Search results

This article explores views of Australian grantmakers philanthropists who give to Indigenous causes. It reports on a qualitative study undertaken as part of the Giving Australia research to elicit if and how giving to Indigenous causes differs from philanthropy to other areas. This paper builds on the scant literature, particularly reporting exploratory research results on Australian grantmaking issues, critical funding needs, and recommendations for fostering Indigenous nonprofit funding. Indigenous groups are challenged in understanding how foundations work and, conversely, foundations do not always appreciate the need for their inputs to complement traditional cultures (EGA 2006). The study found that small grants can play a key role, as could enticing and supporting new grantmakers, co‐funding, engaging Indigenous representatives in the decision making, and dispelling misconceptions of the area.

This article explores views of Australian grantmakers philanthropists who give to Indigenous causes. It reports on a qualitative study undertaken as part of the Giving Australia research to elicit if and how giving to Indigenous causes differs from philanthropy to other areas. This paper builds on the scant literature, particularly reporting exploratory research results on Australian grantmaking issues, critical funding needs, and recommendations for fostering Indigenous nonprofit funding. Indigenous groups are challenged in understanding how foundations work and, conversely, foundations do not always appreciate the need for their inputs to complement traditional cultures (EGA 2006). The study found that small grants can play a key role, as could enticing and supporting new grantmakers, co‐funding, engaging Indigenous representatives in the decision making, and dispelling misconceptions of the area.

In the face of improved First Nation outcomes in many western nations, Australia is still dealing with a seemingly intractable gap between the quality of life of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Philanthropy in Australia provides a smaller proportion of funding for community projects than is the case in other countries and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander causes have been significantly under - represented as recipients. This paper reports on a qualitative study aimed at understanding the issues affecting the decisions and actions of grantmaking organisations and individuals who wish to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander causes in the current Australian context. The aims were to build on the limited research in this arena, add to the future research agenda and contribute to practice and policy insights for Australia and beyond. The study found that while government funding programs are perceived as output driven, inflexible and dogmatic - 'a cup of tea mob'- participants see the Australian philanthropic sector as capable of addressing the complex Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 'problem' with more innovative and independent thinking. From the point of view of contextual impacts, success criteria, barriers, structural imposts and emotional involvement, the practical experience in grantmaking for Indigenous causes of participants in this study reflects that found elsewhere. However the focus of many grantmakers on organisational rather than community capacity and the potentially elitist emphasis on established relationships continues to hamper Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander access to philanthropic funding in Australia. Further, if the strategic changes currently visible in the sector are unsupported by a depth of policy and a proactive transfer and distribution of skill and knowledge they may be unsustainable.

Philanthropic foundations with a permanent endowment are among the few organisations that have no requirement to measure and prove their performance to ensure sustainability. This article begins by outlining the puzzle of performance measurement in endowed foundations and then briefly reviews the literature. Findings from an exploratory study of Australian foundations' approaches to measurement are presented. We suggest that beneath the broad adoption of the language of measurement there is a more complex story. There were three broad narratives in relation to measurement, which we label resistance, qualification and realism. These three narratives explain differences in levels of commitment and practice, and go some way towards understanding foundations' ambiguous relationship with performance measurement, as illustrated in this study and the wider literature.

AbstractThis article reflects on the real world relevance of rational approaches to grantmaking. The characteristics and environment of foundation work are outlined, then both traditional and newer funding practices are analysed. Unpacking implicit assumptions of a rational approach, eight costs to foundations and their grantees are identified. The final sections of the paper consider what grantmaking for a complex and disorderly world might encompass. In conclusion, while rational approaches to grantmaking provide a comfortable aura of certainty, funders need to adapt to a little discomfort.

ABSTRACTMuch is known about motivations for giving to charities generally. However, much less has been identified about bequestors as a unique type of charitable donor. This paper explores the motives and barriers for charitable bequest giving. Hypotheses are drawn from the general philanthropic literature and tested using survey data from Australia, a nation distinguished by very high lifetime (inter vivos) giving but low estate (post mortem) giving. The results show that belief in the efficacy of charitable organizations is requisite for leaving a bequest, as the deceased donor has no control over the enactment of the gift. This effect is mediated by the perceived difficulty of making a charitable bequest, which forms an important barrier for leaving such a legacy. Having family whose financial needs are perceived as not taken care of and the perception of financial inability to make a difference also form barriers for bequest giving. The results confirm that bequests constitute a distinctive charitable behaviour, with unique motives and barriers compared to other types of inter vivos giving. While charitable behaviour in general is driven by altruistic attitudes and political and religious values, as well as social reputation, these factors do not affect charitable bequest making as expected. Surprisingly, we find a negative relationship between financial resources and the inclination to leave a charitable bequest. The article ends with suggestions for ways charities might connect more meaningfully with their bequestors or with donors who might consider bequeathing to them. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article investigates the complex phenomenon of major gift giving to charitable institutions. Drawing on empirical evidence from interviews with 16 Australian major donors (who gave a single gift of at least AU$10,000 in 2008 or 2009), we seek to better understand donor expectations and (dis) satisfaction. Given growing need for social services, and the competition among nonprofit organisations (NPOs) to secure sustainable funding, this research is particularly timely. Currently, little is known about major donors' expectations, wants and needs. Equity theory, with the concept of reciprocity at its core, was found to provide a useful framework for understanding these phenomena. A model of equitable major gift relationships was developed from the data, which portrays balanced relationships and identifies potential areas of dissatisfaction for major donors. We conclude by offering suggestions for NPOs seeking to understand the complexities of major gift relationships, with practical implications for meeting donors' needs.

Giving Australia 2016 report series commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Social Services. Melbourne, Victoria: Centre for Social Impact Swinburne University of Technology, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology and the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs.

When disaster strikes, our instinctive response is to make things better, not only as individuals but also as groups, organisations, communities and major institutions within society. With increasing climate-related disasters and the potential for future global pandemics, philanthropy will continue to play an essential role. Yet our knowledge of how philanthropic responses to disasters are motivated, organised and received is fragmented. This book is a step toward curating our existing knowledge in the emerging field of 'disaster philanthropy' and to building a robust base for future research, practice and public policy. The authors highlight unknowns and ambiguities, extensions and unexplored spaces, and challenges and paradoxes. Above all, they recognise that philanthropic responses to disasters are complex, conditional and subject to change

In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy.

In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy. ; Peer reviewed

In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy. ; The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Pamala Wiepking was funded for her work in this paper by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research grant VI 451-09-022 and by the SPP Do Good Institute—ARNOVA Global Philanthropy & Nonprofit Leadership Award. Her work at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy is funded by the Stead Family, and her work at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is funded by the Dutch Charity Lotteries. Femida Handy was funded for her work in this paper by the University of Pennsylvania's PURM mentorship grant. Both authors are grateful for the support and funding received.

In this paper, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multi-level analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy.