understanding giving. sharing knowledge. cgap five-year review 2008-2013

CGAP Hub Cass Business School 106 Bunhill Row London EC1Y 8TZ

cgap.org.uk

Designed by Fab

rik ww

w.fabrikbrands.com

Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge.CGAP Five-year review2008-2013

02 | CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013

The ESRC Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) is a multi-disciplinary consortium of different universities, disciplines and the voluntary sector. Each focuses on a different aspect of its programme. CGAP’s work is disseminated through one central communications and engagement ‘Hub’.

About CGAP

CGAP was established in 2008 to develop knowledge and to engage with donors, charities and practitioners in exploring three key research themes:

• individual and corporate giving

• charity and social redistribution

• the institutions of giving.

The Centre has done this by:

• conducting and promoting high-quality research on giving and philanthropy

• fostering creative knowledge exchange between academic and practice communities

• developing and disseminating the evidence base to inform policy and practice

• building the field through training new researchers

• encouraging the development of sector research capacity

• working internationally and in a multi-disciplinary way.

Its five-year programme received around £2 million in core funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Office for Civil Society, Scottish Government and Carnegie UK Trust. Other project funding partners include the Pears, Baring, Nuffield and Paul Hamlyn Foundations and the Trust for London.

CGAP’s research programme is delivered by: Cass Business School (City University London), University of Edinburgh Business School, University of Kent, University of Southampton and University of Strathclyde Business School. Engagement and dissemination is co-ordinated by a central Hub, based at Cass Business School, and the NCVO (National Centre for Voluntary Organisations).

Contents

About CGAP 2

Chairs’ forewords 4

The shape of philanthropy today 6

Concern, commitment and morals 12

Social redistribution 16

Entrepreneurial approaches 22

Routes to change and impact 26

Challenging the boundaries of research, policy and practice 30

CGAP’s researchersand Advisory Group 34

CGAP publications 36

Structure and funding 38

Sources 39

About CGAP

CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013 | 39

Source 1: Cowley E, McKenzie T, Pharoah C and Smith S. (2011) The new state of donation: Three decades of household giving to charity 1978 – 2008. CGAP/ CMPO.

Source 2: Pharoah C and Harrow J. (2011) A legacy for the nation’s health. Journal of Communications in Health Care.

Source 3: Clifford D and Backus P. (2010) Are big charities becoming increasingly dominant? Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) working paper 38 and Backus P and Clifford D (2010). Trends in the concentration of income among charities, TSRC working paper 39. Also revised version: Backus P and Clifford D. (Due to be published 2013) Are big charities becoming more dominant? Cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A.

Source 4: Breeze B. (2012) How donors choose charities. Findings of a study of donor perceptions of the nature and distribution of charitable benefit. CGAP.

Source 5: Sanghera B. (2012) Charitable giving, everyday morality and a critique of Bourdieusian theory. Summary of working paper. CGAP.

Source 6: Breeze B. (April 2013) Corporate philanthropy on the shop floor: what drives employee fundraising?

Source 7: Mohan J. (2012). Charity and social redistribution: the question of ‘charity deserts’. Philanthropy and a better society. CGAP. McKenzie T and Backus P. (2011) The market for charity in England and Wales, CGAP Working Paper 1. Mohan J and Barnard S. (2013) Comparisons between the characteristics of charities in Scotland and those of England and Wales. CGAP Occasional paper. (Due to be published Summer 2013).

Source 8: Lindsey R. (2012) Exploring charitable resources in areas of affluence and areas of deprivation. Philanthropy and a better society. CGAP. Lindsey R. (2012) Exploring local ‘hotspots’ and ‘deserts’: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources. CGAP working paper (revised version published in Voluntary Sector Review 2013).

Source 9: Mohan J. (2012) The idea of a ‘charity desert’: methods for mapping the distribution of charitable resources within England, Wales and Scotland. Presented at the 2012 Association for Research on Nonprofits and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) conference, USA. Mohan J and Clifford D. (2012) The pattern and characteristics of neighbourhood-level charities in England. Presented at the 2012 ARNOVA conference, USA. Lindsey R and Mohan J (2013) Local charitable ecologies? Tracking flows of charitable resources into contrasting communities in South East England.

Source 10: Breeze B. (Due to be published, July 2013) Who gives, who gets. CGAP.

Source 11: Centre for the Study of Philanthropy, Humanitarianism and Social Justice, University of Kent website.

Source 12: Breeze B and Dean J.(2012) User views of fundraising. CGAP.

Source 13: Shaw E, Gordon J, Henderson K and Harvey C. (2010), Entrepreneurial Philanthropy: theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital. Presented to the Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Switzerland.

Source 14: Shaw E, Harvey C, Maclean M and Gordon J. (2011) Entrepreneurial philanthropists and social entrepreneurs: a new partnership model. Paper presented to the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Special Interest Group in Sustainable and Social Entrepreneurship, University of Leeds.

Source 15: Harvey C, Maclean M, Gordon J and Shaw E. (2011) Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy’. Business History.

Source 16: Shaw E, Gordon J, Harvey C and Maclean M. (2011) Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal.

Source 17: Maclean M, Harvey C and Gordon J. (2013) Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal.

Source 18: Gordon J. (2011) The value added approach of entrepreneurial philanthropy. Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship Conference. (Unpublished).

Source 19: Pharoah C, McKenzie T, Keidan C and Siederer N. (2012) Family foundation giving trends 2012. CGAP.

Source 20: Gannon M. (Ongoing research). Exploring the tensions between giving and succession in first generation philanthropic families.

Source 21: CGAP (2012) Philanthropy and a better society. CGAP.

Source 22: Harrow J, Jung T and Phillips S (2011) ‘Community Foundations’ responses to the changing socio-political landscape across the United Kingdom: letting go of the past and going for the future?’ European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP) conference, Austria.


Source 24: ESRC (2011) Reviewing Gift Aid and Charitable Giving. ESRC Impact case study.

Source 25: Wellcome Trust (2011) Response by the Wellcome Trust to the Giving Green Paper.

Source 26: Pharoah C and Harrow J. (2010) Payout with an English Accent: Exploring the case for a foundation ‘distribution quota” in the UK. CGAP.

Sources 27, 28 and 29: CGAP website. News.

Sources

Sources

The Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) gratefully acknowledges the funding support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Cabinet Office, the Scottish Government and Carnegie UK Trust for the research programme on which this review is based.

ESRC grant numbers: RES-593-25-0006; RES-593-25-0008; RES-593-25-0003; RES-593-25-0004.


Universities and institutions

Bringing research and practice together. As the first academic Centre dedicated to knowledge-sharing in the field of giving and philanthropy research, CGAP has a number of key features designed to promote joint working between research and practice.

• equal co-funding from Government and the Economic and Social Research Council, with further funding from the voluntary sector

• main research themes selected by a consultation group drawn from policy, practice and research communities

• selected through a tendering process to carry out work under these themes, open to academic and non-academic partners and peer-reviewed by academic and practice representatives

• an Advisory Group, with membership from Government, the ESRC, universities, charitable funders and practitioners

• just over one-quarter of its budget dedicated to knowledge exchange, engagement and dissemination.

This report provides an overview of the work produced by the CGAP consortium over the last five years and underlines its considerable contribution to giving and philanthropy theory, practice and policy.

If you would like to find out more about the research highlighted in this report please visit www.cgap.org.uk

Key features

Funders

Key features


Chairs’ forewords

Why people choose to give and the consequences of giving. When I look back to the founding of CGAP in 2008, I can still remember the strong feeling some of us had that more systematic attention should be paid to the charitable impulse. Why and how do people choose to give and what are the consequences of giving?

It didn’t just pose a challenging question for academics, there were even more sound practical reasons for such research. At the start of what has become an even longer recession than any of us anticipated, it was already clear that a better understanding of charitable giving and philanthropy would be of vital importance for the future of our society.

The change in Government in 2010 brought further and drastic cuts in public expenditure. There were also unrealistic expectations in some quarters about citizen donations and the capacity of charitable trusts and foundations to fill funding gaps. It is particularly important that the pattern of such private giving should be properly understood.

There has also been a pressing need to develop a better understanding of the complexities that lie behind the concept of philanthropy and the cultural variations that produce the different, and sometimes unpredictable, outcomes behind over-simplified public images.

CGAP, therefore, came into being at a particularly interesting and challenging time. It was also a time when the sector’s research community had been confronted with a rapidly expanding range of tasks – to do work by, and for, Government, pursue research within the sector itself and carry out academic and applied work outside. The need to develop and sustain the capacity to execute these tasks and develop new agendas is another important goal to which CGAP has contributed.

In conclusion, I believe that CGAP’s role has not just been to observe and analyse these processes, but also to act as a catalyst, linking the worlds of academia and practice. By doing so, it has helped us to identify the potential for further constructive action on philanthropy and charitable giving at a time of continuing dramatic change.

Professor Nicholas Deakin, CGAP Chair July 2008 to December 2009

Emeritus Professor Nicholas Deakin has a background in the civil service, local government and universities and has chaired national and local voluntary bodies. Currently Vice-Chair of the Baring Foundation, he chaired the landmark Independent Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector in England in 1995/6.

Foreword by Professor Nicholas Deakin


Chairs’ forewords

Exploring national evidence and the localism agenda. This review promises to be of considerable interest to academics, policymakers and practitioners, as well as donors and charities. Its pages showcase the wide range of research undertaken during CGAP’s five-year life and illustrate the importance and ground-breaking nature of much of its work.

The programme’s goals, which were identified at the outset, include: research into individual and corporate giving; analysing trends in charitable giving and social redistribution; the study of philanthropic institutions and the interrogation of national data on giving.

CGAP’s original research template sought to balance topicality and relevance with a commitment to contribute to the longer-term development of the academic field of philanthropic research.

Under CGAP’s umbrella, knowledge-sharing, dissemination and a cooperative approach have been common themes across each of the research projects. CGAP has been particularly successful in communicating its findings, not only to the international academic community, but also to the national media and through its contributions to Government consultations.

Its research has also prioritised establishing a firmer national evidence base on giving and many fresh insights have been drawn from the Living Costs and Food Survey conducted by the Office of National Statistics.

Moreover, the localism agenda has been addressed by studies of the relationship between charities’ expenditure and local needs. Its focus on local concerns has also included research on community foundations and their potential as an agent and model for local philanthropy.

Meanwhile, its work on individual and corporate giving research reflects a topical international interest in the emergence and growth of entrepreneurial philanthropy.

For example, the team identifies challenges and opportunities for new generations of donors by reflecting on the intellectual legacy of Scottish philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, author of The Gospel of Wealth, which has been described as “arguably the most influential statement on philanthropy of all time”.

Similarly, CGAP’s research on the socially redistributive effects of charitable giving illuminates contemporary national concerns about the impact of charitable giving at a time of recession and rapidly increasing hardship.

Professor Arthur Williamson, CGAP Chair since December 2009

Emeritus Professor Arthur Williamson is based at the Centre for Voluntary Action Studies at the University of Ulster, which he established as Founding Director in 1995. He is known internationally for his contributions to research, teaching and applied work in the field of voluntary action and peace processes.

Foreword by Professor Arthur Williamson

06 | CGAP five year review

The shape of philanthropy today. Long-term trends show remarkable stability in who gives, how we give and when.

The UK is said to be a nation of givers. Most areas of society benefit from public donations of time or money, including disadvantaged or marginalised communities, through to schools, universities, hospitals and national arts institutions.

But dramatic transformations in the way we live – including household structure, new ways of working, managing money through smart cards and shopping online – have also changed the ways we give.

Meanwhile recent governments have created high expectations of the role that charitable gifts and philanthropy can play in our social well-being.

The shape of philanthropy today


Who is involved in philanthropy?

“The philanthropy landscape is a complicated milieu of different individuals, organizations and institutions” says Professor Eleanor Shaw from University of Strathclyde Business School.

“On the demand side these include charities, social enterprises, volunteers and community groups, while the supply side comprises a complex mix of individuals, organizations and foundations including charitable foundations, family firm foundations, high-net-worth individuals and giving circles. In the middle, there are organizations that support and encourage charitable giving and philanthropy, like CGAP, wealth advisors, community foundations private banks and government.”

Giving stable but donor population has changed.

Total giving in the UK has remained stable over the last three decades, but the shape of the donor population has been changing, according to analysis by CGAP researchers from Cass Business School and the University of Bristol.

In 1978, just under a third of households donated to charity (32%), falling to 25% in 1999 because of a gradual decline in the population of younger households who gave. Older and wealthier households have given more over time, but there is evidence that donations from younger age-groups rose between 2000-2008, resulting in a higher average (28%).

Other key findings of the research included:

• Household donations have increased in real terms over the last three decades, but average donations as a share of total spending (0.4%) were the same in 2008 as in 1988.

• Average weekly household donations have more than doubled over the last three decades. Expressed in 2010 values, these have risen from 98 pence in 1978 to £2.34 in 2008.

• Giving was largely recession proof up to 2008, but may have been affected by the depth of the current recession.

• Charitable giving increasingly depends on elderly donors, who accounted for 35% of donations in 2008, compared with 25% in 1978.

• Donations from the richest 10% of households accounted for 22% in 2003-2008 compared with 16% in 1978-1982. The top 50% of households gave 92% of the money donated.

• The poorest 10% of households donate more as a percentage of their total spending than the richest 10% (3.6% versus 1.1%).

• There was a marked rise in donations at the time of the Asian Tsunami disaster, but donations soon returned to previous levels.

Source 1

The Government has introduced measures to promote giving, such as tax incentives, public celebration of gifts, matched giving schemes and new techniques for giving that fit easily into the grain of our everyday activities. So it is increasingly important to understand giving trends today and whether behaviours, attitudes and values are changing.

While the Government’s Big Society agenda aims to empower communities and foster local social action, do economic pressures make us more or less altruistic towards others? Do the benefits of charity reach those most in need and has global capitalism generated greater private generosity as well as greater private wealth?

These are issues that CGAP has been keen to explore.

Our findings indicate that giving has flatlined in the UK over the last three decades to provide a stable, but not growing, picture and that average donations have only moved in line with overall household spending.

“The Government’s vision of more giving is ambitious and looks to be at odds with a time of tight resources, spending cuts and continued downturn in the economy” says Tom McKenzie, from Cass Business School. “Somewhat paradoxically, inequality in society could rise further, and the proportion of people donating money to charity may decline more, before the big money rolls in.”

“At a time of diminishing public funding, major philanthropic endeavours must form an important part of the coalition Government’s attempt to realize the far-reaching vision of the Big Society” adds Professor Mairi Maclean, University of Exeter Business School. “This will complement the localism agenda and enrich lives through effective giving.”


Briefing notes highlight UK donor patterns.

A series of briefing notes has been produced by CGAP to identify donation patterns, including historical patterns, household income, age and seasonal and regional trends.

They were researched and written by CGAP Co-Director Professor Cathy Pharoah and Research Fellow Tom McKenzie, both from Cass Business School.

Donor numbers rise at Christmas

Charitable giving by UK households at Christmas (Briefing note 2, December 2009) analysed the national Expenditure and Food Survey (now Living Costs and Food Survey), based on diaries completed by more than 46,000 people between 2001 and 2007.

This showed that average charitable donations rise in December, due to a 5% increase in the number of donors, not larger donations. However, charitable donations do not rise as much as other forms of giving or as spending on alcohol.

“We increase our spending to ‘eat, drink and be merry’ at Christmas much more than to support good causes” says the report. “So there may be potential for charities to encourage people to switch a little more of their spending towards donations and give a pint of beer (or rather its sterling equivalent) to charity during the festive period.”

Analysis shows considerable seasonal variations

Seasonal patterns in household giving in the UK (Briefing note 3, February 2010) expanded on the seasonal variation noted in the previous research.

Using the same data, it found that average weekly donations follow a slightly U-shaped trend across the year, varying considerably by quarter. Lowest levels were recorded in the summer, 11% lower than the autumn and winter. Higher amounts were observed in the earlier part of the year, possibly due to gifts from wealthier households as the end of the tax year approached.

The analysis also found that low-income households were particularly generous towards the end of the year and Christmas.

“Less well-off people, a group that includes younger donors, appear extremely amenable to persuasion about giving at Christmas” says the report. “However, this may not be the best time for trying to persuade donors on high incomes to give, or to give more; early spring when thoughts turn to tax may be a more effective point for this group and their financial advisers.”

Considerable differences exist between countries and regions

UK household giving – new results on regional trends 2001-8 (Briefing note 6, July 2010) analysed data from more than 50,000 households pooled from eight years of the national Living Costs and Food Survey.

This revealed considerable variations between regions and countries in the UK, with highest donation rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland and southern and eastern England. While some of the variations can be explained by income levels, the researchers found other factors, such as a strong culture of giving in Northern Ireland. In some areas of London there were a lot of people who donated smaller amounts, while in others there were smaller numbers donating higher amounts.

“If giving is to be increased in the UK, it is important for both fundraisers and policy makers to develop a better understanding of local cultures and traditions of giving” says the report. “Strategy needs to be adapted to local capacity as well as willingness to give.”



Who gives to charity?

“Older people have become increasingly important to UK charities due to a steady rise in their willingness to give and the amount they donate and this is good news in an ageing population with a significant amount of wealth to pass on” says CGAP Co-Director Professor Cathy Pharoah from Cass Business School.

“The amount that households donate to charity has increased in real terms over time, but charitable giving has not assumed a greater priority and its share of household spending has stayed the same. The simple fact is that charitable giving remains a tiny part of our overall spending and many people could afford to give more than they do.”

Poorer households donate more of their income

How generous is the UK? Charitable giving in the context of household spending (Briefing note 7, April 2011) looked at data from 31 years of the national Living Costs and Food Survey.

This found that a household’s propensity to donate increases with its other spending and that households on lower budgets give more as a percentage of their spending than households on large budgets. The research also noted that charities are now relying on fewer, better-off households for their donations.

“When put in the context of their individual budgets, donor households towards the lower end of the expenditure distribution tend to give away more of their money to charity than donor households in the higher expenditure percentiles” says the report. “Poorer donor households are more generous than richer donor households.”



Legacy funding poses real challenges.

Legacy fundraising in health is under-developed but complex in the UK. However, there is evidence of growing sophistication, according to a CGAP paper published in the Journal of Communication in Healthcare in 2011.

Joint authors and CGAP Co-Directors Professor Cathy Pharoah and Professor Jenny Harrow, from Cass Business School, add that data collection is essential for understanding the growing role of legacy funding in UK health research and provision and vulnerable risk areas.

They also conclude that getting legacy fundraising communications right is vital to success, but fraught with challenges, particularly when it comes to charity funding in UK public health and external and internal competition for legacies.

“Rising costs of health care, growing needs arising from an ageing population and global health inequalities in a potentially tighter economic environment are likely to mean that health charities will increasingly look for the major support that charitable legacies can bring” say the authors.

“This paper has suggested that while legacy fundraising in the UK is still relatively under-developed, both in terms of its reach into donor markets as well as its professionalization as a sub-specialty of fundraising, growing communications

expertise is becoming available to more groups. Increasing sophistication has seen charities working together to change public attitudes, and has brought a growing recognition of the multi-faceted nature of the charitable legacy.”

However, the authors warn that there are “enormous sensitivities” when it comes to legacy fundraising for health.

“As the value of charitable health legacies increases, it becomes increasingly important to assess their place in health provision, and the possible effects, benefits and risks attached to their further growth or decline” they stress.

“In Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, the hero’s final enjoyment of his benefactor’s remaining money is thwarted when it is confiscated by the Crown. Notwithstanding the complexities of health charities within and outside the NHS, this is not (yet) happening. However health charities seeking legacies may increasingly need to address and clarify their relationships with the statutory health care system. This involves their complementary, supplementary, and direct service providing roles as part of the wider dialogue about the roles, purposes and values of legacy-making in UK society.”

Source 2

Are big charities becoming more dominant?

Bigger charities have grown more than smaller charities since the mid-1990s. However, the growth of the largest charities has not, as sometimes assumed, been at the expense of smaller organizations.

That is the main conclusion of two working papers by researchers from CGAP and the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) in June 2010 and the subject of a paper which will be published in the prestigious Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A in 2013.

Peter Backus of CGAP and Dr David Clifford of TSRC explored the growth of different-sized organizations registered with the Charities Commission between 1997 and 2008 to answer the question ‘Are big charities becoming increasingly dominant?’

Between 1998 and 2007 the inflation-adjusted aggregate income of the 41,733 general charities the researchers looked at rose from £13.3 billion to £19.6 billion, approaching a 50% increase. The aggregate income of the 8,940 charities in the broad social services category, which was the main focus of the research, rose by more than 50%, from £3.7 billion to £5.7 billion, in part driven by an increase in statutory funding.



The researchers explored the proposition that larger, bureaucratic organizations with paid staff would be better placed to grow in an era in which statutory income would increasingly be delivered through contracts rather than grants.

However, they found that the median growth rate among ‘middle performing’ charities increased as their initial size rose from around £15k to £500k. Meanwhile, the very largest charities showed similar median growth rates to intermediate established organizations with an initial income of, for example, £5,000. Their findings suggest that what was sometimes referred to as the Tesco-ization of the social services sub-sector – the dominance of a small number of large organizations – was not really happening in practice.

“Indeed, these intermediate organizations show a capacity for high relative growth, which exceeds that of the very largest charities” say the researchers.

Source 3



Concern, commitment and morals. Donors often have different perceptions of the act of giving, and the motivations behind it, than others such as government, the media and non-donors. CGAP research has been helping to identify the motives behind philanthropy.

While donors want to support worthy causes, their moral concerns are accompanied by a wish to enjoy the process of giving and a hope that life will be enriched by the experience of supporting a cause. This means that charitable acts are not always focused on social justice and needs.

But what are these moral concerns that encourage people to donate their money to charity or their time to volunteering? How do they choose which charities they donate to? And how can charities tap into the area of corporate philanthropy, which currently accounts for a tiny percentage of UK giving, by understanding what drives employee fundraising? Those are just some of the questions that CGAP researchers were keen to address.

Concern, commitment and morals


Donors reveal how they choose charities.

Policy-makers and fundraising practitioners need to develop a better understanding of what motivates people to donate to certain charities. The 2010 CGAP publication How donors choose charities is based on interviews with 60 committed donors of different ages, genders and income levels.

“There is a widespread belief that charities exist primarily to help needy people and that the desire to meet needs is a key criterion in the selection of charitable beneficiaries” says researcher Dr Beth Breeze, from the University of Kent.

“However, this study finds that people do not give to the most urgent needs, but rather they support causes that mean something to them. Donors often support organizations that promote their own preferences, that help people they feel some affinity with and that support causes that relate to their own life experiences.”

The study finds four non-needs-based criteria that commonly influence donors’ decision-making.

These are:

• Donors’ tastes, preferences and passions, acquired as a result of an individual’s social experiences. These motivate many giving decisions, even among donors who perceive themselves to be motivated by meeting needs.

• Personal and professional backgrounds, which shape donors’ ‘philanthropic autobiographies’ and influence their choice of beneficiaries.

• Their perceptions of how competent a charity is, notably the efficiency with which they are believed to use their money. This is often judged on the basis of the quality and quantity of direct mail.

• Donors’ desire to have a personal impact, so that their contribution makes a difference and is not ‘drowned out’ by other donors and government funding.

“Making choices between competing charitable causes and organizations is a complex matter” says Dr Breeze. “Some donors experience feelings of stress, anxiety, befuddlement and exasperation and there is widespread acknowledgement that choices are inevitably based on partial information, as the vast number of options makes it impossible to rationally assess them all.”

Source 4

“It cannot be assumed that individuals who participate in the Big Society initiatives will necessarily have similar concerns and commitments – rather, their participation will depend on their dominant moral concerns” says Dr Balihar Sanghera, from the University of Kent.

“For moral conventionalists, who are passive citizens, participation will be spatially and socially limited to local and family issues, such as school fetes, children’s clubs and neighbourhood schemes. Moral individualists’ engagement with the voluntary sector will be minimal: they will aim to use charities for instrumental reasons, such as career development and social recognition. And moral critics, who are deeply committed to social change and justice, will bring ideals, energy and dynamism to civil society, but they will also become disappointed with how charitable organizations operate.”

Dr Iain Wilkinson, University of Kent, also underlines the importance of understanding why people donate.

“Building a society of givers should begin with documenting and understanding the day-to-day contexts, life events and institutional processes in which giving is made a social norm and adopted as a socializing activity” he says. “This is to draw the focus of policy debate away from ‘magic bullet’ initiatives aimed at provoking disparate individuals into giving to society, and towards investigating the types of social arrangements in which individuals are made to be generously disposed to others.”



Five key implications for social theory.

What moral judgements drive people to donate their money to charity or their time to volunteering? That is the question explored by Dr Balihar Sanghera from the University of Kent, based on interviews with 41 people from different occupations and backgrounds.

Dr Sanghera identifies three positions on everyday morality and giving: moral conventionalists, moral individualists and moral critics. In exploring these he takes issue with Bourdieu’s view that giving is merely a means to an end, reinforcing the prestige, influence and economic power of the giver.

“My research suggests that Bourdieu’s view is wrong in several ways” says Dr Sanghera. “First, it ignores the complexity of the motives for charitable activity. Across all three categories, motives are seldom clear-cut, compassion mixing with self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. Second, where charitable activity is concerned, the rewards are as much about the satisfaction of being seen to perform a task well as about the social or material advantages that might accrue. Third, where giving and volunteering is largely a matter of calculated self-interest, those involved are open about this and make no pretence of disinterestedness.”

Dr Sanghera believes that his findings have five important implications for social theory:

1. Social theory needs to take into account how personal reflexivity and everyday morality affect social structures and practices. Social sciences tend to neglect the extent to which moral sentiments, judgements and responsibilities shape social practices.

2. Class and religious affiliation are not necessarily the dominant factors in ethical reasoning. Often, a mix of cultural and political values from different moral traditions dictates people’s views.

3. Contradictions between moral ideals and actual practices deserve more attention. For instance, individuals may passionately believe in redistributing wealth from rich to poor countries but then fail to make any donations or lobby governments for greater international aid.

4. Individuals participate in civil society in different and important ways depending upon their moral concerns and commitments. Social and political theory cannot assume that individuals want to actively engage with others in the public sphere.

5. There is an artificial and unhelpful distinction between sociology and moral philosophy. Often, sociology does not adequately address how ethics contributes to social practices, focusing instead on power relations, vested interests and social conventions, while, in moral philosophy ethics tends to be overly rationalistic, detached from everyday concerns and practical reasoning.

Source 5

What drives shop floor philanthropy?

Despite its long history in the UK, corporate philanthropy only accounts for a small fraction (3%) of total charitable income in the UK, amounting to around £750 million in 2010/11. Dr Beth Breeze from the University of Kent took to the shop floor to find out what drives employee fundraising.

Her findings are based on an observational study of the charitable behaviours and attitudes of lower-paid and lower-status staff in ten different workplaces. The observations took place in regular staff meetings where fundraising was discussed, special charity meetings and informal settings such as during coffee and lunch breaks.

Dr Breeze’s paper reports eight key findings:

• Corporate philanthropy remains primarily controlled from the top and is driven by a business case.

• Despite apparent devolution of decision-making, the company expects some alignment with company objectives.

• Staff involvement in selecting charitable beneficiaries can be rather tokenistic.



• Staff do not always take up the offer of participation.

• Decision-making by shop floor staff reflects personal experiences and preferences.

• The spread of more democratic procedures favours more established charities and ‘safer’ causes.

• Despite selecting serious causes, shop floor staff expect that the process of supporting charity will be fun and will enliven their working lives.

• As well as opportunities for light-hearted fun, employee fundraising also creates temporary opportunities to challenge corporate hierarchies.

“This paper reinforces the well-known point that philanthropy as a concern has to dovetail with personal concerns” says Dr Breeze. “This is true whether charitable decision-making occurs in the private sphere of home or in public spheres such as the workplace. Shop floor philanthropists are not wealthy, yet they also demonstrate similar concerns to rich donors in that they need more fulfillment than their daily life and work can offer, and they turn to philanthropy as one means for seeking that greater fulfillment.”

Source 6



Social redistribution. Charity is not only about helping the poor. Philanthropy is, and always has been, supply-led rather than demand- driven, as it gives people the freedom to donate how much they want and to whom they choose, unlike taxes.

Donors tend to draw on their own experiences and passions, which means that health, faith, arts and education attract higher giving than inequality arising from poverty and social exclusion. This needs gap has been a key focus for CGAP researchers.

Some prominent commentators have argued that charitable efforts do not always result in a good fit between the distribution of charitable resources and the pattern of social needs. For example John Stuart Mill stated in 1848 that “charity almost always does too much or too little; it lavishes its bounty in one place, and leaves people to starve in another”.

Disparities in the resources available between places raise some substantial questions about how well-equipped some communities are to cope with the challenges of a greater reliance on voluntary organizations and voluntarism.

The proportion of household income given to charity has varied very little over most of the twentieth century and it is important to be realistic about what charity can and can’t achieve.

“Policy-making around philanthropy and the Big Society appears to be based on a particular interpretation of philanthropy as an uncomplicated and inherently positive act that is necessarily concerned with building stronger communities and a ‘Big Society’” says Dr Beth Breeze, from the University of Kent.

“Donors, meanwhile, view philanthropy as a subjective and intensely personal practice that creates varying quantities of public benefit, alongside personal benefit. Policymakers, practitioners and media commentators would all benefit from understanding the more equivocal outlook of givers, who resist the notion of giving as a substitute for public spending.”

Dr Matthew Bond from London South Bank University also has concerns about the Big Society. “The emphasis the Big Society places on the social dimension of corporate charity is supported by the evidence: inter-corporate ties are associated with increases in levels of philanthropy” he says.

“The main difficulties, however, have to do with the lack of representativeness of business leaders, potential abuses of managerial discretion and the instrumental nature of so much corporate charity. If the Big Society effectively achieves the cultural shift its proponents desire without the use of interventionist mechanisms, it potentially has not only to transform corporate social action but also to mark a significant change in the way we are governed.”

Are there new charity deserts?

“There is considerable historical evidence to suggest that reliance on philanthropy does not always lead to a good match between patterns of social needs and distribution of resources” says Professor John Mohan of Southampton University.

“Contemporary statistics show great variations between communities in the distribution of charities and flows of charitable resources. There is certainly scope for better targeting of giving to the most needy causes and communities.”

Social redistribution

Researchers build up detailed national picture.

CGAP researchers are using data from regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission and Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator to provide a more detailed understanding of charities in England, Wales and Scotland.

This includes mapping detailed patterns of charity expenditure for local authorities, using figures for England and Wales, and looking at how to compare relative levels of charitable activity between communities. Researchers have, for example, looked at numbers of organizations, expenditure by organizations and levels of charitable resources.

“There is a very complex picture, which cannot be reduced to simple assertions that ‘charity deserts’ exist or that there is some kind of ‘inverse care law’ in which resources are distributed in an inverse relationship with need” says Professor John Mohan, from the University of Southampton. “In some cases comparable charitable organizations have quite different levels of funding, depending on the level of prosperity or deprivation in their community.

“There are some important differences in the size and numbers of charitable organizations in Scotland compared to England and Wales, which are not just attributable to differences in regulations between the two countries. This geographical information has been used to link together survey data on charitable giving with data on the distribution of charitable organizations.”

Tom McKenzie, from Cass Business School and Peter Backus, formerly of Southampton University and now at the University of Manchester, have investigated whether or not there is a connection between the likelihood of giving to charity and the charitable ‘footprint’ in a locality. However, their initial analysis does not suggest that is the case.

Source 7



Deprived areas less able to deliver Big Society.

The notion of the spatially located, neighbourhood community lies at the heart of the Big Society. But as Dr Rose Lindsey points out, although affluent societies are very well resourced to meet the challenges of this key Government initiative, deprived communities have substantially fewer charitable resources on which to draw.

A study by Dr Lindsey, from the University of Southampton, reports the findings of qualitative research of two contrasting neighbourhoods, three miles apart in the same local government district in south east England.

One area is dominated by high levels of social renting and reliance on benefits and falls within the top 20% most deprived areas in the country. By contrast, the second area is a prosperous village with high levels of owner-occupiers and retired people, located in one of the 20% least deprived areas of the country.

Dr Lindsey’s mixed-method approach included a desktop analysis of all registered charities in the case study area, together with 43 semi-structured interviews with those working for a cross-section of the charities.

Her study found that four times as many charities provided benefits to the more affluent case study area compared to the deprived area. Most of the charities in the affluent area were run by actively involved retired local residents and were relatively small in terms of income and expenditure, with funding from local donations, well-supported events and legacies. Key aims included reducing social isolation, community development, cultural and intellectual stimulation and mutual benefit for members.

In contrast, few of the charities in the deprived areas were run by actively involved local residents.

The remainder were well-established larger charities, run by paid workers who mostly lived outside the community, that were tackling social deprivation with statutory funding. Their vulnerability to reduced funding as austerity measures bite could lead to reductions in vital local services.

“Respondents reported that rather than focusing on the improvement of their community, the key aspiration of many residents from the deprived areas is to leave the area, resulting in the regular loss of the more successful and more able from the community” says Dr Lindsey. “By contrast, the more affluent case study community has a wealth of people with project-management skills, time, funds and confidence, who can contribute to the needs of their community.”

Dr Lindsey argues that her study demonstrates the “inability of voluntary effort alone to provide services on a universal basis and to reach communities in greatest need.” She adds that this conflicts with the “expectation from central and local government that volunteers should shoulder the burden of public expenditure cuts, use community and charitable resources to bridge the gap between need and provision and take up ‘the gauntlet’ that represents the Big Society.”

Similar work by Professor John Mohan, University of Southampton, found evidence that charitable organizations operating at a neighbourhood scale tend to focus on ‘nice to have’ activities, such as continuing education, arts and cultural pursuits. They are usually found in the most prosperous communities, with high levels of charitable giving and volunteer input.

Source 8, Source 9

Ongoing research explores who gives and who gets.

A CGAP pilot study is looking at the relationship between those who give to charity and those who benefit from charitable donations.

It replicates a 1992 US study by Lester Salamon, that explored the social space bridged by donations, by asking charity chief executives their expert opinion on the aggregate characteristics of both their client group and their donors. The study carried out by CGAP colleagues based at the University of Kent includes an innovative extension to the original methodology by using qualitative research methods to explore the patterns identified in the data.

Initial findings indicate that generosity is by no means confined to the richest part of the population, and that charitable benefit extends far beyond the poorest part of the population. Survey participants indicate that the majority (60%) of their donors are either lower-rate taxpayers or non-taxpayers, with higher-rate taxpayers constituting the other 40% of donors. Meanwhile almost half (46%) indicate that the majority of their beneficiaries are poor, compared to the original US study which found a majority of charity chief executives reporting that less than a quarter of their beneficiaries were poor.

“Our pilot study identifies a potentially greater focus by UK donors on the poorest sections of society than in the US. It also sheds light on the ways that charities, recipients and donors manage relationships that cut across the wealth spectrum in our society” says Dr Beth Breeze.

Source 10



Social justice philanthropy explored.

An international one-day conference was held in March 2013 to discuss the key themes around a CGAP research study on social justice philanthropy. National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) co-hosted the event with CGAP and the University of Kent.

“By exploring how charitable and community foundations and individual philanthropists pursue social justice and change, we will learn how they make judgments about what and to whom to give, what moral resources, traditions, customs and rules they draw upon in reaching their evaluation about giving, and what they mean by social justice philanthropy” explains Dr Balihar Sanghera from the University of Kent.

When Dr Sanghera and Dr Kate Bradley interviewed 34 senior foundation staff, they discovered that these foundations relate to issues of social justice, legitimacy and accountability and that they support basic liberties and disadvantaged groups. However, some tensions arise because of the historical activities of the foundations, their internal beliefs and their position within the sector. If they are to achieve a liberal form of social justice, they need to change their institutional practices, so that they support justice and a socialised, democratic system, rather than just regulating economic and social inequalities.

Source 11



Ground-breaking research into fundraising imagery.

The images that are used in fundraising material play a key role in defining, and attracting public response to, social issues. However, concern has been expressed that visually striking images risk exploiting the subjects they depict.

Researchers had not explored the views of those represented in publicity material until a CGAP research study addressed the issue.

Dr Beth Breeze and doctoral student Jon Dean, from the University of Kent, held five focus groups, attended by 38 young people living in homeless hostels in four English cities or receiving services from them. The participants were shown an array of images depicting homeless people that had been used in fundraising campaigns run by major charities.

“The findings demonstrate that this group of beneficiaries are visually literate, familiar with how marketing works and largely supportive of methods that maximize income” say the authors. “They understood why charity marketing often makes use of contrived and simplified images to depict homelessness, and showed appreciation for the skills of fundraisers in balancing the accurate depiction of social problems with the need to generate enough donations to – literally, in most cases – provide a roof over their heads.

“As one homeless participant told us: ‘If the organizations haven’t got their money in the first place to help you then the whole system breaks down, really and truly. Just get the money, hook or crook, y’know?’

“However, participants also expressed a desire for fundraising imagery to ‘tell stories’ about how people find themselves in need of charitable assistance and how they can turn their lives around, so that potential donors can appreciate how others come to be in need of help. This preference for dynamic imagery and storytelling was contrasted with ‘sympathy snapshots’: fundraising materials that simply show an image of beneficiaries at their lowest ebb.

“Our study participants preferred the use of images that elicit empathy in potential donors, rather than those that only attempt to arouse sympathy, as they hope people will decide to make a generous response as a result of a recognition of common humanity rather than through emotions such as guilt or pity.

“Another study participant told us that ‘For the majority of people, you show a young kid looking sad, you show an old man freezing to death, it’s gonna play on people’s heartstrings … but I don’t think it’s gonna do anything about the issues’.”

The authors conclude: “We hope that these findings will be helpful in reminding those responsible for the portrayal of charitable beneficiaries that their subjects are savvy about, and grateful for, their labours. However, they are also striving for dignity and understanding.”

Source 12

What drives philanthropy?

“Philanthropy is supply-led, rather than demand-driven” says Dr Beth Breeze, from the University of Kent. “The voluntary nature of giving means that people focus their giving on causes that are meaningful to them as a result of their experiences and personal preferences. Policymakers hoping that philanthropy will plug gaps in public spending should therefore be aware of the more arbitrary and personal factors that lie behind the allocation of philanthropic resources.”


Entrepreneurial approaches. We now have a much clearer idea about entrepreneurial approaches to philanthropy. Key players include high-net worth entrepreneurs who are keen to give something back and have an impact by becoming involved in the active redistribution of their wealth.

Entrepreneurial approaches


More than two-thirds (69%) of the UK’s 100 biggest givers are self-made millionaires.

“However, these individuals give and invest significantly more than the money they redistribute” says Professor Eleanor Shaw from University of Strathclyde Business School. “Perhaps of greater importance are the social, human and reputational capital that their involvement in philanthropy brings. Our research indicates that these forms of capital are highly relevant for those individuals and the organizations they work with.

“It is likely that the forms of capital possessed by successful, wealthy entrepreneurs are particularly relevant within a Big Society: not only can entrepreneurial philanthropists provide financing, but their mix of know-how and entrepreneurial credibility is likely to be highly relevant in identifying sustainable social innovations and encouraging partnerships across private, public and third sectors.”

But it is not just individuals that are behaving in an entrepreneurial way, argues Professor Shaw. Their actions are inspiring new approaches among organizations as well. “Some traditional charities are becoming increasingly entrepreneurial in their approaches and a good example of this is Oxfam’s Enterprise Development Board” she says. “Oxfam pools together larger gifts by wealthy individuals into a fund, which is then used to invest in community business proposals.”

CGAP researchers have been looking behind the scenes to discover who these super-wealthy entrepreneurs are and what motivates them to get involved in philanthropy.

Study explores the top 100 UK entrepreneurs.

Professor Eleanor Shaw from University of Strathclyde Business School travelled to Switzerland in 2010 to present the emerging findings from a CGAP research project into contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy at the prestigious Babson College conference in Lausanne.

The paper presented a discussion of the various forms of capital – economic, social, cultural and symbolic – possessed by 100 UK entrepreneurs involved in philanthropy and considered the implications of these in that engagement. Individuals were included if they had a personal wealth of at least £10 million in 2007 and had donated a minimum of £1 million to charity during their lifetime. The majority (88%) were men, with more than half (57%) aged between 46 and 65.

Professor Shaw says the research “reveals entrepreneurs to be deeply embedded within the field of business ownership and suggests that when they enter the field of philanthropy they develop social capital by strategically building alliances with individuals holding positions of power within this field.

“As such this discussion challenges the view of the entrepreneurs as working independently, isolated from others in their environment. Moreover, the identification of 100 highly successful, ultra-wealthy entrepreneurs who have become actively engaged in philanthropy and so far redistributed a minimum of £1 million of their personal wealth, challenges the view of entrepreneurs as profit-maximizing individuals focused on generating and maintaining significant quantities of personal wealth.

“Instead the paper questions the motivations of entrepreneurs and suggests the need for more detailed, qualitative primary research to better understand the complex and multiple reasons why wealthy entrepreneurs engage in philanthropy.

“As the contemporary relationship between wealthy entrepreneurs is evolving and has received scant research attention, especially within the UK, the discussion presented raises more questions than it answers, such is the nature of research at an embryonic stage.”

A further CGAP research project has identified some key facts about the UK’s top 100 entrepreneurs, who have an average personal wealth of £268 million and include ten billionaires:

• The majority (57%) are aged 46-65, with 10% less than 46 and 23% more than 65.

• 48% are white collar workers, 32% blue collar workers and 6% aristocracy.

• 52% have an undergraduate degree, 13% an MBA, 6% a masters and 4% a doctorate. A quarter (25%) attended one of the UK prestigious Russell Group universities and 8% attended a US Ivy League University.

• More than half (51%) support education, 37% young people, 21% science, health and medical, 19% social welfare and 16% culture and sports.

• The majority (59%) have a foundation as a formal vehicle for philanthropy. Sixteen were established before the year 2000 and the longest running was established in 1972.

• Their leisure interests include sports (40%), art (22%), politics (22%), culture (19%) and country pursuits (14%).

Source 13, Source 14



Initial insights into world-making entrepreneurs.

An article by CGAP researchers exploring the relationship between the business and philanthropic endeavours of world-making entrepreneurs, and focusing on the career of Scottish philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, appeared in Business History in June 2011.

Led by Professor Charles Harvey, Newcastle University, the authors present an original model of entrepreneurial philanthropy that demonstrates how investment in philanthropic projects can yield positive returns in cultural, social and symbolic capital, which in turn may lead to growth in economic capital.

“The model is applied to interpret and make sense of the career of Andrew Carnegie, whose story, far from reducing to one of making a fortune then giving it away, is revealed as more complex and more unified” says Professor Harvey. “His philanthropy raised his stock within the field of power, helping convert surplus funds into social networks, high social standing and intellectual currency, enabling him to engage in world-making on a grand scale.”

However, the authors point out that the theoretical ideas presented in the article cannot be tested fully by analyzing the actions of one entrepreneur.

“More extensive research on the quantitative dimensions of wealth creation and philanthropy is needed before we have the true measure of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy and its potentialities” concludes Professor Harvey.

“The statistics published in rich lists and giving lists are of doubtful reliability, regularly exaggerating the extent of actual giving by confusing pledges with real transfers of wealth, and in any case offer only partial coverage. Until we have better data, we cannot know the real size or extent of the entrepreneurial philanthropy movement, and the suspicion must remain that the proportion of fortunes actually put to work philanthropically, both individually and collectively, falls far short of the Carnegie ideal.”

Source 15

Entrepreneurial philanthropy research gap exposed.

Super-wealthy entrepreneurs who get involved in large-scale philanthropic endeavours are often endowed with celebrity-like status by the world’s media. However, entrepreneurial philanthropy is largely absent from the entrepreneurship research literature.

An article by CGAP researchers, published early online by the International Small Business Journal in 2012, looked at how philanthropists can address social-economic challenges and the role that social innovation might play in regenerating communities.

“It proposes capital theory as an appropriate theoretical lens through which to view contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy, and to present fresh evidence relating to successful, wealthy entrepreneurs involved in significant philanthropic ventures” explains Professor Eleanor Shaw, University of Strathclyde Business School.

“The findings highlight the active deployment of a distinctive blend of different forms of capital as a defining feature of entrepreneurial philanthropy, and contribute to emerging discourses regarding the nature of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship as a socio-economic process and the sparse empirical analyses on entrepreneurial elites.”

Source 16



Philanthropists can address socio-economic challenges.

The economic crisis has accentuated the social and economic dislocation experienced by disadvantaged communities at a time of unprecedented political and public interest in philanthropy.

Writing in the International Small Business Journal in 2012, Professor Mairi Maclean and colleagues explored social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy.

“Our article adds to the literature in this area and aims to integrate theory and empirical practice” explains Professor Maclean.

It examines social innovation using the Community Foundation Tyne & Wear and Northumberland as a case study and sheds light on how the sites and spaces of socially innovative philanthropic projects may have a bearing on their success. Attention is drawn to the importance of community engagement on the part of social innovators, and the power of self-organization in re-embedding communities. The article also suggests that storytelling by committed philanthropists may serve as a powerful tool for recruiting new donors.

Source 17

How entrepreneurs provide added value.

The value-added approach of entrepreneurial philanthropy was the subject explored by Dr Jillian Gordon from University of Strathclyde Business School in a presentation to the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship Research Conference in January 2011.

“Entrepreneurs add value to society beyond the wealth creation process and the creation of new products and services, through their engagement in philanthropy” she told delegates.

“The increasing prominence of high- net-worth entrepreneurs engaging in philanthropy, whose focus is typically on global social problems, is worthy of scholarly attention. Accurate reflections of the current practice of entrepreneurial philanthropy are required, in order for researchers to develop knowledge and understand the phenomenon of entrepreneurial philanthropy.

“Entrepreneurial philanthropy has emerged from practices of entrepreneurship, and the methods and practices associated with venture capital investment. Any analysis of entrepreneurial philanthropy requires careful consideration of the extent to which the practices and behaviours common to entrepreneurship can easily transfer over to the field of philanthropy.”

Source 18



Routes to change and impact. What does the future hold for philanthropy in the UK? CGAP researchers have been exploring the role that the institutions of giving, such as community and family foundations, are likely to play.

“Charitable foundations continue to be a flexible and popular way for modern donors and their families to provide sustainable support for causes they care about” says CGAP Co-Director Professor Cathy Pharoah from Cass Business School.

“But independence remains very important to donors and their charitable foundations. If governments begin to see major philanthropy as a substitute for welfare spending, they may kill off the goose that lays the golden egg.

“There is no magic bullet for getting involved in giving, rather an immense diversity of starting points that need to be encouraged, such as faith, the influence of family, friends or colleagues, deep personal experiences or volunteering.”

Fellow Co-Director and Cass colleague Professor Jenny Harrow has been looking at the demands that being a community funder places on organizations. “It requires an ability to respond to the prevailing public policy environment while retaining the independence to act in the interests of their locality” she says.

“Community foundations are not the only forms of third-sector organization facing a potential challenge of mission and purpose. Nor are they the only organizations working at a local intermediary level – councils of voluntary services and private foundations also play a key role at the local level, both in terms of knowledge and grantmaking. However, their particular organizational fit with current public policy themes of increasing giving and valuing the local puts them under specific forms of pressure.

“CGAP’s work in keeping abreast of the growing academic and practice literature on community foundations is highlighting the continuing international prominence of the community foundation as a model institution for civil society brokerage, facilitation and support.”

Routes to change and impact


Family foundations face high levels of uncertainty.

CGAP has produced five annual reports since 2008, tracking trends among the 100 largest UK family foundations and comparing them to US foundations.

The 2012 report reveals that total giving by the top 100 was £1.3 billion in 2010/11, with the highest spending on education, health, arts and culture and social welfare.

A survey of 40 family foundation decision-makers revealed that:

• The biggest influence on recent spending decisions was public sector welfare cuts.

• More than a half predict less funding from family foundations over the next few years, with 43% saying the number of foundations will not increase and more than half saying that foundations will form more funding partnerships with other charitable foundations.

• The majority (65%) do not think that a US-style mandatory payout requirement would benefit funding levels.

• The influence of the social investment concept as a funding option is mixed: a few are very influenced, 40% are moderately to slightly influenced and half are not influenced at all.

• Independence remains very important, with most seeing their role as complementing the activities of the public sector activities rather than being in partnership with it.

“Family foundations are experiencing the highest levels of uncertainty for several years” says lead author, Professor Cathy Pharoah. “While they are strongly influenced by the visions of their founders, they are also responsive to a wide range of stakeholders, interests and influences in society, and these may become increasingly hard to balance in the current recession.”

Further research by Martin Gannon from University of Strathclyde Business School is exploring the tensions between giving and succession in first generation philanthropic family foundations.


Understanding digital audiences is crucial.

Understanding target audiences and their modes of engagement is just the first step in designing modern giving mechanisms, according to Elric Honoré, from the University of Edinburgh Business School.

Writing in Philanthropy and a better society (2012) he points out that the UK’s main givers are women aged 45-64, but more online donations come from women aged 25-44 who are also slightly more likely to engage in social networking, even though the percentage of both age groups using the internet is similar at 77%.

“Digital audiences are intrinsically more versed in reciprocal relationships, information-sharing and collective movement, especially when social media is involved” he says. “Crowdfunding – where individuals network and pool their money, usually via the internet – is a typical example of this trend and marks a shift from the direct-mail funding model that some charities still rely on.

“If the current trend towards donor-controlled philanthropy continues, intermediary organizations seeking to expand their donor base will have to be able to respond to the changing donor environment.”

Source 21



Exploring the future of community foundations.

Community foundations are a key feature of the wider foundation field in the UK. They are used to channel local funds and gifts to support local causes and respond to the needs of the community.

As grantmaking public charities, community foundations differ from private, family or corporate foundations, because they raise their funds from a range of sources – including individuals, governments, corporations and private foundations – and direct their activities towards those areas where they are located.

CGAP researchers have been exploring the way that community foundations are responding to the UK’s changing socio-political landscapes. They have been paying particular attention to the renewed focus on localism in public policy, with a paper on this subject accepted for forthcoming publication in Policy and Politics.

“With their inherent focus on place-based philanthropy, community foundations may be expected to be key players in a new localism, or focus on renewed community empowerment” says Dr Tobias Jung from Cass Business School. “They will do this as catalysts for increased philanthropy and as institutional leaders in strengthening local communities and contributing to local problem solving. With funding from multiple sources directing their grantmaking towards specific locales, renewed localism appears to play to the strengths of community foundations.”

Using a theoretical framework derived from political geography, the research conceptualises how community foundations define and operationalize their community leadership role across varying localism discourses in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Their strategies and approaches were found to be differentiated, rather than shared, from functionalist approaches to community leadership (notably building up financial endowments) in England and Wales, to broader conceptions of what ‘local’ represents in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. These findings challenge the understanding of ‘community foundations’ as a single model in the UK. They also question their envisaged potential as collective pan-UK lead-players within localism and philanthropy, as envisaged by the Community Foundation Network Manifesto for Community Philanthropists (2009).

CGAP researchers also undertook the first comprehensive literature review on community foundations globally, their growth and the demands of multiple activities and actions that they demonstrate. This found a greater degree of concentration on endowment-building in the UK, compared with the more diverse directions of other community foundations worldwide. The fast-changing environment for community foundations in the UK also includes its support from the endowed ‘private’ foundation field, notably a £750,000 grant from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. This is enabling the Community Foundation Network to develop a network of investor philanthropists to unlock resources for communities.

“This new, non-governmental resource is making it possible to activate the ‘community philanthropists’ phenomenon that the Manifesto hoped for, despite its attention being turned towards government action” concludes Dr Tobias Jung.

Source 22

Anglo-Canadian research provides comparative insight.

CGAP’s work in keeping abreast of the growing academic and practice literatures on community foundations is highlighting the continuing international prominence of the community foundation as a model institution for civil society brokerage, facilitation and support.

That is one of the key points made by Professor Jenny Harrow and colleagues in the CGAP publication Philanthropy and a better society (2012).

Current UK policies and themes “seem primed to both reflect and propel what community foundations do” say the authors. “Too great an imbalance, however, between garnering resources and reflecting and presenting community issues may change the nature of the community foundation as an organization, bringing it on a par with many others now rapidly seeking endowments.

“It may be argued, therefore, that more needs to be done to evidence the local leadership ability of community foundations and to preserve their capacity to respond to the most pressing needs of their communities, above the needs of their donors and shifting policy agendas.”



CGAP researchers have teamed up with Professor Susan Phillips and colleagues from Carleton University School of Public Policy in Ottawa to examine place-based philanthropy in the UK and Canada. With new funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, they will be looking at the dynamics that are propelling some community foundations into strong leadership roles.

The conceptual foundation for this work is rooted in the small, but expanding, work on community and related foundations as philanthropic institutions and public management approaches to relational governance.

“Canada and the UK are good comparisons when it comes to the evolving role of community foundations, because both countries demonstrate comparable maturation and are already major players in philanthropy” says Professor Harrow. “By comparison, the US is unique and European development is uneven.”

Source 23



Challenging the boundaries of research, policy and practice. Building creative knowledge-sharing partnerships that lead to real change and development takes time and needs resources.

Working with other organizations, sharing research findings and stimulating debate on the key issues, from taxation to new techniques to increase giving, are important elements of CGAP’s work, supported by its communications and engagement Hub.

“Creating an impact with research has to begin with an honest recognition of the different knowledge needs of practitioners, policy-makers and academics” says CGAP Co-Director Professor Cathy Pharoah of Cass Business School. “Successful knowledge-sharing depends on dialogue and trust in the different specialisms, strengths and weaknesses of academics and practitioners, and not on trying to do each others’ jobs.”

CGAP researchers have tackled this in a number of ways. From taking part in consultations and debates on key issues like changes to Gift Aid and the Giving White Paper to working with the media to get across key messages and taking part in international conferences and welcoming overseas visitors to the UK.

Challenging the boundaries of research, policy and practice


CGAP contributes to Gift Aid debate.

CGAP researchers played a key role in a Government-sponsored initiative to explore proposals to reform and simplify the Gift Aid system, which enables people to make cost-effective donations to UK charities.

“We contributed to the Forum’s report along with 19 other organizations and the Treasury confirmed that it would implement many of the report’s proposals” says CGAP Co-director Professor Cathy Pharoah, who worked with Cass Business School colleague Tom McKenzie to formulate the Centre’s response.

This was based on research on the longer-term patterns of household giving, using data from the Office of National Statistics’ Living Costs and Food Survey, and the analysis of annual trends in Gift Aid payments based on HMRC tax data.

“CGAP’s involvement in the Gift Aid review was driven by its wider responsibilities for stakeholder engagement and dissemination in key issues relating to the field of giving and philanthropy” says Professor Pharoah.

CGAP publicised its involvement in tax debates, together with its views, in a number of ways, including:

• one-to-one discussions with key stakeholders

• informal briefings with Government, the Institute of Fundraising, Charity Tax Group, Association of Charitable Foundations and journalists

• joint seminars with the European Association of Philanthropy and Giving, EAPG (now Philanthropy Impact)

• wide-ranging material published on the CGAP website and emailed to key stakeholders

• national, local and sector media coverage.

Its involvement in key policy debates has also included responding to a number of Government announcements, including the philanthropy issues raised by the 2011 Budget, the 2010 Giving Green Paper and the impact on the voluntary sector of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. CGAP also contributed advice to the sector and donor-led Philanthropy Review and helped to produce the Charity Tax Group’s first Charity Tax Map in 2011 to demonstrate the impact of the tax system on the sector. And researchers spoke at a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Civil Society, where MPs, Peers and people from the charity sector meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest.

Source 24

Wellcome consultation response quotes CGAP.

Research carried out by CGAP researchers into the charitable expenditure of the leading 50 UK family foundations was quoted by the Wellcome Trust in its response to the Government’s consultative Giving Green Paper in March 2011.

The Trust, which is the largest funder of medical research in the UK, pointed to research highlighting the complexities of introducing a minimum pay out rule in the UK.

Wellcome stated that the research found a “wide variation in payout rates, but broad convergence around the five per cent threshold, which is the minimum payout rate mandated in the United States for private foundations. The authors conclude that there is ‘marked uncertainty’ whether the introduction of a minimum pay out rate for grantmaking foundations in the UK ‘would achieve anything like billion pound windfalls’.”

It continued that the research “shows that the annual payout of many of the major UK foundations regularly exceeds the five per cent minimum which is mandated in the US, while the US experience has been that foundations tend to pay out at or near the five per cent minimum level. There is a risk that this trend might be replicated in the UK if a minimum payout rule was introduced, as foundations would be likely to adopt a more conservative approach to payout if the flexibility to reduce pay out in subsequent years were removed.”

The research came from a working paper by CGAP Co-Directors Professor Jenny Harrow and Professor Cathy Pharoah, presented at the ARNOVA 39th Annual Conference in the USA in November 2010.




Events cover wide-ranging international topics.

Seminars, round-table debates and conference presentations are just some of the ways we have presented our research findings and stimulated debate on philanthropy.

Events have included:

• Holding a one-day symposium for philanthropy professionals, researchers and philanthropists on Contemporary philanthropy and social renewal: learning from research and practice (2013).

• Teaming up with the TSRC and Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship to explore Social investment for the 21st century. The event discussed the changing landscape of social enterprise and investment and the impact of shrinking government budgets, shifting policy focus and global financial crisis (2012).

• Organizing a joint event with Cass Centre for Charity Effectiveness, to explore how business innovation can promote giving. Speakers included representatives of Spring, the Big Society Network, Bank Machine, the world’s largest operator of ATMs, and Sector 4 Focus, which promotes cross-sector partnerships (2012).

• Hosting a round-table discussion on Learning from failure in the nonprofit sector?, as part of the ESRC Festival of Social Science. The event included The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, the HACT social housing charity and the Institute for Voluntary Action Research (2012).

• Presenting a track on Philanthropy, public services, policy: new localism and big societies at the International Research Society for Public Management conference in Rome, following a successful philanthropy track in 2011. The 2012 theme was Contradictions in public management. Managing in volatile times (2012).

• Inviting Hilary Pearson, President of Philanthropic Foundations of Canada, to be the guest speaker at an event to examine the developing role of women as donors and leaders in philanthropy and to discuss challenges and opportunities (2011).

• Joining forces with the Association of Charitable Foundations to hold a seminar on the publication American Foundations – roles and contributions. Guest speakers included co-editors Professor Helmut Anheier and David Hammack (2010).

• Posing the question Can the Big Society create new cultures of giving? at a round-table discussion organized in partnership with EAPG (now Philanthropy Impact). The event included the Northern Rock Foundation, ResPublica, a policy think tank, and the Clore Leadership Programme (2010).

• Collaborating and co-leading a ‘master class series’ on philanthropy with Arts and Business Scotland (ABS), in parallel with the co-produced research project between ABS and CGAP on their members’ challenges in donor cultivation, 2010-2011. Hannah Pavey presented the work at the Museums Galleries Scotland Collaborating to Compete Conference (2011).

Source 27

Strong media relations give CGAP a real voice.

Developing strong, ongoing relationships with specialist and general media has raised CGAP’s profile and enabled wider research dissemination.

This has included:

• Appearing on BBC Radio Four, including the Today programme, to discuss what the future holds for charities, whether naming opportunities motivate big donors, gifts to universities and the future of the Rotary Club.

• Discussions on whether people should leave their money to children or charity on Radio Scotland and The Alan Titchmarsh Show on ITV.

• Writing articles for the charity press, including Civil Society, Charity Times, NCVO Voice and a regular column for Third Sector.

Source 28



Building international links and sharing ideas.

Working with overseas organizations to compare notes on developments in philanthropy is very important.

CGAP researchers frequently contribute to conferences worldwide and are very keen to welcome overseas visitors to visit or take part in events. These include:

• Hosting an Autumn 2012 seminar to compare philanthropy in the UK and Israel, with members of the Jewish Funders’ Network, and welcoming a delegation from the Chinese Institute of Public Accountants.

• Holding a round-table discussion in June 2012, to compare US and UK philanthropy environments, with Professor Mark Rosenman, CGAP Advisory Group member and Director of Caring to Change. Participants included The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, Pears Foundation, Cancer Research UK, European Association of Philanthropy and Giving and Charities Aid Foundation.

• Presenting research papers at conferences as far afield as America, Australia, Italy and Canada.

• Being commissioned by Routledge to edit the Companion to Philanthropy, which will be published in January 2014. Co-editors Dr Tobias Jung, Professor Susan Phillips and Professor Jenny Harrow are working on this with international contributors who met at a round-table event on multiple understandings of philanthropy at ARNOVA 2011.

• Editing special issues of leading journals. Dr Tobias Jung and Professor Jenny Harrow edited the November 2011 issue of Public Management Review on Philanthropy and Public Policy, focusing on philanthropy and public policy. Professor Eleanor Shaw has edited the November 2013 edition of International Small Business Journal on Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation.

Source 29



Researchers

Individual and corporate giving

Professor Eleanor Shaw – Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of Post-Graduate Teaching, Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde Business School.

Professor Charles Harvey – Professor of Management and Business History and Pro-Vice Chancellor for Humanities and Social Sciences, Newcastle University.

Professor Mairi Maclean – Professor of International Management and Organisation Studies and Director of Research, Department of Management, University of Exeter Business School.

Dr Jillian Gordon – Lecturer in Entrepreneurship, Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde Business School.

Martin Gannon – PhD student in Entrepreneurial Philanthropy, Agency and Innovation, Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde Business School.

Charity and social redistribution

Professor John Mohan – Professor of Social Policy, University of Southampton, and Deputy Director of the Third Sector Research Centre.

Dr Beth Breeze – Lecturer in Social Policy and Director, Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent.

Dr Balihar Sanghera – Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Kent.

Dr Iain Wilkinson – Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Kent.

Dr Kate Bradley – Lecturer in Social History and Social Policy, University of Kent.

Dr Matthew Bond – Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Research Methods, London South Bank University.

Dr Rose Lindsey – Research Fellow, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.

Institutions of giving and philanthropy

Professor Jenny Harrow – Professor of Voluntary Sector Management, Cass Business School and Co-Director CGAP.

Professor Cathy Pharoah – Professor of Charity Funding, Cass Business School and Co-Director CGAP.

Professor Stephen Osborne – Professor of International Public Management and Director, Centre for Public Services Research, University of Edinburgh Business School.

Tom McKenzie – Research Fellow, Cass Business School.

Dr Tobias Jung – Principal Research Fellow, Cass Business School.

Hannah Pavey, Research Officer, Cass Business School, February 2011 to April 2012.

Elric Honoré – Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh Business School.

Wendy Wu – PhD student in Management Studies, University of Edinburgh Business School.

CGAP’s researchers and Advisory Group. CGAP’s achievements have been made possible by its talented researchers, communications and engagement team and Advisory Group.

CGAP’s researchers and Advisory Group

CGAP’s researchers and Advisory Group.


Hub (Communications and Engagement)

Professor Jenny Harrow and Professor Cathy Pharoah (Co-Directors)

Margo Willison, Centre Manager

Rachel Jackson, Centre Stakeholder Engagement Officer

Margaret Busgith, Centre Administrator

Karl Wilding (NCVO)

Professor Ian Bruce (Cass Business School)

Professor Stephen Osborne

The Advisory Group

Sophie Chapman

Dr Justin Davis-Smith

David Emerson

Professor Peter Halfpenny

Dr Floyd Millen (served until 2010)

Sarah Mistry

Andrew Muirhead

Professor Robert Paton (served until 2012)

Dr Mark Rosenman

Professor Marilyn Taylor

Professor Arthur Williamson (Chair)

Rob Williamson

CGAP Team

CGAP Researchers’ Awayday

CGAP’s researchers and Advisory Group.


Occasional Paper (forthcoming June 2013): Comparisons between the characteristics of charities in Scotland and those of England and Wales. John Mohan and Steve Barnard.

Planned Giving Biography. Extensive bibliography on the measurement of giving and planned giving – a useful starting point for researchers. (2012).

Briefing Note 10: Give or take a few billion: the wide confidence intervals around annual estimates of charitable donations in the UK. Tom McKenzie discusses two main annual sources of information on charitable donations in the UK, that can be used to chart longer-term trends in giving. (2012).

Briefing note 9: UK corporate citizenship in 21st century. Catherine Walker et al present research by CGAP and Directory of Social Change on trends in corporate giving, focusing on how UK-listed companies support the communities they operate in. (2012).

Briefing Note 8: Co-producing research: working together or falling apart? Tobias Jung et al summarise the CGAP round-table discussion at the ESRC Festival of Social Science, where academics and third sector practitioners shared their experiences and considered the benefits and challenges of joint academic-voluntary sector research. (2012).

Briefing Note 7: How generous is the UK? Charitable giving in the context of household spending. Tom McKenzie and Cathy Pharoah draw on 31 years of the national Living Costs and Food Survey to look at the connection between household budgets and charity donations. (2011).

Briefing Note 6: UK household giving – new results on regional trends 2001-08. Tom McKenzie and Cathy Pharoah compare patterns and trends in giving by UK regions and country, using data on over 50,000 households from the national Living Costs and Food Survey. (2010).

Briefing Note 5: Gift Aid – Reform or Inform? Tom McKenzie and Cathy Pharoah explore how Gift Aid works, how much is claimed by charities, whether they could be claiming more and the impact the end of transitional relief will have. (2010).

Briefing Note 4: How do you ask difficult questions? Shared challenges and practice amongst fundraisers and researchers. Jenny Harrow and Cathy Pharoah summarise the outcomes of a CGAP seminar at the ESRC’s annual Festival of Social Science, where fundraisers and researchers explored the challenges they face when asking people for donations or information. (2010).

Briefing Note 3: Seasonal patterns in household giving in the UK. Charities require regular income throughout the year to fund their programmes. Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie ask if levels of giving remain constant or are they affected by seasonal factors? (2010).

Briefing Note 2: Charitable giving by UK households at Christmas. Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie examine data from the national Expenditure and Food Survey to consider whether the extra emphasis on fundraising in the autumn and early winter impacts on donations. (2009).

Briefing Note 1: Thinking through the effects of changes in income-tax relief on giving. Tom McKenzie and Cathy Pharoah consider how changes to Gift Aid and higher rate tax would affect giving. (2009).

Exploring local hotspots and deserts: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources. Rose Lindsey investigates whether regional patterns of uneven charitable distribution are evidenced at a local neighbourhood level. (2012).

The relationship between volunteering and charitable giving: review of evidence. Matthew Hill provides a synthesis of research findings into the relationship between volunteering and charitable giving. (2012).

Working paper 2: Government expenditure on the voluntary sector in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ian Mocroft analyses government spending on the voluntary sector from 2004-05 to 2008-09. (2011).

Working paper 1: The market for charity in England and Wales’. Tom McKenzie and Peter Backus explore the relationship between charitable expenditure and levels of household giving at the local level. (2011).

Charitable Giving, Everyday Morality and A Critique of Bourdieusian Theory: An Investigation into Disinterested Judgements, Moral Concerns and Reflexivity in the UK. Balihar Sanghera explores the individual moral judgements that underpin charitable giving and volunteering. (2011).

CGAP Publications. Most of the publications, and many other outputs, can be found on www.cgap.org.uk If you have any problems locating them, please contact CGAP via our website.

CGAP Publications


Philanthropy and a Better Society. CGAP. (2012).

User Views of Fundraising: A study of charitable beneficiaries’ opinion of their representation in appeals. Beth Breeze and Jon Dean. (2012).

Donor cultivation in theory and practice. A CGAP/Arts & Business Scotland Discussion Paper. Jenny Harrow, Tobias Jung, Hannah Pavey and Jeanie Scott. (2011).

The new state of donation: Three decades of household giving to charity 1978-2008. Ed Cowley, Tom McKenzie, Cathy Pharoah and Sarah Smith. Joint publication with Centre for Market and Public Organisation. (2011).

How Donors Choose Charities. Occasional Paper 1. Beth Breeze. (2010).

Conference papers and presentations (May 2011 onwards)

41st Annual Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Indianapolis 2012. John Mohan presented ‘The idea of a charity desert – methods for mapping the distribution of charitable resources in England’ and Rose Lindsey presented ‘The local ecology of charitable resources: case studies in contrasting communities.’ Beth Breeze participated in a global panel convened to discuss the difficulties in measuring high net worth philanthropy, entitled ‘Gauges of Giving’, and also presented a paper entitled ‘Re-examining corporate philanthropy’.

British Academy of Management (BAM) annual conference 2012. CGAP researchers presented their case study of the Community Foundation Tyne & Wear and Northumberland and its role in the local community as documented in ‘Social Entrepreneurship and Community Renewal’ by Mairi Maclean et al.

Voluntary Sector Studies Network (VSSN)/NCVO Researching the Voluntary Sector Conference 2012. John Mohan presented ‘What third sector organizations in England think of their local statutory bodies: evidence from national surveys of voluntary organizations’. Tom McKenzie and Cathy Pharoah presented their work on generosity in a multicultural context. Beth Breeze presented ‘Corporate philanthropy on the shop floor’, Matthew Bond ‘Perspectives on corporate philanthropy: the view from the board’ and Catherine Walker ‘Corporate giving to charities – what’s it really worth?’

Council for Advancement and Support of Education Conference 2012. Beth Breeze spoke on ‘How new is the new philanthropy?’.

The International Society for Third-Sector Research International Conference 2012, CGAP members presented in the session ‘Roles of philanthropy revisited’. Tobias Jung gave his paper ‘Leaders, intermediaries, overseers? Exploring the role of community foundations in England’ and Cathy Pharoah presented ‘Can private philanthropy be considered as a part of a coherent approach to meeting public welfare need?’. CGAP members also presented a panel session entitled ‘Charity and social redistribution: quantitative and qualitative perspectives’. John Mohan and Rose Lindsey gave their paper on charity deserts, Balihar Sanghera presented his paper on charitable giving and everyday morality and Beth Breeze gave a paper on the role of need in donors’ selection of charitable beneficiaries.

40th Annual ARNOVA Conference, Canada, 2011. Papers presented were ‘Community foundations as community leaders? Comparing developments in Canada and the United Kingdom’ by Susan Phillips et al and ‘How donors choose charities’ by Beth Breeze. Two papers were presented by colleagues form Kent: ‘How donors choose charities’ by Beth Breeze, and ‘User Views of Fundraising’ by Jon Dean and Beth Breeze.

2nd Scottish Third Sector Research Conference 2011. Cathy Pharoah presented ‘The new challenges facing fundraisers chasing the Scottish pound’.

VSSN/NCVO Conference 2011. CGAP presented research in the session ‘Aspects of giving and philanthropy’. Rose Lindsey presented ‘Exploring local hotspots and deserts: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources’ and Tobias Jung presented ‘Developing a culture of giving? Donor cultivation in theory and practice’. Kent colleagues presented their research into ‘User views of fundraising’.

International Research Society for Public Management 2011. CGAP hosted a dedicated track on ‘Philanthropy, public services, policy: working together or falling out’, including Susan Phillips’ presentation on ‘Policy for partnership: assessing the meta-governance for government-civil society relationships.’

European Research Network on Philanthropy 2011. John Mohan gave a plenary lecture on ‘Foundations of the Big Society: charity deserts, the civic core, and the impacts of deficit reduction policies’. Beth Breeze and colleagues presented ‘Does public policy make sense in promoting philanthropic funding?’. Tobias Jung presented ‘Letting go of the past and going for the future? Community foundations’ responses to the changing socio-political landscape across the United Kingdom’.

8th AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange 2011. Jillian Gordon won the CSI Award for Best Paper in Social Entrepreneurship for her paper ‘The value-added approach of entrepreneurial philanthropy’.

Associated reports

Charity Market Monitor (Editions 2009 – 2011), Cathy Pharoah. CaritasData, London.

Family Foundation Giving Trends series. (2008-2012).

CGAP Publications


CGAP’s annual reports to its funders can be found on www.esrc.ac.uk

Organogram

Distribution of total CGAP funding (£2.3 million) by activities

Spoke 3Cass Business School

University of Edinburgh Business School

Stakeholder engagement and dissemination

Individual and business giving


Institutions of giving

21%29%

20%30%

Spoke 2University of Kent

University of Southampton

Structure and funding

Advisory Group

FundersHub

Cass Business School

Spoke 1University of Strathclyde Business School

NCVO


The ESRC Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) is a multi-disciplinary consortium of different universities, disciplines and the voluntary sector. Each focuses on a different aspect of its programme. CGAP’s work is disseminated through one central communications and engagement ‘Hub’.

About CGAP

CGAP was established in 2008 to develop knowledge and to engage with donors, charities and practitioners in exploring three key research themes:

• individual and corporate giving

• charity and social redistribution

• the institutions of giving.

The Centre has done this by:

• conducting and promoting high-quality research on giving and philanthropy

• fostering creative knowledge exchange between academic and practice communities

• developing and disseminating the evidence base to inform policy and practice

• building the field through training new researchers

• encouraging the development of sector research capacity

• working internationally and in a multi-disciplinary way.

Its five-year programme received around £2 million in core funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Office for Civil Society, Scottish Government and Carnegie UK Trust. Other project funding partners include the Pears, Baring, Nuffield and Paul Hamlyn Foundations and the Trust for London.

CGAP’s research programme is delivered by: Cass Business School (City University London), University of Edinburgh Business School, University of Kent, University of Southampton and University of Strathclyde Business School. Engagement and dissemination is co-ordinated by a central Hub, based at Cass Business School, and the NCVO (National Centre for Voluntary Organisations).

Contents

About CGAP 2

Chairs’ forewords 4

The shape of philanthropy today 6

Concern, commitment and morals 12

Social redistribution 16

Entrepreneurial approaches 22

Routes to change and impact 26

Challenging the boundaries of research, policy and practice 30

CGAP’s researchersand Advisory Group 34

CGAP publications 36

Structure and funding 38

Sources 39

About CGAP


Source 1: Cowley E, McKenzie T, Pharoah C and Smith S. (2011) The new state of donation: Three decades of household giving to charity 1978 – 2008. CGAP/ CMPO.

Source 2: Pharoah C and Harrow J. (2011) A legacy for the nation’s health. Journal of Communications in Health Care.

Source 3: Clifford D and Backus P. (2010) Are big charities becoming increasingly dominant? Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) working paper 38 and Backus P and Clifford D (2010). Trends in the concentration of income among charities, TSRC working paper 39. Also revised version: Backus P and Clifford D. (Due to be published 2013) Are big charities becoming more dominant? Cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A.

Source 4: Breeze B. (2012) How donors choose charities. Findings of a study of donor perceptions of the nature and distribution of charitable benefit. CGAP.

Source 5: Sanghera B. (2012) Charitable giving, everyday morality and a critique of Bourdieusian theory. Summary of working paper. CGAP.

Source 6: Breeze B. (April 2013) Corporate philanthropy on the shop floor: what drives employee fundraising?

Source 7: Mohan J. (2012). Charity and social redistribution: the question of ‘charity deserts’. Philanthropy and a better society. CGAP. McKenzie T and Backus P. (2011) The market for charity in England and Wales, CGAP Working Paper 1. Mohan J and Barnard S. (2013) Comparisons between the characteristics of charities in Scotland and those of England and Wales. CGAP Occasional paper. (Due to be published Summer 2013).

Source 8: Lindsey R. (2012) Exploring charitable resources in areas of affluence and areas of deprivation. Philanthropy and a better society. CGAP. Lindsey R. (2012) Exploring local ‘hotspots’ and ‘deserts’: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources. CGAP working paper (revised version published in Voluntary Sector Review 2013).

Source 9: Mohan J. (2012) The idea of a ‘charity desert’: methods for mapping the distribution of charitable resources within England, Wales and Scotland. Presented at the 2012 Association for Research on Nonprofits and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) conference, USA. Mohan J and Clifford D. (2012) The pattern and characteristics of neighbourhood-level charities in England. Presented at the 2012 ARNOVA conference, USA. Lindsey R and Mohan J (2013) Local charitable ecologies? Tracking flows of charitable resources into contrasting communities in South East England.

Source 10: Breeze B. (Due to be published, July 2013) Who gives, who gets. CGAP.

Source 11: Centre for the Study of Philanthropy, Humanitarianism and Social Justice, University of Kent website.

Source 12: Breeze B and Dean J.(2012) User views of fundraising. CGAP.

Source 13: Shaw E, Gordon J, Henderson K and Harvey C. (2010), Entrepreneurial Philanthropy: theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital. Presented to the Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Switzerland.

Source 14: Shaw E, Harvey C, Maclean M and Gordon J. (2011) Entrepreneurial philanthropists and social entrepreneurs: a new partnership model. Paper presented to the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Special Interest Group in Sustainable and Social Entrepreneurship, University of Leeds.

Source 15: Harvey C, Maclean M, Gordon J and Shaw E. (2011) Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy’. Business History.

Source 16: Shaw E, Gordon J, Harvey C and Maclean M. (2011) Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal.

Source 17: Maclean M, Harvey C and Gordon J. (2013) Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal.

Source 18: Gordon J. (2011) The value added approach of entrepreneurial philanthropy. Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship Conference. (Unpublished).

Source 19: Pharoah C, McKenzie T, Keidan C and Siederer N. (2012) Family foundation giving trends 2012. CGAP.

Source 20: Gannon M. (Ongoing research). Exploring the tensions between giving and succession in first generation philanthropic families.


Source 22: Harrow J, Jung T and Phillips S (2011) ‘Community Foundations’ responses to the changing socio-political landscape across the United Kingdom: letting go of the past and going for the future?’ European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP) conference, Austria.


Source 24: ESRC (2011) Reviewing Gift Aid and Charitable Giving. ESRC Impact case study.

Source 25: Wellcome Trust (2011) Response by the Wellcome Trust to the Giving Green Paper.

Source 26: Pharoah C and Harrow J. (2010) Payout with an English Accent: Exploring the case for a foundation ‘distribution quota” in the UK. CGAP.

Sources 27, 28 and 29: CGAP website. News.

Sources

Sources

The Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) gratefully acknowledges the funding support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Cabinet Office, the Scottish Government and Carnegie UK Trust for the research programme on which this review is based.

ESRC grant numbers: RES-593-25-0006; RES-593-25-0008; RES-593-25-0003; RES-593-25-0004.

CGAP Hub Cass Business School 106 Bunhill Row London EC1Y 8TZ

cgap.org.uk

Designed by Fab

rik ww

w.fabrikbrands.com

Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge.CGAP Five-year review2008-2013

understanding giving. sharing knowledge. cgap five-year review 2008-2013

Technology