1

Giving Circles and

Democratizing Philanthropy

Angela M. Eikenberry

School of Public Administration

University of Nebraska at Omaha

2

Social contributions of philanthropy

• Enables donors to use private funds to create social and political change,

• Locates and supports social innovations, • Meets the psychic and social needs of

donors, and • Affirms democratic pluralism as a civic value.

3

Philanthropy’s shortcomings

• Largely non-redistributive and inadequate,• Fragmented and short-term in focus,• Maintains elite control; wealthiest have larger

say in social policy, and• Creates “us vs. them” ethic among citizens.

4

Counter Democratization Trends

• Modernization of Philanthropy– Professionalization & subordination of volunteer– Rationalization & bureaucratization lead to reduced

opportunities for direct participation

• Marketization of Philanthropy– Emphasize individual over collective– De-politicize social change – Focus on symptoms rather than root causes

– Donors become consumers

5

Collaborative Giving

6

Questions

Do giving circles:

1.Provide opportunities for democratic participation?• More/diverse people

• Giving more, in more engaged way

• Meaningful participation

2. Expand who benefits from philanthropy?• Redistribute resources

• Address problems adequately

7

Giving Circles in the U.S.

1. Donors pool and give away resources

2. Donors decide where the resources are given

3. Independent from any particular charity, typically

4. Educate and engage members

5. Social/networking

8

Over 600 identified across the U.S. and in many other countries.

9

Small Group

Formal Organization

Loose Network

Types of Giving Circles in the U.S.

10

Questions

Do giving circles:

1.Provide opportunities for democratic participation?

• More/diverse people

• Giving more, in more engaged way

• Meaningful participation

2. Expand who benefits from philanthropy?• Redistribute resources

• Address problems adequately

11

Opportunities for democratic participation

Membership– Diverse professional backgrounds, including

nonprofit professionals– Experienced and “new” to philanthropy

– Diverse wealth-levels

– Diverse racial/ethnic/identity backgrounds• African American, Asian, Latino, etc.• 53% women-only circles• “Next generation” circles

– Homogenous within groups

12

Opportunities for democratic participation

Giving•Members give more

– especially if in more than one GC

Total Annual Giving

GC Members in Multiple GCs $13,400

GC Members in One GC $6,834

Control Group $4,945

13

Opportunities for democratic participation

Giving•Members give to more organizations

14

Opportunities for democratic participation

Giving•More strategic

I understand more of where my money’s going and what it’s doing for that organization.

15

Opportunities for democratic participation

Meaningful participation:•Opportunities for agenda setting, decision-making & face-to-face discourse.•Build capacities of members:

– Education about issues/philanthropy– Skills as philanthropists/grant makers– Leadership, administrative opportunities

– Empowerment (esp. for women, loose networks)

16

17

Questions

Do giving circles:

1.Provide opportunities for democratic participation?• More/diverse people

• Giving more, in more engaged way

• Meaningful participation

2. Expand who benefits from philanthropy?• Redistribute resources

• Address problems adequately

18

Expand who benefits

Funding Recipients:• Smaller, grassroots, local organizations • High-risk & entrepreneurial, well-run with strong

leadership, or mixed portfolio

• Individuals in need or doing good works

19

Expand who benefits

20

Addressing Needs

21

Conclusions

• Internal democracy vs. Democratic outcomes– Small groups

• Equal participation

– Loose networks• Empowering/non-bureaucratic and build personal

identification

– Formal organizations• Most systematic about identifying needs in the community,

educating members, finding funding opportunities, and enabling members to engage with funding recipients

22

Conclusions

• GCs:– Provide opportunities for democratic participation

• To some degree address:– Expanding who benefits from philanthropy

– Short-term & fragmented focus

– Elite decision-making– “Us vs. them” ethic

• Adequacy in addressing needs questionable

23

Questions?