Int. J Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 10: 137-149 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy? A qualitative study of the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy
Angela M. Eikenberry*
School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech, USA Philanthropic institutions are increasingly involved in efforts to promote or expand philanthropy in the US, yet little research has been done in relation to such efforts within the "new philanthropy" environment. This qualitative study examines one such effort: the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy. The study focuses on understanding what key individuals associated with the Catalogue think ahout its purpose(s) as a means of beginning to answer the underlying questions: How are these new philanthropy promotion projects different from traditional fundraising and to what degree are they contributing to a new philanthropic paradigm? Results and data analysis indicate that participants have varying opinions about the purpose of the Catalogue that come from two perspectives. One sees the Catalogue as a tool for institutional fundraising for small charities featured by the Catalogue in the annually published Cataloguefor Philanthropy; the other sees the Catalogue as a mechanism for the overall promotion of philanthropy in the state by educating donors, creating a new conceptualization of philanthropy, and strengthening philanthropy. Copyright 2005 fohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd. the size of the philanthropic pie in the US has remained the same for the last 30 or more years , . , ^,,, c . -,,r~ ^ x, . , , (about 2% of the US Gross National Product), -i, ^ i i i i. with individual giving stagnant at less than 2% .. , . ,n i -./w^^x * J J- ^i personal income (Burke, 2001). Addition,. ., .TC T A _ ^ Tally, the US Department of Treasury reports ,. ' , ,,,. . , . ^ , , that only 19% of those paying federal estate . , ^ i J J^r^^^^^ taxes (estates valued at $600,000 or more) _ ^ u . ui u . t^^-. -m.reported charitable bequests in 1992. This , , , , ^^ .,,. , , ,,,. ^ , totaled $8 million, or only about 8% of total net ^^,^,^ CJoulfaian, 1998). These individuals gave ^^^-^ lifetimes. Rosenberg estiworth ^^^ away, on average, only half of 1% of theirtheir "^^tes that if Aniencans gave closer to net "comfortable capacity," they could give an Int.J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

Introduction . . . . Errorts to promote and expand philanthropy \ , , , . are increasing throughout the United States. _ , . . , " . " , This IS due in part to new information . ,. . ^/, * ,x^ ,. . . indicating a $41 to $136 tnllion transfer of , . . , ^,, ,^ , ., ^ wealth in the next 50 years (Sehervish and ^,. _ . . ., , . Havens, 2001) and to the avai ability of more , . ^ . . . comprehensive data on giving from the Inter, ^ . ,,^^^ ,J^ , , , nal Revenue Service (IRS). IRS data show that 'Correspondence to: Angela M. Eikenberry. Center for
Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech, 104

Draper Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA. Email: aeik@vt.cdu

Copyright r 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

138

A. M. Eikenberry

additional $244 billion or more a year education;" a cottage industry that can be (Rosenberg, 1994). Realizing that over 80% of divided into two markets or levels of impact: private giving is done by individuals (AAFRC, "retail" or "boutique" side of the ind2003), the implication is that there is substanustry ... is composed of organizations who tial capacity for greater charitable giving by primarily educate, engage and advise high individuals in the US. net worth individuals and families one-onFaced with this information, as well as one or in small groups, with programs increasing political pressure for charitable tailored to their individual needs.... organizations and their philanthropic suppor"Wholesale" donor education organizaters to provide social services and public goods tions, on the other hand, address wider (Salamon, 1997; Rom, 1999), philanthropic markets of citizens rather than individuals institutions and regional coUaboratives across and small groups. These organizations are the United States are initiating projects to ones that produce knowledge products and increase overall charitable giving, especially support services for wider circles of among individual donors. Though there are a donors.... (Siegel and Yancey, 2003) continuously growing number of these projects, some examples of such efforts include Some initiatives work at both the retail and the Independent Sector's "Give Five" cam- wholesale levels. For a description of donor paign, the NewTithing'" Group, and the education efforts see the DEI report, "PhilanMassachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy. thropy's Forgotten Resource? Engaging the Give Five is a campaign that begun in 1987 to Individual Donor" (Siegel and Yancey, 2003). encourage people to give five hours a week and The intent of this study is primarily focused on 5% of their income to causes and charities of those wholesale donor education projects that their choice. The campaign spreads its message seek to expand and promote philanthropy. nationally through public service announcements on televi.sion and radio, billboard The Massachusetts Catalogue displays, and magazine and newspaper adverfor Philanthropy tisements (Independent Sector, 2002). The NewTithing^'^ Group is a national initiative to The focus of this study is on one philanthropy educate the public and their advisors about promotion effort the Massachusetts Catalo making "comfortably affordable charitable gue for Philanthropy. Initiated in 1996 by the donations through sound budgeting" (New- Ellis L. Phillips Foundation, and now supported Tithing^^ Group, 2002). It does this by by several corporations, foundations, and providing educational resources including individuals, the Catalogue is one of the few PmdentPal" Charitable Giving Planner (an examples of a statewide comprehensive sysonline budgeting tool) and IRS-based research tem to promote philanthropy in the United on wealth and affordable donations, updated States. Its main projects are the production of a annually. As noted in more detail below, the hard copy Catalogue for Philanthropy and the Catalogue for Philanthropy is a statewide Generosity lndex^"^. The hard-copy Catalogue system to promote giving in Massachusetts. It is a magazine-sized, high-quality booklet pubdoes this mainly through the publication of a lished annually and sent during the year-end magazine-sized booklet, the Catalogue for holiday season. Currently, about 85,000 Philanthropy, as well as through the Generos- Catalogues are mailed to Massachusetts' ity Index^'^, which ranks states on their relative families with annual incomes of $500,000 and level of generosity {Catalogue for Philan- above as well as to foundations, corporations, thropy, 2003-2004). bank trust officers, tax-accountants, tax-attorThe Donor Education Initiative (DEI) neys, brokers, and other financial advisors. Each year, the Catalogue features approxidescribes this philanthropy promotion trend as falling within the new field of "donor mately 100 small charities (with budgets Copyright ' 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int.]. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August2005

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy

139

Are many innovative elements: a donorfriendly taxonomy of charities, organizing them for presentation to the public as an intelligible, sensible, navigable toolfor finding philanthropic fields and specific charities one might enjoy supporting; the Giving Form, enabling "one-stop" year-end giving and facilitating gifts of stocks; a rigorous conceptualization of philanthropy, clarifying its role and significance in history, particularly in American history: a fresh vocabulary describing philanthropy in more precise, constructive, attractive, and even co?npelling, terms; a new view of the philanthropic sectori.e., an annual showcase or snapshot of the entirefieldin a given "market", displaying current work being accomplished or proposed iti ail fields, all across that market, focusing on the 92% of all charities with budgets below $2 million, that are otherwise relatively invisible and unknown to the public because they cannot afford junk mail, junk telephone calls, or media advertising, and are of only rare interest to the media. (Catalogue for Philanthropy, 2003-2004)
Figure 1. The Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy

Finally, the articles and the charity "write-ups" are matched with attractive and "graphically arresting" photography meant to convey solutions to the problems being addressed by under $2 million) and projects of "excel- philanthropy. With all of these facets, tbe lence" representing all fields of philanthropy Catalogue is a bigh minded, elegant, and family in the state. As opposed to listing every oriented, beautiful piece that recipients report charity in the state working in a particular they cannot bear to throw away. Tbe (lenerosity Index^"^ is another invention area, charities and projects featured in the Catalogue are chosen by a prominent group of the Catalogue tbat provides an annual of philanthropists and philanthropic profes- ranking of states by the differences between sionals, through a statewide Request for their ranks in having (average household IRS Proposals (RFP) process, to represent the adjusted gross income) to rank in giving best examples of charities working in various (average household IRS itemized cbaritable issues and areas. This "vetting" process is deductions). The Issuance of the hard copy done to ensure well-run, trustworthy and Catalogue is combined witb the dissemination compelling charities are featured; represent- of the state rankings each year. See Table 1 for ing the best that philanthropy has to offer and the Generosit>' Index^^ rankings for tax year to excite a donor. All the money donated 2001, published in 2003. Other activities of the through the Catalogue goes directly to the Catalogue include the Catalogue website charities. Additionally, as noted on the Cata- (www.catalogueforphilantbropy.org), an annual meeting where charities featured in tbe logue's website, witbin the Catalogue
Copyright < 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Intj. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

140 Table 1. 2003 Generosity Index^" Rankings State Having Giving Rank Generosity rank rank relation index 50 47 4S 43
41

A. M. Eikenberry

Of primary interest to this study is gaining insight into the purpose(s) of the Massachusetts 40 Catalogue for Philanthropy within what has 41 20 42 been called the "new philanthropy" environ17 43 ment (Schweitzer, 2000; Bianchi, 2000; Byrne, 44 13 2002; Cobb, 2002; Streisand, 2002). Cobb 23 45 writes that the emergence of a new philan12 46 3 47 thropy has largely been in response to several 2 48 socio-economic factors including technologi15 49 cal innovation, the creation of large new 8 50 fortunes, the dominance of market ideology, new demographics particularly the growing Catalogue have the opportunity to network disparity between rich and poorand governand receive fundraising training, and promo- ment retrenchment (Streisand, 2002). As tion of a state "Giving Day"' toUowing the opposed to the modem or 'mainstream" Thanksgiving holiday. In a more informal philanthropy dominant in the last century, led
-15 -16 -17 -19 -20 -20 -21 -23 -27 -27 -33 -35 -40

Mississippi Arkansas South Dakota Oklahoma Alabama Tennessee Louisiana Utah South Carolina Idaho North Dakota Wyoming Texas West Virginia Nebraska North Carolina Florida Kansas Missouri Georgia New Mexico Montana Kentucky Alaska New York Indiana Iowa Ohio (alifomia Washington Maine Maryland Hawaii Delaware Illinois Pennsylvania Connecticut Vermont Virginia Oregon (Colorado Arizona Michigan Nevada Wisconsin Minnesota Massachusetts New Jersey Rhode Island New Hampshire

35 44 30 39 42 46
18

6 5 8 10 9 3
12 2 14 20 29 1

44 42 37 33
32 32 32 28 25 22

1 2

3 4 5 6
7 8

19 48 34 27 21 26 29 16 37 49 40 25 4
28

4 33
21

36 33 6 11 38 5 31 14 10 22 1 32 9 24 7

15 13 19 23 11 32 45 38 27 7 31 42 43 17 22 49 18 44 28 24 36 16 47 25 41 26 40 37 34 46 39 30 35 50 48

17 17 15 15 13 12
8 7

9 10 tl 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

6 5 5 4
2 -2

-3 -6
-10 -il -11 -11

23 24 25 26
27 28

-13 -13 -14 -14 -14

15

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

capacity, the Catalogue has also played a facilitative role in bringing together various nonprofit organizations, associations, and others to discuss ways to restructure particular fields of philanthropy, such as domestic violence, to be more effective. Given the nature of the project, it is difficult to determine the full impact and outcomes of the Catalogue. Anecdotal evidence suggests it has increased the capacity of charities featured in the hard copy Catalogue, created new relationships between donors and Catalogue charities, raised a substantial amount of money for the charities (at least $12 million), helped bring about the creation of five new community' foundations in the state, prompted media coverage about philanthropy locally and nationally, may have stimulated an increase in the number of private foundations created in the state, and may have motivated an increase in overall charitable giving in the region (Massachusetts moved from 50th place in the Generosity Index in 1997 to 47th by 2003. Since 1997, Massachusetts has doubled its charitable giving and appears to be the fastest growing state in the nation in increasing charitable giving) {Catalogue for Philantbropy, 2003-2004). Additionally, the Catalogue model has been adopted in at least four other states since this study took place. Purpose of study

Copyright r 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

Fundraising or promoting phitanthropy by large philanthropic institutions such as foundations and federated giving programs, and characterized by competiti<jn, fragmentation and profcssionalization, and a focus on fimdraising for and by large charitable institutions; the new philanthropy is guided by individual donors and emphasizes collaboration across groups and sectors, more Iiands-on, direct modes of giving and volunteering, and a focus on small organizations, issues, and grassroots problem-solving {The Catalogue for Philanthropy, 2000; Eikenberry A. 2005. Giving Circles and the Democratization of Philanthropy. Unpublished dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha). Leading tlie drive for this shift in philanthropy are what some call "new and emerging donors." Dissatisfied with the mainstream approach to pliilanthropy, new and emerging donors have sought out a more engaged philanthropy. As noted by one donor: "the traditional approach of writing a check to a charitable organization or serving on a board did not seem very fulfiiling. There was a desire to be more engaged in the process of giving back" (Brainerd, 1999). New and emerging donors are described primarily as high-tech wealthy, executives of major corporations, investment executives, consultants, and other beneficiaries of the new economy; though they may come from ail walks of life (The Philanthropic Initiative, 2(X)0). Unlike traditional donors, new and emerging donors want to: engage in issues that are important to them, take an active part in creating change, maneuver around bureaucracies and get fast results, and affiliate with others who share the same values and interests (Briscoe and Marion, 2001; deCourcy Hero, 2001; Grace and Wendroif, 2001; Schervish, O'Herlihy, Havens, 2(K)1). McCuUy (2000) has suggested that the US is undergoing a paradigm shift in philanthropy; a shift to an entirely new way of thinking, talking, and acting related to philanthropy. Similarly, Schervish and Havens (2001) have described this as a shift from a demand to a "supply-side physics" of philanthropy. Given this context, the underlying questions driving this study are. How are these new philanthropy promotion Copyright < 2005 John WUey & Sons, Ltd.

141

projects diiferent from traditional fundraising and to what degree are they contributing to a new philanthropic paradigm? To begin to answer this question, the intent of this study is to better understand the purpose(s) of the Massachusetts Catalogue of Philanthropy from the point of view of those most closely associated with it. The Catalogue serves as an excellent case study because of its comprehensive approach and relative longevity. At the time of the study, the Catalogue was also at a major transition point in its sixth year, with the expansion of its production team and plans to change its organizational structure and fimding affiliations. For this reason, it was a good time to study the Catalogue and its purpose(s). Finally, the researcher was given access to detailed information and the full cooperation of those associated with it. Literature on promoting philanthropy While much research exists on efforts to motivate individual and institutional donors to give to specific charities, causes, or programs (Bendapudi, Surendra, Hendapudi, 1996; Sargeant, 1999; Lindahl and Conley, 2002), very little research has been done on deliberate institutional or collaborative efforts to expand or change the culture of philanthropy. Tbe Philanthropic Initiative (TPI), a nonprofit consulting organization dedicated to helping persons of high net worth become more effective donors, was one of the first to report on this new trend to promote the expansion of philanthropy in the US. The report, "Promoting Philanthropy," published in 1997 focuses on collaborative philanthropy promotion efforts undertaken primarily by groups in the "organized" philanthropy field in the US, including community foundations, Regional Association of Grantmakers, and national membership groups. Through surveys, telephone interviews, and literature review, the study identifies 30 collaborative philanthropy promotion efforts. Projects vary in their use of strategies (i.e., public education, research studies, influencing tax policy, capacity building, and identity group organizing) Int.J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

142

A. M. Eikenberr)'

and target populations (i.e., wealthy, young, women, and minority communities). The TPl report does not provide details about individual philanthropy promotion projects (The Philanthropic Initiative, 1997). Several of the recommendations from the TPI report influenced the creation of the New Ventures in Philanthropy program, initiated by the Regional Association of Grantmakers. New Ventures is a national initiative to support local efforts to promote the growth of new giving vehicles and new permanent philanthropic capital. Unlike the TPI report, the New Ventures website provides more detailed information about many of the local and regional projects funded by New Ventures and which seek to promote organized philanthropy (Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers, 2004). New Ventures has awarded a total of over $8.2 million to 42 regional or multi-state coalitions across the country. These projects use multiple and varying strategies to reach numerous target populations, similar to those described by the TP! report. New Ventures has also published several evaluation reports as an outcome of the program, which include information on grantee accomplishments, challenges, promising practices, and elements of success (Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers, 2003). The evaluation reports do not analyze specific projects or the underlying purposes of the projects in relation to the new philanthropy environment. The Donor Education Initiative report mentioned above also lists information about donor education projects, but provides little more than categorical summary information about these projects (Siegel and Yancey, 2003). Because so little is known about specific efforts to expand overall philanthropy among donors, describing such a project in more detail may facilitate better understanding of this trend; and its role within the new philanthropy environment, provide direction for similar efforts and future research, and provide insight to fundraisers and philanthropic protessionals. Additionally, understanding projects and programs that serve to expand philanthropy may be invaluable to those in other countries who

are facing the challenge of growing a new culture of philanthropy.

Methodology
Qualitative inquiry was the approach used to guide this study. Qualitative research methods are appropriate to use when exploring new areas where little is known and for understanding complex projects or concepts (Marshall and Rossman, 1995; Creswell, 1998). Because multiple methods of data collection can enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study (Creswell, 1998; Berg, 2001), multiple methods, including unstructured and semi-structured interviews and document analysis were employed. To further ensure trustworthiness, drafts of the study design, methodology, and results were reviewed by research participants and a panel of research colleagues. A purposive sample of eight individuals who were most directly involved with the Catalogue for Philanthropy participated in the study. Because the intent of the study is to understand the intended purpose(s) of the Catalogue, individuals who were most familiar with its operations were interviewed. It was assumed that those most intimately involved with the activities of the Catalogue would have the best sense of its purpose(s). Of the eight study participants, three have been involved with the Catalogue since its inception in 1997. One of the participants is deeply involved with all aspects of the project as inventor, coordinator and key spokesperson while the other two have also been heavily involved but in a less comprehensive fashion. Additionally, two participants are consultants who have been associated with the Catalogue since 1999. The remaining three participants were relatively new to the Catalogue at the time of the study. Of these, one was a full-time staff person for the Catalogue and the other two were volunteers interested in more substantial involvement with the project in the future. Several modes of interviewing were used in this study. Two individual, unstructured, in-depth interviews, for 30 minutes and Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark., August 2005

Copyright < 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fundraising orpro^notingphilanthropy 2 Vz hours, were conducted with the Catalogue's project coordinator. These interviews were based on an active interview orientation (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995). All other interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions using an elite interviewing strategy. Of the semi-structured interviews, one individual interview was held for 20 minutes; one group interview, with four participants, was held for approximately 1V^ hours; and another group interview, with two participants, was conducted for approximately 1 hour. These interviews were held in a group format to accommodate individual schedules and time constraints. All interviews took place in May 2002. The questions for these interviews were validated through a peer debriefing by participant collaborators the project coordinator (who is well acquainted with all of the participants) and the project assistant for the Catalogue (Creswell, 1998). The questions were conversational, with the quality of interviewing enhanced by probing to clarify what was said (Kvale, 1996). All interviews were audio taped for transcription. Interviews were transcribed and participants were asked to examine transcripts for accuracy as a validation step (Creswell, 1998). Documents were purposively selected and included: five issues of the hard copy Catalogue (1997-2001), various documents (i.e., grant proposals, memos, etc.), emails from the project coordinator and project assistant, and information on the Catalogue website, including a draft of a book being written by the project coordinator. It should be noted that the project coordinator authored a majority of the documents used in the study. NUD*IST 6 ( N 6 ) qualitative data analysis software was used to systematically organize, code, and analyze the data. Transcripts, documents available in electronic format, notes from hard-copy documents, and reflective memos were imported into the software program. A total of 31 documents were imported for analysis. Analysis followed a strategy set out by Maxwell (1998), which involved an iterative process including contextualizing and categorizing strategies. This Copyright < 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

143

entailed reading interviews and other documents completely through to get a sense of the whole, rereading and coding segments, recoding and grouping codes into broad clusters of similar topics or nodes, and creating reflexive memos. Clusters were then iteratively re-coded into more specific and simplified nodes. This process continued until no new codes emerged. Tree nodes were then analyzed in relation to the main objectives of the study. Results At least five major purposes of the Catalogue emerged through analysis of the interviews and documentation: educating donors, creating a new conceptualization of philanthropy, increasing the visibility of small charities, strengthening philanthropy, and raising funds for charities featured. Each purpose is discussed in more detail below. Educating donors Educating donors about philanthropy, according to six participants and several documents, is a major purpose of the Catalogue. This entails pnjviding information and creating awareness about philanthropy and small charities to donors. As one participant put it: \ . . it became an education process in sorts of all the great things that can be considered out there and all the needs that are in fact out there." While there is indication that donor education may be seen as an end goal, it was more often discussed in reference to increasing charitable giving or changing the culture of philanthropy. For example, one participant stated: foremost the greatest thing is the donor education aspect of it, ways to get people maybe who either are only giving a little bit to United Way because it s easy... get them to make that next s t e p . . . " Creating a new conceptualization of philantliropy Five participants and documentary evidence suggest another purpose of the Catalogue, Inl.f. Nonproflt Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

144

A. M. Eikenberry

which is to create a new conceptualization of Catalogue plays in providing a high-quality, philanthropy. There are three components to trustworthy view of philanthropy to donors. this idea. One is discussed in interviews with a According to one participant: founding participant as well as in several ... and I've heard this from, several people documents. This is the view that the C^atalothat knew our role in it [the Catalogue] that gue's projects can be used as tools for creating a said the book just bas this great quality to it new definition of American philanthropy and a and 1 think that goes part and parcel to the new vocabulary' for philanthropy. The Cataloidea that your money is in good hands gue defines philanthropy as "private initiatives here.... And that Just resonated with for public good, focused on quality of life." As me. ... what the Catalogue became was written in one document: this pure, grassroots, honest, the way you think it should he, that your money is all ... We decided to go all-out by presenting a going to this cause... constructive, reasoned, alternative view of philanthropy as a whole, including a political theory of governance and laiv in the sector, explaining how governing boards represent the public interest in each organization, to guarantee that public benefit, and not private profit, results from its activities... .Above all, we asserted that the absurd and stupid terrn "nonprofit," which describes what the sector and its institutional members are not, should be replaced by naming it for what it is and ought to be: the "benefit" sector. Along with this is the idea of creating or modeling a new infrastructure for philanthropy. There is a need for this role, as one participant stated it, because: "there's nobody in philanthropy who s saying, think about philanthropy as such, isn't this great?" Several documents, written by the project coordinator, outline the need for this new infrastructure to be "donor-friendly," meaning philanthropy needs to be presented in such a way that is naturally coinciding with donor interests, and user-friendly in navigation helping donors search for and find charities they would like to support..." as was stated in one document. Finally, this new conceptualization of philanthropy has to do with conveying a sense of quality and trust in philanthropy, something that has deteriorated with fundraising scandals in recent years, as noted by one participant. The three participants who were new to the Catalogue, as well as one consultant, commented on the important role the hard-copy
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Increasing the visibility of small charities Increasing the visibility for small charities in general, and the charities featured in the Catalogue specifically, was a purpose noted by four of tbe participants and several documents. For example, one participant, who is also a major donor to some of the charities featured in the hard-copy Catalogue, stated: "I felt as a reader of it, that it was giving information and access to organizations that were doing work that I cared about and wanted to support but which because of their size I would never have been able to identify them by myself." In this way, the Catalogue serves to connect donors with a variety of small charities. Additionally, according to one document, the hard copy Catalogue serves to link donors of every^ possible philanthropic interest to small charitable organizations that match a particular interest. Strengthening philanthropy The goal of strengthening philanthropy was noted by two founding participants, one new participant, and various documents. Strengthening philanthropy was defined in several different ways as: improving donors' philanthropic decision-making, enhancing donor satisfaction, broadening donors' horizons, increasing the cost-effectiveness of giving, aligning personal charitable giving more closely with a donors income and wealth,
IntJ. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy deepening donor commitment, facilitating personal involvement, and increasing the amount of giving by the public in general (especially high net worth individual donors) and among those who already give. Increased giving was mentioned the most by participants and documents and is cited as an indicator of the need to change the culture of philanthropy in Massachusetts and New England. As articulated in one document:

145

/ think for the [Ellis L. Phillips] foundation, tbe goal of the Catalogue was always to promote philanthropy. I think for the outside world, that goal wasn 't as obvious and the bottom line that people always asked us was how much money did you raise for eacb cbarity?

The same participant believes this is changing: "\ think it s only been much more recently that that has not been the first question that people The probletn we were addressing was ask. They appreciate sort of the bigger picture that charitable giving in New England, of promoting philanthropy than actual dollars and especially Massachusetts, customarily for charities." lagged significantly behind that of the rest However, two of the participants new to the of the country^... Chronic low charitable Catalogue and one of the consultants noted giving in a state or region has to be a fundraising as an important purpose. Discusscultural problem reflecting the public s ing the charities that might be in the Cataloknowledge, understanding, and evalua- gue, one participant, who also has a fundraising tion of, philanthropy in general background, stated: A lot of organizations are very nervous right now, for the one's that get chosen [to be in the Catalogue] there's kind of like a hope out there, they don't really have to do anything, and they don't have a lot of resources to do anything, but there's a chance of money coming in and increased visibility which is what we all need... This view is also reflected in suggested improvements articulated by several participants. One of these was to put more emphasis on gathering data from charities regarding fundraising outcomes. One participant stated in reference to charities featured in the Catalogue: Thats one area that I think that could be improved upon is getting them to report better back, change in the way that they report back, so that you have your idea of what the Catalogue is reaching... if you could have a clear statement, a clear idea of its increased this, or its reached this many, you know, it's raised tbis much money, or whatever it is. Another suggestion was to include highlights of fundraising outcomes in the hard-copy Catalogue. One participant stated: tnt.f. Nonproflt Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

It is important to note that for the founding members, this does not refer to fundraising for individual charities in the Catalogue. For example, describing the purpose of the Catalogue, one document states: Its aim is not fust to find a few new dollars and donors for the charities listed in this one catalogue this year, but to discover whether we can create a new and continuing source of new dollars and new donors for philanthropy itself nationwide, in perpetuity, as well as a new and continuing way to educate future generations in the values and practices of sophisticated philanthropy. Raising funds for charities Though several participants and documents take pains to define the purpose of the Catalogue as not about fundraising for the specific charities featured in the hard-copy Catalogue, half of the participants seemed to understand a major purpose to be largely about fundraising for these charities. All of the founding participants interviewed noted that this was a recurring misunderstanding they faced with the philanthropic community. According to one of these participants: Copyright > 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

146

A. M. Eikenberry

.. .It would be really neat to be able to show that due to the funds Just raised by the Catalogue and nothing else, for instance, bought 30 acres conserved, you know, we save 30 acres of land, or we were, you know, ahle to deliver 100 books or something to a school, or we were able to put 10 kids through a program so that there is kind of an end result...

Raise l-unds

Create New Concept of Philanthropv

tor Specific Charities

Discussion
The main puq>ose of this study was to understand better the purpose(s) of tbe Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy within tbe context of the "new philanthropy" environment. Specifically, the underlying questions driving this study were: How are philanthropy promotion projects, such as the Catalogue for Philanthropy, different from traditional fundraising and to what degree do they contribute to a new philanthropic paradigm? Because very little research has been conducted on efforts to promote philanthropy in general, the findings from this study, though limited to one case study, may offer useful information for others interested in expanding philanthropy in the United States and elsewhere. An important issue for any group or community creating a system to encourage philanthropy is deciding on the fundamental purpose of such an effort. In the case of the C^atalogue, there is a struggle to define the purpose by reference to a new paradigm that is not always understood by those still operating in the' 'old'' paradigm, including some who work directly for and with the Catalogue. Data analysis suggests the study participants, those most intimately involved with the Catalogue, see the purposes from two perspectives or from both the old and newly emerging philanthropy paradigms which are not exclusive of one another. Figure 2 provides a visual repre.sentation of these two perspectives or paradigms. On one side is the view that fundraising for small charities featured in the hard-copy Catalogue is a major purpose of the Catalogue for Philanthropy. Those new to the Catalogue, Copyright '. 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 2. Two perspectives oti the purpose of the Catalogue for Philanthropy

and others in the philanthropic community, as indicated by the study participants, seemed especially prone to this point of view. This "institutional fundraising" view is a key aspect of the traditional paradigm that has dominated philanthropy since the late 19th century (The Philanthropic Initiative. 2000; Schervish and Havens, 2001). In this paradigm which continues today, the philanthropic world is characterized by fragmented philanthropic constituencies, competition among charitable organizations, professionalization, and the dominance of fundraising by and for large charitable institutions. The other point of view is that the focus of the Catalogue is and should be on expanding and enriching philanthropy in general. Those who have been with the Catalogue since its inception are especially close to this point of view. For these individuals, raising funds for the charities featured in the hard-copy Catalogue is an important part of the project, but not its main purpose. The money raised through the Catalogue is seen as one indicator of success in promoting philanthropy, not an end in and of itself. Other indicators of .success in promoting philanthropy include: educating donors, creating a new conceptualization of philanthropy, and strengthening philanthropy. Thus, as opposed to the traditional paradigm that focuses primarily on raising money for and promoting individual charitable institutions, this paradigm refers to a philanthropic community collaborating to promote philanthropy Int.J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy in general. The founders of the Catalogue and documentation state that it is out of this paradigm that the Catalogue initially emerged. This paradigmatic split is problematic on several counts. If the Catalogue seeks to be a catalyst for expansion and changing the culture of philanthropy in Massachusettsa monumental taskto do so is much more difficult if the key people involved with the Catalogue are coming from different directions. In a sense, they may be working at cross purposes. The question in this case is: Is it possible to be both fiindraiser for individual charities and facilitator/enhancer for philanthropy? As has been discussed by Gmce and Wendroff and others, donors of the new philanthropy are not attracted by traditional fLindraising methods; they want to seek solutions to problems rather than have organizations seek them (Grace and Wendroff, 2001). Because of this, working towards the puq^ose of fundraising for specific charities (the institutional fundraising paradigm) is not ver>' effective for increasing giving and enhancing other philanthropic efforts. Efforts to promote philanthropy, on the other hand, may increase funds for institutions while also making the philanthropic pie bigger. Furtbermore. for the Catalogue to continue to have funding, and therefore continue to exist, it must convince its supporters that it is more than about fundraising. Coming from the institutional fundraising paradigm, it is easy to argue, as some have according to study participants, that it would be more efficient to just give the money directly to the charities rather than taking the trouble of supporting the Catalogue's operations. In other words, they argue that it is not cost-effective to spend such a large amount of money producing a Catalogue each year to feature only 100 small charities. If the major purpose were to raise money for small charities, this would be true. However, this argument is mute if the Catalogue is contributing to a new paradigm of promoting philanthropy, where it does much more than raise money for individual charities. Preliminary findings from another research project have shown that this problem of straddling paradigms is not unique to the Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

147

Catalogue and the tensions that come with this (Eikenberry A. 2005. Giving Circles and the Democratization of Philanthropy. Unpublished dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha). An organization in Omaha, Nebraska has faced a similar problem in its campaign to get women to create giving circles. Giving circles are described as a cross between a book club and an investment group, and entail individuals "pooling their resources in support of organizations of mutual interest" (Schweitzer, 2000). Some of the organization's board members wonder if it is worth the cost and effort to promote tbe creation of giving circles if the organization itself does not benefit directly from donations made by the giving circles. Others see giving circles as a wonderftil tool for promoting women s philanthropy in the city, which will ultimately benefit many groups serving women and girls including their organization.

Conclusion and future

research

This study is a first step in gaining better understanding of the growing trend for philanthropic institutions across the US to initiate efforts to promote philanthropy. As has become clearer with this study, there are at least two perspectives from which such a project might emerge: one is the view that projects are meant to raise funds for specific charities or institutions, the other is the view that what is necessary is to promote greater and better giving in general. Future research might involve a more detailed analysis of the Catalogue for Philanthropy as well as other efforts to encourage philanthropy in the US. It would be helpful to know what their intended purposes are and out of which paradigm tbey have emerged, as well as more about their impacts on donors, beneficiaries, and tbe regions in which they take place.

Biographical note
Angela Eikenberry is assistant professor at the School of Public and Intemational Affairs, Center for Public Administration and Policy at Int.J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect Mark., August 2005

148

A. M. Eikenberry

Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers. 2004. New Ventures in Philanthropy, http:// www. givingforum.org/about/ventures.btml [17 July 2004]. Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers. 2003- New Ventures Evaluation, A Retrospective. bttp://www.givingforum.or^cgi-bitVd(x:_rep/ publicAu bfolderpl'i-cat J d ^ 95&folder_id= 298&subfold_ id - 53 119 July 2004]. References Grace KS, Wendroff AL. 2001. High Impact AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. 2003. 2004 by Philanthropy: How Donors, Boards, and NonSource of Contributions, (cited 2004 July 19]; profit Organizations Can Transform CommuAvailable from URL: http://www.aafrc.org/ nities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York. bysourceof66.htnil Holstem JA, Gubrium JF. 1995. Tbe Active InterBerg BL. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for view. Sage: Tbousand Oaks. the Social Sciences. Allyn and Bacon: Boston. Independent Sector. 2002. Give Five. http://www. Burke C:C. 2001. Nonprofit history s new numbers independentsector.org/give5/givefive.html [23 (and the need for more). Nonprofit and VolunJune 2002]. tary Sector QuaHerly 30(2): 174-203. Joulfaian D. 1998. The Federal Estate and Gift Tax: Bianchi A. 2000. Serving Nonprofits. The New Description, Profile of Taxpayers, and Economic Philanthropy, Inc., October, pp. 23-2"^. Consequences. Office of Tax Analysis Paper 80, Byrne JA. 2002. The New Face of Philanthropy, U. S. Department of Treasury. http://www. Business Week, 2nd December, pp. 82-94. ustreas.gov/ota/otapapers.fitml [21 July 2002]. Brainerd P. 1999. Social venture partners: engaging Kvale S. 1996. !nten>ieivs: An Introduction to a new generation of givers. Nonprofit and Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage: ThouVoluntary Sector Quarterly 28: 502-507. sand Oaks. Briscoe MG, Marion BH. 2001. Capital campaigns Lindahl WE, Conley AT. 2002. Literature review: and the new charitable investors. In New Direcpbilantbropic fundraising. Nonprofit Managetions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Underment and Leadership 13(1): 91-112. standing Donor Dynamics. Jossey-Bass: San Marsfiall C, Rossman GB. 1995. Designing QualiFrancisco. tative Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks. Bendapudi N, Surendra NS, Bendapudi V. 1996. Maxwell JA. 1998. Designing a qualitative study. Enhancing helping behavior: an integrative fraIn Handbook of Applied Social Research mework for promotion planning. Journal of Methods, Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds). Sage: Marketing 60: 33-49. Thousand Oaks. Cobb NK. 2002. The new philanthropy: its impact McCuIIy G. 2000. Is tfiis a paradigm shift? Foundaon funding arts and Culture. Tf:te Journal of tion News & Cofmnentary March/April: 20Arts Management, Laiv, and Society 32: 12522. 143. NewTitfiing^^ Group. 2002. Overview, fittp:// Catalogue for Philanthropy. 2003-2004. Massachuwww.newtitfiing.org/frames/f_aboutO].fitml setts Catalogue for Philanthropy: About Us. [22 June 2002]. bttp://www. catalogueforpbilanthropy.org/cfp/ Rom MC. 1999. From welfare state to opportunity, about/[16 July 2004]. Inc., American Behavioral Scientist 45iiy. 155Creswell JW. 1998. Qualitative Inquity and 176. Research Design: Choosing Among Eive Tradi- Rosenbei^C. 1994. Wealthy and Wise: How You tions. Sage: Thousand Oaks. and America Can Get the Most Out of Your deCourcy Hero P. 2001. Giving back the Silicon Giving. Little Brown & Company: Boston. Valley way: emerging patters of a new philan- Scfiervisfi PG, Havens JJ. 2001. Wealtfi and the thropy. In New Directions for Philanthropic commonwealth: new findings on wfierewithal Fundraising: Understanding Donor Dynamics. and pfiilantfiropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Sector Quarterly 30(1): 5-25. Copyright I 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int.J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2005

Virginia Tech. She completed her Ph.D. in Public Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha School of Public Administration. Dr. Eikenberry s main research interests include nonprofit organizations and philanthropy and their role in democratic society.

Fundraising or promoting philanthropy Salatnon LM. 1997. Holding the Center: America's Nonprofit Sector at a Crossroads. The Nathan Cummings Foundation, New York, http:// www.ncf.org/reports/special/rpt_hc/rpt_hc_ report.html 119 December 2000]. Siegel D, YanceyJ. 2003 Philanthropy's Forgotten Resource? Engaging the Individual Donor: The State of Donor Education Today & A Ix^adership Agenda for the Road Ahead. The Donor Education Initiative, http://www.newvisionsprd.org/ Initiatives/[16July2004]. Streisand B. 2002. The New Philanthropy. U. S. Neu's& World Re/tort, 11th June, pp. 40-42. Schweitzer C. 2000. Building on new foundations. Association Management October: 28-39. Schervish PG, O'Herlihy MA. Havens JJ. 2001. Agent Animated Wealth and Philanthropy: The Dynamics of Accumulation and Allocation Amotig Higli-Tech Donors, Boston College Center on Wealth and Philantliropy. Boston. http://www.hc.edu/ research/swri/publications/by-year/publications2OO3/ll9July 20041.

149

Schervish PG, Havens JJ. 2001. The new physics of philanthropy: the supply-side vectors of charitable giving. Part 1: the material side of the supply side. Tbe CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement 2(2): 95-113. Sargeant A. 1999. Marketing Management for Nonprofit Organizations. Oxford University Press: Oxford. The Catalogue for Philanthropy. 2000. The Paradigm-Shift in Philanthropy. The Ellis L. Phillips Foundation: Boston; pp. 60-62. The Philanthropic Initiative. 1997. Promoting Philanthropy: The Experience and Potential of Collaborative Efforts, http://www.tpi.org/_tpi/ promoting/research.htm [20 June 2002]. The Philanthropic Initiative. 2000. What s a Donor To Do? The State of Donor Resources in America Today. http://www. tpi.org/_t pi/promoting/ research, htm [23 June 2002]. Wagner L. 2002. The new donor: creation or evolution? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing l(Ay- 343-352.

Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int.J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark, August 2005