaining traction with the general population:Trust: It is difficult for smaller NPOs to build consciousness and credibility with the public, and yetovercoming this barrier is key to triggering support. LIN may be able to help through:  Arranging partnerships with larger brands so that the brand’s image supports the NPO’s  Continue to build LIN’s profile so that it can be used as a “referee” for lesser-known NPOs  Engage with authorities to build an officially recognised register of accredited NPOs.Efficiency: Greater outcomes relative to inputs can be yielded by targeting groups of people whohave a closer connection to an NPO’s cause. LIN may be able to help through:  Capability building in the area of segmentation and identification of “target” groups.Social Media: Online social media combines the benefits of personal referral from friends, directcontact from NPOs, and ease of reaching “target” groups. Cost of entry is also low. Consequently,this might become a key medium for engaging supporters. LIN could support by:  Capability building & training on the deployment and use of social media.Donation Channels: It may be difficult for people to donate even small sums frequently as it isunclear where or how to give. LIN could support by:  Exploring new means of making donations, e.g. with mobile money transfer services, that make it possible to conduct national collections of smaller sums with convenience for all. 4
  5. 5. What is our propensity to givetoday?Part 1.
  6. 6. The vast majority of people (8-in-10) do make contributions tocharitable organisations, but with low frequency… Contributed to Charitable Organisation (%)The incidence of giving is high, but the Given money, time, orfrequency of giving is low, 2-3x per year or 82 18 expertise in Past 5 Yearsless.This may indicate an opportunity to increase Yes Nofrequency through overcoming barriers;barriers could include:  Knowledge – give to whom? Frequency of Contribution (%)  Trust – is the receiver reliable?  Channel – how to give? Frequency of giving 11 20 45 20 4 over the past 1 year => Monthly 4-5x 2-3x 1x None 6
  7. 7. Contributions tend to be monetary, and in relatively small sums… Value of Contributions in Past 1 Year in VND (%) Size of annual 64 19 10 1 6 1 contribution <500k 500k-1m >1m-5m >5m-10m >10m Not Money People often give what they can and the headline is not meant in a disparaging way. But the low frequency and low sums may indicate systemic problems that LIN and partners could work to overcome:  Trust – are people giving less because of “misuse” worries?  Understanding – do people give money because it is easier or is it they unaware that physical effort or expertise can also be “given”?  Channel – people may not know how or where to give. The sums are too small for banks (and many won’t have bank accounts). Collection points may be too dispersed to be convenient. LIN & partners may want to consider partnerships with emerging mobile money-transfer companies that would allow for national-scale collection with ease & convenience for people, and able to handle small-sum transfers too. 7
  8. 8. Which causes are likely tostimulate us to give?Part 2.
  9. 9. Vietnamese people are most likely to come together to alleviate adisaster or to support the disabled & children. But this mayhighlight problems for smaller, community oriented NPOs… Causes Most Likely to Support (%)Whilst revealing the widespread support for themajor causes, it also reveals the difficulty that Disaster Relief 62many smaller, grass-roots NPOs may have inattracting funds. Help Disabled People 52 Childrens Rights & Dev. 42If these smaller NPOs are focused on community Poverty & Welfare 39development issues, for example, this may not be Education 30top-of-mind for people to donate to. Environment 25This perhaps highlights the importance of Senior Citizens 23organisations such as LIN to help stimulate Healthcare 15funding of these smaller, but still worthy activities. Community Dev. 12 9
  10. 10. Targeting groups and segmenting donors may help in the efficiencyof gathering donations… Causes Most Likely to Support (%) Some Demographic Differences Some variations were observed within demographics, but in largely obvious ways. Children - Females 49 For example older people were more likely to Children - Males 35 support Senior Citizens’ charities than younger people. Senior Citizens - >50… 32 This suggests, as with marketing branded Senior Citizens - 15-24… 17 products, a segmentation of donors is likely to yield greater efficiencies. Disabled - HCMC 57 LIN and partners may be able to help NPOs Disabled - Hanoi 47 identify target groups that will be more responsive to engagement with that Education - Hanoi 39 particular NPO and cause. Education - HCMC 28 10
  11. 11. Who are we likely to give to?Part 3.
  12. 12. Whilst international NPOs, religious bodies, and governmentagencies have most support in total, it is clear that there is roomfor independent NPOs as well... Perhaps with government agencies in the North and religious organisations in the South, there are few surprises in the geographically driven differences. It is interesting though that Vietnamese independent organisations are well supported too which shows the potential for grassroots NPOs to gain engagement. Your 1st Choice for Donations (%) VN Independent Orgs. (e.g.local 32 orphanages, disabled schools...) 25 Religious Orgs (e.g. Pagodas, Churches) 30 13 VN Govermental Orgs. (e.g. Fatherland 17 Front,Womens Union) 30 Internl Orgs (e.g.Operation Smile, 13 Handicap international) 23 Corporate Programs (e.g. Vinamilk fund; 9 Vina Capital Foundation fund) 9 HCMC Hanoi 12
  13. 13. Issues with reliability and transparency have caused 6-in-10 peoplenot to give to a charity at some point… Ever Refused to Give to a Charity (%) Refused to give? 63 38 A reason for some of the major governmental and religious bodies to be a first choice may be due to their Yes No longevity of establishment and thus supposed trustworthiness. Reason for Refusal (%) With 6-in-10 having refused to give to charity at some point, clearly there’s an Organisation is not "Reliable" 65 opportunity for LIN and partners to support the perception of credibility of Process of funding is unclear 63 many other NPOs. Not enough time or money 22 I dont know how to 12 Other 2 13
  14. 14. A way to stimulate trust as well as funding may be to work hand in hand with manufacturers or other brand owners…If given a choice between two products, withone having some of the profit go to a charity, More Likely to Try a Productnearly half of people said they would try If Profits Went to a Charity (%)that product. 4% I would give it a tryWith smaller organisations perhapsstruggling to demonstrate credibility, it maybe possible to partner with established 47%brands for mutual benefit. 49% Id still need to consider otherThe benefits are not just in the funding from factorsthe brand owner, but also the halo effect of (Price,brand,etc)a trustworthy brand supporting a lesser- I would not try itknown NPO. 14
  15. 15. And how can we get the wordout…Part 4.
  16. 16. Online social networks may need to become a key channel as theycan be “mass” and yet still maintain direct & personal contact tobuild necessary trust…Perhaps because of the “trust” factor, directcontact with a charity or friendships are importantsources of information. However, these Sources of Information on Charitable Organisations (%)approaches are people-heavy and difficult to turn“mass”. Direct Solicitation 38Given that the vast majority of young people and Friend Referral 33higher-income groups are now online in urban Online 33areas, NPOs probably need to consider thischannel, particularly via social networks, to get TV 26their cause heard & supported. Newspaper 24Social networks combine the factors of direct Radio 9approach, friend referral, and ease of access.Social media capability building could be a key Other 22area of support that LIN and partners couldprovide. 16
  17. 17. People became engaged with a charity through a very broad range of sources making this a complex area for smaller NPOs… Sources of Engagement on Last Charitable Activity Made (%)As can be seen, a wide range of sources triggered From local authoritiesour sample’s last engagement with a charity. at residential areasWith this diverse range of potential engagement From workplace/schoolchannels, NPOs may need support and capabilitybuilding in the area of managing this. From television 19% 21% 5% 8% 20%Mass media is desirable, but may be difficult for 8% From the pressgrassroots organisations to mobilise. Therefore, 9% 10%for such organisations a focus may need to be on From the Internetother channels (e.g. online) that are open and canbe used to effectively reach various interest From friends/familygroups in the population. From churches/pagodas Other 17
  18. 18. Respondent Profiles and Detailed ChartsAppendix
  19. 19. Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents Gender Ratio of Respondents (%) Geographic Ratio of Respondents (%)Gender 51 49 Geography 46 35 19 Male Female HCMC Hanoi Other Age Ratio of Respondents (%) Data collection was conducted by Age 28 25 33 13 a mixed-mode method of Telephone and Online interviewing. 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 Total number of respondents was N=1028 19
  20. 20. Frequency of Giving in Past 12 Months (%) By Key Demographics of Gender & Age100 4 3 7 4 3 2 6 90 17 14 20 20 19 80 23 25 70 60 None 48 47 54 45 46 1x 50 43 41 2-3x 40 4-5x 30 => Monthly 20 20 22 17 18 24 22 18 10 11 10 11 12 12 8 9 0 Total Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 (N=864) (N=404) (N=460) (N=272) (N=354) (N=164) (N=74) 20
  21. 21. Causes Most Likely to Support (%) By Key Demographics of Gender & Age Total Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-67 (N=528) Disaster relief 56 61 64 61 67 65 50 Help to disabled people 51 53 51 50 53 55 47Childs Rights & Development 42 35 49 40 46 46 30 Poverty & Social Welfare 42 42 35 44 44 33 30 Education 31 34 27 29 23 32 42 Environment 27 25 25 27 20 19 41 Help aging & Senior citizens 26 22 24 17 22 25 32 Health care 19 14 15 14 13 16 16 Community development/ Improvement 6 13 10 18 11 7 13 21
  22. 22. Specific NPO Support (%) By Key Demographics of Gender, Age, & City Total Male Female 15-24 25+ Hanoi HCM (N=528) SOS Children Village (Làng trẻ em SOS) 47 41 52 51 43 44 49 Red Cross (Hội Chữ Thập Đỏ) 40 44 37 38 42 42 38 Disability Resource andDevelopment (Chương trình Khuyết tật và Phát triển) 28 22 32 28 27 28 28 UNICEF Vietnam 23 24 22 28 18 32 20 VN Fatherland Front Mặt Trận Tổ Quốc) 16 21 12 9 23 21 11 Youth Union (Đoàn Thanh Niên) 12 14 10 13 10 7 13Audio library for the Blind (Thư Viện Sách Nói Cho Người Mù) 7 6 7 6 8 4 12 Cycling for the Environment club(Câu Lạc Bộ Đạp Xe Vì Môi Trường) 6 5 7 8 4 4 8 Women’s Union (Hội Phụ Nữ) 5 2 8 3 8 5 6 (Asked of Online respondents only) 22
  23. 23. Sources of Information on Charities (%) By Key Demographics of Gender, Age, & City Total Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-67 Hanoi HCM (N=831) Directsolicitation 38 35 40 26 31 49 52 53 30 Friend referral 33 31 35 49 38 19 19 22 43 Online 33 36 30 43 39 25 13 33 31 TV 26 27 24 26 28 24 29 30 22Newspaper 24 26 21 28 24 21 18 20 25 Radio 9 9 9 9 6 14 4 11 8 22 21 23 15 21 28 25 17 18 Other 23
  24. 24. The Voice of the Customer Managing Director