Top 10 legacy fundraising strategies from scientific research: National data ...Russell James
After fifteen years in academic research (plus more than a decade in frontline planned and major gifts fundraising), Professor James brings together scientific results from economics, neuroscience, psychology, demographics, and other disciplines to present the ten most important and effective strategies for increasing fundraising success in planned gifts. Beyond just “war stories,” this presentation gives you a deep understanding of what works – and why – in effective legacy fundraising.
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
A quick summary of the book, Inside the Mind of the Bequest Donor, reviewing results from neuroimaging and experimental psychology and how they impact planned gift marketing
Using "natural philanthropy" in fundraisingRussell James
Charitable giving is not a modern invention of the industrialized world. It is a natural behavior as old as humankind. In this presentation, Professor James reviews scientific research from a range of disciplines to uncover the natural origins of philanthropy and translates these scientific concepts into effective fundraising strategies. Be prepared to see how theory and science can produce powerful, practical, real-world fundraising success.
Natural philanthropy: How the natural origins of donor motivations drive powe...Russell James
Charitable giving is not a modern invention of the industrialized world. It is a natural behavior as old as humankind. In this presentation, Professor James reviews scientific research from a range of disciplines to uncover the natural origins of philanthropy and translates these scientific concepts into effective fundraising strategies. Be prepared to see how theory and science can produce powerful, practical, real-world fundraising success.
Why cash is not king in fundraising: Results from 1 million nonprofit tax ret...Russell James
This research tracks the fundraising growth of hundreds of thousands of nonprofit organizations from 2010 through 2016 to identify what predicts current and long-term fundraising growth. A key predictor is whether the nonprofit effectively pursues gifts of assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, real estate) rather than gifts of cash. This presentation reviews these comprehensive results, investigates the psychological and practical aspects of why gifts of assets are so critical for high-growth fundraising, and discusses strategies for effectively pursuing these important gifts.
The Statistics & Psychology of Baby Boomer Lifetime & Legacy GivingRussell James
In this irreverent and entertaining slide deck, Dr. James reviews nationally representative data on Baby Boomers and their lifetime and legacy donations. Beyond simple statistics, this session demonstrates how these demographic realities should change how and when you communicate fundraising information to Boomers. If you want a slide deck based on hard data that goes beyond "just so" stories with obligatory pictures of Woodstock, Vietnam, and Neil Armstrong - then this is the place for you!
Top 10 legacy fundraising strategies from scientific research: National data ...Russell James
After fifteen years in academic research (plus more than a decade in frontline planned and major gifts fundraising), Professor James brings together scientific results from economics, neuroscience, psychology, demographics, and other disciplines to present the ten most important and effective strategies for increasing fundraising success in planned gifts. Beyond just “war stories,” this presentation gives you a deep understanding of what works – and why – in effective legacy fundraising.
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
A quick summary of the book, Inside the Mind of the Bequest Donor, reviewing results from neuroimaging and experimental psychology and how they impact planned gift marketing
Using "natural philanthropy" in fundraisingRussell James
Charitable giving is not a modern invention of the industrialized world. It is a natural behavior as old as humankind. In this presentation, Professor James reviews scientific research from a range of disciplines to uncover the natural origins of philanthropy and translates these scientific concepts into effective fundraising strategies. Be prepared to see how theory and science can produce powerful, practical, real-world fundraising success.
Natural philanthropy: How the natural origins of donor motivations drive powe...Russell James
Charitable giving is not a modern invention of the industrialized world. It is a natural behavior as old as humankind. In this presentation, Professor James reviews scientific research from a range of disciplines to uncover the natural origins of philanthropy and translates these scientific concepts into effective fundraising strategies. Be prepared to see how theory and science can produce powerful, practical, real-world fundraising success.
Why cash is not king in fundraising: Results from 1 million nonprofit tax ret...Russell James
This research tracks the fundraising growth of hundreds of thousands of nonprofit organizations from 2010 through 2016 to identify what predicts current and long-term fundraising growth. A key predictor is whether the nonprofit effectively pursues gifts of assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, real estate) rather than gifts of cash. This presentation reviews these comprehensive results, investigates the psychological and practical aspects of why gifts of assets are so critical for high-growth fundraising, and discusses strategies for effectively pursuing these important gifts.
The Statistics & Psychology of Baby Boomer Lifetime & Legacy GivingRussell James
In this irreverent and entertaining slide deck, Dr. James reviews nationally representative data on Baby Boomers and their lifetime and legacy donations. Beyond simple statistics, this session demonstrates how these demographic realities should change how and when you communicate fundraising information to Boomers. If you want a slide deck based on hard data that goes beyond "just so" stories with obligatory pictures of Woodstock, Vietnam, and Neil Armstrong - then this is the place for you!
This document summarizes research on charitable estate planning using new longitudinal data tracking the same people from mid-life to after death. Key findings include: 1) having no offspring, higher lifetime charitable giving and donations, and reporting a funded trust best predict making a charitable bequest; 2) average annual giving, ending wealth, having no offspring, and reporting a funded trust best predict the actual dollar amount left to charities. The research provides new insights into reaching people most likely to leave charitable gifts.
A guide to understanding charitable giving and charitable bequest giving using neuroimaging with practical examples of applications to planned gift marketing
The demographics of charitable estate planningRussell James
1. The document analyzes new data from a large longitudinal study that matched individuals' lifetime survey responses about charitable planning with their actual estate distributions after death.
2. It finds that most charitable bequests are added close to death, and charitable plans often change as death approaches or with life changes like health declines or family changes.
3. The data has important implications for charitable gift planners, suggesting they maintain contact with older donors and not assume charitable plans are permanent.
Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer researchRussell James
The document discusses research on encouraging bequest giving to cancer research charities through targeted messaging. The key findings are:
1. Research found that bequest decision-making engages brain regions associated with "visualized autobiography" more than current giving or volunteering.
2. Testing different messages showed that stories about living bequest donors outperformed other messages like evidence on spendthrift heirs for 40 out of 40 charities.
3. Charities that saw the biggest improvements from donor stories involved causes like wildlife and dogs that the story donors benefited, showing the importance of story cause matching the charity's mission.
Talking Planned Giving: Words that Work Russell James
The document discusses effective messaging and language for encouraging planned and major charitable gifts. It presents research on how charitable giving activates brain regions associated with social bonding and family relationships. Using language that emphasizes philanthropic giving as a social act and builds family-like relationships, rather than market-focused language, is more effective at encouraging donations. Formal legal terms and descriptions lower interest from potential donors compared to simpler explanations. The document explores how to describe various planned giving vehicles, like charitable gift annuities, in a way that increases interest and understanding from donors.
10 Strategies for Post COVID-19 fundraising in complex and major giftsRussell James
The document outlines 10 strategies for nonprofit fundraising in the post-COVID-19 environment for complex and major gifts. It recommends beginning with showing concern for donors' well-being. It suggests focusing initial fundraising efforts on donors with donor-advised funds, as they are more likely to donate assets already set aside for charity. Special one-time requests may work well but should identify a crisis for beneficiaries rather than the organization. Planned gifts can help address donor uncertainty. Charitable gift annuities and retained life estates in homes or farmland provide tax benefits and lifetime income. Charitable lead and income tax planning trusts allow donors tax deductions. "Charitable swaps" of appreciated assets for cash donations provide tax benefits even in
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
MarketSmart Words That Work: The Phrases That Encourage Planned GivingMarketSmart
This document provides guidance on effective language for encouraging planned giving. It discusses how words that reference family and social connections ("family words") outperform more formal language. Key recommendations include using phrases like "make a gift" instead of legal terms, mentioning charitable gifts in one's will, and incorporating stories of living donors. The document also notes that social norms influence giving decisions and that memorializing a loved one can motivate legacy gifts. It advises tailoring messages and approaches to an individual's stage of consideration.
Church seminar in planned giving & charitable estate planningRussell James
Estate planning through charitable giving allows Christians to be good stewards of their resources and care for others, while avoiding taxes and expenses. Without a will or estate plan, the government decides how assets are distributed through probate. Estate planning allows people to leave instructions and choose where their assets go. Options include wills, trusts, charitable remainder trusts, gift annuities, and qualified charitable distributions from IRAs after age 70. The best approach is choosing an estate plan rather than relying on the default "government plan."
The secret to understanding planned givingRussell James
Planned giving can lower taxes and provide income to donors by allowing them to trade gifts for tax benefits and lifetime payments. However, planned giving options often seem complex, involving charitable gift annuities, charitable remainder trusts, and pooled income funds. In reality, planned giving only does two things: lower taxes and trade gifts for income. The document provides an overview of various planned giving vehicles and how they accomplish these two objectives. It aims to simplify an area that nonprofits, donors and financial advisors should understand and use to benefit charities and clients.
Top 10 charitable planning strategies for financial advisorsRussell James
1. Donating appreciated assets like stock instead of cash to charity allows donors to avoid capital gains taxes while still receiving a charitable deduction for the full fair market value.
2. Taking required minimum distributions from retirement accounts after age 70 1/2 and donating them to charity provides tax benefits as the distributions are not considered taxable income.
3. Creating charitable remainder trusts allows donors to receive an immediate income tax deduction today based on the future value of the charitable gift, even though the charity does not receive the assets until later.
This document summarizes key considerations for donating retirement assets to charity. It discusses the different life stages of retirement accounts and tax implications of donations from each stage. Donating before age 59.5 can create taxable income and penalties, while donations from 59.5-70.5 are taxable but penalty-free. Qualified charitable distributions after 70.5 avoid taxes. The document also compares tax outcomes of leaving retirement assets to heirs versus charities. Naming charities as beneficiaries can avoid estate taxes and provide tax deductions.
Why financial planners should study charitable planningRussell James
Financial planners can provide significant value to clients by learning about charitable planning. Through sophisticated charitable strategies like a charitable remainder trust combined with an irrevocable life insurance trust, a couple can sell their $10 million business tax-free, receive an income tax deduction, increase their lifetime income, and leave their entire estate to their children tax-free. Charitable planning is a growing field that allows financial planners to help clients pass on both financial value and personal values to future generations and charitable causes.
This document discusses U.S. tax policy and charitable giving. It provides statistics on total charitable giving amounts and compares U.S. giving to other countries. It examines who benefits from tax incentives for charitable donations and questions whether the incentives primarily benefit wealthier donors and organizations like universities over those serving low-income communities. The document reviews estimates on how sensitive giving is to tax changes and who ultimately decides how donated funds are allocated. It concludes that while tax incentives encourage civil participation, more progressive tax policies may be needed to adequately address social welfare issues.
Report of recent fMRI findings on brain activations associated with charitable estate planning decision making and potential implications for fundraisers
This document summarizes research on charitable estate planning using new longitudinal data tracking the same people from mid-life to after death. Key findings include: 1) having no offspring, higher lifetime charitable giving and donations, and reporting a funded trust best predict making a charitable bequest; 2) average annual giving, ending wealth, having no offspring, and reporting a funded trust best predict the actual dollar amount left to charities. The research provides new insights into reaching people most likely to leave charitable gifts.
A guide to understanding charitable giving and charitable bequest giving using neuroimaging with practical examples of applications to planned gift marketing
The demographics of charitable estate planningRussell James
1. The document analyzes new data from a large longitudinal study that matched individuals' lifetime survey responses about charitable planning with their actual estate distributions after death.
2. It finds that most charitable bequests are added close to death, and charitable plans often change as death approaches or with life changes like health declines or family changes.
3. The data has important implications for charitable gift planners, suggesting they maintain contact with older donors and not assume charitable plans are permanent.
Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer researchRussell James
The document discusses research on encouraging bequest giving to cancer research charities through targeted messaging. The key findings are:
1. Research found that bequest decision-making engages brain regions associated with "visualized autobiography" more than current giving or volunteering.
2. Testing different messages showed that stories about living bequest donors outperformed other messages like evidence on spendthrift heirs for 40 out of 40 charities.
3. Charities that saw the biggest improvements from donor stories involved causes like wildlife and dogs that the story donors benefited, showing the importance of story cause matching the charity's mission.
Talking Planned Giving: Words that Work Russell James
The document discusses effective messaging and language for encouraging planned and major charitable gifts. It presents research on how charitable giving activates brain regions associated with social bonding and family relationships. Using language that emphasizes philanthropic giving as a social act and builds family-like relationships, rather than market-focused language, is more effective at encouraging donations. Formal legal terms and descriptions lower interest from potential donors compared to simpler explanations. The document explores how to describe various planned giving vehicles, like charitable gift annuities, in a way that increases interest and understanding from donors.
10 Strategies for Post COVID-19 fundraising in complex and major giftsRussell James
The document outlines 10 strategies for nonprofit fundraising in the post-COVID-19 environment for complex and major gifts. It recommends beginning with showing concern for donors' well-being. It suggests focusing initial fundraising efforts on donors with donor-advised funds, as they are more likely to donate assets already set aside for charity. Special one-time requests may work well but should identify a crisis for beneficiaries rather than the organization. Planned gifts can help address donor uncertainty. Charitable gift annuities and retained life estates in homes or farmland provide tax benefits and lifetime income. Charitable lead and income tax planning trusts allow donors tax deductions. "Charitable swaps" of appreciated assets for cash donations provide tax benefits even in
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
MarketSmart Words That Work: The Phrases That Encourage Planned GivingMarketSmart
This document provides guidance on effective language for encouraging planned giving. It discusses how words that reference family and social connections ("family words") outperform more formal language. Key recommendations include using phrases like "make a gift" instead of legal terms, mentioning charitable gifts in one's will, and incorporating stories of living donors. The document also notes that social norms influence giving decisions and that memorializing a loved one can motivate legacy gifts. It advises tailoring messages and approaches to an individual's stage of consideration.
Church seminar in planned giving & charitable estate planningRussell James
Estate planning through charitable giving allows Christians to be good stewards of their resources and care for others, while avoiding taxes and expenses. Without a will or estate plan, the government decides how assets are distributed through probate. Estate planning allows people to leave instructions and choose where their assets go. Options include wills, trusts, charitable remainder trusts, gift annuities, and qualified charitable distributions from IRAs after age 70. The best approach is choosing an estate plan rather than relying on the default "government plan."
The secret to understanding planned givingRussell James
Planned giving can lower taxes and provide income to donors by allowing them to trade gifts for tax benefits and lifetime payments. However, planned giving options often seem complex, involving charitable gift annuities, charitable remainder trusts, and pooled income funds. In reality, planned giving only does two things: lower taxes and trade gifts for income. The document provides an overview of various planned giving vehicles and how they accomplish these two objectives. It aims to simplify an area that nonprofits, donors and financial advisors should understand and use to benefit charities and clients.
Top 10 charitable planning strategies for financial advisorsRussell James
1. Donating appreciated assets like stock instead of cash to charity allows donors to avoid capital gains taxes while still receiving a charitable deduction for the full fair market value.
2. Taking required minimum distributions from retirement accounts after age 70 1/2 and donating them to charity provides tax benefits as the distributions are not considered taxable income.
3. Creating charitable remainder trusts allows donors to receive an immediate income tax deduction today based on the future value of the charitable gift, even though the charity does not receive the assets until later.
This document summarizes key considerations for donating retirement assets to charity. It discusses the different life stages of retirement accounts and tax implications of donations from each stage. Donating before age 59.5 can create taxable income and penalties, while donations from 59.5-70.5 are taxable but penalty-free. Qualified charitable distributions after 70.5 avoid taxes. The document also compares tax outcomes of leaving retirement assets to heirs versus charities. Naming charities as beneficiaries can avoid estate taxes and provide tax deductions.
Why financial planners should study charitable planningRussell James
Financial planners can provide significant value to clients by learning about charitable planning. Through sophisticated charitable strategies like a charitable remainder trust combined with an irrevocable life insurance trust, a couple can sell their $10 million business tax-free, receive an income tax deduction, increase their lifetime income, and leave their entire estate to their children tax-free. Charitable planning is a growing field that allows financial planners to help clients pass on both financial value and personal values to future generations and charitable causes.
This document discusses U.S. tax policy and charitable giving. It provides statistics on total charitable giving amounts and compares U.S. giving to other countries. It examines who benefits from tax incentives for charitable donations and questions whether the incentives primarily benefit wealthier donors and organizations like universities over those serving low-income communities. The document reviews estimates on how sensitive giving is to tax changes and who ultimately decides how donated funds are allocated. It concludes that while tax incentives encourage civil participation, more progressive tax policies may be needed to adequately address social welfare issues.
Report of recent fMRI findings on brain activations associated with charitable estate planning decision making and potential implications for fundraisers
According to research of giving patterns since 1966 compiled by the Giving USA Foundation, only bequests averaged an increase during recessionary periods. All
other types of giving either remained static or reported declines.
But is your planned giving program getting its fair share of the marketing budget?
We scoured the internet to find the following awesome information. And, although we can’t take credit for the research, we can take credit for the pretty charts!
So feel free to share this report with colleagues and friends (including your board). And when you’re ready to engage in serious marketing to find hidden gifts, generate
leads and cultivate relationships, we hope you’ll reach out to us: http://imarketsmart.com/contact-us
After all, our mission is to help further your mission.
ENJOY THE REPORT!
For most nonprofits, planning for their future isn't the first thing on their minds. That's why the California Community Foundation in Los Angeles developed the Planned Giving Toolkit to assist nonprofits expand their fundraising horizons and better prepare for their future.
This is the presentation that accompanied a series of free workshops CCF held across the county to help nonprofits implement planned giving programs. This presentation can be used by any nonprofit to present to their boardmembers, donors, and others who would be interested in being leaving planned gifts.
The Marketer's Guide To Customer InterviewsGood Funnel
A step-by-step guide on how to doing customer interviews that reveal revenue-boosting insights. This deck is made exclusively for marketers & copywriters.
This document provides a research inquiry memo describing a grounded theory study. The study aims to understand how lack of urban green spaces in low-income Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago contributes to health inequities. The researcher will conduct interviews with 30 residents from three neighborhoods to understand their experiences with urban green spaces. The data will be analyzed using grounded theory methods, including open, axial, and selective coding to generate a theory about the relationship between urban green spaces and health inequities. The findings could help address environmental injustices and inform policy changes to improve urban green spaces in marginalized communities.
This document summarizes preliminary research into the roles of religious and educational systems in economic development in predominantly black Chicago neighborhoods from 1970 to 2000. It discusses key findings that colleges and churches contributed to community development and impacted resources, politics, and mobility. The conclusion is that continued research is needed to better understand the relationship between education, employment, and community resources, and how colleges and churches can help communities regain economic viability.
How National Identities Are Built: An Empirical Test of the Theory of “Image...Qingjiang (Q. J.) Yao
This study is an empirical test of Anderson's (2006) theory of "imagined communities" among the BRICS nations and the U.S. Using data collected through the fifth wave of the World Values Survey from Brazil, China, India, India, South Africa, and US, the study confirmed the argument of Anderson who believes that mass media have been the major channel for citizens of nation-states to construct their national identities. Religion’s impacts on the constriction of national identity, national proudness, and global identity is complex. Interestingly, the data revealed that national identity does not lessen global identity, which is positively associated with the postmaterialist value that is prevalent among the younger generations.
Biotech Communications Workshop for Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Triangle biotech professionals
Presented by Jason Delborne, GES Center, NC State University, jadelbor@ncsu.edu
Monday, 10/2/2017 (day 1)
Relative Status and Interdependent Effects in Consumer BehaviorParfait
This document discusses how relative status and social comparison affect consumer behavior more than absolute income or wealth. It analyzes data from the 2005 Consumer Expenditure Survey and finds that relative spending rankings have a larger influence on expenditures for clothing and vehicles than total spending amounts. Certain goods are used more for social signaling of status. The conclusion is that models of economic behavior should account for how people compare themselves and engage in conspicuous consumption relative to others.
This document discusses communication, culture, and risk perceptions related to science and technology issues. It presents several models of science communication, including the deficit model, which assumes increased science knowledge will lead to greater acceptance of scientific views, and the public engagement model, which sees the public as interpretive communities that bring cultural and social perspectives. It also discusses how cultural cognition affects people's views on issues like climate change, with more scientific information sometimes increasing polarization. Overall, the document advocates moving beyond deficit models to recognize the cultural and social contexts that shape public risk perceptions.
Action Research Inquiry CycleINQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 2Implem.docxnettletondevon
Action Research Inquiry Cycle
INQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 2
Implement actions
and measure results
INQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 1
Plan for research and
addressing the problem
INQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 3
Evaluate and reflect
on results of actions
Assess the
Core Issues
1
Review the
Literature
2
Design the Projected
Intervention
3
Implement the
Intervention
4
Collect and
Analyze Data
5
Communicate Results
6
Evaluate
Outcomes
7
9
Recommend or Decide on
Next Steps
Reflect on and
Dialogue about
Results
8
Action Research Inquiry Cycle
INQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 2
Implement actions
and measure results
INQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 1
Plan for research and
addressing the problem
INQUIRY CYCLE PHASE 3
Evaluate and reflect
on results of actions
Assess the
Core Issues
1
Review the
Literature
2
Design the Projected
Intervention
3
Implement the
Intervention
4
Collect and
Analyze Data
5
Communicate Results
6
Evaluate
Outcomes
7
9
Recommend or Decide on
Next Steps
Reflect on and
Dialogue about
Results
8
9. Minkler M, Wallerstein N., eds. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.
10. Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health.
2008 April;29:325–50.
11. Devault M, Ingraham C. Metaphors of silence and voice in feminist thought. In: Devault M, ed. Liberating Method. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press; 1999:175–86.
12. Bobo K, Kendall J, Max S. Organizing for Social Change. 3rd ed. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press; 2001.
13. Chambers E, Cowan MA. Roots for Radicals: Organizing for Power, Action, and Justice. New York: Continuum International Publishing
Group; 2003.
14. Lewin K. Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997.
15. Freire P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International; 1970.
16. Hacker K, Chu J, Leung C, Marra R, Pirie A, Brahimi M, English M, Beckmann J, Acevedo-Garcia D, Marlin RP. The impact of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement on immigrant health: perceptions of immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA. Social Science &
Medicine. 2011 Aug;73(4):586–94.
17. Heller C, de Melo-Martin I. Clinical and translational science awards: can they increase the efficiency and speed of clinical and
translational research? Academic Medicine. 2009 Apr;84(4):424–32.
18. Minkler M. Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American
Journal of Public Health. 2010 Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S81–87.
19. Hacker K, Collins J, Gross-Young L, Almeida S, Burke N. Coping with youth suicide and overdose: one community’s efforts to
investigate, intervene, and prevent suicide contagion. Crisis. 2008;29(2):86–95.
20. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection .
This document summarizes trends in youth philanthropy based on research from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. It finds that while the percentage of generations who give is similar, millennials tend to give lower amounts. Motivations for giving also differ by generation, with millennials more motivated by improving the world and less by meeting basic needs compared to older generations. However, after controlling for factors like education and income, only a few differences in motivations remain between generations. Engaging younger generations will be important for philanthropic organizations.
Poster: Is generalized trust decreasing because of rising income inequality i...Chris Martin
This study examines the relationship between rising income inequality in the U.S. and decreasing levels of generalized trust over time. The researchers analyzed data from the General Social Survey from 1972-2009, finding a significant negative correlation - as the Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality) increased year to year, levels of reported trust in others decreased. Their longitudinal analysis estimated that for every 1 standard deviation increase in the Gini coefficient, the percentage of people reporting they trust others dropped from 41% to 29%. The researchers conclude that rising income inequality is likely reducing social trust in the U.S. over time.
Plenary session 5 6. gao et al, 14,08,28aIARIW 2014
This document discusses a paper that analyzes the impact of China's welfare program, Dibao, on time use. The discussant has longstanding interests in both safety net programs and time use research.
The discussed paper uses new time use data from China to examine how Dibao participation affects various time allocation categories. It employs propensity score matching to create treatment and control groups for analysis.
The discussant notes several contributions of the paper, including its novel examination of rural Dibao impacts and highly detailed time use analysis. The discussant also comments on historical aspects of Dibao and how it relates to broader governance issues in China. The methodology and findings are then outlined, with examples given of effects
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Bioinformatics: Bad news and good newsMadelaine Gogol
Why do we need to improve our equity, diversity, and inclusion in bioinformatics? What is our current status, and how will more equitable and diverse representation help us as a field?
This document discusses some of the ethical issues that may arise when conducting research in rural communities. It notes that confidentiality, skepticism of outsiders, and ensuring research has tangible outcomes are particular concerns. It recommends using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to address these issues by collaborating with community partners throughout the entire research process and empowering community members. CBPR principles include recognizing the community's identity, building on its strengths, facilitating cooperative relationships, integrating knowledge with action, and disseminating findings to all partners. The document provides examples of how CBPR could be applied when researching rural healthcare by partnering with local organizations and leaders.
Improving Community Health through Mobilizing Formal Systems and Informal Net...Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
This document summarizes research on improving community health through mobilizing formal systems and informal networks. It discusses how the researchers initially focused on preventing family maltreatment in military communities and expanded their work to civilian communities. Their social organization theory examines how community antecedents, social organizational processes, and intermediate results impact individual and family outcomes. The theory emphasizes how informal networks and formal systems intersect to build community capacity and resilience. The document provides empirical support and examples of communities in Roseto, PA, Cameron Park, TX, and Nevada County, CA that demonstrated improved health by mobilizing community members and resources.
Essay On Demographics And Data Collection MethodologyHeidi Owens
This document discusses demographic trends and their effects on healthcare. It begins by defining demography as the study of populations based on factors like age, sex, economic status, race, and technology, income, education and employment levels. Demographic trends are important for governments, organizations and companies to develop policies and research markets. The document then discusses how aging populations in developed countries will increase healthcare costs as more people require long-term care. Developing countries meanwhile will see youth bulges that can boost economies but also increase healthcare burdens if youth needs are not met. The trends underscore the need for healthcare systems to adapt.
DUE TONIGHT 11PM NEW YORK TIMEAPA FORMAT FROM LAST ASSIGNMENT.docxshandicollingwood
DUE TONIGHT 11PM NEW YORK TIME
APA FORMAT
FROM LAST ASSIGNMENT: Stakeholder Engagement and Roles in Strategic Planning
Stakeholders can have a powerful impact on organizational decision-making and strategic planning, making stakeholder engagement essential. As a leader and manager of an organization, you will not only be tasked with building relationships and engaging key stakeholders, but also identifying their role in the strategic planning process. In this Discussion, you examine stakeholder engagement and the role of stakeholders in strategic planning.
PART ONE
Assignment:
COMMENT ON THE FOLLOWING
IN ABOUT A PARAGRAPH
To stretch the discussion this week and as related to being a positive strategic thinker and one who takes challenges and turns them into opportunities how might you frame your discussion within one of these concepts be that Sustainable Leadership, the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) or Appreciative Inquiry (AI).
PART TWO
ALSO Part of The ASSIGNMENT
Respond the two authors (L. Bennet & D. Cotton)
by providing feedback on their surveys. Are the questions clear? Are the response categories appropriate? Are there more appropriate ways to design some of the questions? If so, what are they? Offer advice and feedback to your colleagues.
Author: D. Cotton
Survey
1.
What is your ethnicity?
A.
Caucasian
B.
African American
C.
Latino/Hispanic
D.
Other
2.
What is your gender?
Male/Female
3.
When were you in Foster Care? --------years -------months
4.
Do you feel as if you received the best possible service in Foster Care? Y/N
5.
What was your household annual income prior to Foster Care?
6.
What were your responsibilities in the group home?
7.
Did you complete your tasks?
8.
Why/Why not?
9.
What were the consequences?
10.
What do you feel could have been done differently by staff to produce a better result?
The following survey asks various questions in an effort to improve the outcome of services within the foster care system Chris Kids, Inc. is a non-profit organization that provides services for individuals aging out of foster care. Public administrators need to maintain a steady stream of feedback in order to find out what matters to citizens, clients, customers, and employees (Johnson 2014 pg.242.)
References:
Johnson, G. (2014). Research methods for public administrators (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
Author: L. Bennett
What factors have led to a decrease in recycling by members of the city of Wilmington, Delaware?
1. How long has your family engaged in recycling?
A.
Greater than 10 years
B.
5 – 10 years
C.
2 – 5 years
D.
Less than 2 years
2. How is your recycling removed from your home?
A.
I drop it off a the recycle center
B.
It is picked up a refuse company
C.
I take it to a local store to recycle
D.
I do not recycle
3. If you no longer recycle what is the primary reason?
A.
Have heard that it only goes to the landfill anyway
B.
Too much hassl.
1) The document discusses challenges in measuring social impact and progress, as GDP is an inadequate measure and new approaches are needed.
2) It explores sources of inspiration for social impact measures, such as well-being indicators and performance objectives in public services.
3) Key issues in developing social impact measures are defining appropriate measures, establishing causal relationships, and ensuring institutional accountability.
China 2016: Overview of public opinion about science with a special focus on ...John C. Besley
This document summarizes key findings from the 2016 Science and Engineering Indicators report on U.S. and global public opinion regarding science and technology issues. It finds that Americans have a moderate level of interest in science and a basic level of factual knowledge. Overall attitudes toward science are positive, though views on specific issues like genetic engineering and nuclear energy are more mixed and have declined slightly. The document analyzes factors influencing public opinions on various technologies, finding that demographics play a minor role while perceptions of scientific processes and trust in scientists have a stronger influence on attitudes.
The Pursuit of Happiness
Research Project
Choosing
your person...
Choose a person who has
achieved a form of happiness.
This person could be a
humanitarian who has done
something for the greater
good, an athlete, a politician,
an actor/actress, a service
member, etc.
*Your person does not necessarily
have to be famous or well known,
however it may make your research
process a bit easier if they are.
Paper structure
�Introduction with thesis
�Body: Section 1- Introduce and discuss the person you chose as your focus. Provide background
information about them prior to them achieving their happiness. What lead them to the point where they
embarked on their road to success/happiness?
�Body: Section 2- Discuss their achievement of happiness. What did they do, how has it affected them
or other people in their lives? Has it affected society in any way?
�Conclusion
Checklist of research supports
____ A. 1 quote from a 1 piece of literature or text that reflects the aspect of
happiness
____ B. 2 quotes from these multi-media sources (news source articles,
personal internet blog, Tedtalk, database or professional journal)
____ C. 1 quotes from the person you chose as the focus of your paper
Sample Introductory Paragraph
“I have noticed that most people in this world are about as happy as they have made
up their minds to be” (Marden 74). This famous quote, said by former president Abraham
Lincoln, still holds true in today’s society. While happiness is not necessarily a conscious
choice, orientation of the mind and one's surroundings are influential on this cornerstone
of the human condition. Happiness in general is an elusive subject, as it is subjective. It
seems relatively impossible to gauge something so fluid, but through social
experimentation and research, scientists have made some progress about possible
motivations. Achieving a form of happiness can have many positive effects on the mind,
body, and overall quality of life; however, the journey to happiness can often include many
trials and tribulations as it did for insert person’s name here as he pursued his own form
of happiness.
Health of Democracy Essay Rubric
Due Week 2 Friday at 12 p.m. (noon)
What is a democracy? Describe 2-3 qualities of a healthy democracy. And, assess the health of
our democracy. In your essay, use your digital artifact, reference at least one of your peers'
artifacts, and at least two readings from Weeks 1 and 2.
Grading Criteria Grade
Organization, Use of Digital Artifact Post(s) and Course Readings
• Organized and well-structured essay with a beginning, a body, and a conclusion.
• Includes a thesis statement that presents the argument of your paper;
thesis/main argument is defended throughout the paper.
• Claims/arguments are backed by evidence from reading(s).
• Transitions between paragrap.
Similar to Charitable Bequest Decision-Making (20)
This document discusses predicting nonprofit crisis and death by analyzing financial information, particularly IRS Form 990. It provides tools for evaluating nonprofit stability similar to tools for evaluating for-profits, including income/expense trends, net income trends, and asset/debt trends. Restricted funds like permanently restricted and temporarily restricted funds must also be understood. Negative net income in the previous year is identified as the best single predictor of future nonprofit disruption risk. The document analyzes financial trends for a small college that closed in 2008 to identify early warning signs in its financials from 2003-2005.
An overview of private foundations (non-operating) for the financial advisor, planned giving officer, or philanthropist interested in learning about the legal and tax structure.
This document discusses charitable giving opportunities and trends for 2011 and beyond. It highlights special tax opportunities for 2011 including qualified charitable distributions from IRAs and Roth IRA conversions. It also discusses gifting remainder interests in homes and farmland which provide immediate tax deductions. Trends showing increases in charitable planning among childless and educated individuals aged 55-65 are presented, as are demographic trends pointing to growth in these populations. A new online graduate certificate in charitable financial planning from Texas Tech University is announced.
Using Life Insurance in Charitable PlanningRussell James
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
Gifts of Remainder Interests in Homes and FarmsRussell James
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
Elements and Timing of Charitable DeductionsRussell James
This document discusses the timing and elements of a charitable gift under U.S. tax law. It addresses when a gift is considered complete for tax purposes, such as when money or property is delivered to a charity or its agent. It also discusses situations where retained interests by the donor, like an option to repurchase property, mean the gift is not complete until those interests are transferred. The timing of when a gift is complete determines what tax year deductions can be claimed.
The document discusses the documentation requirements for charitable contributions under U.S. tax law. It outlines the different documentation needed based on the amount and type of contribution, including donor records, charity receipts, appraisals and IRS forms. For cash contributions under $250, the donor needs only their own records. For contributions over $500 of property, including non-publicly traded stock and vehicles, the donor needs additional documentation like a qualified appraisal. Failure to follow the documentation rules can result in reduced or disallowed deductions.
The document describes various types of charitable remainder trusts (CRTs). A CRT allows a donor to transfer assets to charity while receiving payments, either for life or a set term of years. The donor receives an income tax deduction upfront based on the value of the future gift to charity. When the donor passes away or the term ends, the remaining assets go to the designated charity. The document discusses the tax benefits of CRTs and how distributions are taxed to recipients. It also outlines some variations of CRTs, such as net income CRUTs that make payments based on trust income or "flip" CRUTs that convert to a standard payout rate after a trigger event.
A Charitable Lead Trust (CLT) makes payments to charity for a set period of time, after which any remaining assets pass to non-charitable beneficiaries designated by the donor. Donors use CLTs to reduce gift and estate taxes by taking advantage of the difference between the present value of projected charitable payments and the actual growth of the trust's assets over time. CLTs allow donors to transfer wealth to heirs in a tax-efficient manner while also providing benefits to charity.
The document appears to be a slide presentation about charitable gift annuities. It includes information such as example annuity rates based on donor age, how annuities provide lifetime income in exchange for an initial gift, and ways that annuities can benefit both donors and charities. It also discusses risks associated with annuities and ways charities can help mitigate those risks, such as through reinsurance. The presentation aims to educate people on the basics of charitable gift annuities.
These slides are taken from the graduate financial planning course "Introduction to Charitable Planning" at Texas Tech University. Details at www.EncourageGenerosity.com
This document summarizes a presentation on new research findings related to legacy giving and charitable estate planning. Some key findings from the research presented include:
- Most donors over age 50 who give at least $500 per year to charity do not have a charitable estate plan in place, despite their lifetime giving.
- Factors like having a graduate degree, volunteering regularly, and making regular charitable gifts increase the likelihood someone will have a charitable estate plan.
- People are more likely to drop charitable plans from their estate after becoming a grandparent or parent. Estates of those who do make charitable plans tend to grow faster than average.
- Future demographics, with rising educational levels and childlessness, are generally positive
OJP data from firms like Vicinity Jobs have emerged as a complement to traditional sources of labour demand data, such as the Job Vacancy and Wages Survey (JVWS). Ibrahim Abuallail, PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa, presented research relating to bias in OJPs and a proposed approach to effectively adjust OJP data to complement existing official data (such as from the JVWS) and improve the measurement of labour demand.
Discover the Future of Dogecoin with Our Comprehensive Guidance36 Crypto
Learn in-depth about Dogecoin's trajectory and stay informed with 36crypto's essential and up-to-date information about the crypto space.
Our presentation delves into Dogecoin's potential future, exploring whether it's destined to skyrocket to the moon or face a downward spiral. In addition, it highlights invaluable insights. Don't miss out on this opportunity to enhance your crypto understanding!
https://36crypto.com/the-future-of-dogecoin-how-high-can-this-cryptocurrency-reach/
University of North Carolina at Charlotte degree offer diploma Transcripttscdzuip
办理美国UNCC毕业证书制作北卡大学夏洛特分校假文凭定制Q微168899991做UNCC留信网教留服认证海牙认证改UNCC成绩单GPA做UNCC假学位证假文凭高仿毕业证GRE代考如何申请北卡罗莱纳大学夏洛特分校University of North Carolina at Charlotte degree offer diploma Transcript
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024) FDI, Culture, Glo...AntoniaOwensDetwiler
"Does Foreign Direct Investment Negatively Affect Preservation of Culture in the Global South? Case Studies in Thailand and Cambodia."
Do elements of globalization, such as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), negatively affect the ability of countries in the Global South to preserve their culture? This research aims to answer this question by employing a cross-sectional comparative case study analysis utilizing methods of difference. Thailand and Cambodia are compared as they are in the same region and have a similar culture. The metric of difference between Thailand and Cambodia is their ability to preserve their culture. This ability is operationalized by their respective attitudes towards FDI; Thailand imposes stringent regulations and limitations on FDI while Cambodia does not hesitate to accept most FDI and imposes fewer limitations. The evidence from this study suggests that FDI from globally influential countries with high gross domestic products (GDPs) (e.g. China, U.S.) challenges the ability of countries with lower GDPs (e.g. Cambodia) to protect their culture. Furthermore, the ability, or lack thereof, of the receiving countries to protect their culture is amplified by the existence and implementation of restrictive FDI policies imposed by their governments.
My study abroad in Bali, Indonesia, inspired this research topic as I noticed how globalization is changing the culture of its people. I learned their language and way of life which helped me understand the beauty and importance of cultural preservation. I believe we could all benefit from learning new perspectives as they could help us ideate solutions to contemporary issues and empathize with others.
Optimizing Net Interest Margin (NIM) in the Financial Sector (With Examples).pdfshruti1menon2
NIM is calculated as the difference between interest income earned and interest expenses paid, divided by interest-earning assets.
Importance: NIM serves as a critical measure of a financial institution's profitability and operational efficiency. It reflects how effectively the institution is utilizing its interest-earning assets to generate income while managing interest costs.
[4:55 p.m.] Bryan Oates
OJPs are becoming a critical resource for policy-makers and researchers who study the labour market. LMIC continues to work with Vicinity Jobs’ data on OJPs, which can be explored in our Canadian Job Trends Dashboard. Valuable insights have been gained through our analysis of OJP data, including LMIC research lead
Suzanne Spiteri’s recent report on improving the quality and accessibility of job postings to reduce employment barriers for neurodivergent people.
Decoding job postings: Improving accessibility for neurodivergent job seekers
Improving the quality and accessibility of job postings is one way to reduce employment barriers for neurodivergent people.
Unlock Your Potential with NCVT MIS.pptxcosmo-soil
The NCVT MIS Certificate, issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), is a crucial credential for skill development in India. Recognized nationwide, it verifies vocational training across diverse trades, enhancing employment prospects, standardizing training quality, and promoting self-employment. This certification is integral to India's growing labor force, fostering skill development and economic growth.
5 Tips for Creating Standard Financial ReportsEasyReports
Well-crafted financial reports serve as vital tools for decision-making and transparency within an organization. By following the undermentioned tips, you can create standardized financial reports that effectively communicate your company's financial health and performance to stakeholders.
The Universal Account Number (UAN) by EPFO centralizes multiple PF accounts, simplifying management for Indian employees. It streamlines PF transfers, withdrawals, and KYC updates, providing transparency and reducing employer dependency. Despite challenges like digital literacy and internet access, UAN is vital for financial empowerment and efficient provident fund management in today's digital age.
Fabular Frames and the Four Ratio ProblemMajid Iqbal
Digital, interactive art showing the struggle of a society in providing for its present population while also saving planetary resources for future generations. Spread across several frames, the art is actually the rendering of real and speculative data. The stereographic projections change shape in response to prompts and provocations. Visitors interact with the model through speculative statements about how to increase savings across communities, regions, ecosystems and environments. Their fabulations combined with random noise, i.e. factors beyond control, have a dramatic effect on the societal transition. Things get better. Things get worse. The aim is to give visitors a new grasp and feel of the ongoing struggles in democracies around the world.
Stunning art in the small multiples format brings out the spatiotemporal nature of societal transitions, against backdrop issues such as energy, housing, waste, farmland and forest. In each frame we see hopeful and frightful interplays between spending and saving. Problems emerge when one of the two parts of the existential anaglyph rapidly shrinks like Arctic ice, as factors cross thresholds. Ecological wealth and intergenerational equity areFour at stake. Not enough spending could mean economic stress, social unrest and political conflict. Not enough saving and there will be climate breakdown and ‘bankruptcy’. So where does speculative design start and the gambling and betting end? Behind each fabular frame is a four ratio problem. Each ratio reflects the level of sacrifice and self-restraint a society is willing to accept, against promises of prosperity and freedom. Some values seem to stabilise a frame while others cause collapse. Get the ratios right and we can have it all. Get them wrong and things get more desperate.
1. Charitable bequest
decision-
making:
Practical lessons from
research findings
Russell James, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director of Graduate Certificate of Charitable
Financial Planning
Dept. of Personal Financial Planning
Texas Tech University
Presented to the Big 12 Gift Planning Group
June 6, 2012
2. Neuroimaging
Charitable Giving Theory
Psychology Tax Tips
Demographics
5. Findings published or under review in peer
reviewed academic journals in
economics, sociology, marketing, and
neuroscience
Dr. James is the 2nd most frequently published author all time in ISI-
ranked academic journal articles on the topic of “charitable giving”
James, R. N., III. (2009). The myth of the coming charitable estate
windfall. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(6), 661-
when weighting for co-authorship (3rd in total articles) as of 2012 674.
James, R. N., III & O’Boyle, M. W. (under review). Charitable estate James, R. N., III. (2009). Wills, trusts, and charitable estate planning: A
planning as visualized autobiography: An fMRI study of its neural panel study of document effectiveness. Financial Counseling &
correlates. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2000345 Planning, 20(1), 3-14.
Wiepking, P. & James, R. N., III (in press). Why are the oldest old less James, R. N., III. (2009). An econometric analysis of household political
generous? Explanations for the unexpected age-related drop in giving in the USA. Applied Economics Letters, 16(5), 539-543.
charitable giving. Ageing & Society. James, R. N., III., Lauderdale, M. K., & Robb, C. A. (2009). The growth
James, R. N., III, & Baker, C. (2012). Targeting wealthy donors: The of charitable estate planning among Americans nearing retirement.
dichotomous relationship of housing wealth with current and bequest Financial Services Review, 18(2), 141-156.
giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector James, R. N., III., & Wiepking, P. (2008). A comparative analysis of
Marketing, 17(1), 25-32. educational donors in the Netherlands. International Journal of
James, R. N., III, & Jones, K. S. (2011). Tithing and religious charitable Educational Advancement, 8(2), 71-79.
giving in America. Applied Economics, 43(19), 2441-2450. James, R. N., III. (2008). Charitable giving and the financial planner:
James, R. N., III. (2011). Cognitive skills in the charitable giving Theories, findings, and implications. Journal of Personal
decisions of the elderly. Educational Gerontology, 37(7), 559-573. Finance, 6(4), 98-117.
James, R. N., III. (2011). Charitable giving and cognitive ability. James, R. N., III. (2008). Distinctive characteristics of educational
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 8(1), 3-12.
Marketing, 16(1), 70-83. James, R. N., III., & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The nature and causes of the
James, R. N., III. (2010). Charitable estate planning and subsequent U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
wealth accumulation: Why percentage gifts may be worth more than Quarterly, 36(2), 218-238.
we thought. International Journal of Educational James, R. N., III., & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The “sect-effect” in charitable
Advancement, 10(1), 24-32. giving: Distinctive realities of exclusively-religious charitable givers. The
James, R. N., III. (2009). Health, wealth, and charitable estate planning: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(4), 697-726.
A longitudinal examination of testamentary charitable giving plans. James, R. N., III. (2006). Multi-family housing, social capital, and
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1026-1043. charitable behavior: Does spatial connectedness influence social
connectedness? Housing and Society, 33(2), 91-104.
6. Background
Ph.D., Consumer & Family Economics, U. of Missouri
Dissertation on religious charitable giving
J.D., U. of Missouri School of Law, cum laude
UMB award for most outstanding work in gift & estate taxation & planning
Director of Planned Giving, Central Christian College &
practicing estate planning attorney, 1994-2000
President, Central Christian College, 2000-2005
Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Missouri, 2005-2006
Assistant Professor, University of Georgia, 2006-2010
Associate Professor & Director of the Graduate Certificate in
Charitable Financial Planning, Texas Tech University, 2010-
7. Quoted in media outlets including The New York
Times, The Wall Street
Journal, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC News, U.S. News &
World Report, USA Today, The Associated
Press, Bloomberg News and the Chronicle of
Philanthropy.
The ultimate endorsement from The
Wall Street Journal’s SmartMoney
magazine…
8. “On a recent day in the basement of a
campus lab, Russell James is working
with a brain-scanning machine that
wouldn’t look out of place in a top-
notch hospital. James isn’t a mad
scientist…” -SmartMoney, February, 2012
=
9. Charitable bequests financial significance
• US charitable estate gifts
over $22 billion; exceeds
corporate giving of $15
billion (Giving USA, 2011).
• In prior 20 years, charitable
bequests more than
doubled in real dollars
(Giving USA, 2011)
• Future growth from
population aging and
increasing propensity due
to greater education and
childlessness (James, Lauderdale, &
Robb, 2009).
10. • 70% to 80% of Americans
engage in charitable giving
each year (Giving USA, 2011).
• About 5% of Americans have a
charitable estate plan
(James, 2009a).
11. Over-50
Donors with
Charitable
Plans, 9.4%
Over-50
Donors With
No Charitable
Plans, 90.6%
* Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
12. • Unlike current giving, it is
difficult to measure
experimental success in
bequest fundraising
• Ask-to-receipt may take 40+
years
• Identification of distinct
cognitive characteristics could
inform fundraising strategies
sensitive to these differences
14. Why use fMRI to study
bequest decision-making?
• Not all parts
of decision-
making are
known to the
decision
maker
• Activation
reflects the
type of
cognitive
processes
15. Previous fMRI studies in giving:
reward/salience
• Moll, et al. (2006) found
giving engaged mesolimbic
reward systems in the same
way as when subjects
received monetary rewards.
• Harbaugh, Mayr, and
Burghart (2007) found giving
elicited neural activity in
reward processing/salience
areas, e.g., ventral striatum.
16. Previous fMRI in charitable giving:
social cognition
• Izuma, Saito, and Sadato (2009) found greater ventral
striatum activation before a decision to donate when
observers were present v. absent
• Hare, et al.
(2010), found
giving value
calculation was
driven by input
from regions
involved in social
cognition
• Moll, et al. (2006)
found decision to
donate mediated
by activation in
areas which play
key roles in social
attachment and
24. Question
What brain regions
are differentially
activated by
bequest decisions
as compared with
giving and
volunteering
decisions?
25. Exploratory
expectations
• Increased activation in areas
involved in death-related
contemplation
• Unfortunately, very limited fMRI
research on what these areas are
26. Death-related words: precuneus
• Gündel, et al (2003) worked
with subjects who had lost a
first-degree relative in the
previous year. The only
region showing significant
activation (at p<.05, FWE) in
response to grief-related (v.
neutral) words was the
precuneus.
• Freed, et al. (2009) examined
subjects who had lost a pet
dog or cat within the
previous 3. Four of twelve
areas showing activity in
response to the deceased
reminder (v. neutral)
words, were in the
precuneus.
27. Methods
• Sixteen adult male subjects
• Prior to entering the
scanner, subjects reviewed
terms along with the names and
a one sentence description of
each charitable organization.
• Subjects had two right and two
left response buttons for each
hand, for a total of four
response options.
28. Comparison Questions
1. “If asked in the next 3 months, what is the likelihood
you might GIVE money to ______”
2. “If asked in the next 3 months, what is the likelihood
you might VOLUNTEER time to ____”
3. “If you signed a will in the next 3 months, what is
the likelihood you might leave a BEQUEST gift to
_____”
96 questions: 28 x 3 large charitable organizations and
4 x 3 family member recipient categories.
16 second pairs (2B, 2G, 2V or 2G, 2B, 2V)
30. Behavioral Responses
(3)
Some (4)
(1) (2) what Highly Missi
Category None Unlikely Likely Likely ng Avg.
Bequest 30.7% 38.9% 16.6% 11.3% 2.5% 2.09
Give 30.5% 28.3% 26.8% 12.7% 1.8% 2.22
Volunteer 24.4% 29.1% 25.8% 19.9% 0.8% 2.42
31. What areas are
more engaged
during bequest
questions than
during giving/
volunteering
questions?
A flight through
the brain:
http://youtu.be
/NKKKE_7aFqM
35. Activating with Increasing and Decreasing
Charitable Bequest Agreement
(Linear Parametric Modulation reporting only p<.05 FWE corrected)
peak-level cluster-level
p p
MNI Co- (FWE- Z- (FWE- cluster
Contrast Title ordinates corr) score corr) size
(1) Increasing Lingual 10, -68, -4 0.004 5.46 0.000 671
with agreement Gyrus
Postcentral -40, -22, 52 0.007 5.37 0.000 1200
Gyrus
(2) Increasing Precentral 38, -20, 62 0.000 6.20 0.000 1387
with Gyrus
disagreement
Insula 42, -20, 18 0.171 4.61 0.013 196
36. Core areas more
engaged for bequest
contemplation
• Precuneus
• Lingual gyrus
– Also increased activation was
significantly associated with
increased projected
likelihood of making a
charitable bequest
37. Visualized Autobiography
Precuneus and
lingual gyrus
activation occurred
when subjects were
able to vividly relive
events in an photo,
but not where scenes
were only vaguely
familiar.
(Gilboa, et al., 2004)
38. Visualized “retrieving detailed vivid
autobiographical
Autobiography experiences, as opposed to
personal semantic
information, is a crucial
mediating feature that
determines the
involvement of
hippocampus and two
posterior neocortical
regions, precuneus and
lingual gyrus, in remote
autobiographical
memory.”
(Gilboa, et al., 2004, p. 1221)
39. Visualized Autobiography
• In Viard, et al. (2007), four of
six regions showing significant
activation when reliving events
by mentally “traveling back in
time”, were in the precuneus
and lingual gyrus.
• In Denkova (2006), three of the
four most statistically
significant regions associated
with recalling autobiographical
personal events were in the
lingual gyrus and precuneus.
40. Visualized autobiography = visualization +
3rd person perspective on self
• The lingual gyrus is part of the visual system. Damage
can result in losing the ability to dream (Bischof & Bassetti,
2004).
• The precuneus has been called “the mind’s eye” (Fletcher,
et al., 1995), is implicated in visual imagery of memories
(Fletcher, et al., 2005) and in taking a 3rd person perspective on
one’s self.
41. Precuneus: Taking a 3rd person
perspective on one’s self
• Differentially involved in
observing one’s self from an
outside perspective (Vogeley &
Fink, 2003)
• Greater activation when
subjects described their own
physical and personality traits
as compared to describing
another’s (Kjaer, et al.,2002)
• Activation greatest when
referencing one’s self, lowest
when referencing a neutral
reference person (Lou, et al.; 2004)
• TMS disrupting normal neural circuitry
in precuneus slowed ability to recall
judgments about one’s self more than the ability to recall
judgments about others (Lou, et al., 2004)
42. Autobiography: The self across time
Inter alia, the In Meulenbroek, et al.
“precuneus may respond (2010), the precuneus
more strongly to familiar was the most
events involving the statistically significant
self and possibly region of
when the self activation for
is projected autobiographical
across time.” memory tasks v.
(Rabin, et al., 2009) semantic true-
false questions
43. Lingual Gyrus:
Autobiographical
Visualization
“activation of the visual
cortex (in the lingual gyrus)
might also be related to
autobiographical memory
retrieval and in particular
to visual imagery
components, which play a
key role in autobiographical
memory (Greenberg &
Rubin, 2003)” (D’Argembau, et al.
2007, p. 941).
44. Simultaneous cuneus deactivation:
1st v. 3rd person perspective?
• Jackson, Meltzoff, and Decety (2006)
found both lingual gyrus association
with third person perspective and
cuneus association with first person
perspective.
• Similarly, Wurm, et al. (2011), found
greater activation in the lingual gyrus
for third-person perspective and
simultaneously greater activation in
the cuneus for first-person
perspective.
• Others have also associated cuneus
activity with first-person perspective-
taking as contrasted with third-
person perspective-taking (David, et
al., 2006; Lorey, et al., 2009).
46. Visual autobiography in practice
Routley (2011) identified
the importance of
autobiographical
connection when
interviewing donors with
planned bequests, writing,
“Indeed, when discussing
which charities they had
chosen to remember, there
was a clear link with the life
narratives of many
respondents”
47. Visual autobiography in practice
“‘[In my will] there’s the Youth Hostel Association, first of
all...it’s where my wife and I met....Then there’s the
Ramblers’ Association. We’ve walked a lot with the local
group...Then Help the Aged, I’ve got to help the aged, I am
one...The there’s RNID because I’m hard of hearing...Then
finally, the Cancer Research. My father died of cancer and so
I have supported them ever since he died.’
Male, 89, married
‘The reason I selected Help the Aged...it was after my mother
died...And I just thought – she’d been in a care home for
probably three or four years. And I just wanted to help the
elderly....I’d also support things like Cancer
Research...because people I’ve known have died...An animal
charity as well...I had a couple of cats.’
Female, 63, widowed” (Routley, 2011, p. 220-221)
48. Visual autobiography in practice
Fundraisers may consider emphasizing the
autobiographical connections between the
donor and the charity,
rather than
focusing on the
charity’s need
for funds
50. Death salience
• Bequest decision making
processes differentially
activated areas similar to those
involved in using death-
oriented words to evoke
memories of a recently
deceased loved one (Gündel, et
You
al., 2003; Freed, et al., 2009).
• This association is consistent
with the rather obvious idea
that bequest decisions involve
reminders of mortality.
51. Terror-management
theory Suggests two levels of “defenses”
to mortality salience (Pyszczynski, et al.,
1999).
Proximal defenses: avoid death
reminders (Hirschberger, 2010), e.g.,
deny one’s vulnerability, distract
oneself, avoiding self-reflective
thoughts (Pyszczynski, et al., 1999).
Distal defenses: attempt to
achieve literal (i.e., religious) or
symbolic death transcendence
through support of one’s
worldview or self-esteem
(Hirschberger, 2010, p. 205). Some part of
one’s self – one’s family,
achievements, community – will
continue to exist after death.
52. Proximal • the most common initial reaction
will be to avoid or postpone the
defenses in topic
practice – Even among older adults, most
have no will or trust (James, Lauderdale,
& Robb, 2009)
– For fundraisers, the enemy of the
planned gift often isn’t “no”; the
enemy is “later”
• create deadlines, make
appointments, or promote time-
limited campaigns
– Rosen (2011) pointed to the
example of a challenge gift where a
donor agreed to match 10% of
bequests, up to $10,000 per donor,
signed prior to a deadline
53. U.S. Over 50 Population
Charitable
Plans, 5.7%
Plans Without
No Planning Charity, 38.2%
Documents, 56
.10%
* Weighted nationally
representative 2006 sample
54. Distal defenses in practice
• Symbolic immortality requires
something, identified with the
decedent, which will live beyond
them, typically descendants.
Hence, childlessness is most significant
predictor of charitable bequest
(James, 2009a).
• Large share of charitable bequest dollars
go to permanent private
foundations, typically bearing the
deceased’s name (James, 2009b).
• Donors may be particularly interested in
lasting gifts (endowments, named
buildings, scholarship funds, etc.) to
stable organizations.
56. Previous studies
One time survey After death
• Non-response bias if the whole survey
was about charitable giving distributions
• Only for taxable estates
• Rare single county probate studies
57. Current study
Longitudinal Distributions
Same people asked every two years After death nearest relatives are
asked about final distributions
58. New Questions
Changes Intentions v.
Not just who has charitable plans but
when do they add and drop them Outcomes
Did during life plans result in after
death distributions
59. Details
• Nationally representative of • Started in 1992
over 50 population since 1998. • Questions within
• Over 20,000 people per survey. larger Health &
• In person interviews, some Retirement Study
follow up by phone. • Respondents paid
60. What share of people
over 50 in the U.S. have
“made provisions for
any charities in [their]
will or trust?”
61. U.S. Over 50 Population
Charitable
Plans, 5.7
No %
Charitable
Plans, 94.3
%
* Weighted nationally
representative 2006 sample
62. U.S. Over 50 Population
Charitable
Plans, 5.7%
Plans Without
No Planning Charity, 38.2%
Documents, 56
.10%
* Weighted nationally
representative 2006 sample
63. What share of over-50 charitable donors
giving over $500 per year indicate that they
have a charitable estate plan?
64. Over-50
Donors with
Charitable
Plans, 9.4%
Over-50
Donors With
No Charitable
Plans, 90.6%
* Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
65. 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?
66. 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.
67. You mean 90% of our You mean we could generate
donors will die without 9 times more estate gifts from
leaving a gift? our current donors?
68. 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?
69. Among Donors ($500+) with an Estate Plan
% indicating a
charitable estate
Family Status plan
No Offspring 50.0%
Children Only 17.1%
Grandchildren 9.8%
70. 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.
71. 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
72. Find your estate donor…
A B
makes substantial doesn’t give to
charitable charity, doesn’t
gifts, volunteers volunteer,
regularly, and has and has no children
73. 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”
74. How did giving during life compare
with post death transfers?
$ $ $ $
75. Estate giving and annual giving for
6,342 deceased panel members
Average
Last Annual Annual Average Estate Gift
Offspring Volunteer Hours Giving Estate Giving 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
78. 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
80. 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)
81. Do the estates of people
who make charitable
estate plans grow
differently than the
general population?
82. After making their plan, charitable estate donors grew
their estates 50%-100% faster than did others with
same initial wealth
85. 25,000,000
Total Resident Population by 5-Year Age Groups [(NP-T3-B) U.S. Census]
Dramatic increases on
20,000,000 the horizon 2001
Temporary drop in
key demographic 2002
population 2003
15,000,000 2004
2005
2006
10,000,000 2007
2008
2009
5,000,000 2010
2011
2012
0
50 to 55 to 60 to 65 to 70 to 75 to 80 to 85 to 90 to 95 to 100+
54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
86. Drop in this key demographic combined with
health care improvements
Deaths in the U.S. (Red is Actual; Black is Trendline)
2550000
2450000
2350000
2250000
2150000
2050000
1950000
1850000
1750000
1990
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
87. Projecting future
bequest giving
Frequency of future
bequest gifts
• Change in population
• Change in tendency to
make bequest gifts
89. Increases in charitable planning are driven by
increases in childlessness and education
Time trend
disappears
Time trend when including
exists childlessness
and education
Estimate Estimate Estimate
Variable (s.e.) p-value (s.e.) p-value (s.e.) p-value
Year 0.0138 <.0001 0.0033 0.3298 0.0015 0.664
(0.0032) (0.0034) (0.0036)
Any children -0.6251 <.0001 -0.6224 <.0001
(0.0345) (0.0479)
Years of 0.1412 <.0001 …. ….
Education (0.0048) full set of
control variables
Probit analysis of all respondents age 55-65 in 1996-2006 HRS. Outcome variable is the
presence of charitable estate planning.
90. Charitable estate planning among adults aged 55-65
40%
35%
30% No Children - No
College Degree
25%
No Children -
College Degree
20%
Children - No
College Degree
15%
Children - College
Degree
10%
5%
0%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
91. Basic relationship
• The trend of increased charitable estate
planning is driven by changes in childlessness
and education.
• This allows us to predict charitable estate
planning levels in the future.
92. 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 HRS data).
• 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).
93. 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.
94. 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
96. New Ideas for legacy promotion
from a theoretical framework
Applying “The Generosity Code”
97. 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.
98. 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.
100. What does a fundraiser do?
A fundraiser …
Encourages Generosity
101. Encouraging generosity
• An issue of fundamental human significance
• An independently valuable mission separate
from (although complementary to) your
organization’s mission
103. Potential Value Quality of Gift
of Gift Request (Energy
(Potential Energy) (Catalyst) Released)
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
104. Interdependent Utility
(Recipient’s experience)
• I am happy because you were
benefitted
• Empathyi X Change in well-beingi
Act of
Receiving Interdependent
Utility
(Recipient’s experience)
Act of Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
105. 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 Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
106. 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 Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
107. 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 Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
108. 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 Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
109. 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 Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
110. 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 Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
Giving (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
Others’ (Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
Responses to Donor) Donor) Others)
111. Theoretical background
We can rearrange by their value
type including both material and
psychological value sources
Psychological Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
benefits to donor (Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Material benefits to Interdependent Cultural Norms
similar others Utility
(Recipient’s experience)
(Response of Others to
Others)
Material benefits Reciprocity Social Exchange
to donor (Response of Recipient
to Donor)
(Response of Others to
Donor)
113. Potential Value Quality of Gift
of Gift Request (Energy
(Potential Energy) (Catalyst) Released)
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
115. Quality of a request: Definitiveness
General General Indefinitely Requires a
issue support deferrable definite
awareness concept response “no”
No request General 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”
116. Quality of a request: Definitiveness
General General Indefinitely Requires a
issue support deferrable definite
awareness concept response “no”
No request General request Specific request
“100,000 children have died in West
Africa’s current food crisis.”
117. Quality of a request: Definitiveness
General General Indefinitely Requires a
issue support deferrable definite
awareness concept response “no”
No request General 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.”
118. Quality of a request: Definitiveness
General General Indefinitely Requires a
issue support deferrable definite
awareness concept response “no”
No request General request Specific request
“Please give $50 to Oxfam to support
relief efforts for children caught in
West Africa’s current food crisis.”
119. Quality of a request: Definitiveness
General General Indefinitely Requires a
issue support deferrable definite
awareness concept response “no”
No request General 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.”
120. 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:
1. Perceived likelihood
of observance
2. Observer’s social
significance and
level of commitment
to beneficiaries
121. 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.
122. 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
123. Normal Eyes Screen
Screen
Not
Sharing
12%
Not
Sharing
45%
Sharing
55%
Sharing
88%
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
124. Applications to legacy giving
Potential Value of Gift Quality of Gift (Energy
(Potential Energy) Request (Catalyst) Released)
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
125. 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
126. Over-50
Donors with
Charitable
Plans, 9.4%
Over-50
Donors With
No Charitable
Plans, 90.6%
* Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample
127. So, why is legacy giving so low?
What is missing?
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
128. People may not consider charity during
document creation (practice of advisors and
mistiming of communications from charity).
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
129. Will drafting and legacy planning is easy to
postpone (avoid facing mortality).
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
130. Will drafting is not public, and not an
acceptable forum for peer observation.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
131. Most legacy giving benefits can only be
anticipated, not actually experienced.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
132. Reciprocity or social exchange is limited.
Prior to the gift, the intention is revocable.
After the gift, the donor is gone.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
133. Charitable bequests may be viewed as
competitive with transfers to offspring
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
135. Spend more efforts with those donors who
do not have offspring (and thus lower
competing interdependent utility).
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
136. Promote self-identify of the planned legacy
donor as a current identity of social worth.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
137. [Legacy club] members have
Identify an important a love for animals that lasts
value. more than a lifetime.
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.
138. Death creates a natural self-efficacy void.
Emphasize giving opportunities with
permanence.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
139. 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.
140. 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.
141. Develop small permanent giving
opportunities exclusively for legacy gifts.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
142. Emphasize data on how quickly inheritances
are spent by family members as compared to
longevity of a “permanent gift”
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
143. Legacy societies to publicly recognize
planned donors and create functioning donor
communities through social events.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
144. Always reminding so that the option is “top
of the mind” whenever planning happens to
occur.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
145. Creating planned giving campaign deadlines
to interfere with ease of postponement.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
146. A small organization’s two-year campaign
to reach 100 planned legacies
http://www.fcs.uga.edu/alumni/legacies.html
147. Encourage will making in donor population.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
148. Provide free planning services to donors with
high potential.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
149. Create immediate commitment pledge
devices with follow up verification.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
150. Targeting advisors to include charitable
questions in their document creation process
through information and recognition.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
151. 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?
152. Magdalen Hospital
List of Contributors, 1760
From: 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
153. 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.
154. Consider legacy arrangements that involve
children in charitable decisions.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
155. Public
notice of
founding
of the
Bible
Society
(1804)
and listing
of donors
The Morning Post
(London, England), Monda
y, March 19, 1804; pg. [1];
Issue 11061. 19th Century
British Library
Newspapers: Part II.
157. The framework doesn’t provide automatic
answers, but may help generate ideas about
value creation and realization in your context.
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
158. Potential Value Quality of Gift
of Gift Request (Energy
(Potential Energy) (Catalyst) Released)
x =
Interdependent 1. Definitiveness
Utility 2. Observers
(Recipient’s experience)
Self-Identity Self-Efficacy
(Donor as giver) (Donor as change
agent)
Reciprocity Social Exchange Cultural Norms
(Response of Recipient (Response of Others to (Response of Others to
to Donor) Donor) Others)
160. 2012 special tax
considerations
• IRA qualified charitable
distributions (QCDs) – not
available
• Roth IRA conversions
• Low interest rates resulting
in high valuations of future
gifts
161. Roth
Conversion
$1MM in standard $1MM in Roth
IRA (withdraws IRA (withdraws
are taxable) are tax free)
162. Roth
Conversion
$1MM in standard $1MM in Roth
IRA (withdraws IRA (withdraws
are taxable) are tax free)
163. Roth conversions and charitable planning
can work together to match
Income Deductions
164. Roth
Conversion
$1MM in standard $1MM in Roth
IRA (withdraws IRA (withdraws
are taxable) are tax free)
166. Where can I find offsetting deductions?
• Direct charitable gift
• Charitable remainder trust
• Charitable lead trust
(grantor)
• Charitable gift annuity
• Donor advised fund
• Private foundation
Or give a remainder interest
in a residence or farmland to
a charity
167. Charitable deductions may
be limited (with five year
carryover) to 20%, 30%, or
50% of income depending
on gift and recipient
168. If I have unused
deductions, how can I
pull future income into
current year?
169. If I have unused
deductions, how can I
pull future income into
current year?
With a Roth conversion
170. Roth
Conversion
$1MM in standard $1MM in Roth
IRA (withdraws IRA (withdraws
are taxable) are tax free)
171. Roth conversions and charitable planning
can work together to match
Income Deductions
180. 12.5%
25%
Can I give a remainder interest
of an undivided share in
farmland?
181. 12.5%
25%
Yes, donor may deduct a
remainder interest shared by
charity and others as tenants in
common (Rev. Rule 87-37)
182. 12.5%
25%
However, IRS may deduct cost
of partitioning (of forcing a sale
or division)
183. • No deduction for
mineral rights remainder just in
mineral rights because it
is not a “farm” Reg. 1.170A-7(b)(4)
• Can gift remainder in
entire “fee simple” farm
(even if land and mineral
rights go to separate
charities)
PLR 8316037
• Can gift remainder in
farm without mineral
rights if you don’t
owned them
184. How do you calculate the deduction for a
remainder interest in farmland?
1. Find the 7520 interest rate
(http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=112482,00.html)
2. Multiply value of land by
remainder percentage in IRS
Pub. 1457 (one or two lives
or specific term)
(http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=206601,00.html)
185. Ex: A remainder interest in $100,000 of farmland
given by a 59 year old donor 5/12
1. Find the 7520 interest rate 1.4%
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=112482,00.html
186. Ex: A remainder interest in $100,000 of farmland
given by a 59 year old donor 5/12
1. Find the 7520 interest rate 1.4%
(http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=112482,00.html)
2. Multiply value of land by
remainder percentage in IRS $100,000
Pub. 1457 (one or two lives X 0.74033
or specific term) = $74,033
(http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=206601,00.html)
Table S - Based on Life Table 2000CM
Interest at 1.4 Percent
Age Annuity Life Estate Remainder
55 20.8206 0.29149 0.70851
56 20.2495 0.28349 0.71651
57 19.6800 0.27552 0.72448
58 19.1129 0.26758 0.73242
59 18.5479 0.25967 0.74033
187. Leaving land to charity Leaving land to charity
by will by remainder interest
• Revocable • Irrevocable
• $0 income tax deduction • $74,033 immediate income
tax deduction
• Impacts charity after death • Impacts charity after death
or immediately if charity
sells remainder interest
188. Because farmland can be gifted
in parts, a donor could annually
give remainder interests up to
income limits or desired
marginal tax rate
• Allows for increasing
valuation each year
• Avoids risk of losing carryover
deduction at death
• Could use value of annual deductions to pay for
ILIT life insurance passing tax free to heirs
189. Donor can use
money from
remainder tax
deduction to buy
tax free life
insurance (ILIT)
for children’s
inheritance
190. Age 59 wealthy donor with $100,000 farmland on 5/12
remainder interest in will divides farmland 10%
farmland given to charity to charity 90% to children
$74,033 tax deduction x 35%
combined tax rate = $25,911
$25,911 buys est. $70,000
paid up ILIT life insurance
farmland worth $125,000 at death
charity children children charity
receives receive receive receives
$125,000 $70,000 $50,625 $12,500
farmland (tax free from (90% x 125,000 = (10% x $125,000)
ILIT) 112,500, less 55% for
post ‘12 estate taxes)
191. Gifts of remainder interests in personal
residences can also be deducted
192. Includes second
homes, vacation homes, even
a boat with
bathroom, cooking, and
sleeping facilities, if used by
the donor as a residence
193. Deduction for a house is reduced because,
unlike land, it is depreciable (it wears out)
Rules in IRS Pub. 1459 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1459.pdf
194. 59 year old donor giving on 9/6/10
Remainder interest in Remainder interest in
$100,000 farm $100,000 home
.68233 x $20,000 (land)
.68233 x $10,000 (salvage)
.68233 x $100,000 .41412 x $70,000
*
$68,233 Deduction $49,458 Deduction
*.68233 less .26821
depreciation
reduction
calculated
on next
slide
195. Depreciation reduction factor
R factor age now – R factor age after useful life of house
D factor age now X Useful life of house
Appraiser can estimate.
IRS examples use 45 years.
Table C(2.4)
Factors for Reducing Assurances - Based on Table 2000CM
Interest at 2.4 Percent
Age Remainder R-Factors D-Factors Age Remainder R-Factors D-Factors
Rx-0.5Mx Dx Rx-0.5Mx Dx
x Factors x Factors
0 .17830 1202916 100000.0 55 .56322 317860.0 24748.54
1 .17677 1185429 96977.54 56 .57383 304002.2 24008.45
2 .18060 1168311 94656.94 57 .58449 290311.8 23274.97
3 .18466 1151231 92407.69 58 .59517 276800.1 22547.02
4 .18888 1134179 90219.15 59 .60589 263478.6 21825.10
… … …… … … … … … … …… … … …
48 .49158 418809.2 30218.64 103 .95802 60.91156 35.63595
49 .50143 404011.4 29397.77 104 .96077 33.72948 21.05020
263478.6-60.91156
Table C at http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=206601,00.html 21825.1-45 =.26821
197. What if the donor
Give life
leaves?
estate to
charity
Agree with Give life
the charity to estate to
a joint sale charity in
and divide exchange for
proceeds a gift annuity
Rent Sell life
property estate
198. What if I make
improvements
to the
property after
giving a
remainder
interest?
199. You can deduct
the remainder
value of major
improvements as
additional gifts
PLR 9329017; PLR 8529014
200. EncourageGenerosity.com
• New Graduate Certificate in
Charitable Financial Planning
at Texas Tech University
12 graduate credit hours
No entrance exam
On-campus or on-line
• Free CFRE or CFP continuing
education hours online